proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

From Gray wolf - Wikipedia :

"The gray wolf or grey wolf (Canis lupus),[a] also known as the timber wolf[3][4] or western wolf, is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America. It is the largest extant member of its family, with males averaging 43–45 kg (95–99 lb) and females 36–38.5 kg (79–85 lb).[6] Like the red wolf, it is distinguished from other Canis species by its larger size and less pointed features, particularly on the ears and muzzle.[7] Its winter fur is long and bushy and predominantly a mottled gray in color, although nearly pure white, red, and brown to black also occur.[4] Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognises 37 subspecies of C. lupus.[8]"​

If we follow this to: Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia , we find among the various sub-species,
we find this under Domestic Dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris) :

"The dog is a divergent subspecies of the gray wolf and was derived from a now-extinct population of Late Pleistocene wolves.[18][37][38] Through selective pressure and selective breeding, the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more behavioral and morphological variation than any other land mammal.[39]"
​

Then, it's a short step to genetically map out the connection between that and the Poodle, a layman's summary (with pretty, easy to understand pictures for those challenged by big sciency words and ideas): A Simple Chart Shows How Dogs Today Evolved From A Wolf

All these articles are for the unwashed masses, but links to the peer reviewed science to back them up are on these pages - if you have difficulty locating and clicking the link to them, I can do that for you, so just let me know if you have issues.

I did answer your question, so as explained again, Poodles are in fact Wolves through ancestry, just as you're an Ape through ancestry. and a Placental Mammal through ancestry, and a Synapsid, and an Anmiote, and a Vertibrate, and a Eukaryote, etc.

Technically, Yes. Aren't you aware of Tiktaalik? You know, the transitional life form between fish and all air-breathing land animals?

We were never bacteria. Although, we do have mitochondria, which is a co-opted prokaryotic cell that was most likely bacteria, so I guess we could say that bacteria are an essential makeup of all Eukaryotes?

Oh great more assumptions. There is no evidence that we came from a fish. Unless you if course you take common design of all life and then try and assume we came from a fish.

The wolf to poodle tree is also an assumption because of the similarities between the creatures. There really is no evidence that we can actually follow in the fossil record that shows that.

 

[rjs330]

Everyone already gets how little you understand evolution, no need to flaunt it. Interestingly though, I'd like to see your reference in whatever article is giving you that pearl of wisdom...

I understand it perfectly. The real issue is evolutionists don't want to accept reality. You admitted that fish have fur in post 4216. You said we are technically still fish. Bears are technically still fish too according to you, therefore fish have fur which according to your own definition falsifies evolution.
Since evolution believes that fish turned into bears eventually I don't understand how that falsified evolution. I would think a fish with fur would prove evolution since that's what you believe happened over a very long period of time. Yet you have no real evidence that it actually occurred.

The problem for evolutionists is they believe we all came from.a common ancestor. All of us. We might have eight legs or two, fur or scales, hands or fins, or we may be able to speak, write and have hopes and dreams or not. So at some point that fish grew a leg.

 

[pitabread]

The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions. Show me one tree that proposes a common ancestor that isn't an assumption will you? You make my point for me.

I'm trying to get you to be consistent. Now it sounds like you're affirming your rejection of phylogenetic trees. Great! Just don't go saying that all the same evidence for evolution supports common design, since in the case of phylogenetic trees, you're now affirming that's not the case.

Genomic analysis does not need an evolutionary tree. All it needs is to know all life was made from a common design.

Fantastic! Now prove it.

Show us your common design model and demonstrate specifically how one would apply it to genomic analysis. And specifically in the case of the paper I posted (Discovery of Regulatory Elements by a Computational Method for Phylogenetic Footprinting), which is an approach for finding regulatory elements of genomes.

How would common design be used to accomplish the same task?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What correct phylogenies trees are we discussing? The human one where they know the entire tree and history of mankind is going to have to be rewritten?

