The Coccyx

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah! Apparently one of your guys re-opened it (that trickster)!

You say "It doesn't bode well for your thread when you even managed to get that simple thing wrong." thream

Apparently you are not able to understand what is plainly stated. I never said they DID have tails which became vestigial. In fact, I used the evidentially provable fact that they did not as part of my defense.

"even in the earliest humans, the coccyx is short"

Which is something one would say if one doesn't realise that the tail was already gone for millions of years at that point.

When one holds the "belief" that the coccyx is vestigial,

Not a belief. Instead, a factual conclusion based on comparative anatomy, embryonic development and DNA.

because of this evidence (going back many millions of years), one MUST fall back on the made up human story of the "ancestor of the gaps" to cover their behind. The problem IS that there is NO evidence (zero, zilch, nada) that this creature EVER existed.

All fossils could dissapear today and tomorow, the evidence for common ancestry (and vestigal structures) would be just as solid.

Now as an atheist you should know that to claim something is TRUE for which their is not a single instance of proof is equal to accepting unreality as if it is reality (and we all know the psychological term for that).

Except that there is plenty of evidence to support that claim. Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies, embryonic development, etc. None of which require fossils.

You say "It was already lost for a really long time" but one cannot lose what one never had so this is a hint of cognative dissonance I find in all you guys....you say it never existed then say it was lost (LOL)????

It never existed in homo sapiens, because it was lost in ancestral species.

And you are totally incapable of seeing the self contradiction in your logic.

No contradictions in what I said. Just a rather extreme ignorance on your part.

Now once again for the umpteenth time WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS which even all evolutionists I have encountered NEVER claim (in fact they deny it...whcih I agree with).

I didn't say we were.

So this leaves earlier Apes as our alleged ancestor.

Yes. And Apes and Monkeys in turn share common ancestors.
Just like we share ancestors with chimps and aren't descendents from chimps.

Humans and chimps share an ancestor which was not a human and not a chimp, but some ancestral ape.

This brings up another controversy where some classify this species as PAN and others make no such claim.

This "controversy" only exists in the minds of creationists. Not so much in the scientific community who actually work in those fields.

So which is it and if an earlier APE show me...remember we are not from monkeys so this earlier APE ancestor would have to have had a tail

No. Wauw, how can you not get this......

Monkeys have tails, apes do not.
This means that somewhere in the ancestral lineage of apes, the tail was lost - after the split with what would go on to become what we call "monkeys" today. So monkeys have a tail, and apes do not.

It's not rocket science dude.

Here is the thing...I KNOW we have never found any such creature

We don't need to. Just like we don't need a video of a traffic accident to be able to work out what happened and who's at fault, based on the circumstantial evidence: tire tracks, location of the wrecks, type and amount of damage to the wrecks, etc.

As said, all fossils could disappear and the case for evolution would be just as solid.

even a sembalnce of such a creature therefore it is a STORY told that somehow so many beleived to be absolutely obvious and even true long before we even had a sembalnce of unrelated arguments based on homological thinking.

No. Based on very solid evidence like comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies, embryonic development, etc etc etc. None of which requires finding fossils.

It's also noteworthy that all the fossils we do find, fit this picture.

IT IS NOT an established fact...IT IS an widely accepted EXPLANATION (a made up story that has no basis on FACT)

Explanations in science are based on facts. They explain the facts. They also make testable predictions.

Otherwise show me and if you cannot show me then at least admit to yourself thta there is no proof

1. science doesn't deal in proof, but in supportive evidence and testable predictions, verifiability and falsifiability, when it comes to explanations (theories)

2. for the bazillionth time, we don't require fossils to work out ancestral lines. Analysing extant DNA does a far more detailed and better job at working out ancestral lines.

(I know your ego will not allow you to do so here...objectivity is not allowed...you MUST blindly accept the unfounded dogma just like YECs).

There're no dogma's in evolution theory. It is not a religion. It's science.
You seem upset. I can't help that all the evidence points to evolution. It didn't have to be that way, nore do I "require" it to be that way. It just happens to be the way it is. Don't blame me for it. You can either accept this reality or continue to stick your head in the sand. That's entirely on you.

Nested hierarchies, morphological analyses, and even genetics show anatomical and in some cases physiological SIMILARITY not a lineal relationship.

If that were true, then DNA testing wouldn't be accepted as evidence of biological ancestry and kinship.

And do not make the logic error that "believes" that if one thing came before another existed that this means the former caused or became the latter.

I don't, because that's not how biological ancestry and kinship is determined.

 

[pshun2404]

DH...please show an example of the ancestor you claim to have existed for humans and chimps, and please show an example of the ancestor you claim to have existed for monkeys and apes. Seriously! I want to know they were really there.

And tails still exist only never have in apes or humans, so maybe you can show where (in the actual evidence) this happened? Seriously I want to KNOW. Or is this just your belief? So far no one has been able to demonstrate such creatures actually existed they just assume it or claim inference (which is not fact but interpretive opinion). So PLEASE demonstrate it is actually true...I will wait for you to search...really I will.

Explanations in science are based on facts. They explain the facts. They also make testable predictions.

That's the intent yes! And in physics and chemistry this approach dominates but sadly in this area of biology the presuppositions have often dictated the interpretations in far too many instances.

In the rules of evidence and proof when it is found that some of the evidence has been shown to be questionable or intentionally tainted then ALL the evidence becomes questionable and must be shown to be actual. So please do this here. Actually show such creatures existed or admit you cannot and that it is your belief (fear not, I know you cannot be honest here, but I can hope). In truth you KNOW this belief was assumed true long before evidence emerged that is now interpreted in light of that presupposition.

 

[pshun2404]

Mother of Kittens...how come you did not answer post 248? I really wanted to see the meaning in this rare Dictionary that disagrees with Webster and Oxfords. I waited patiently. Are you still looking for one perhaps? Just let me know okay?

