proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

Let's try this a different way, since you still don't seem to be understanding...

Do you think all of these shared a common ancestor?

I highly doubt it.

 

[pitabread]

I highly doubt it.

They're all birds though. Why wouldn't they share a common ancestor?

 

[rjs330]

Then what is your point?

Evolution is an applied science in modern biology. You keep saying we don't need to use it... because?

If you're not advocating turning our back on scientific inquiry and knowledge, then what exactly are you advocating?



Not necessarily. Certainly it would raise the question of who or what, but it need not explicitly be addressed.



Evolution is the only answer today because it's the only valid scientific theory that actually explains the biodiversity of life on this planet.



Except that it's clearly not given that its one of the cornerstones of modern biological sciences and an applied science to boot.

You can claim to the contrary all you want, but that's just pure denialism.

We don't need it because it is irrelevant to the things you mentioned. Common design works just as well. I'm advocating we don't need evolution from a common ancestor to further scientific inquiry.

We can say there is a common design in life and it works just as well. Because we can use that common design to make all the discoveries we want. And creation works just as well for the biodeversity because the Bible tells us God created with great biodeversity in the beginning.

 

[USincognito]

if we will take stalactite growth rate for instance, it may point to a young earth. for instance: an average stalactite growth rate is about 1 cm per 100 years. so if the earth is indeed so young we expect to find that most stalactites (dont be confuse with stalagmites) should be no more then 1 meter long. i think its indeed what we find in most stalactites caves:

Fun fact - stalactites and stalagmites would only tell use the age of a particular geological feature, not the age of the earth.

 

[USincognito]

Evolution from a common ancestor cannot be falsified either since we cannot see or know or test or show a common ancestor.

Wrong. There are literally millions of potential observations we could make that would falsify evolution.
- A bird with wings and arms
- Lizards with mammary glands
- Lobsters with vertebrae
- Roses with melanocites
- Humans and armadillos sharing more DNA than humans and chimpanzees
- Fish with fur
etc. etc.

 

[USincognito]

Humans from humans.

Species.

> Birds from birds.
Order.

> Monkeys from monkeys,
Not a monophyletic classification.

> beetles from beetles are the only way things change.
An order with 400,000 species.

I guess "kind" means anything you want it to.

Birds were never anything else but birds.

Birds were, and are theropod dinosaurs.

Spiders were never anything else from spiders.

Ooops.
https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0399-x

Analysis of synteny conservation across the P. tepidariorum genome suggests that there has been an ancient WGD in spiders. Comparison with the genomes of other chelicerates, including that of the newly sequenced bark scorpion Centruroides sculpturatus, suggests that this event occurred in the common ancestor of spiders and scorpions,​

Birds and spiders never evolved from the same ancestor. You have no evidence of that.

The Last Common Ancestor of Most Bilaterian Animals Possessed at Least Nine Opsins
Colonial origin for Emetazoa: major morphological transitions and the origin of bilaterian complexity. - PubMed - NCBI
[Origin of bilateral-symmetrical animals (Bilateria)]. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Ophiolite]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, - Romans 1:18-22 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 1:18-22 - King James Version

This sub-forum relates to science. I have no objections to you basing your beliefs upon scripture and personal revelation. I have no objection to you ignoring, or rejecting science in your personal life. These are very much rights you should enjoy and which I would defend. You are fully entitled to express your beliefs and the basis for your beliefs in this sub-forum.

However, I have serious objections to you misinterpreting, misunderstanding, misapplying, distorting, selectively ignoring, manipulating and misrepresenting the findings of science and the scientific method in a calculating, self righteous, ignorant, aggressive, snide manner within these pages. To declare, as you have done, that there is no evidence of common ancestry of birds and spiders is untrue. And it is an untruth that is known to you.

Quote scripture all you will, it shall not wash the stench of hypocrisy from your words.

[The report button is, I think, below and to the left. Feel satisfied that your goading has worked!]

 

[kwame1]

Show that all life didn't come from a common design.

who is the designer

 

[kwame1]

Evolution from a common ancestor cannot be falsified either since we cannot see or know or test or show a common ancestor.

since evolution comes from a common ancestor as you claim..and the ancestor is a dying star which gave rise to all of us then there was intelligence embedded in the dying star...which means the dying star is A GOD.. and thts the GOD we are talking of....the creator.

 

[kwame1]

They're all birds though. Why wouldn't they share a common ancestor?

the Common ancestor is the creator....He used the same module to create them all...
he used the same formula and apparatus...you claim the earth is billion years old but you don't known where the materials came from..and you don't take into consideration how old the materials were before it was used

 

[xianghua]

So then by those calculations this George Rogers Clark Memorial in Vincennes, IN must be around 22,860 years old instead of only about a half century.

This is because in the structures built beneath it we find this 228.6 cm structure.

I wanted to provide many more examples like this but unfortunately I don't have the time right now.

no. since i talked about the average. the quickest stalactites growth is about 30 cm per 100 years. so there are also stalactites that can reach up to 15 meter.

