proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

if i will show you that a phylogenetic tree can be explain by design too, you will admit that evolution is false, or you will still believe it anyway?

Depends on exactly how you propose to show that a phylogenetic tree can be explained by design. Last time I asked you to explain something under your alleged design paradigm, you went in circles for several weeks without explaining anything.

So you'll forgive me if I'm more than a little skeptical of you coming up with something this time.

 

[tas8831]

But I have.

No, not really.

You just refuse to accept dogs for what they are. The largest, most comprehensive and longest lasting experiment performed. The results of which falsify evolution to its very core.

Like I said, I have not commented on dogs, you were having that debate with someone else.

Why would you, it disproves your theory.

Right.

And what do you do for a living again?

Sure, there was a great flood (funny that ALL civilizations that arise next to water have flood myths...) - but no mention of God... Or any of the other bible people or stories - and no mention of China in the bible.
And you want to accuse others of inventing stories?

Again - hilarious.

And so cool that you googled this and found a creationist tall tale to support you.

No different than your tale of them migrating from the Middle East to China. You only got the starting point off by a few thousand miles, but they were close.

VERY different.You link to an article that does not mention God, Noah, the middle east, any of that stuff, but present it as evidence for the flood myth in the bible.

Very different.

Even more hilarious - 100% speculation presented as an alternative "explanation" to another hilarious bit of nonsense.

About as hilarious as one race becoming another through mutation, when you have only observed a new race come about from mating.... but empericial evidence of real life is not evolutions strong point.

Then how do you propose 'new races' came to be?

You refuse to say or provide any evidence.


You say an Asian and an African mating becomes an Afro-Asian - great!

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN ALL HUMANS, ACCORDING TO YOUR MYTHS, AROSE FROM A CLONED INBREEDING PAIR WITH 'PERFECT' GENOMES??????

"Descendants of Ham included the Egyptians and Sumerians, who founded the first two great empires of antiquity, as well as other great nations such as the Phoenicians, Hittites, and Canaanites. The modern African tribes and the Mongol tribes (including today the Chinese and Japanese), as well as the American Indians and the South Sea Islanders, are probably dominantly Hamitic in origin."

Pure, unadulterated, 100% unsupported assertion - no evidence at all!

More evidence than you got that mutations did it, since Africans remain Africans despite mutations.

And where did Africans come from i your bible-based beliefs?

EXPLAIN how we got the "allies" associated with being African from a cloned inbreeding pair (Adam and Eve) without mutation.

Again, you accuse US of making things up?

You have, that new races come about by mutation, when the observational data contradicts you.

Right - the whole Asian+African=Afro-Asian.

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?????

What else did Henry Morris, PhD, Christian minister and creationist, say about the 'Hamites'?

Oh yes -


"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites..."

Henry Morris, "The beginning of the World", 1991.

Looks like ol' Henry was a bit of a white supremacist...


Your beliefs, as seen in what you provide as evidence, have no support.

YOU claim a concrete, discreet group of real individual ancestors for all humanity - Adam and eve, then a major population bottleneck of 4 inbreeding pairs (the flood), followed by a re-population and re-diversification of all of humanity in ~4500 years, and the best you can muster is some laughable assertions and wild extrapolations.

We don't NEED a specific common ancestor to draw rigorous genetic, biogeographic, and fossil-based conclusions.

We don't need to google every time we come across a word or concept that we should know having 'debated' these issues for years.

We don't need to put 100% unquestioning, unyielding faith in the claims that we do not understand put out by a collection of websites and gurus in order to 'argue' for our cause.

So please do not project your own shortcomings onto others. it is unbecoming.

And by the way - you did not even try to address my questions -

So which of Noah's sons or daughters-in-law was Asian?

How did this Asian meet up with a middle eastern man/woman in these ancient times?

How did the Asian "allies" get repressed, then somehow later down the line, post-flood, when Asia was finally habitable again, did people from Ararat migrate there, mate, and have just their 'Asia' "allies" recombine to produce Asians from a middle eastern/Asian amalgam, since after all you claim with such confidence that 'And will never change an Asian into any other race..'


Evidence for this magical genetic assertion.

And yet how does a random genetic mutation fix itself in the population if not from descent? So the population must even in your fantasy be descended from two.