 

[DogmaHunter]

First of all.... next time you address a post to someone, either quote that user or mention him/her with the "@" character. This makes sure that the user in question gets an alert so that he/she knows that there is something to reply to.

I stumbled upon your post by coincidence. Otherwise, I would have never known that you asked me something.

DH...please show an example of the ancestor you claim to have existed for humans and chimps, and please show an example of the ancestor you claim to have existed for monkeys and apes. Seriously! I want to know they were really there.

I already explained to you that we don't need to find that exact specimen. I'll go even further now and try to explain to you that it would also be a practical impossibility to find such.

First, for the simple reason that fossilization is extremely rare and it is amazing that we have as many as we do.

Second, while fossils can tell us something, they are, in the end, just a couple of bones turned to stone. Unless there are exceptional circumstances that allow us to extract DNA fragments, it would be impossible to tell if that particular individual has a bloodline in our ancestry.

But more importantly, we don't need such fossils to draw accurate conclusions about blood-relations with other species. Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies,... are infinitly more solid evidence then any fossil ever could be.

Fossils are nice. The fossils we do find, make sense in context of the evolutionary relationships we uncover based on DNA analysis of extant species.

I don't know what else to tell you.

If you are going to insist that we absolutely need to find a fossil of this ancestral population, I can only point out that your request is not reasonable or intellectually honest.

It would be the equivalent of me asking you to find me the remains of your grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand,........., grand mother to prove that she actually existed.

And tails still exist only never have in apes or humans, so maybe you can show where (in the actual evidence) this happened? Seriously I want to KNOW. Or is this just your belief? So far no one has been able to demonstrate such creatures actually existed they just assume it or claim inference (which is not fact but interpretive opinion). So PLEASE demonstrate it is actually true...I will wait for you to search...really I will.

It's infered from DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, embryonic development, etc.

Explanations in science are based on facts. They explain the facts. They also make testable predictions.

That's the intent yes! And in physics and chemistry this approach dominates but sadly in this area of biology the presuppositions have often dictated the interpretations in far too many instances.

No. Evolution makes a near infinite amount of predictions concerning comparative anatomy, genetics, geographic distribution of species....

It even makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young.

This is the reason that evolution as a model is so amazingly solid. Due to the sheer amount of predictions it makes - all of which check out with reality.

Not a single theory in physics can do a comparable job.
You might have heared before that "evolution is one of the most solid, if not THE most solid, theory in all of science". Well, that's why...

In the rules of evidence and proof when it is found that some of the evidence has been shown to be questionable or intentionally tainted then ALL the evidence becomes questionable and must be shown to be actual.

That is ludicrous.
Especially considering that the intentional frauds (assuming that is what you are talking about) concerns like 1 "fossil" out of hundreds of thousands.

And as has been said multiple times now.... All fossils could disappear tomorrow and evolution theory would be just as solid, solely based on the evidence of comparative anatomy, genetics, geographic distribution of species, etc.

So please do this here. Actually show such creatures existed or admit you cannot and that it is your belief

I can not show you such fossils for the reasons mentioned above. And that does not make evolution theory, one of the most solid theories in all of science, to be a matter of "belief". Also for the reasons mentioned above.

(fear not, I know you cannot be honest here, but I can hope).

I'm totally honest with you. The problem is that you are blinded by your religious belief and can't bring yourself to be honest about the sciences yourself.

In truth you KNOW this belief was assumed true long before evidence emerged that is now interpreted in light of that presupposition.

Yes, darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA.

And that acceptance was based on solid evidence as well.
The (predicted) discovery of DNA, only further confirmed this acceptance.

To the point that it is simply intellectually perverse to deny it. As Francis Collins, devout christian and evolutionary biologist, so famously stated.

 

[pshun2404]

First of all.... next time you address a post to someone, either quote that user or mention him/her with the "@" character. This makes sure that the user in question gets an alert so that he/she knows that there is something to reply to.

I stumbled upon your post by coincidence. Otherwise, I would have never known that you asked me something.

I already explained to you that we don't need to find that exact specimen. I'll go even further now and try to explain to you that it would also be a practical impossibility to find such.

First, for the simple reason that fossilization is extremely rare and it is amazing that we have as many as we do.

Second, while fossils can tell us something, they are, in the end, just a couple of bones turned to stone. Unless there are exceptional circumstances that allow us to extract DNA fragments, it would be impossible to tell if that particular individual has a bloodline in our ancestry.

But more importantly, we don't need such fossils to draw accurate conclusions about blood-relations with other species. Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies,... are infinitly more solid evidence then any fossil ever could be.

Fossils are nice. The fossils we do find, make sense in context of the evolutionary relationships we uncover based on DNA analysis of extant species.

I don't know what else to tell you.

If you are going to insist that we absolutely need to find a fossil of this ancestral population, I can only point out that your request is not reasonable or intellectually honest.

It would be the equivalent of me asking you to find me the remains of your grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand,........., grand mother to prove that she actually existed.

It's infered from DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, embryonic development, etc.

No. Evolution makes a near infinite amount of predictions concerning comparative anatomy, genetics, geographic distribution of species....

It even makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young.

This is the reason that evolution as a model is so amazingly solid. Due to the sheer amount of predictions it makes - all of which check out with reality.

Not a single theory in physics can do a comparable job.
You might have heared before that "evolution is one of the most solid, if not THE most solid, theory in all of science". Well, that's why...

at is ludicrous.
Especially considering that the intentional frauds (assuming that is what you are talking about) concerns like 1 "fossil" out of hundreds of thousands.

And as has been said multiple times now.... All fossils could disappear tomorrow and evolution theory would be just as solid, solely based on the evidence of comparative anatomy, genetics, geographic distribution of species, etc.