Ahh, but it’s only the tree for the most genetically studied and geologically searched for species that they got wrong, right? Right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm trying to get you to be consistent.

We are trying to get you to be consistent too. If poodles are wolves, poodles are also fish, and anthropoids, and on and on. So you have both your example of fish with fur, invertebrates with vertibrate, and on and on.

Ahh but that’s not where you wanted it to go, right? So now you’ll reject your own claims.

See above post, what correct phylogenies trees are we discussing? The one that’s wrong and going to have to be rewritten?

 

[ruthiesea]

I understand it perfectly. The real issue is evolutionists don't want to accept reality. You admitted that fish have fur in post 4216. You said we are technically still fish. Bears are technically still fish too according to you, therefore fish have fur which according to your own definition falsifies evolution.
Since evolution believes that fish turned into bears eventually I don't understand how that falsified evolution. I would think a fish with fur would prove evolution since that's what you believe happened over a very long period of time. Yet you have no real evidence that it actually occurred.

The problem for evolutionists is they believe we all came from.a common ancestor. All of us. We might have eight legs or two, fur or scales, hands or fins, or we may be able to speak, write and have hopes and dreams or not. So at some point that fish grew a leg.

Dinosaur fossils have been found that feathers, showing ancestry for birds. Additionally, some modern birds have skulls almost identical, except in size, to some dinosaurs, again showing evolution at work.

Evolution predicts common ancestry, from the first rudimentary living organism, to today's complex life.

As an aside, evolution does not depend on G-d or a designer. However, neither does it deny that G-d or an intelligent designer exists. Evolution is about how and what; Religion is about who. Belief in G-d and science are not in conflict. What does conflict is science and certain religious beliefs, that not all the Abrahamic religions accept.

 

[Jimmy D]

What correct phylogenies trees are we discussing? The human one where they know the entire tree and history of mankind is going to have to be rewritten?

Ahh, but it’s only the tree for the most genetically studied and geologically searched for species that they got wrong, right? Right?

Strange, I posted one a few pages ago and you didn’t show where it was wrong. More hot air.

 

[xianghua]

Apparently fish do have fur. Since fish are the ancestors of bears fish do have fur. Therefore evolution is falsified by your standard.

by the way: in a real case of fish with a fur they can claim for convergent evolution as "solution". so even this case will not falsify evolution at all.

 

[xianghua]

Dinosaur fossils have been found that feathers, showing ancestry for birds.

according to this: since both cars and airplanes shared wheels- therefore they share a common descent.

 

[xianghua]

Oh great more assumptions. There is no evidence that we came from a fish. Unless you if course you take common design of all life and then try and assume we came from a fish.

The wolf to poodle tree is also an assumption because of the similarities between the creatures. There really is no evidence that we can actually follow in the fossil record that shows that.

as far as i aware a wolf and a dog can interbreed. so they may belong to the same kind. but even in this case it doesnt prove any evolution since they are basically the same creature (dog). so its only a variation rather then evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Did Mr. Robot, ever define what a robot is?

 

[xianghua]

Genomic analysis does not need an evolutionary tree. All it needs is to know all life was made from a common design.

you are actually right. in this link of "pitabread" they only checked for conserved motifs to conclude were the locations of the important regions in the genome. we can do that under the design model too. we only need to check the variations among shared genes between several species to know that. without using any common descent belief. actually, even if evolution is false i can do that. more then that: some genes are very conserve among different species but not in human. so even by this method we cant always know were are the important regions.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Oh great more assumptions. There is no evidence that we came from a fish. Unless you if course you take common design of all life and then try and assume we came from a fish.

The wolf to poodle tree is also an assumption because of the similarities between the creatures. There really is no evidence that we can actually follow in the fossil record that shows that.

