proving evolution as just a "theory"

[bhsmte]

Do you have anything scientific to invalidate the Theory of Evolution? As you apparently have very little, if any, knowledge of science, scientists try to invalidate theories, not prove them. Creationists and IDers try to prove their ideas, which have none o the attributes of a theory. That is the number one sign of a pseudoscience.

What you say has been show to be accurate, based on the content of the poster you are responding to. At some point though, playing this type of pigeon chess, is really futile.

 

[xianghua]

Do you have anything scientific to invalidate the Theory of Evolution?

sure. where to start? first: we know that many biological system require at least several parts to their minimal function. so they cant evolve stepwise. think about a cell-phone. a minimal cell-phone require at least several parts for its minimal function. so even you as intelligent designer cant make a functional cell-phone stepwise:

if so what make you think its possible with even more complex things like biological systems?

(image from Parts of a Mobile Cell Phone and Their Function (Big Parts) | Mobile Phone Repairing)

Creationists and IDers try to prove their ideas, which have none o the attributes of a theory. That is the number one sign of a pseudoscience.

its actually not a theory but a scientific fact. its a fact that a spinning motor need a designer, not a belief:

on the other hand- evolution is indeed a belief. and not a good one.

(image from Bacterial Flagellum )

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you have anything scientific to invalidate the Theory of Evolution? As you apparently have very little, if any, knowledge of science, scientists try to invalidate theories, not prove them. Creationists and IDers try to prove their ideas, which have none o the attributes of a theory. That is the number one sign of a pseudoscience.

Oh please, they don’t try to disprove theory, they try to prove it. Show me one single paper that says they set out with the intent to disprove the theory. As a matter of fact you rarely, if ever get to see papers that disprove a theory because the results that do never get written up. People that study evolution look for ways to prove evolution, not disprove it.

You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. People don’t set out to prove that what they believe is wrong. As a matter of fact people tend to ignore those things which disprove their theory, focusing only on what they can find that appears to confirm their beliefs.

Yes, you are totally delusional if you think anything different. Scientists set out to prove their theory correct, not disprove it. The only ones that try to disprove it are those that don’t believe in the theory, or are trying to replace that theory with their own.

As a famous scientist once remarked. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.“

I neither expect to convince you or have you see the light, because people aren’t convinced by the truth, they are blind to what they choose to believe. Scientists are no different. Each has a set of beliefs, and everything is judged by that set of beliefs. The data not matching is discarded and chalked up as an anomaly of no importance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And I’ll ask again for the 20th time.

Please show me a common ancestor that bridges the gaps on those trees?

You can’t, because they don’t exist, because they aren’t trees, they are individual bushes.

There is no common ancestor for these claimed splits to be found, because there were no splits. They are missing, each and every single one because they never existed.

And hence you will never produce one.

 

[pitabread]

first; we can find the same in nature. for instance:

Deletion of ultraconserved elements yields viable mice. - PubMed - NCBI

"Ultraconserved elements have been suggested to retain extended perfect sequence identity between the human, mouse, and rat genomes due to essential functional properties. Remarkably, all four resulting lines of mice lacking these ultraconserved elements were viable and fertile, and failed to reveal any critical abnormalities when assayed for a variety of phenotypes including growth, longevity, pathology, and metabolism. These results, while not inclusive of all the possible phenotypic impact of the deleted sequences, indicate that extreme sequence constraint does not necessarily reflect crucial functions required for viability."

so even evolution theory doesnt necessarily predict what you said.

There are always going to be exceptions especially when dealing with as simplified as genetic conservation coupled with the complexity of biology.

If you read the paper in question, they have a number of hypotheses as to why this particular scenario was the case; hypotheses which can be further tested.

secondy: its very likely that if a gene is conserve among several spcies, it has an important rule even under the design model.

But what is your basis for this assumption? This is what I keep trying to get at, but so far you haven't given an answer.

Under biological evolution, conserved genetic sequences would be a result of natural selection preserving those particular sequences. And natural selection preserving those sequences implies they have functional importance (relative to non-conserved regions).

Under the design model you propose, similar genetic sequences are entirely up to the purview of the designer. So you need to provide a reason why a similar sequence would be considered 'important' sequences.