I can not show you such fossils for the reasons mentioned above. And that does not make evolution theory, one of the most solid theories in all of science, to be a matter of "belief". Also for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm totally honest with you. The problem is that you are blinded by your religious belief and can't bring yourself to be honest about the sciences yourself.

Yes, darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA.

And that acceptance was based on solid evidence as well.
The (predicted) discovery of DNA, only further confirmed this acceptance.

To the point that it is simply intellectually perverse to deny it. As Francis Collins, devout christian and evolutionary biologist, so famously stated.

I agree that fossils are extremely rare YET for many many decades while EB’s insisted on the ancestor of the gaps they had no examples whatsoever (insisting the fossil record actually demonstrates their theory when as they now admit it does not...in fact cannot). Thank you. It is refreshing but sadly the insistence it was true (and taught as true) was being programmed in (I have given so many examples of how this takes place even now on so many unproven claims).

Now you mentioned “Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies” as offering far more proof but though it CAN BE interpreted in this way much of it is interpretation explained to fit what was already believed to be true (thus the conclusion interpreted the data not the data forming a conclusion which IMO is backwards thinking for scientists).

You later say “It's inferred from DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, embryonic development” but since inference is largely subjective and I no longer see that as the ONLY explanation for these things, I must conclude they are not established facts. If indisputable then okay, but they are not.

So feel free to choose one to discuss (one at a time)

Then you say that Evolution “makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young” but it really is a Johnny come lately since many believed the earth to be old for 1,000s of years before the ToE. In fact, long before the wooden literalist interpretation of Genesis as well. So Evolution neither predicted what was already believed nor demonstrated what was already believed. That is simply a misnomer.

And when I said “In the rules of evidence and proof when it is found that some of the evidence has been shown to be questionable or intentionally tainted then ALL the evidence becomes questionable and must be shown to be actual.” It is NOT ludicrous at all it is the way we prove things (perhaps you are familiar with falsifiability). If something (anything) can be shown to not necessarily have to have happened in the way claimed, then it merits being questioned. This, again in fact, is one of the reasonings used by atheists in arguing against people who believe in God (so apply the standard to your own beliefs).

For example, Darwin said “, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“, and IMO this has been demonstrated because of the fossil record you claim NOW is dismissable (yet was relied on for so many decades as proof and taught as proof to innocently inquiring minds for decades). Also we can look at dopaminergic interneurons in the human brain. They do not exist in any apes of any kind (present or in the past). There are NO forerunners...no quasi structures...simply appearing suddenly fully functional in humans! This anatomical factor has been shown by this fact (never taught in schools) to not have been formed “by numerous, successive, slight modifications” (like so many other things, there is not one iota of evidence other than a number of conjectural posturings to SHOW this is the case).

So ignoring the POSSIBLE explanations trying to fit the facts into the theory (the narrative attached) and just looking at the data (the fact that it is a purely human factor) shows us we do not have to (and should not) accept the developmental by numerous slight modifications theory. Scientists who are being objective, using actual critical thinking, should not assume this is the case and then find things they can interpret to fit the “belief” (but alas some will do just that and without doubt these will get published and get the grant monies while those against the “belief” will not).

This was the best one...” Yes, darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA.”

What is so funny here is you must know you are misrepresenting what I said here...I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief but SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) fall into this snare as often as YECs.

I already gave examples of this where honest scientists couch their “inferences” in the subjunctive mood (could be, we believe that, might have, and so on) on the other hand others declare these “beliefs” as if they are indisputable facts (which they are not, they are plausibilities).

And yes Collins does believe in the “ancestor of the gaps” theory and accepts the interpretive explanations commonly accepted as true and I do not deny the possibility of AoG just not accepting it as true because these things can be given a different narrative.

 

[pshun2404]

First of all.... next time you address a post to someone, either quote that user or mention him/her with the "@" character. This makes sure that the user in question gets an alert so that he/she knows that there is something to reply to.

I stumbled upon your post by coincidence. Otherwise, I would have never known that you asked me something.

To the point that it is simply intellectually perverse to deny it. As Francis Collins, devout christian and evolutionary biologist, so famously stated.

"I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief but SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) fall into this snare as often as YECs."

Example:

A powerful discussion among the inner circle of Evolutionists is presented in the book Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: a Debate (Edited by Quentin D. Wheeler and Rudolf Meier; Columbia University Press)...where two teams of Evolutionists argue out some of the differences of opinion existing within their own camp regarding the factualness and reliability of their subsequent “beliefs”. When you really dig you find that even in your camp there are interpretive explanations quite opposed to one another.

Thus this incites the rule of non-contradiction wherein one or the other can be true or both are false because both cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Why? Because in some cases one PLAUSIBILITY negates the other PLAUSIBILITY (thus demonstrating the belief is NOT established fact)!

I was blessed to read this in 2002 after I attended the celebratory dinner cruise for the Human Genome Project (my niece Robin being a geneticist on the Whitehead Team). It was given to me as a gift. I think it is available now through JUSTOR. Remember all of these scientists believe in the AoG yet the arguments against one another’s beliefs is compelling. (no response expected to this just a suggestion for further perspective)

 

[DogmaHunter]

"I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief but SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) fall into this snare as often as YECs."

Example:

A powerful discussion among the inner circle of Evolutionists is presented in the book Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: a Debate (Edited by Quentin D. Wheeler and Rudolf Meier; Columbia University Press)...where two teams of Evolutionists argue out some of the differences of opinion existing within their own camp regarding the factualness and reliability of their subsequent “beliefs”. When you really dig you find that even in your camp there are interpretive explanations quite opposed to one another.

Thus this incites the rule of non-contradiction wherein one or the other can be true or both are false because both cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Why? Because in some cases one PLAUSIBILITY negates the other PLAUSIBILITY (thus demonstrating the belief is NOT established fact)!

