• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So, you didn't bother to read anything or to grasp why that paper was listed.

As usual.
Read your entire post. Mice stayed mice..... your point of mice staying mice is what? That mutations make mice, mice? Kind after Kind, I already understood this.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Read your entire post. Mice stayed mice..... your point of mice staying mice is what? That mutations make mice, mice?


Wow...

I should have remembered the knowledge level of the target audience.


The first 2 papers are about TESTING the methods of using molecular data to assess hypotheses of descent. The first one, in fact, used KNOWN relationships among inbred mice to test the methods, the second generated a known phylogeny of virus, and then tested THAT known phylogeny using the molecular methods.

The third APPLIED those methods to real data of unknown phylogeny.

Get it now?

There are more - many more, of course, to include the thousands cited on the Tree of Life Web site that you dismissed.

And this list that I also pasted for you and you also ignored:


Actually, it is based, for me, on things like this list I came across elsewhere:

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.
Amino acid sequence data also supported the close affinity of humans-chimps-gorillas in 1985 (and earlier) -

"PHYLOGENY OF PRIMATES AND OTHER EUTHERIAN ORDERS: A CLADISTIC ANALYSIS USING AMINO ACID AND NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE DATA"
Abstract— Genealogical reconstructions carried out by the parsimony method on protein amino acid and DNA nucleotide sequence data are providing fresh evidence on cladistic branching patterns at taxonomic levels from the classes of Vertebrata and orders of Eutheria to the genera of Hominoidea. Minimum length trees constructed from amino acid sequence data group Mammalia with Archosauria (i.e., Aves plus Crocodilia), Amniota with Amphibia, and Tetrapoda with Teleostei. Within Mammalia, Edentata and Paenungulata (e.g., Proboscidea) appear as the most anciently separated from other eutherians. Another superordinal eutherian clade consists of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Perissodactyla. A third consistently contains Primates, Lagomorpha, and Tupaia. The cladistic positions of such orders as Carnivora, Chiroptera, Insectivora, and Rodentia are not well resolved by the currently still sparse body of sequence data. However, recent dramatic progress in the technology of gene cloning and nucleotide sequencing has opened the way for so enlarging the body of sequence data that it should become possible to solve almost any problem concerning the phylogenetic systematice of extant mammals. An example is provided by hominoid genera. Minimum length trees constructed from mitochondrial DNA nucleotide sequence data very strongly group Pan, Homo, and Gorilla into Homininae and then join Homininae and Ponginae (pongo) into Hominidae as the sister family of Hylobatidae (Hylobates). Resolution of the hominine trichotomy into two dichotomous branchings should be forthcoming as kilobase sequencing of nuclear genes progresses.
And of course DNA sequence data has been the icing on the cake - starting with analyses of the entire single-copy genome -

J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data.
Sibley CG1, Comstock JA, Ahlquist JE.

Abstract
Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) presented the results of a study of 514 DNA-DNA hybrids among the hominoids and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae). They concluded that the branching order of the living hominoid lineages, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. Thus, a chimpanzee-human clade was indicated, rather than the chimpanzee-gorilla clade usually suggested from morphological evidence. The positions of the gibbon and orangutan branches in the phylogeny are supported by substantial evidence, but whether the chimpanzee lineage branched most recently from the human lineage or from the gorilla lineage remains controversial. The conclusions of Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) have been supported by several independent studies cited by Sibley and Ahlquist (1987), plus the DNA sequence data of Hayasaka et al. (1988), Miyamoto et al. (1988), Goodman et al. (1989, 1990), and the DNA-DNA hybridization data of Caccone and Powell (1989). The laboratory and data analysis methods have been criticized by Marks et al. (1988) and Sarich et al. (1989). In response to these critics, and for our own interests, we present a reanalysis of the Sibley and Ahlquist data, including a description of the corrections applied to the "raw counts." The validity of the laboratory methods is supported by the congruence of tree topology and delta values with those of Caccone and Powell (1989), although their tetraethylammonium chloride technique differs from the hydroxyapatite method in several respects. The utility of the T50H distance measure is indicated by its congruence with percent sequence divergence at least to delta T50H 30, as noted by Goodman et al. (1990). The Sibley and Ahlquist uncorrected data indicate that Pan is genetically closer to Homo than to Gorilla, but that Gorilla may be genetically closer to Pan than to Homo. Melting curves are presented for the pertinent experiments, plus one that includes representatives of most of the groups of living primates.
Chimpanzee genome paper:


Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005) |
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
Nucleotide divergence

Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.
Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information ‘Genome evolution’), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is ~1.06% or less.
And sundry other papers/sources using DNA sequence data:


10kTrees Website: Dataset

The 10k trees project (link above) used highly conserved sequences (e.g., ribosomal subunit genes, cytochrome b, etc.) from hundreds of primate species and constructed a massive phylogeny, showing human-chimp kinship to the exclusion of gorilla.