So now you are arguing FOR mutations?

Oh that’s right, a random genetic mutation in me will randomly cause the same mutation in the rest of the population. Riiiiiight.

Whats this? Misrepresentation? Strawman nonsense? Shocking!


It is hilarious that you expend so much energy arguing AGAINST mutation-based change, and then argue FOR mutation when you are stuck.


You people are something else.

 

[pitabread]

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN ALL HUMANS, ACCORDING TO YOUR MYTHS, AROSE FROM A CLONED INBREEDING PAIR WITH 'PERFECT' GENOMES??????

Magic genomes, duh.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Falsifiable tests only limit your mind

Falsifiable tests are necessary. They are an attempt to prove your hypothesis wrong. Evolution has passed every single falsifiable test it has faced with flying colors. If a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, you really have no way of demonstrating a claim to be true.

If science is the only thing in the universe then your universe is terribly limited

Science is an exercise in finding out how the world works and then applying your findings to the real world. Science is the reason that I can type this message to you.

Science has said many many things and have come up with many theories that have been proven wrong

This is a strength of science not a weakness. It's an intellectual exercise in an effort to expand our understanding of the world. Using science, one could prove that a treatment is ineffective compared to a newly discovered treatment. Would you applaud the advancement of medicine or would you do what you're doing and shout "SCIENCE PROVED WRONG!"

Yet evolutionists will buy it lock stock and barrel even to the point of saying "see these things are similar therefore it is evolution. And these things are not similar therefore it is evolution."

Evolution is an applied science. Our understanding of it is applied to the real world. You can thank modern medicine and advancements in genetics to our understanding of evolution.

Remember evolution, the changing of a creature to adapt to survive, is not the same as evolution from a common ancestor

Biologists everywhere are face palming at your claim.....some even post on this very forum.
Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals.

99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same base pair as the chimpanzee genome. You can even build a nested hierarchy with the knowledge of ERVs. That is irrefutable evidence of common ancestry. We have the evidence. You lose.

One is observable, even testable. The other is not. But once you utterly dismiss a designer you are left only with evolution. Very narrow thinking.

I can dismiss a designer because you have failed to offer a testable hypothesis for that claim. Why do you think intelligent design loses in court repeatedly, even with conservative Christian judges? Because intelligent design is utter, unscientific garbage.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Falsifiable tests only limit your mind.

Falsifiable hypotheses do the exact opposite; it shows that a person is open to the possibility that their hypothesis is incorrect. There is no such thing as a "falsifiable test", tests exist to determine if a hypothesis leads to reliable conclusions that fit with reality. By definition, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, because one that is not is no different than an empty assertion.

If science is the only thing in the universe then your universe is terribly limited.

It's a method of learning about the things too uncertain for math to cover... which is most things. If you have a better method of learning about the world than the scientific method, I am all ears (so help me, do not say "read the bible". The bible does not answer all the questions we have about the world around us, such as how electricity works, etc).

Science has said many many things and have come up with many theories that have been proven wrong.

Sure, and I bet I can name more disproven theories than you can. However, even theories that were disproven weren't useless. Consider the miasma theory of disease; basically, the idea that bad smells and night air could give people diseases. Obviously, not as useful at preventing and treating diseases as the modern germ theory of disease, but it did help more than simply having nothing. A lot of the things that smell bad, such as corpses, are disease ridden and can make people sick, so the derived advice of avoiding these things was good. It was wrong in that it also asserted that good smells could help prevent disease, but nevertheless, was a step forward.

Yet evolutionists will buy it lock stock and barrel even to the point of saying "see these things are similar therefore it is evolution. And these things are not similar therefore it is evolution.".

-_- it's the most well supported theory in biology. Note that the germ theory of disease is also a theory in biology. There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the idea that viruses and bacteria cause disease, and we can literally watch them destroy cells under a microscope.

Remember evolution, the changing of a creature to adapt to survive, is not the same as evolution from a common ancestor.

I'm not a supporter of UCA, so no comment, aside from the fact that adaptation is a consequence of evolution, not a separate process from it, when it is on a population scale.

One is observable, even testable. The other is not. But once you utterly dismiss a designer you are left only with evolution. Very narrow thinking.