I was blessed to read this in 2002 after I attended the celebratory dinner cruise for the Human Genome Project (my niece Robin being a geneticist on the Whitehead Team). It was given to me as a gift. I think it is available now through JUSTOR. Remember all of these scientists believe in the AoG yet the arguments against one another’s beliefs is compelling. (no response expected to this just a suggestion for further perspective)

Scientists debate science models and details all the time.
The difference is that they convince eachother with actual data and evidence.

To compare that with religious beliefs, is beyond ridiculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree that fossils are extremely rare YET for many many decades while EB’s insisted on the ancestor of the gaps they had no examples whatsoever (insisting the fossil record actually demonstrates their theory when as they now admit it does not...in fact cannot). Thank you. It is refreshing but sadly the insistence it was true (and taught as true) was being programmed in (I have given so many examples of how this takes place even now on so many unproven claims).

I have never seen or heared anyone say that fossils demonstrate evolution.
Rather, fossils support evolution. The fossils we find are in line with evolution.

As in: we don't find humans next to trilobites. We also don't find humans of millions of years old. What we find, in case of humans for example, are humanoids and ancient primates of which the anatomy makes sense in terms of an evolutionary history, that we share ancestors with the other primates.

Now you mentioned “Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies” as offering far more proof but though it CAN BE interpreted in this way much of it is interpretation explained to fit what was already believed to be true (thus the conclusion interpreted the data not the data forming a conclusion which IMO is backwards thinking for scientists).

Completely false. And I do mean completely.
The discovery of DNA had the potential power to completely overthrow evolution theory. Instead, it solidified it in an extremely elegant way.

An evolutionary process where micro changes in every generation are inherited by the next generation, could only result in one single pattern. And it is exactly that pattern that DNA exhibits.

This is the reason why DNA can be used to determin kinship and common ancestry.
This is how we can tell your brother from your 3rd degree cousin. This is how we can tell your biological father from your stepfather.

Data, obviously, always requires interpretation. The thing about science, is that these interpretations are testable.

DNA didn't have to solidfy evolution. But there it is....
The existance of a system like DNA was also predicted. Predicted in the sense that there HAD to be a mechanism by which traits could be past on to off spring, with modification.

That is exactly what DNA is.

You later say “It's inferred from DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, embryonic development” but since inference is largely subjective and I no longer see that as the ONLY explanation for these things, I must conclude they are not established facts. If indisputable then okay, but they are not.

When you do a DNA test to see if a certain kid is your biological kid, the results are inferred from the DNA as well. There's nothing wrong with it. Go ahead and tell a judge in an alimentation lawsuite that "it's just a belief". See what happens.

So feel free to choose one to discuss (one at a time)

They all tie in together. They all results in the same tree of life. That's exactly the point. These are all independent lines of evidence, which all converge on the very same answer.
Exactly why the theory is so solid.

Then you say that Evolution “makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young” but it really is a Johnny come lately since many believed the earth to be old for 1,000s of years before the ToE.

In fact, long before the wooden literalist interpretation of Genesis as well. So Evolution neither predicted what was already believed nor demonstrated what was already believed. That is simply a misnomer.

A scientific prediction is not like prophecy.
A scientific prediction is something that naturally flows from a certain model. In the sense of "if this and this, then also that".

If "that" was already known to be true, then we have a model with a prediction that matches the facts. It doesn't necessarily have to be unknown at the time that the model is developed.

Suppose that from the model of evolution flows the prediction that the earth must be young, while it was already known to be old. That would be a problem. Not for the already known fact that the earth is old - but for the model of evolution. Something had to be wrong then, since its predictions didn't match reality.

For example, Darwin said “, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“, and IMO this has been demonstrated because of the fossil record you claim NOW is dismissable (yet was relied on for so many decades as proof and taught as proof to innocently inquiring minds for decades).

Let me stop you right there.... I NEVER said that the fossil record is "dismissable". The fossil record absolutely needs to fall in line with the model of evolution (and it does, btw).

What I actually said was that we should not be unreasonable. The vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST, majority of specioes that ever lived, did NOT leave any fossils behind. And those species that did... we still have to find them as well!

What I said was that we don't need to under the delusion that we will ever find a fossil of every single step of our evolutionary history. It is a completely unreasonable request to demand such a thing.

Off course, we SHOULD look for fossils. There's an entire branch of science dedicated to exactly that. And the fossils we do find, SHOULD fall in line with the evolutionary model. And they do. It's just that we should not be under the illusion that the world "owes" us any particular specific fossils. From the vast majority of species that lived and went extinct, we will never find any trace.

In that sense, to demand a specific fossil from a specific species that lived at a specific time, is an unreasonable request.

And yes, absolutely: if we would remove all fossils from existance, the case for evolution would still be as strong as ever, due to the awesome explanatory power of all the other lines of evidence.

Because contrary to the fossil record, we can actually sequence the DNA of ANY extant organism and plot it on a phylogenetic tree, which reveals its ancient genes and how they relate to all other extant organisms on this planet.

Also we can look at dopaminergic interneurons in the human brain. They do not exist in any apes of any kind (present or in the past). There are NO forerunners...no quasi structures...simply appearing suddenly fully functional in humans!

1. we have no ancient primate brains available for study
2. looking at extant apes will not due - they are not our forerunners

If we, homo sapiens, have features that are not present in the other primates, it means that these features evolved after the split with the other apes. Or before the split with chimps, but after the split with gorilla's while the features got lost in chimps.

These are not things that necessarily break nested hierarchical patterns, like for example a mammal with feathers would. Or a lion that shares more ERV's with humans then chimps. Or similar.

This anatomical factor has been shown by this fact (never taught in schools) to not have been formed “by numerous, successive, slight modifications” (like so many other things, there is not one iota of evidence other than a number of conjectural posturings to SHOW this is the case).

How was it demonstrated that these things did not form by gradual modification?