Since you love analogies with artificially designed objects here's one:

Consider cars. If you look at vehicles built by a particular manufacturer, you will find a noticeable similarity among them: namely the manufacturer logo.

This is a functionally unimportant design feature among vehicles. You could easily remove the logos from any given car and it will still work perfectly well. Yet, it's an example of a highly conserved design element.

It's a perfect example of how similarity and functional important do not necessarily go hand-in-hand when it comes to artificial design.

otherwise why the other genes arent so conserve?

That's what I'm asking. Why would the designer do what they did?

The other thing to consider is that genetic conservation is relative to overall species divergence. If we have two species that are separated by 200 million years of evolutionary change, they could have conserved genomic regions that are more diverged than two species separated by only a couple million years.

This is what the aforementioned paper was addressing by the incorporation of phylogenetic trees into the analysis.

Under your "design" model, you don't have that as a basis. All you have are again, a bunch of independent genomes with varying relative similarity. So how do you address analyzing genomes with high degree of similarity? Does high degree of similarity imply genome-wide 'conservation'?

so the logical conclusion is that this gene has an important rule put by the designer.

But you still have no basis for this conclusion. Your entire assumption is that genetic similarities are important, but you haven't given a logical reason why this would be the case if genomes were independently designed.

Look, we had this conversation previously and you went in circles for weeks and couldn't come up with anything. Given that you're not providing anything new this second time 'round, I'm not expecting this to go anywhere.

So unless you come up with a proper reason why conserved genomic regions would be functionally important if genomes were independently designed, then I consider this discussion closed.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yet you won’t accept we are still fish, and therefore you have seen a fish with hair and legs too. Your falsifying condition. If a poodle descended from a wolf is still a wolf, then a man descended from a fish is still a fish. Every one of your falsifying conditions have been met by your own claims.

We are all descended from fish, of course. The point that I and everyone else deluded into thinking you're actually trying to understand is putting to you is - what has happened in our lineage since the split from our fishy ancestors is locked into our germline, never to be seen in other germlines (fishy or otherwise) by the same genetic method. What we mean when we talk about fish having fur is to highlight the fact that what happens in a germline prior to any split will be available to everything descended from it - Fur never occurred in fish before this evolutionary split where it eventually appeared in some land based descendents we would call 'Mammals'. Likewise, anything that breaks in our germline is unique to our germline and not to others too. This is how we could predict for example (among many thousands of like predictions) that the GULO gene between the great apes (us included) would be broken in the same specific way because we all inherited it from a common ancestor, and the broken GULO gene in the guinea pig and rat would be broken in different ways - This prediction had to be correct for the Theory of Evolution to be upheld. What do you think we found when we finally got the tools and technology to look? (Hint: Prediction was in fact accurate!) Tell me, under the same circumstance, what would be a falsification test for an Intelligent Designer?

There is no reason for it. Either we are just evolved animals like every other animal, and therefore subject to the same classification system, or we are not.

Indeed, we are.

So if song patterns and feather color is good enough for birds, then language and skin color is good enough for human classification? And if not good enough for humans, then it certainly is not good enough for any other animal either?

Finches have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. The fact that they haven’t been isolated at all doesn’t seem to bother them.

I thought you all didn’t want to talk about bottlenecks and reduction in genetic variability, now you want to use it as an excuse?

And there we go with coloration, yet birds that ranges overlap yet have different colors have been classified as separate species.

Were they actually consistent they might have a claim. As it is you can’t refuse to classify humans as subspecies, or separate species for that matter because they can interbreed, then turn right around and classify finches as separate species when they interbreed. Their lack of consistency to apply to humans what they do to other species takes away any merit to their claims.