-_- the idea of a designer and the theory of evolution aren't mutually exclusive ideas. They could both be true, it's just that the theory doesn't include a designer due to the lack of evidence for one. No scientific theory outright claims that deities, etc., do not exist.

 

[Speedwell]

-_- the idea of a designer and the theory of evolution aren't mutually exclusive ideas. They could both be true, it's just that the theory doesn't include a designer due to the lack of evidence for one. No scientific theory outright claims that deities, etc., do not exist.

They are mutually exclusive for creationists, who have a designer in mind "who told us how He did it."

 

[xianghua]

If a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, you really have no way of demonstrating a claim to be true..

correct. evolution isnt falsifiable. therefore its not a scientific theory.

You can even build a nested hierarchy with the knowledge of ERVs.

incorrect, at least according to this paper:

"We performed two analyses to determine whether these 12 shared map intervals might indeed be orthologous. First, we examined the distribution of shared sites between species (Table S3). We found that the distribution is inconsistent with the generally accepted phylogeny of catarrhine primates [5]. This is particularly relevant for the human/great ape lineage"

Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans

 

[Aman777]

Smaller jaw muscles allowed modern humans to have bigger brains. Mystery solved.
Amen?!

False, since Human jaws were included as part of Adam, who was made with an intelligence like God's. It's the difference between animal and Human intelligence:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) said, Behold, the man (Heb-Adam) is become as one of Us, (The Trinity) to know good and evil:

Only God and Humans can Judge between good and evil and that is WHY Humankind will have dominion or rule over "every living thing" when Jesus returns at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen 1:28 Amen?

 

[xianghua]

-_- why would all the genes pertaining to feathers need to be near each other? Generally speaking, it is exceedingly uncommon for all the genes relating to a specific function or structure to be physically close together in the genome. Not uncommon for a few to be by each other, mind you, but very uncommon for them all to be close together.

i actually refer to the sequence space. what is the chance that all functional genes are near each other in such a huge space? what make you think that myoglobin for instance is near histone h4 in that sequence space?

 

[HitchSlap]

False, since Human jaws were included as part of Adam, who was made with an intelligence like God's. It's the difference between animal and Human intelligence:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) said, Behold, the man (Heb-Adam) is become as one of Us, (The Trinity) to know good and evil:

Only God and Humans can Judge between good and evil and that is WHY Humankind will have dominion or rule over "every living thing" when Jesus returns at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen 1:28 Amen?

Your interpretation of the bible stinks.

Amen?!

 

[PsychoSarah]

i actually refer to the sequence space. what is the chance that all functional genes are near each other in such a huge space? what make you think that myoglobin for instance is near histone h4 in that sequence space?

I think you are trying to refer to the frequency of genes being used, but the cell itself regulates that, so physical location on the DNA isn't usually relevant to gene function. I don't think we should waste our time discussing the probability of gene position when it's irrelevant to function. The only thing it is relevant to, in terms of evolution, is mutation frequency.

 

[xianghua]

Maybe you should leave it to the experts and not pretend to know better as a layman.

so you cant disprove my example. fine.

 

[xianghua]

I think you are trying to refer to the frequency of genes being used, but the cell itself regulates that, so physical location on the DNA isn't usually relevant to gene function. I don't think we should waste our time discussing the probability of gene position when it's irrelevant to function. The only thing it is relevant to, in terms of evolution, is mutation frequency.

im talking about the chance to evolve a new kind of protein. but lets leave it for now...

 

[Aman777]

Your interpretation of the book bible stinks.

Amen?!

Only to those who perish. Adam was made with an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 on the 3rd Day according to Gen 2:7. Prehistoric man was made the 5th Day from WATER. Gen 1:21 Eve was built from Adam's rib on the 6th Day. Gen 2:22 Humans and prehistoric people (sons of God) produced children together. Gen 6:4

Apes also came from water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Your assignment is to tell us HOW Humans, made on the 3rd Day, could have possibly evolved from Apes, who were NOT made until the 5th Day. You cannot and that means that your view does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History. IOW, it's as false as the ToE. Amen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

im talking about the chance to evolve a new kind of protein. but lets leave it for now...