So ignoring the POSSIBLE explanations trying to fit the facts into the theory (the narrative attached) and just looking at the data (the fact that it is a purely human factor) shows us we do not have to (and should not) accept the developmental by numerous slight modifications theory.

Obviously humans, just like any other species, are going to have unique traits. It's what makes them a seperate species. Duh.

If we wouldn't have any features or traits that aren't present in chimps or vice versa, then humans and chimps would be the same species........

Having said that... "possible" explanations, are not interesting.
For example: "The universe was created 5 seconds ago with everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives". That is possible. But I don't think it keeps anyone awake at night.

What we look for in science is what is plausible and testable.

This was the best one...” Yes, darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA.”

What is so funny here is you must know you are misrepresenting what I said here...I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief but SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) fall into this snare as often as YECs.

I'm sure scientists believe all kinds of things.
The point is that their beliefs are irrelevant, when it comes to their scientific work.

And yes Collins does believe in the “ancestor of the gaps” theory and accepts the interpretive explanations commonly accepted as true and I do not deny the possibility of AoG just not accepting it as true because these things can be given a different narrative.

By all means, go ahead and build a model with equal explanatory power that accounts for all the data and which makes testable predictions that check out....

Won't be holding my breath though

 

[pshun2404]

I have never seen or heared anyone say that fossils demonstrate evolution.
Rather, fossils support evolution. The fossils we find are in line with evolution.

As in: we don't find humans next to trilobites. We also don't find humans of millions of years old. What we find, in case of humans for example, are humanoids and ancient primates of which the anatomy makes sense in terms of an evolutionary history, that we share ancestors with the other primates.

Completely false. And I do mean completely.
The discovery of DNA had the potential power to completely overthrow evolution theory. Instead, it solidified it in an extremely elegant way.

An evolutionary process where micro changes in every generation are inherited by the next generation, could only result in one single pattern. And it is exactly that pattern that DNA exhibits.

This is the reason why DNA can be used to determin kinship and common ancestry.
This is how we can tell your brother from your 3rd degree cousin. This is how we can tell your biological father from your stepfather.

Data, obviously, always requires interpretation. The thing about science, is that these interpretations are testable.

DNA didn't have to solidfy evolution. But there it is....
The existance of a system like DNA was also predicted. Predicted in the sense that there HAD to be a mechanism by which traits could be past on to off spring, with modification.

That is exactly what DNA is.

When you do a DNA test to see if a certain kid is your biological kid, the results are inferred from the DNA as well. There's nothing wrong with it. Go ahead and tell a judge in an alimentation lawsuite that "it's just a belief". See what happens.

The discovery of DNA had the potential power to completely overthrow evolution theory. Instead, it solidified it in an extremely elegant way.

This is a matter of spin my friend. There certainly are scientists who presented DNA as being contrary to the broader claims of evolutionists but such scientists are instantly discredited and often mischaracterized, especially if their expertise speaks to the issues from alternate fields (like those who see DNA according to information science).

An evolutionary process where micro changes in every generation are inherited by the next generation, could only result in one single pattern. And it is exactly that pattern that DNA exhibits.

I absolutely agree. Micro changes in every generation of say humans ARE inherited by the next generation of humans. Micro changes in every generation of cats are inherited by the subsequent generations of cats. DNA definitely exhibits this pattern. What it does not exhibit is that micro changes in generations of fish will be inherited and eventually produce amphibians (for one example).

This is the reason why DNA can be used to determine kinship and common ancestry.


Yes and as I have said this is true many times, what it does not exhibit is kinship or common ancestry between totally different creatures.

DNA was also predicted. Predicted in the sense that there HAD to be a mechanism by which traits could be past on to off spring, with modification.

Only we already knew that traits were passed on (and could be) thus DNA was NOT predicted BY Evolution nor was the notion of inheritable traits. Though that is a fact I do not expect you to admit.

When you do a DNA test to see if a certain kid is your biological kid, the results are inferred from the DNA as well.

Apparently you cannot read or else intentionally try to misrepresent me. I NEVER said one cannot tell the real daddy or cousin within a type of creature. Never! As I said (once again) we have known this for many many years before “evolution” came to be discussed (that’s right for thousands of years).

 

[pshun2404]

They all tie in together. They all results in the same tree of life.

I think we all would agree that phylogenetic tree is critical to the AoG being true, but it has many problems.

For example, everyone who has ever bred animals will tell you there are strict limitations to the production of variations of animal (and plant) types. Once that line is crossed the lineage becomes sterile and dies out. Now that IS an observable and tested fact. It does not change. IMO that Is a solid basis for theoretical science to base its approach on rather than letting the already presupposed belief dictate the flow of exploration/experimantation.

So for some Evolutionists to think that by this production of variation process happening millions of times over and over, through millions of years, will produce a different result is insane. The observable and tested stands against the presupposed theoretical, and IMHO the theoretical loses

Let the reality be the basis from which we seek the truth and do not let the supposition shape our formation of or interpretation of evidence.

Evolutionists claim that slight changes causing variations merge over time BECOMING new creatures altogether. It states that new useful information is added by mutation and natural selection to cause fish to become amphibians, amphibians reptiles, and so on.

They “believe” it is true, but the reality negates this possibility. Even in a given species the slight epigenetic related variations (accompanying natural selection factors) and additional mutations ONLY produce variation of that same creature and nothing more (yet they still teach the falsehood as established truth).

To me evolution is describing a process by which the traits of a given life form change from one generation to another, but these do not produce new forms of creature just variations of the same creature (a stronger strain of wheat, an anti-bacterial resistant bacteria, a bird form wth wider feet or a longer/shorter beak). We have seen this evidentially in 80,000 generations of E-Coli, in Darwin’s passerines, and in many other given life forms). We have NEVER seen a transformation into a new life form. Not once.