Well, you seem to have some great ideas - perhaps you should write a paper and submit it for peer review? I'm no pro scientists but the reasons are apparently there for it, so perhaps ask someone who is more knowledgeable about it? My understanding is that this is a big area of ambiguity, which is to be expected in how life and speciation happens, there's always going to be these blurred lines between our arbitrary definitions and this topic is debated quite vigorously in the scientific community for these reasons. This isn't a peer-reviewed paper but more of an opinion piece, but it highlights the issues you bring up regarding Darwin's Finches: Are Darwin's Finches One Species or Many? | DiscoverMagazine.com - This does nothing to falsify any aspect of evolution though. If anything, it speaks to the very complex mechanisms that demonstrates the reality of Evolution... Humans and Dogs are a different story though. Dogs because even though morphologically different, genetically they're very much capable of interbreeding, and it's nothing to invent a new unique breed in just a few decades if desired. Humans because we're a global species now and given we regularly interchange genetically on that scale now, it's pointless trying to categorise us into any real subspecies of any type, because like dogs, we really aren't different enough to quantify it with species/subspecies classifications. Neanderthals are genetically unique apart from us, which is why they are their own species.

Well they certainly don’t know.

Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says

Why all we knew about planets is wrong

But let’s just ignore that and continue on anyways as if it was correct! Right?

Why would anyone ignore it? What's wrong with "I don't know"? Or would you prefer we make up some story and steadfastly stick to it ignoring all the evidence that becomes available to us after that?

So in other words you really don’t have a clue, and all your claims are just grey areas with arbitrary selections that don’t really prove anything. Right? Since it’s so grey anyone can say about anything they want.

That about sum it up?

I understand you have no other recourse but to project and I'm not going to pretend I believe you're actually that uneducated - so excuse the rest of us while we continue learning about reality without you.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

i dont need to. i only showed why such a fossil will not falsify evolution.

And I don't accept your assertion. Onus on proving your assertion is on you. Until then, we can all discard your assertion for the comical joke it is.

actually it did, since a car will never evolve into an airplane.

Of course, because they don't reproduce! Equally qualified for setting to one side as poppycock ufn.

here is one of toys:

vechiales phylogeny - Google Search:

and Here's the Pic for reference...:

Now, if Evolution were correct, then any trees I make should overlay unless there's a good reason for it... Please categorise the following:

This Batman Plush Toy:
batman plush toy - Google Search:

This Plastic Teddy Bear:
plastic teddy bear - Google Search:

This Abomination (a.k.a. furry teddybear batman):
batman plush toy - Google Search:

Tree Violated! (in 10 seconds on Google Images...) I could easily go on, how many Teddy Bears have plastic eyes, for example? Then you have furry cabbage patch kids: furry cabbage patch kids - Google Search: , etc. Not terribly hard really.... I bet I can do exactly the same thing with your inane 'reproducing' car/plane thing too (if you ever do get to find one, that is)...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

And I don't accept your assertion. Onus on proving your assertion is on you. Until then, we can all discard your assertion for the comical joke it is.

Of course, because they don't reproduce! Equally qualified for setting to one side as poppycock ufn.

and Here's the Pic for reference...:

Now, if Evolution were correct, then any trees I make should overlay unless there's a good reason for it... Please categorise the following:

This Batman Plush Toy:
batman plush toy - Google Search:

This Plastic Teddy Bear:
plastic teddy bear - Google Search:

This Abomination (a.k.a. furry teddybear batman):
batman plush toy - Google Search:

Tree Violated! (in 10 seconds on Google Images...) I could easily go on, how many Teddy Bears have plastic eyes, for example? Then you have furry cabbage patch kids: furry cabbage patch kids - Google Search: , etc. Not terribly hard really.... I bet I can do exactly the same thing with your inane 'reproducing' car/plane thing too (if you ever do get to find one, that is)...

@xianghua , I meant to point this out in this post but got all carried away, this tree isn't really workable to start with - after all, what denotes a plastic toy and a furry toy and for that matter, an 'other' toy? remember, because they don't reproduce with inherited traits, it's not possible to trace a strict tree as we can with evolution. All these toys could very well have elements of all trees, violating this hierarchy straight out of the gate - and even if they don't now, they could with just an executive decision back in the design department. With evolution, literally everything has been built on what came before it, even the errors in genomes can be tracked.

 

[BradB]

Also they continue to refuse to apply observation to the fossil record. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Mastiff mates with a Husky is variation (the Chinook) seen to appear in the record suddenly. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. We can apply this to any animal in existence.

Actually don't confuse dog breeding and breeds with species and evolution. Most of the different breeds today are a result of man's intervention. But as you point out they are all still k-nine.