Genetics, no assumption required. The genetic evidence (even if we didn't have fossil remains, which of course we do) is an infinitely more reliable form of evidence than fossils, or for that matter archaeological evidence, or even the most unreliable kind, written down stories (for which we have all forms of evidence mentioned for dogs descending from wolves). Genetic evidence is irrefutable for rational people, this is why it's considered next to unassailable in a court of law. When it is contested, it's the method of collection & processing or a legal technicality that's contested, never the actual evidence itself. Curious though, are you saying that written records are assumptions? I would certainly agree with you if that's your stance...

I understand it perfectly. The real issue is evolutionists don't want to accept reality. You admitted that fish have fur in post 4216. You said we are technically still fish. Bears are technically still fish too according to you, therefore fish have fur which according to your own definition falsifies evolution.
Since evolution believes that fish turned into bears eventually I don't understand how that falsified evolution. I would think a fish with fur would prove evolution since that's what you believe happened over a very long period of time. Yet you have no real evidence that it actually occurred.

The problem for evolutionists is they believe we all came from.a common ancestor. All of us. We might have eight legs or two, fur or scales, hands or fins, or we may be able to speak, write and have hopes and dreams or not. So at some point that fish grew a leg.

Well, Kudos for trying, I guess... Although we are descended from fish and are nested in the clade that were fish (along with every other animal, of course), we've long diverged from fish enough that traits like 'fur' are considered unique to our lineage of mammals and defines our uniqueness among these living things. I fail to see how this falsifies evolution though, the same branching tree of life holds true, no matter how you want to view inherited traits. Fur is unique to 'mammals' section of the 'fish' tree and is not found in extant fish at all, so isn't actually a 'fish' trait. Equally, theropod dinosaurs are unique in their clade for (among many things) their feathers. Again though, this is not pervasive in fish, just this small section of life that came from fish. All this said, I have no doubt you'll erect another straw man to beat on in short order... evidence and critical thinking be damned!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

by the way: in a real case of fish with a fur they can claim for convergent evolution as "solution". so even this case will not falsify evolution at all.

We can test for convergent evolution. That's to say, if convergent evolution has occurred, then the convergent structures, habits or other phenomenon will have come to the 'sameness' via independent means. This we can check with genetics and molecular biology.

according to this: since both cars and airplanes shared wheels- therefore they share a common descent.

cars and airplanes don't reproduce, so you're wrong as always.

you are actually right. in this link of "pitabread" they only checked for conserved motifs to conclude were the locations of the important regions in the genome. we can do that under the design model too. we only need to check the variations among shared genes between several species to know that. without using any common descent belief. actually, even if evolution is false i can do that. more then that: some genes are very conserve among different species but not in human. so even by this method we cant always know were are the important regions.

Why would a design model look exactly like evolution and shared ancestry? That would actually take an immense amount of manipulation at the molecular level to mirror exactly what inherited traits would look like if it had evolved by natural processes. That and there's no evidence of any 'designer' manipulating everything everywhere. Feel free to point one out if we've missed it... (I won't hold my breath)

On the other hand, pretty much every process involved in said natural process has been identified and documented in both a lab and in the wild. Evolution is actually one of the most well understood theories in all of science.

 

[xianghua]

That's to say, if convergent evolution has occurred, then the convergent structures, habits or other phenomenon will have come to the 'sameness' via independent means. This we can check with genetics and molecular biology.

no you cant. since most fossils dont have DNA. so a fish with a fur will be explain by convergent evolution.

cars and airplanes don't reproduce, so you're wrong as always.

so what? even if they were able to reproduce it will not prove any evolution. so you are wrong.

Why would a design model look exactly like evolution and shared ancestry?

this is the point: it doesnt look like a common descent at all. phylogenetic tree is basically a tree of similarity\difference among creatures. we can make the same with vehicles. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Why would a design model look exactly like evolution and shared ancestry?

I've noticed this trend of creationists to take everything that applies to biological evolution (assumptions, models, etc) and just slap "design" on it instead. It's like the new creationism is just biological evolution with a different label.