So see, I agree that:

a) variation in traits exist among individuals within a population, AND

b) these variations are passed on through the generations via inheritance, AND

c) that some forms of inherited variations (and mutations) are more successful in remaining, maybe even enhancing one’s ability to survive and reproduce

But all this does is produce variety of the same creature! This is why I must continue to question the theoretical phylogenetic approach.

Now yes I understand that programs have been developed (as you challenged me to look at) to do certain specifically intended things. For example, to explore alleged relationships of say the Notch family of proteins, the researcher then narrows their focus to say Notch1 through Notch3 (a human choice) then SELECTS similar DNA sequences from a number of different animals (say a human, a rat, an ape, and so on). But this again is a human choice! Statistics are always naturally somewhat tainted by the limitations of the sample we select (9 out of 10 dentists surveyed preferred Crest).

Then we use the program to perform a multiple sequence alignment (which could occur in entirely different places in the respective creature’s genomes) to identify what amounts to homologies (taxonomic and always interpreted as meaning lineally related which are both man-made human choices and beliefs).

When evaluating a set of similar sequences, some programs (like Blast) assign values to closest matches which then can be used (or discarded) to support what was already being looked for (and believed to be there). Then probabilities (which many EBs will criticize and claim unreliable when applied to other factors or ToE showing a double standard) are applied and discerned, claiming this homology (which itself not actual science but rather human classification systems) reflects an allegedly true evolutionary relationship (only there is little truth other than that different creatures have similarities in varying sections of their respective genomes). Now some think this as the result of chance, others by design, and yet still others as some variation in between. They are obviously not all correct yet in some sense there is merit to them all. I take no specific stand!

So getting back, once these searched for sequences are SELECTED and retrieved, THEN a multiple-sequence alignment is created (leaving differences, and created gaps appearing in the real genomic sequence of the creatures being compared). Not real gaps in the real creature’s genome, but in the computer generated comparisons (because there are none...their genomic sequence is consistent to what they are as opposed to the other creature...already gave examples)

Then they arrange the matching sequences (which sometime still have slight variations) in a matrix to further enforce the appearance of homology based lineal relationship (but the LR assumption precedes all of this).

The differences and or gaps are then INTERPRETED as representing insertions or deletions that allegedly occurred (though never able to show where or when) over vast eras of time.

In this intelligently designed GIGO process, theory driven multiple sequence alignment also hinges on “gap analysis” which actually sometimes involves where to insert gaps and how large to make them (which varies in different comparisons between different creatures). There are many programs designed to be used for this purpose, and they are great tools, but it is all a human invention to support the presupposition which was already accepted as true. These gaps can be and are changed depending on what creatures are being compared in this ‘Stack the Deck’ approach.

Statistical methods are then applied to determine the tree topology (see Huff, How to Lie with Statistics), and then WE must CALCULATE branch lengths (with nodes) that BEST DESCRIBE the already believed in phylogenetic relationships (shown by the self-created aligned sequences in our dataset). Using statistics (which can be manipulated to say very different things) and then calculating (capable of OR made for performing calculations; also to have planned or schemed), and best describe (including the possibility of alternate descriptions even from the same humanly directed and shaped data set), are hardly valid evidence. Yet these are used as proofs...

Come on now, even you must see how ludicrous this is....

The resulting phylogenetic trees are at best diagrammatic hypotheses to support a presupposition of unknowable historical relationships between entirely different orders and families of creatures unchanged for as long as we can show.

 

[pshun2404]

These are all independent lines of evidence, which all converge on the very same answer.

The answer preceded the question and was already decided upon.

What I said was that we don't need to (live?) under the delusion that we will ever find a fossil of every single step of our evolutionary history. It is a completely unreasonable request to demand such a thing.

True, as equally unreasonable as to assume one (or many) existed because it was what was believed and then ONLY accepting interpretations that support the belief.

In that sense, to demand a specific fossil from a specific species that lived at a specific time, is an unreasonable request.

Wow! That's quite specific, and almost as unreasonable as expecting (no causing) people to believe they existed with no proof.

 

[pshun2404]

If we, homo sapiens, have features that are not present in the other primates, it means that these features evolved after the split with the other apes.

Or perhaps it was the similarities that evolved from these imaginary creatures, or perhaps neither is true and apes are simply what apes have always been, and humans are what humans have always been.

 

[pshun2404]

For all:

A powerful discussion among the inner circle of Evolutionists is presented in the book Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: a Debate (Edited by Quentin D. Wheeler and Rudolf Meier; Columbia University Press)...where two teams of Evolutionists argue out some of the differences of opinion existing within their own camp regarding the factualness and reliability of their subsequent “beliefs”. When you really dig you find that even in this camp there are interpretive explanations quite opposed to one another.

Thus this incites the rule of non-contradiction wherein one or the other can be true or both are false because both cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Why? Because in some cases one PLAUSIBILITY negates the other PLAUSIBILITY (thus demonstrating the belief is NOT established fact)!

I was blessed to read this in 2002 after I attended the celebratory dinner cruise for the Human Genome Project (my niece Robin being a geneticist on the Whitehead Team) in Boston Massachusetts. The book was given to me as a gift. I think it is available now through JUSTOR. Remember all of these scientists believe in the AoG yet the arguments against one another’s beliefs is compelling. (no response expected to this just a suggestion for any and all further perspective)

 

[tas8831]

MoK...let's pretend for one moment that there IS a rare dictionary that uses "main or only function/s are different from what its function/s were previously'? Can you show that in humans (or in ANY creature), that its function in that creature WAS different at one point from what it is now in that type of creature? Or that a slow transformation took place as changing the one creature into another?

And in what dictionary changes the common meaning used by all dictionaries showing the others are actually NOT FULLY CORRECT?

Tell us all - what do skeletal muscles do?

 

[tas8831]

They all tie in together. They all results in the same tree of life.

I think we all would agree that phylogenetic tree is critical to the AoG being true, but it has many problems.

