proving evolution as just a "theory"

[sfs]

Can one learn history from the allelic spectrum?

Well, here is some maths for you:


THEORETICAL
EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS

and some more:

Population Genetics - A Concise Guide

Ha. That's not math. This is math: Can one learn history from the allelic spectrum?. It employs Müntz-Szasz theory. (It's by a couple of my former office-mates. They're both good at math, but they had to bring in a Fields medal winner to help with the hard bits.)

 

[tas8831]

Shows you haven’t even read the Bible, or you would know mankind existed in profusion before the flood.

Shows you want to add confusion factors when you cannot answer the questions.

If the people that existed prior to the flood were all descendants of 2 identical created middle eastern humans with perfect genomes (your words), then how did any new variants arise?

But tell me, where did the Mastiff that mated with the Husky to produce the Chinook come from? Why interbreeding from one wolf stock.

Why no, not interbreeding - selective breeding.

That is, there are natural variations in populations (that come from....?), and the variants are chosen for their qualities, then mated with others that exhibit the similar characteristics.

So just what do you find so difficult about a mere 12 to 15 races coming about from interbreeding when you know over 100 have?

I find your explanations (or, in reality, 100% lack thereof) wanting.

You want to equate the generation of distinct species with dog breeding without understand how dog breeding actually works.

You do not understand that dog breeds are bred by picking those individuals with desirable qualities and breeding them with other individuals with desirable qualities - the OPPOSITE of what you claim goes on!

According to your kooky nonsense, we should be able to breed a chihuahua and a mastiff and get a wolf.

I find your continuous refusal to accept scientific fact disturbing.

I find your continual inability to grasp how wrong you are typical of creationists.

 

[tas8831]

You might be an ape, but frankly I’ve never seen an ape evolve into anything at all, have you?

So, an ape 'becoming' a human is evolution and you've never seen that, but a wolf producing a pekinese is hybridization ?

Because previously your whole spiel was 'hybridization'.

Have you changed that, too?

And no, change of Kinds is a false one brought up by evolutionists. I admit Husky remains Husky, Asian remains Asian, black bear remains black bear, and on and on and on for every animal that exists. It’s you that claims species change into other species by mutation, yet the only time you have observed any new variation is when two interbreeed. Mutations never did anything.

Asian remains Asian - but where did Asian come from if the original people were clones with perfect genomes?

At what point in this Odyssey of Gibberish did the mutation in SLC24A5 occur, contributing to the production of lighter (i.e, 'non-African') ? Dark skin ('African') is the wild type, after all (but Noah was not African... nor was Adam. Interesting...)?

 

[tas8831]

Didn’t do your research to well did you, that’s why you have no citations to back up your claims.

But I do.

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth. Darwin was wrong about dogs.

Darwin was not just wrong about dogs, but everythin......

I see that you do not know what a citation is.

Did I catch you plagiarizing already on here? I can't keep track - I know it was at least 3 creationists on here that I have caught plagiarizing.

 

[Cearbhall]

You might be an ape, but frankly I’ve never seen an ape evolve into anything at all, have you?

Surely you know that it can't take place in a single human lifespan...?

 

[tas8831]

one explanation is that they arent even aware about the evidence against it. actually even michael behe himself admit that he never heared about evidence against evolution in academia till he read "evolution, a theory in crisis" book:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X

If Behe was enamored with Denton's book, then Behe wasn't much of a biologist in the first place.

I read Denton's book when I was a grad student and I was finding errors in every chapter.

 

[tas8831]

I thought we discussed the affects of less genetic variability through inbreeding already?

Did you?
How then did you weasel out of that conundrum, seeing as how both the creation event in Genesis and the flood story are the ultimate cases of less genetic variability through inbreeding - from which you pretend all extant 'races' of human arose in short order.

 

[tas8831]

There are scientists who have creationist beliefs.
There are creationists who are active scientists.

But, if you attempt to bring a supernatural element - such as divine creation - into the sciences, you're violating one of the basic modalities of the sciences. Science is NECESSARILY limited to the study the natural world.

So a 'creation scientist' is either a scientist, or a creationist, but they cannot be acting as both at the same time - these are two mutually exclusive categories.

And when actual scientists attempt o use science to argue for their creation beliefs, you produce either frauds or liars.

Look at the likes of Steve Austin or Jeff Tomkins.

 

[The Times]

.

 

[Almost there]

And yet you like to make absurd, inflammatory comments on it, then bail.

Irony.

 

[Almost there]

Not effectively enough considering how many Christians miss the point of them. John warned against that sort of thing in his Gospel, but too many Christians ignored him, too.

I certainly won't disagree with that. I moved to the bible belt six years ago and, because I was in a southern gospel band here for two years, I played at a lot of those small local baptist churches. I got to hear a lot of sermons and talk to a LOT of people about beliefs. Christianity down here is a culture, almost more than it is a religion. It is very difficult to carry on a conversation about doctrine because, though many here are VERY religious, their knowledge of bible content was stunted at around their teens. Not everyone, but there is a lot of it.