I'm still waiting for an example of what makes "common design" distinct from evolution and how it's supposed to offer superior explanatory power and application. :/

 

[xianghua]

I'm still waiting for an example of what makes "common design" distinct from evolution and how it's supposed to offer superior explanatory power and application. :/

since the best explanation for the existance of something like a watch\robot (self replicating or not) is the design option, the design is the best explanation so far.

 

[pitabread]

you are actually right. in this link of "pitabread" they only checked for conserved motifs to conclude were the locations of the important regions in the genome. we can do that under the design model too. we only need to check the variations among shared genes between several species to know that. without using any common descent belief. actually, even if evolution is false i can do that. more then that: some genes are very conserve among different species but not in human. so even by this method we cant always know were are the important regions.

A few things:

What you are describing with respect to regulatory regions is basic phylogenetic footprinting. IOW, using relatively conserved regions to identify important regions.

Under the context of evolution relative levels of conserved genetic sequences make sense. If we are looking at two extant taxa, common ancestry presumes a "common" (i.e. singular) genome from which they would have diverged from. Given we have a singular starting point, we can measure relative levels of genetic divergence on that basis comparing neutral (background) evolutionary change with regions that undergo selective conservation. And especially considering we are looking at orthologous regions of the respective genomes, which again makes sense given they would have started with a common genome.

Under design, you don't have that same "common genome" starting point for different species. What you have is presumably a bunch of independently created genomes. A designer could have conceivably created whatever they wanted and in whatever pattern they wanted. The expected patterns related to evolutionary ancestry wouldn't be presumed if we're talking about independent design.

Thus if you are making the same assumption as evolution (i.e. examining orthologous regions of genomes for relative conservation), you need to state why this would hold under a "common design" scenario. Last time I asked you to explain why this would hold true, you weren't able to. Do you have an answer this time?

The other issue is that the standard phylogenetic footprinting method, which you are advocating, has limitations which they describe in the paper I previously linked. In particular, closely related species may be too genetically similar to distinguish conserved regions based strictly on genetic comparison. Likewise, too distantly related species may suffer the same consequence by way of too much genetic divergence.

Consequently they are incorporating phylogenetic data for multi-species comparisons to better sift through relative levels of conservation among different compared genomes.

There's a presentation here which outlines this: http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~dgonze/TEACHING/phylo_footprint.pdf (see slides 12 through 14).

So the question is: Can your "design" model do the same thing? So far all you've done is advocate for standard phylogenetic footprinting complete with its existing limitations and utilizing the same underlying assumptions as biological evolution. In effect, you're not advocating a "design" model at all.

Now if you want to advocate using "design" to do genomic comparisons, you first need to outline your design model, describe your assumptions and why you hold them, then provide a valid alternative to the paper I linked.

Knowing how this went the last time though, I'm not expecting an answer.

 

[pitabread]

since the best explanation for the existance of something like a watch\robot (self replicating or not) is the design option, the design is the best explanation so far.

It's already been explained to you why your watch/robot/etc analogies are invalid. Repeating an invalid argument doesn't magically make it valid. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Unfortunately this seems to be a common trend among creationists here these days: keep repeating the same thing over and over until everyone is just sick of it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

no you cant. since most fossils dont have DNA. so a fish with a fur will be explain by convergent evolution.

Show me a fossilised fish with fur, then we can talk.

so what? even if they were able to reproduce it will not prove any evolution. so you are wrong.

Even if cars and planes did reproduce in some fantasy scenario in your head, it does nothing to disprove evolution here in reality.

this is the point: it doesnt look like a common descent at all. phylogenetic tree is basically a tree of similarity\difference among creatures. we can make the same with vehicles. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

Great! Challenge Accepted! Show me a phylogenetic tree of cars/planes and I'll show you why your analogy doesn't work - we'll sort this rubbish out once and for all.

since the best explanation for the existance of something like a watch\robot (self replicating or not) is the design option, the design is the best explanation so far.

except all the evidence demonstrating evolution to be the cause - that and no evidence of a designer, let alone that one did anything...