For example, everyone who has ever bred animals will tell you there are strict limitations to the production of variations of animal (and plant) types. Once that line is crossed the lineage becomes sterile and dies out. Now that IS an observable and tested fact. It does not change. IMO that Is a solid basis for theoretical science to base its approach on rather than letting the already presupposed belief dictate the flow of exploration/experimantation.

So for some Evolutionists to think that by this production of variation process happening millions of times over and over, through millions of years, will produce a different result is insane. The observable and tested stands against the presupposed theoretical, and IMHO the theoretical loses

Let the reality be the basis from which we seek the truth and do not let the supposition shape our formation of or interpretation of evidence.

Evolutionists claim that slight changes causing variations merge over time BECOMING new creatures altogether. It states that new useful information is added by mutation and natural selection to cause fish to become amphibians, amphibians reptiles, and so on.

They “believe” it is true, but the reality negates this possibility. Even in a given species the slight epigenetic related variations (accompanying natural selection factors) and additional mutations ONLY produce variation of that same creature and nothing more (yet they still teach the falsehood as established truth).

To me evolution is describing a process by which the traits of a given life form change from one generation to another, but these do not produce new forms of creature just variations of the same creature (a stronger strain of wheat, an anti-bacterial resistant bacteria, a bird form wth wider feet or a longer/shorter beak). We have seen this evidentially in 80,000 generations of E-Coli, in Darwin’s passerines, and in many other given life forms). We have NEVER seen a transformation into a new life form. Not once.

So see, I agree that:

a) variation in traits exist among individuals within a population, AND

b) these variations are passed on through the generations via inheritance, AND

c) that some forms of inherited variations (and mutations) are more successful in remaining, maybe even enhancing one’s ability to survive and reproduce

But all this does is produce variety of the same creature! This is why I must continue to question the theoretical phylogenetic approach.

Now yes I understand that programs have been developed (as you challenged me to look at) to do certain specifically intended things. For example, to explore alleged relationships of say the Notch family of proteins, the researcher then narrows their focus to say Notch1 through Notch3 (a human choice) then SELECTS similar DNA sequences from a number of different animals (say a human, a rat, an ape, and so on). But this again is a human choice! Statistics are always naturally somewhat tainted by the limitations of the sample we select (9 out of 10 dentists surveyed preferred Crest).

Then we use the program to perform a multiple sequence alignment (which could occur in entirely different places in the respective creature’s genomes) to identify what amounts to homologies (taxonomic and always interpreted as meaning lineally related which are both man-made human choices and beliefs).

When evaluating a set of similar sequences, some programs (like Blast) assign values to closest matches which then can be used (or discarded) to support what was already being looked for (and believed to be there). Then probabilities (which many EBs will criticize and claim unreliable when applied to other factors or ToE showing a double standard) are applied and discerned, claiming this homology (which itself not actual science but rather human classification systems) reflects an allegedly true evolutionary relationship (only there is little truth other than that different creatures have similarities in varying sections of their respective genomes). Now some think this as the result of chance, others by design, and yet still others as some variation in between. They are obviously not all correct yet in some sense there is merit to them all. I take no specific stand!

So getting back, once these searched for sequences are SELECTED and retrieved, THEN a multiple-sequence alignment is created (leaving differences, and created gaps appearing in the real genomic sequence of the creatures being compared). Not real gaps in the real creature’s genome, but in the computer generated comparisons (because there are none...their genomic sequence is consistent to what they are as opposed to the other creature...already gave examples)

Then they arrange the matching sequences (which sometime still have slight variations) in a matrix to further enforce the appearance of homology based lineal relationship (but the LR assumption precedes all of this).

The differences and or gaps are then INTERPRETED as representing insertions or deletions that allegedly occurred (though never able to show where or when) over vast eras of time.

In this intelligently designed GIGO process, theory driven multiple sequence alignment also hinges on “gap analysis” which actually sometimes involves where to insert gaps and how large to make them (which varies in different comparisons between different creatures). There are many programs designed to be used for this purpose, and they are great tools, but it is all a human invention to support the presupposition which was already accepted as true. These gaps can be and are changed depending on what creatures are being compared in this ‘Stack the Deck’ approach.

Statistical methods are then applied to determine the tree topology (see Huff, How to Lie with Statistics), and then WE must CALCULATE branch lengths (with nodes) that BEST DESCRIBE the already believed in phylogenetic relationships (shown by the self-created aligned sequences in our dataset). Using statistics (which can be manipulated to say very different things) and then calculating (capable of OR made for performing calculations; also to have planned or schemed), and best describe (including the possibility of alternate descriptions even from the same humanly directed and shaped data set), are hardly valid evidence. Yet these are used as proofs...

Come on now, even you must see how ludicrous this is....

The resulting phylogenetic trees are at best diagrammatic hypotheses to support a presupposition of unknowable historical relationships between entirely different orders and families of creatures unchanged for as long as we can show.

And yet, these methods can REPRODUCE KNOWN relationships.

You are going all out to denigrate methods of analysis to rescue your 100% evidence-free, presupposition-ONLY- based ancient mythological beliefs.

Sorry - but your usual excess word-salad verbiage cannot rescue your well-documented ignorance on so many of the subjects you gleefully pontificate on.

Parasympathetic stimulation of the coccyx? CLASSIC.

 

[tas8831]

AND we have definite CONFIRMABLE, OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE EVIDENCE that the coccyx HAS FUNCTION![/I]

Therefore by definition of the term the coccyx is NOT a vestigial organ in humans...

Right - I note that you avoided my demolition of your rather laughable "proof" - why is that?

Let us re-cap:

Your had written this, um, gibberish:

b) because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites [sic].