But there are also many that know what they are talking about and are on a lifetime quest for more understanding.

Jesus DID say the way is narrow...

 

[Almost there]

You wrote that before.

Yet you seem to have had time to make dozens of posts in the meantime.

Seems like 'time management' is just another cop out.

Seems I've touched a nerve. I'll do the right thing and leave you alone. Sorry.

 

[tas8831]

Irony.

And yet, I am here, and have and can provide actual evidence for my claims (not mere assertions).

Thought you were leaving?

Here is something you bailed on in a now closed thread:

I have found that those relying on such inapt analogies do so because they have nothing of any real value to contribute.

Analogies are not evidence.

Oh and it is so weird - you must have hit the post button early on accident, for you left this off:


It is a shame that so few creationists understand basic evolutionary concepts as well as they insist or assert or imply that they do.

I wrote this for another creationist that claims to know all about evolution being based on similarities and such... He didn't get this. Maybe you will?

The fact that you mention"similarities" proves that you do not understand the methods or know about any of the data used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees.

Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


But I know that for some reason you don't want to discuss science on the Physical and Life sciences forum - so where do you go to discuss this stuff - you know, where will you lay out your amazing observations and evidence that evolution is all wrong and that tens of thousands of professionals are all washed up and part of a grand conspiracy or hoax or whatever?

 

[tas8831]

Seems I've touched a nerve. I'll do the right thing and leave you alone. Sorry.

Yes, I have a problem with people that pretend to knowledge that they clearly do not have.

 

[Jimmy D]

Didn’t do your research to well did you, that’s why you have no citations to back up your claims.

But I do.

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth. Darwin was wrong about dogs.

Darwin was not just wrong about dogs, but everythin......

I see that you do not know what a citation is.

Did I catch you plagiarizing already on here? I can't keep track - I know it was at least 3 creationists on here that I have caught plagiarizing.

Quote mining is the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt.

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth.

Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors.

Seems Darwin wasn't that wrong then.

 

[bhsmte]

Irony.

Projection

 

[TLK Valentine]

I certainly won't disagree with that. I moved to the bible belt six years ago and, because I was in a southern gospel band here for two years, I played at a lot of those small local baptist churches. I got to hear a lot of sermons and talk to a LOT of people about beliefs. Christianity down here is a culture, almost more than it is a religion. It is very difficult to carry on a conversation about doctrine because, though many here are VERY religious, their knowledge of bible content was stunted at around their teens. Not everyone, but there is a lot of it.

But there are also many that know what they are talking about and are on a lifetime quest for more understanding.

Jesus DID say the way is narrow...

Sad but true -- they know just enough to know that they're supposed to follow whatever the man at the pulpit says.

Shockingly, the man at the pulpit doesn't often teach them much more beyond that...

 

[Almost there]

Sad but true -- they know just enough to know that they're supposed to follow whatever the man at the pulpit says.

Shockingly, the man at the pulpit doesn't often teach them much more beyond that...

It's challenging for me (and the reason I'm no longer in the band) because I'm a strong adherent (as of seven years ago) of CI, and most of the preaching is on hell fire - with a lot of screaming and "amen's".

The kid I bought my home from went on to become a preacher at one of these churches and was fired. He was trying to actually teach what the bible says and they didn't want what he was preaching. He told me one day that there were many members there in their later years that had been faithfully attending their entire life that could not tell you the difference between the old and new testaments!

It's fascinating to hear a preacher say something about Satan being successful at something and someone shouts, "AMEN, BROTHER!"

Huh?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's challenging for me (and the reason I'm no longer in the band) because I'm a strong adherent (as of seven years ago) of CI, and most of the preaching is on hell fire - with a lot of screaming and "amen's".

The kid I bought my home from went on to become a preacher at one of these churches and was fired. He was trying to actually teach what the bible says and they didn't want what he was preaching. He told me one day that there were many members there in their later years that had been faithfully attending their entire life that could not tell you the difference between the old and new testaments!

It's fascinating to hear a preacher say something about Satan being successful at something and someone shouts, "AMEN, BROTHER!"

Huh?

A Pastor's duty is supposed to be to deliver the "good news" of Jesus Christ... but for too many Christians in America, the only "good news" they want to hear is "it's not your fault, it's [insert name of scapegoat du jour] to blame for all your woes!"

 

[xianghua]

We all look forward to you presenting some then. Hopefully it won’t be a failed analogy about cars or irreducible complexity.

why not? here is one potential issue:

Oldest Trees Appear To Be The Most Complex That Ever Existed

"The fossilized remains of a tree that lived 374 million years ago suggest that the earliest trees we know of might also have been the ones with the most complex internal structure in the history of our planet."

"This raises a provoking question: why are the very oldest trees the most complicated?”