proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

The Cambrian explosion led to a lot of different life forms, but was not unusually fast.

The Pikaia shown below is about the closest thing to human found in the Cambrian.

dont be so sure:

Pikaia - Wikipedia

"Molecular studies have refuted earlier hypotheses that lancelets might be the closest living relative to the vertebrates, instead favoring tunicates in this position"

pikaia also had about up to 9 gill slits were a modern fish has in general only one. so in some terms this fish is even more complex then a modern one.

 

[tas8831]

remember that we talking about ic systems. so its irrelevant if those objects have a self replicating system or not. even you as intelligent designer cant change a compass stepwise into a watch. so evolution is impossible as far as we know.

LOL!

Dopey analogies are all creationists can muster.

No evidence.

 

[tas8831]

a transitional fossil? like this one?:

as you can see: transitional objects dont prove evolution rather then design.

(image from Ferrari Evolution)

Which 2 vehicles mated, having had their CAD design files merge, and gave birth to a go-kart which then grew to an adult?

Do you really not see how utterly ridiculous your line of argumentation is?

Or do you not care?

 

[tas8831]

you probably missed this image :

as you can see- the cytochrome b phylogeny doesnt fit well with evolution.

Explain.

Especially in light of this:

Reconstructing Mammalian Phylogenies: A Detailed Comparison of the Cytochrome b and Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I Mitochondrial Genes

"Comparison of the DNA sequences of 217 mammalian species reveals that cyt b more accurately reconstructs their phylogeny and known relationships between species based on other molecular and morphological analyses at Super Order, Order, Family and generic levels. "

 

[xianghua]

Which 2 vehicles mated, having had their CAD design files merge, and gave birth to a go-kart which then grew to an adult?

Do you really not see how utterly ridiculous your line of argumentation is?

Or do you not care?

so if those cars were able to reproduce you will argue that they evolved from each other?

 

[TLK Valentine]

so if those cars were able to reproduce you will argue that they evolved from each other?

Absolutely. Now run along and find us a reproducing car.

 

[pitabread]

so if those cars were able to reproduce

Show us an example of two cars mating. Seriously, demonstrate where this is even remotely in the realm of reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Show us an example of two cars mating. Seriously, demonstrate where this is even remotely in the realm of reality.

Asking for reality, is out of the question.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so a cat will stay as a cat even after billion years? ok.

And a chordate has remained a chordate for hundreds of millions of years.

That does not mean you and I, as chordates, look anything like this 1.5" long chordate ancestor.

 

[xianghua]

Explain.

Especially in light of this:

Reconstructing Mammalian Phylogenies: A Detailed Comparison of the Cytochrome b and Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I Mitochondrial Genes

"Comparison of the DNA sequences of 217 mammalian species reveals that cyt b more accurately reconstructs their phylogeny and known relationships between species based on other molecular and morphological analyses at Super Order, Order, Family and generic levels. "

see here:

Do Different Genes Mean Different Phylogenetic Trees?

"The phylogenetic inconsistency here is the misplacement of a single branch, that of tarsiers (a primitive group of primates), as if they had separated from other primates before cats and fin-back whales"

"In other words, cytochrome b is simply not a good protein to choose for constructing the evolutionary tree of these species."

so when it doesnt fit well with evolutionery tree they call it "accelerated evolution". you see now why evolution isnt science?

 

[xianghua]

And a chordate has remained a chordate for hundreds of millions of years.

That does not mean you and I, as chordates, look anything like this 1.5" long chordate ancestor.

but you talked about a cat that stay as a cat and not about a whole phylum (chordates).

 

[tas8831]

see here:

Do Different Genes Mean Different Phylogenetic Trees?

"The phylogenetic inconsistency here is the misplacement of a single branch, that of tarsiers (a primitive group of primates), as if they had separated from other primates before cats and fin-back whales"

"In other words, cytochrome b is simply not a good protein to choose for constructing the evolutionary tree of these species."

so when it doesnt fit well with evolutionery tree they call it "accelerated evolution". you see now why evolution isnt science?

No, I do not see that.

I see the guy that claims penguins are robots and that cars reproduce is upset that actual science people understand things more so that he does.

A single alternately placed branch in a cladogram and you are ready to dismiss all of evolution, even as you continue to insist that inapt analogies are somehow evidence for creation.

Do you understand that cytochrome b is but a single, relatively small, mitochondrial gene? And that due to sampling error issues (you probably do not know what that means, but whatever), homoplasy, etc., it is not all that surprising that we see discrepencies when using such small pieces of data?

if single discrepancies like this are sufficient for you to want to dismiss evolution, then surely you abandoned Christianity when you learned that despite using the same source material, there are some Christians that believe the earth to be but 6-10,000 years old, but others that say it is billions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

dont be so sure:

Pikaia - Wikipedia

"Molecular studies have refuted earlier hypotheses that lancelets might be the closest living relative to the vertebrates, instead favoring tunicates in this position"

pikaia also had about up to 9 gill slits were a modern fish has in general only one. so in some terms this fish is even more complex then a modern one.