Gray's anatomy for students, Philadelphia, Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone, p. 423, tells us that the ganglia attached and supported there contribute to the innervation of the pelvic and genital organs. The nerves “regulate the emptying of the bladder, control the opening and closing of the internal urethral sphincter, motility in the rectum as well as sexual functions.” Thus they maintain their function.​

And it went on and on - I believe you utilized one of your brainwashing techniques will all that sleight of hand and off-topic ranting about pseudotails and I believe that you purposefully conflated the coccyx with the coccygial plexus and the ganglion impar - naughty naughty!

But I had to shed some reality-based light on your off-the-wall assertions:

b) because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions.

Wow... Um, no - a ganglion is not like a little brain.
They consist of either the cell bodies of unipolar (sensory) neurons), whose job is simply to relay impulses, or lower motor neuron cell bodies, whose job is to relay motor impulses.


And no, the coccygeal plexus is NOT a ganglion (where do you come up with this nonsense?).

A plexus is basically a network of nerve fibers. The coccygeal nerves do not act as "connective sources" for the sciatic nerves (whatever that means) - observe this diagram from Gray's:

Spinal nerve - Wikipedia


Almost your entire depiction of the coccyx seems premised on little more than wishful thinking, and the embellished function of it is clearly founded on extrapolations of assumptions of someone wholly unfamiliar wit anatomical terminology.

In its parasympathetic stimulated phase

What on earth does that even mean?

Tell me exactly how a BONE can be stimulated by the parasympathetic nervous system?

For crying out loud, the coccygeal ganglion is a SYMPATHETIC gangion!

it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species.

LOL!

Are you serious! No, you cannot be - this HAS to be a joke, something you copied from a Poe or a troll without knowing any better.

PROBLEMS with the coccyx can produce pain during intercourse, but that is the opposite of what you claim!

It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites.[sic]

O M G.


This is freshman biology.

The direction of nerve impulse transmission in a neuron is dendrite - cell body - axon.

The coccygeal nerve would exist WITHOUT the coccyx, since the coccygeal nerves originate on the spinal cord, which terminates way up around L2.​

And my gosh - no reply! No over-lengthy, dubious quote laden exposition followed by a proclamation of victory!


Shall we conclude that your omission of a reply is an admission that you basically made-up or misinterpreted much of your OP Opus?

 

[tas8831]

This was the best one...” Yes, darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA.”

What is so funny here is you must know you are misrepresenting what I said here...I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief but SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) fall into this snare as often as YECs.

Most interesting that in his reply, pshun deigned to start quoting after you had exposed his misrepresentation.

In fact, I note that internet creationists, as a group, have a very distinct and easily documentable tendency to simply omit damning material from posts that they respond to.

That or they ignore the damning posts altogether.

 

[tas8831]

If these phenomena were truly vestigial in nature we should expect to see at least some vestige of vertebrae or controllable movement but alas we do not.

The coccyx IS made of vertebrae - the coccygeal vertebrae.

Did you never take an anatomy course? Never mind - it is obvious that you did not.

Controllable movement?

Extensor coccygis:

"The extensor coccygis is a slender muscle fascicle, which is not always present. It extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibers from the last segment of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downward to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx."


Due to its location and points of attachment, there is only 1 thing that this muscle could ever have been able to do - to extend the coccyx. I.e., to make the coccyx 'stick out' - to make the tail stand up.

Now I gather that you have concocted some word salad to dismiss this direct and blatant demolition of your 'controllable movement' implication - creationists are wonderful at coming up with excuses and escapes and diversions.


But consider your under-informed and desperate assertions refuted.

So, please stop brainwashing our children with your heinous fairytales.

 

[tas8831]

Thus this incites the rule of non-contradiction

How does one "incite" a rule?

wherein one or the other can be true or both are false because both cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Why? Because in some cases one PLAUSIBILITY negates the other PLAUSIBILITY (thus demonstrating the belief is NOT established fact)!

So....

How does the fact that there are 2 basic camps in creationism - those that accept an old earth, and those insisting that the earth is young - both based on the same source material - stack up against this law of non-contradiction?

I eagerly await seeing which logical fallacy or brainwashing technique you will utilize to rescue your beliefs from your own argument.

 

[tas8831]

Please EXPLAIN, without copy-pastes or doctored quotes, HOW, exactly, a viral genome could be inserted at the exact same locus in a chromosome of 2 different species (given that the target integration sites are literally all over the genome*), AND possess the same inactivation mutations, purely randomly.

I just did that...only allowing the possibility of randomicity without assuming it was.

And so you simply accept randomness, no problem, when it protects your fantasies, but dismiss statistically rigorous analytical techniques when that also protects your fantasies.

Got it.

Next I said "In my humble opinion because researchers seek these alleged ERVs out to form or improve phylogenetic trees, lineal relationship is already a pre-supposed reality before they look (which biases the interpretation)."

Sorry but this is true!

Sorry, but merely asserting it again does not make it true!

Was there ever a time when you did not assume lineal relationship even long before you started reviewing evidence as interpreted this way?

And there is your use of brainwashing techniques and selective omission again!

Note how pshun totally ignored this:

"...to form or improve phylogenetic trees..."

Assuming branching relationships (not lineal) does NOT, in any way, mean that the use of ERVs was intended to "improve" (whatever that means) phylogenetic trees.

Cute how you think nobody will notice your face-saving tactics.

Of course not because you were taught it was true already (just as I was and my father before me). Darwin, and then all his followers, believed it and accepted it as true, long before they had any of this. And this pre-held conviction biases interpretation no less than does the pre-held convictions of a Ken Ham bias his.

This pre-held conviction - how was it established in the two camps?

Ah yes - in the creationist camp, the admittedly unyielding conviction is premised entirely and solely on the mere belief that the currently bound collection of ancient middle eastern numerology and superstition and cultural tales of largely unknown authorship and of spotty (at best) reliability is 100% true, whereas the Darwin camp's convictions are premised on an ever-increasing volume of multiple lines of scientific evidence.

Got it.