 

[xianghua]

No matter what science discovers, all we have to do is say "God designed it that way."

exactly like evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Then what is your point?

Evolution is an applied science in modern biology.

no its not.

 

[xianghua]

Fun fact - stalactites and stalagmites would only tell use the age of a particular geological feature, not the age of the earth.

so you agree that those stalactites are young according to those calculations?

 

[BradB]

no. since i talked about the average. the quickest stalactites growth is about 30 cm per 100 years. so there are also stalactites that can reach up to 15 meter.

And the point being there are many different factors and conditions which determine their growth rates thus rendering them a terrible means of judging the age of anything.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, if "science only" means that scripture is considered unreliable then I'm in the wrong forum.

Again, it is simply supporting one's claims, with something other than preaching. If this is bothersome, maybe a different forum is better suited.

 

[bhsmte]

Support yours. Prove common ancestry.

And there are nonChristian forums, so?

Do you have a problem with the science forum allowing others to ask questions about claims and for those making claims to provide support for the same?

And, what claim exactly, have I made?

 

[pitabread]

I'm advocating we don't need evolution from a common ancestor to further scientific inquiry.

Even a cursory examination of the current scientific literature suggests otherwise. You're just in denial.

We can say there is a common design in life and it works just as well. Because we can use that common design to make all the discoveries we want.

Let's put this to the test, shall we?

Have you heard of phylogenetic footprinting? It's an algorithmic technique utilized in genomic comparisons for identifying regulatory regions of genomes for a given species. In a nutshell, it works by identifying conserved regions of genomes of respective organisms with the underlying assumption that regions that are more conserved due to selective pressures are more likely to be important to the organism's function than non-conserved regions. Of course, the actual comparison is far more involved than that, not the least of which owes to relative overall levels of genetic divergence between species.

Now I happen to have a paper handy on an algorithmic approach for this which incorporates phylogenetic trees: Discovery of Regulatory Elements by a Computational Method for Phylogenetic Footprinting

In this paper, we describe an algorithmic method designed specifically for phylogenetic footprinting in multiple species. Because it is tailored to this purpose, it avoids the drawbacks described above of both multiple alignment and general motif discovery algorithms. Given a set of unaligned orthologous sequences, our approach identifies all DNA motifs that appear to have evolved unusually slowly compared with the surrounding sequence. More precisely, given n orthologous input sequences and the phylogenetic tree T relating them, our algorithm is guaranteed to produce every set of k-mers, one from each input sequence, that have parsimony score at most d with respect to T, where k and d are parameters that can be specified by the user.

And just to rehash, a phylogenetic tree is a data set describing the evolutionary relationships of species or higher taxa: Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

For example:

Phylogenetic trees are more than just pretty pictures. They describe a specific data set of relationships between respective species describing both which species/taxa share common ancestry, as well as the relative levels of divergence between each (given via the branch length).

The algorithm in paper linked above incorporates this phylogenetic tree data thusly:

The inputs to the algorithm are n homologous sequences S1, S2, …, Sn; the phylogenetic tree T relating them; the length k of the motifs sought; and the maximum parsimony score d allowed. The algorithm proceeds from the leaves of T to its root. At each node u of T, it computes a table Wu containing 4k entries, one for each possible k-mer. For each such k-mer s, let Wu[s] be the best parsimony score that can be achieved for the subtree of T rooted at u, if the ancestral sequence at u was forced to be s.

... etc, etc. You can read the paper for all the pertinent details.

My challenge for you is simple: You keep claiming that "common design" can do the same thing evolutionary approaches can accomplish, yes?

Given the above example, please describe how a "common design" approach would be used in an algorithmic approach to perform genomic comparisons and in particular in the context of the above paper and in lieu of using phylogenetic trees.

If you can provide the details of such an approach--keeping in mind this will involve first describing your common design framework, inherent assumptions, and applicability to underlying genomes--then I will be happy to cede the argument that common design can be a viable approach.

On the other hand, if you can't do this, then I think re-reading Romans 1:22 seems appropriate.

 

[xianghua]

And the point being there are many different factors and conditions which determine their growth rates thus rendering them a terrible means of judging the age of anything.

no, since we know what is the average rate we can check the average stalactite and get a good estimation.

 

[xianghua]

And just to rehash, a phylogenetic tree is a data set describing the evolutionary relationships of species or higher taxa: Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

a phylogenetic tree is just a tree of difference\similarity among creatures. we can do the same with vehicles , but it doesnt prove any common descent:
Modeling with Nonliving Objects to Enhance Understanding of Phylogenetic Tree Construction

 

[Skreeper]

a phylogenetic tree is just a tree of difference\similarity among creatures. we can do the same with vehicles , but it doesnt prove any common descent:
Modeling with Nonliving Objects to Enhance Understanding of Phylogenetic Tree Construction

Are you some kind of russian troll bot whose sole purpose is to annoy people with stupid arguments?
Because if that's the case then it's definitely working!