Allthough personally I believe there have been six creations and five destructions, with man being part of the sixth. Soon there will be a sixth destruction followed by a seventh and final creation. But most misinterpret hayah, the second word in the second verse of the Bible as meaning “was”, when that is not even listed as a possible meaning of the word in any concordance. Strong's Hebrew: 1961. הָיָה (hayah) -- to fall out, come to pass, become, be Instead the earth “became - hayah” desolate and waste, and darkness became upon..... this was the fifth destruction, the extinction of the dinosaurs. The sixth creation then commenced.

It's a neat theory however we have to stick with what scriptures tell us. Did the earth become desolate? Yes that would be a fine way to describe God creating something that starts as a blank slate. A potter will kneed the clay until it "becomes" a pliable "desolate" lump to work with and to form his vessel. You can't build a whole doctrine out of one little word when other scriptures clearly show it is false. Romans 5:12-14 for instance plainly tells us that death did not enter into the world until Adam's sin.

Tell me, how long did it take Adam to name all the animals? How would Adam understand what death was, had he not observed animals live out their lives, mate, reproduce and die? Do you believe God would punish Adam without Adam being able to understand what death meant?

That is kind of a silly argument friend. If I tell a child who is misbehaving that I am going to put him in a chair over in the corner, does that child have to have seen someone else in the corner in order to grasp the concept? Apparently Adam was a genius and able to give names to hundreds of thousands of species that God brought to him. So he had the intelligence to grasp the concept that death was the opposite of living, without having to actually see something die.

 

[BradB]

There is no consistency to support the bolded words above. Its just not the way the faunal succession exists. And with that, it can be disregarded in its likelyhood.

If you disagree, then perhaps you should try giving an example, and lets see just how consistent your example is, with your words above.

There is, it is, and it can't. If you disagree then YOU try giving an example. You jump through that hoop and then I will.

 

[xianghua]

Under biological evolution, conserved genetic sequences would be a result of natural selection preserving those particular sequences.

dont be so sure. first: if the majority mutations are indeed neutral think about this: according to evolution fly and mosquito split off about 250 my ago. fly generation is about less then one month. so even if one generation mean only 1 new mutation (i think in reality they get much more) we will need only 10^8 month to change their entire genome. or about less than 10^7 years. so fly and mosquito should be different in about their entire genomes from each other (or at least 75% difference). far from reality as far as im aware about. so maybe (just maybe) the majority of mutations are actually not neutral?

secondly: even if all creatures were created independently we still can get the same result. if all creatures were created very similar then we should get very similar result to the evolutionery prediction. since they all start with almost identical genome.

Your entire assumption is that genetic similarities are important, but you haven't given a logical reason why this would be the case if genomes were independently designed.

see above. even if we ignore all of this its still logical to conclude that if we see a conserve sequence among many species- we can conclude that this sequence has an important rule. otherwise the designer should made it very similar to other genes that are very varies. by the way (just as a note): english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually don't confuse dog breeding and breeds with species and evolution. Most of the different breeds today are a result of man's intervention. But as you point out they are all still k-nine.



It's a neat theory however we have to stick with what scriptures tell us. Did the earth become desolate? Yes that would be a fine way to describe God creating something that starts as a blank slate. A potter will kneed the clay until it "becomes" a pliable "desolate" lump to work with and to form his vessel. You can't build a whole doctrine out of one little word when other scriptures clearly show it is false. Romans 5:12-14 for instance plainly tells us that death did not enter into the world until Adam's sin.




That is kind of a silly argument friend. If I tell a child who is misbehaving that I am going to put him in a chair over in the corner, does that child have to have seen someone else in the corner in order to grasp the concept? Apparently Adam was a genius and able to give names to hundreds of thousands of species that God brought to him. So he had the intelligence to grasp the concept that death was the opposite of living, without having to actually see something die.

Well, you go ahead and stick with scripture.

Next time you visit your doctor, ask them if the medical knowledge they have in caring for patients, was influenced by the theory of evolution, or scripture. Then, i would hold your ears when they respond.

 

[xianghua]

And I don't accept your assertion.

its not an assertion but a fact. when scientists find a case with a shared trait among far species (but not in some species between them) they are claiming for convergent evolution.