A Pikaia is no Lancelet.

And I was not attempting to find our closest ancestor.

I use the Pikaea as an illustration of what advanced chordates looked like in the Cambrian. We know we came from the Chrodates, but we don't know which one. As of now, there are very few Chordates found in the Cambrian, so the best we can do is find the ones that are close.

If somebody wants to claim the Cambrian explosion produced animals close to apes, then please show me a picture of a Cambrian animal that is much closer to an ape than this cute little guy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but you talked about cat that stay as a cat and not about a whole phylum (chordates).

After a billion years, the cat family could be as big and diverse as a phylum is today. We do not know what life will be like then (or if it will even still exist).

In the Cambrian the phyla weren't much different from each other. Our ancestors, the Cambrian Chordates, for instance, were much like everything else except they had this unusual habit to flip upside down, so that the ventral (lower) nerve structure was up away from the ground. As the legs grew downward, the chordates ended up with a nerve superhighway on their upper side, far away from the legs. This struture, the notocord, later led to the backbone and spinal chord. Today the members of the chordate phylum with the backbone--the vertebrates-- is much different from other phyla and from most other creatures, but back in the Cambrian, we were just a bunch of goofy sea worms like everybody else but we swam upside down.

 

[xianghua]

No, I do not see that.

I see the guy that claims penguins are robots and that cars reproduce is upset that actual science people understand things more so that he does.

A single alternately placed branch in a cladogram and you are ready to dismiss all of evolution, even as you continue to insist that inapt analogies are somehow evidence for creation.

Do you understand that cytochrome b is but a single, relatively small, mitochondrial gene? And that due to sampling error issues (you probably do not know what that means, but whatever), homoplasy, etc., it is not all that surprising that we see discrepencies when using such small pieces of data?

if single discrepancies like this are sufficient for you to want to dismiss evolution, then surely you abandoned Christianity when you learned that despite using the same source material, there are some Christians that believe the earth to be but 6-10,000 years old, but others that say it is billions?

several things:

1) i never said that this case falsify evolution.
2) i gave this case as a counter argument to the "doubtingmerle" cytochrome c example.
3) we see why evolution isnt scientific in this case since any contradiction can be explain by "accelerated evolution". and i can give you many other examples of such contradictions.

Do you understand that cytochrome b is but a single, relatively small, mitochondrial gene?

so how many genes we need to test to get the correct phylogeny?

 

[Kylie]

No you don't. You have accepted by faith alone the usual talking points of the fundamentalist evolutionists. You cant show one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species. Mutations only affect characteristics not species.



Science is not based on logic, it is based on evidence, Things are true when they can b e repeated and seen.



What is laughable is that you have no evidence for what you accept by faith alone, not science. You can't show where mutations result in a change of species and you can't prove natural selection results in a change of species.

You don' t even understand that the laws of genetics say both are not possible.

So is your entire argument to based on, "Fraid not!" or have you actually got some evidence to support your position?

 

[Kylie]

I ask you show your evidence for natural selection . you go first or forget this discussion with me.

It's a bit useless to have a discussion about natural selection until we both know exactly what natural selection is. I doubt you know what it is, so I'm asking you to show me you have the knowledge required to have the discussion.

Of course, if you don't have the knowledge, your attempt to avoid the issue of actually proving you know what you're talking about is exactly what I'd expect.

Now, natural selection is not that hard to explain. You'll be able to do it in a single paragraph if you want, and not a very long paragraph at that. So come on...

 

[Kylie]

One thing about the truth is that it does not change with time. Altering a characteristic will never result in a change of species, no matter how many occur.

Really you evolutionist must stop trying to support evolution when you don't even understand the first thing about science.

Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What is painfully clear is you beating around the bush and not producing the evidence for what you say.

You would if you could but you can't.

I accept your concession that you were wrong when you stated we had to understand HOW it can happen in order for it to be Science. Otherwise, feel free to explain how radioactive decay happens, or how electrons can quantum tunnel through material that they shouldn't be able to, etc. You're using the very proof of this every time you pickup anything electronic (i.e. the practical application of the quantum tunnelling phenomenon despite not understanding the HOW of it), so I'd love to see you refute that... Smoke Alarms (those small ones stuck to your ceiling) use the applied observations of radioactive decay but don't understand the HOW of - Nuclear power stations and Nuclear Weapons are applied sciences of what we know about radioactive decay but don't understand the HOW of too, no doubt you'll refute this in short order, right?

You're digging a rather large and embarrassing hole for yourself.

 

[doubtingmerle]

even you as intelligent designer cant change a compass stepwise into a watch. so evolution is impossible as far as we know.

I explained to you how animals are different from watches. But you just ignore everything I said and go back to your claim that everything that is true about watches must be true about animals.

Once again, animals are different from watches.