"A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates"
Hominoidea

Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of the Pan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7 [50].



Feel free to pick one of those and I will debate its merits with you.




So where is that finch data you were referring to?

Surely you do not think your silly 'Asians are Asians allies' nonsense is data?

Also, do you still think DNA "letters" should spring out of nowhere?
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

LOL.

The observational data that demonstrates the "super genome" which contains all possible varieties for each kind?


What a hypocrite.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,662
52,517
Guam
✟5,130,418.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The point: all you (or anyone) knows of “god,” is what other humans have said, god has said.
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et.al. would all disagree.

So I think I will too.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others

That all life is similar and created from the same dust? Why of course such testing would show a similarity that you might confuse as ancestry.

Darwin finches' messy family tree

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

But lets be honest with each other. They were never reproductively isolated, speciation never occurred. Their was no hybridization because they were never reproductively isolated as Darwin believed they were.

Error after uncorrected error. Incorrect classification after incorrect classification. This is the ToE.

But because they contain the name Darwin, biologists refuse to correct the mistaken classification.

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

Accept the truth and stop following tales told by those that refuse to follow their own definitions.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
LOL.

The observational data that demonstrates the "super genome" which contains all possible varieties for each kind?


What a hypocrite.

Have you seen the genome advance? Or is everything that already existed simply copied into new formats? Be honest with yourself if not with others.

The observational data does indeed confirm that only what already exists is copied and transcribed. A hypocrite is someone that understands the data but refuses to accept it. I'd suggest a mirror for you to look into when using that word.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So where is that finch data you were referring to?

Nooooo, please don't.

He thinks that because some different species galapagos finches are capable of interbreeding all taxonomic classification going back to the dinosaurs is wrong.... ergo...... the theory of evolution is wrong.

He ignores the fact that the definition of species doesn't say that closely related species can't interbreed.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are you claiming to be unaware of the fact that finch DNA was tested and every one was found to have been interbreeding after arriving on the islands?

If they were all interbreeding, doesn't that mean that the changes they exhibited were the result of new alleles?

But your mere say-so is insufficient to be considered data - citation please.

Dont you know what occurrs within the scientific community?
Please stop writing things like this. When one considers that you have claimed such things as DNA 'letters' must spring from nowhere to be considered new, that alleles are 'allies' and are 'genetic strands', etc., and add to that the fact that you are almost certainly just parroting something you've seen on a creationist website, but cannot actually understand much less explain, you just make yourself look foolish.

You have yet to show any examples except incorrect classifications.

You have not demonstrated that anything I or anyone else has presented ARE "incorrect classifications." What - did I claim that birds are bats or something?

All those finches are interbreeding. Tigers mate with Lions, hasnt kept them from keeping them classified incorrectly. Grizzlies produce offspring with polar bears. same incorrect classification.
No idea what you are prattling on about. Do you have a sensible point?

You've killed your own theory by refusing to accept the observational data....

Like what?

You claim that species are immutable.

That means the ark was PACKED with MILLIONS of species. Totally impossible.


Oh, YOU accept that? 'allies' and 'DNA letter' guy? Well, color me (not)convinced!

So these new sub-species.... Arising via mating...

How many allies, I mean ALLELES, are required to get a subspecies, and how do you know?

And after you answer that, tell us all how many ALLELES any single organism can carry for a given gene.

And then tell us how new ALLELES are generated.


It is all well and good to simply accept things you read on creationist websites, but it is quite another to know whether or not the things you read there make any biological sense.

But notice all humans are one species, as are all canines.

Yes. Great. Are you claiming that they are all the same "kind", and they arose solely via mating?

Again -
How many allies, I mean ALLELES, are required to get a subspecies, and how do you know?

And after you answer that, tell us all how many ALLELES any single organism can carry for a given gene.

And then tell us how new ALLELES are generated.

Variation within the species does indeed occur, but Kind will always propagate Kind, regardless of the variation capable within that Kind.

What prevents any change beyond that?

And the Chinook and Afro-Asian did not occur because of any evolution...... That variation within the Kind required not one shred of evolutionary theory to be valid....
How did we get the African and the Asian alleles in the first place, from a single breeding pair?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


Ah - so not actually any data, just 'Asians=Asians' ad infinitum....
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


I am (not) shocked that an expert biologist such as yourself would think that these links support your cause at all.

Interbreeding is great, but that does not address, in the slightest, ANY of the things I asked you about.

This is NOT DNA data about Finches.

But, Jimmy set me straight - don't bother responding.