Of course, because they don't reproduce! Equally qualified for setting to one side as poppycock ufn.

i actually talked about a car that is able to reproduce. read what i said again.

Tree Violated! (in 10 seconds on Google Images...) I could easily go on, how many Teddy Bears have plastic eyes, for example? .

are you kidding? here is the same result (non hierarchy) with evolution:

the alx3 gene is shared between several far species but not between several colser species. this non hierarchy "solved" by convergent gene loss. so if you are claiming that evolution predict hierarchy then evolution is false by your own critieria now. by the way (just as a note): english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...lx-homeobox-genes-in-chordate-evolution-After).

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

its not an assertion but a fact. when scientists find a case with a shared trait among far species (but not in some species between them) they are claiming for convergent evolution.

Show how it isn't then. Don't forget, this is something we can test for (more on that in a sec).

i actually talked about a car that is able to reproduce. read what i said again.

I don't need to read it, I got it first time around - what is it you aren't understanding about a fictional scenario not being real? If Cars Reproduced, then by what mechanism would we see them doing this? maybe they're doing it by magic or have been designed to duplicate themselves by us, they'll probably conform to some kind of evolutionary model only if they've been designed by us to do that. If you insist on them reproducing like animals do, then surprise, surprise, cars would probably look be something remarkably like horses and fit into the evolutionary tree of life, like horses.

are you kidding? here is the same result (non hierarchy) with evolution:

the alx3 gene is shared between several far species but not between several colser species. this non hierarchy "solved" by convergent gene loss. so if you are claiming that evolution predict hierarchy then evolution is false by your own critieria now. by the way (just as a note): english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...lx-homeobox-genes-in-chordate-evolution-After).

Okay, I'm struggling to take you seriously now. Did you even read the explanatory text with this diagram let alone the research paper it's from? Read Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene and ask questions about anything you don't understand (and Yep, I'm happy to explain it knowing english isn't your first language...) but in short, the ALX3 gene has been independently lost in each of these lineages, and as the research paper notes, this is mapped out and is known to be broken in unique ways between these lineages. What would be a problem would be if they had all been broken in the same way at the same loci. Then there'd be questions about the validity of common ancestry, because that can only happen if they all shared a common ancestor. To return to great apes, this is how we know we share a common ancestor with them, because our GULO gene is broken in exactly the same way as all the other great apes, and to remind you, this means we inherited it from that common ancestor that had that mutation. Guinea pigs also have a broken GULO gene, as do Rats but as explained, for evolution to be upheld, their GULO gene would have to be broken in a different way to ours, and of course, that's what we found when we finally could look at it.

 

[BradB]

Well, you go ahead and stick with scripture.

Next time you visit your doctor, ask them if the medical knowledge they have in caring for patients, was influenced by the theory of evolution, or scripture. Then, i would hold your ears when they respond.

Funny you should mention that. Here's a quote from a MD who practiced medicine for over 20 years.

"Not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine." -Dr. Tommy Mitchell, MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Funny you should mention that. Here's a quote from a MD who practiced medicine for over 20 years.

"Not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine." -Dr. Tommy Mitchell, MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

lol! There's a doctor to avoid.... I wonder if he administered any vaccines to anyone...?

EDIT: Nope, no, turns out he doesn't practice medicine anymore - apparently preaching pays better! Lists of creationist scientists - RationalWiki

 

[pitabread]

Funny you should mention that. Here's a quote from a MD who practiced medicine for over 20 years.

"Not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine." -Dr. Tommy Mitchell, MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Evolution may not be directly applied in practicing medicine (i.e. as a GP or something), but it definitely has a role in modern medical and pharmaceutical research.

 

[bhsmte]

Funny you should mention that. Here's a quote from a MD who practiced medicine for over 20 years.

"Not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine." -Dr. Tommy Mitchell, MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

One MD????????????????????????????????????

 

[bhsmte]

Funny you should mention that. Here's a quote from a MD who practiced medicine for over 20 years.

"Not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine." -Dr. Tommy Mitchell, MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Here is one MD:

Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian and former head of the human genome project. He states you can't do biology without evolution and medicine, is a whole bunch of biology. This is the consensus, of the medical field and biology. Sorry.

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2