Knowing the redundant codons and the fact that all the redundancies in codons (aside from one of the stop codons) have the first and second base pair be the same, assuming that this gene has 1 reading frame, all the codons would have at least a 1/3 chance of changing what they signal for if one of their base pairs was changed due to mutation. If a mutation occurs that shifts the reading frame, the entire protein product would change drastically.

 

[USincognito]

What great evidence against evolution and for common design! We all have the gulo Gene. Evidence of common design. Apes and gunea pigs have broken ones. No one knows why. But they are broken differerently. Know one knows why or how. If we all came from a common ancestor the gene would have been broken the same. But the fact it was broken differerently shows a lack of common ancestry. But it does show common design. You assume it means common ancestry but it doesn't. It means common design with an unknown reason why the gene was broken.

 

[USincognito]

How does your experiment show evolution from common ancestry? Will they eventually turn into something besides crustaceans?

If they did, then evolution would be falisified.

 

[USincognito]

Science has said many many things and have come up with many theories that have been proven wrong.

It's been 150 years. You guys better get on the ball and find that falsification.

Yet evolutionists will buy it lock stock and barrel even to the point of saying "see these things are similar therefore it is evolution. And these things are not similar therefore it is evolution.".

Example/s?

Remember evolution, the changing of a creature to adapt to survive, is not the same as evolution from a common ancestor.

No, they're the exact same thing.

One is observable, even testable. The other is not.

You have been repeatedly corrected on this.
1. Unearthing a transitional fossil is an observation. Sequencing a genome is an observation.
2. Analyzing the fossil or genome is testing.
3. When others analyze the fossil or genome and get the same results, that repeatability.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is a hereditary tree? How is a tree a mechanism? A phylogenetic tree is just a graphic representation of deduced or inferred relationships between taxa. it is not a "mechanism" any more than a movie is a "mechanism".

Can you produce one for us?

Sure I can, just look at any family tree.

But notice in your tree every branch starts at this missing common ancestor. Not just in a few, but on every single tree. Granted, the lack of a few dozen or so could be overlooked, but you are missing every single one!

We believe the things we do because we understand population genetics. You believe the things you do because you don't.

Sorry.

I no, you got it backwards. I believe Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. That African mates with African and produces only African. That when African and Asian mate, a new race is born. Just as I understand fossil A mated with Fossil B and produced fossil C. You on the other hand want the Asian or African to evolve into the Afro-Asian or in other words fossil A or B to evolve into fossil C. Sorry, but that’s not how population genetics works, as the empericial data has made clear.

Nor do mutations become fixed in any population, unless that entire population is descended from the one receiving the mutation. But if you actually understood how genes were passed down you would understand this too, and see the futility of your claims.

You keep making your arguments backwards, and thus they fail.

You want to believe - solely because the bible says so - that ALL extant human diversity arose from 4 inbreeding pairs of middle eastern people starting some 4500 years ago.

From this middle eastern mating-fest, you want to claim we get Asians and Africans and the Nordic groups and the Inuit and the Aborigine and the Bantu and so on, and to "support" this you want to fall back on 'when an Asian and an African mate you get an Afro-asian'.


That is the OPPOSITE of the problem your biblical "genetics" faces!

And you don't even get THAT????

Oh you simply fail to understand. Asian and African are the same Kind. Just as Husky and Mastiff are the same Kind. We are quite aware of variation in the Kind. But the simple fact is that the Afro-Asian does not evolve from the African or the Asian. Nor does the Chinook evolve from the Husky or Mastiff.

Yes, I know in the world of fantasy animal A becomes animal B, the problem is that how new forms in the species arise directly falsifies your claim. And such is why every fossil found remains the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. That new forms arise suddenly, fully formed. Your intermediaries aren’t missing, they never existed. You can’t find them because Husky mates with Mastiff and the new form of the Chinook appears suddenly, fully formed. But since you ignore how it really happens for fantasy, I understand your confusion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If it's not that difficult, then why are you having so much trouble explaining it? You keep asserting that common traits are evidence of common design, but you haven't once explained why that should be the case.

Perhaps it's not that simple or obvious after all.

So even though we build all buildings in earthquake zones to look different, they still all share the same common engineering designs internally, correct?

You instead ask I believe those internal designs are random, based upon your view of the outside. But common design fits better, each is based on the same principle (to survive on earth) with slight modifications as per the buildings depending on their height and width, as life for their role in life.