So weird - you must have mistakenly hit the 'send' button before you got to this stuff:


There are more - many more, of course, to include the thousands cited on the Tree of Life Web site that you dismissed.

And this list that I also pasted for you and you also ignored:


Actually, it is based, for me, on things like this list I came across elsewhere:

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.
Amino acid sequence data also supported the close affinity of humans-chimps-gorillas in 1985 (and earlier) -

"PHYLOGENY OF PRIMATES AND OTHER EUTHERIAN ORDERS: A CLADISTIC ANALYSIS USING AMINO ACID AND NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE DATA"
Abstract— Genealogical reconstructions carried out by the parsimony method on protein amino acid and DNA nucleotide sequence data are providing fresh evidence on cladistic branching patterns at taxonomic levels from the classes of Vertebrata and orders of Eutheria to the genera of Hominoidea. Minimum length trees constructed from amino acid sequence data group Mammalia with Archosauria (i.e., Aves plus Crocodilia), Amniota with Amphibia, and Tetrapoda with Teleostei. Within Mammalia, Edentata and Paenungulata (e.g., Proboscidea) appear as the most anciently separated from other eutherians. Another superordinal eutherian clade consists of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Perissodactyla. A third consistently contains Primates, Lagomorpha, and Tupaia. The cladistic positions of such orders as Carnivora, Chiroptera, Insectivora, and Rodentia are not well resolved by the currently still sparse body of sequence data. However, recent dramatic progress in the technology of gene cloning and nucleotide sequencing has opened the way for so enlarging the body of sequence data that it should become possible to solve almost any problem concerning the phylogenetic systematice of extant mammals. An example is provided by hominoid genera. Minimum length trees constructed from mitochondrial DNA nucleotide sequence data very strongly group Pan, Homo, and Gorilla into Homininae and then join Homininae and Ponginae (pongo) into Hominidae as the sister family of Hylobatidae (Hylobates). Resolution of the hominine trichotomy into two dichotomous branchings should be forthcoming as kilobase sequencing of nuclear genes progresses.
And of course DNA sequence data has been the icing on the cake - starting with analyses of the entire single-copy genome -

J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data.
Sibley CG1, Comstock JA, Ahlquist JE.

Abstract
Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) presented the results of a study of 514 DNA-DNA hybrids among the hominoids and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae). They concluded that the branching order of the living hominoid lineages, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. Thus, a chimpanzee-human clade was indicated, rather than the chimpanzee-gorilla clade usually suggested from morphological evidence. The positions of the gibbon and orangutan branches in the phylogeny are supported by substantial evidence, but whether the chimpanzee lineage branched most recently from the human lineage or from the gorilla lineage remains controversial. The conclusions of Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) have been supported by several independent studies cited by Sibley and Ahlquist (1987), plus the DNA sequence data of Hayasaka et al. (1988), Miyamoto et al. (1988), Goodman et al. (1989, 1990), and the DNA-DNA hybridization data of Caccone and Powell (1989). The laboratory and data analysis methods have been criticized by Marks et al. (1988) and Sarich et al. (1989). In response to these critics, and for our own interests, we present a reanalysis of the Sibley and Ahlquist data, including a description of the corrections applied to the "raw counts." The validity of the laboratory methods is supported by the congruence of tree topology and delta values with those of Caccone and Powell (1989), although their tetraethylammonium chloride technique differs from the hydroxyapatite method in several respects. The utility of the T50H distance measure is indicated by its congruence with percent sequence divergence at least to delta T50H 30, as noted by Goodman et al. (1990). The Sibley and Ahlquist uncorrected data indicate that Pan is genetically closer to Homo than to Gorilla, but that Gorilla may be genetically closer to Pan than to Homo. Melting curves are presented for the pertinent experiments, plus one that includes representatives of most of the groups of living primates.
Chimpanzee genome paper:


Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005) |
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
Nucleotide divergence

Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.
Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information ‘Genome evolution’), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is ~1.06% or less.
And sundry other papers/sources using DNA sequence data:


10kTrees Website: Dataset

The 10k trees project (link above) used highly conserved sequences (e.g., ribosomal subunit genes, cytochrome b, etc.) from hundreds of primate species and constructed a massive phylogeny, showing human-chimp kinship to the exclusion of gorilla.



"A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates"
Hominoidea

Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of the Pan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7 [50].



What was it you wrote to me - 'Read your own post' even as you only read the first abstract.... Funny...
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


Is an Amoeba more advanced than humans?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
There are 187 genera of Bat.


~30,000 genera of beetle.

1258 genera of mammal.

And so on.

Want to re-think your answer?
Mammal is the class, btw.......

Genus - Wikipedia

that evolutionists incorrectly divide the Kind into other species instead of subspecies is the main reason why you are so confused as to what a species is.....
 
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.