The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[tas8831]

Just another post presenting the evidence that Heissoner declares not to exist being ignored ....

As per your mere assertion which you cannot support.
Here is an ACTUAL paleontologist that is apparently not phased by your repeated, mantra-like, unsupported slogans:

Another unsupported repeated assertion - desperate, are you?

What do you know that this actual scientist YEC does not?

The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

OK.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02

Only when people like you insist on ignoring it.

Like this that you keep ignoring (just like every other creationist):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have already posted this 2 or 3 times in thread alone for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

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




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

--------------------------------

Just a sampling.


Your fossil evidence for the biblical patriarchs is...?

Look above to see how incredibly silly your unsupported desperate assertions are.

Broken record keeps repeating unsupported erroneous assertions.

Spectacular, willful ignorance of fossil record makes you look foolish when you keep repeating these ridiculous assertions.


Remind us all again - what do you know that Todd Wood doesn't?


LOL! Right - was this 'academic education' at some unaccredited Christian school?

Such an elite! Expert on all matters scientific! I eagerly await your fact-filled, honest, educated assessment of the molecular data I presented.
I suspect it will be of the same type of wishy-washy dodging and nonsense that you've presented on every other topic.
BORING....

And this from the fellow that believes a man was made from dust...

 

[stevevw]

You continue, quite purposefully, I believe, to ignore my central question -

What is the evidence that B&S and Sanford's 'two beneficial mutations one after another" assumption is universal in evolution?

If you cannot answer that, stop pushing this deliberately obtuse and diversionary BS.

Or on ignore you go.

The example that both D&S and Behe agree on is not the only example of how evolution works but you are missing the point. You seem to think that because there are other ways evolution works that it eliminates the problems with this scenario. It does not matter the example in the papers is an agreed method for evolution which is shown to have a time problem. So we can acknowledge that this is an example showing that evolution has a big-time problem which is supported by the evidence.

Plus the example is a common one and well recognised because for a new function to be evolved there has to be an elimination of existing nucleotide/s and the addition/substitution of a new one which will require more than one connected mutation. Not just any mutation anywhere but in the correct site and with the right substitution. It is well recognised that new functions require multiple mutations because there is a number of steps required.

D&S and Behe agreed on the scenario but differed in their assumptions about how it could have happened ie D&S claim that the first mutation will be neutral and there will be no negative changes to other nucleotides while waiting for the final nucleotide to mutate. It is the D&S assumption of using beneficial mutations that reduce the time factor. But they also calculated the same situation using a deleterious mutation and came up with the same conclusion as Behe.

The evidence supports Behe's position that there is more likely going to be a non-beneficial mutation and a fitness cost that evolving proteins go through just to achieve a new function because when it comes to protein evolution things need to be precise. This is what Behe and Sanford are pointing out which adds the time because the non-functional space is vast and there is more chance of evolving mutations that do not fit and therefore misses the mark and/or has fitness costs IE

The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability—the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975

 

[VirOptimus]

The example that both D&S and Behe agree on is not the only example of how evolution works but you are missing the point. You seem to think that because there are other ways evolution works that it eliminates the problems with this scenario. It does not matter the example in the papers is an agreed method for evolution which is shown to have a time problem. So we can acknowledge that this is an example showing that evolution has a big-time problem which is supported by the evidence.

Plus the example is a common one and well recognised because for a new function to be evolved there has to be an elimination of existing nucleotide/s and the addition/substitution of a new one which will require more than one connected mutation. Not just any mutation anywhere but in the correct site and with the right substitution. It is well recognised that new functions require multiple mutations because there is a number of steps required.

D&S and Behe agreed on the scenario but differed in their assumptions about how it could have happened ie D&S claim that the first mutation will be neutral and there will be no negative changes to other nucleotides while waiting for the final nucleotide to mutate. It is the D&S assumption of using beneficial mutations that reduce the time factor. But they also calculated the same situation using a deleterious mutation and came up with the same conclusion as Behe.

The evidence supports Behe's position that there is more likely going to be a non-beneficial mutation and a fitness cost that evolving proteins go through just to achieve a new function because when it comes to protein evolution things need to be precise. This is what Behe and Sanford are pointing out which adds the time because the non-functional space is vast and there is more chance of evolving mutations that do not fit and therefore misses the mark and/or has fitness costs IE

The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability—the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975

From which creationst site do you get your arguments and articles from?

 

[stevevw]

From which creationist site do you get your arguments and articles from?

The argument is based on the paper that has the example. It is not a creationist's argument but an evolutionary one. The paper uses the example of the ability for malaria to evolve chloroquine resistance which requires changing two nucleotides and therefore two associated mutations. As far as I understand this is a good example of evolution. Afterall don't supporters of evolution often use the example of bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance.

 

[VirOptimus]

The argument is based on the paper that has the example. It is not a creationist's argument but an evolutionary one. The paper uses the example of the ability for malaria to evolve chloroquine resistance which requires changing two nucleotides and therefore two associated mutations. As far as I understand this is a good example of evolution. Afterall don't supporters of evolution often use the example of bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance.

Quit dodging. Which creationst site did you get the arguments and articles from?

 

[stevevw]

Quit dodging. Which creationst site did you get the arguments and articles from?

The only religious site I have used is an ID site that I posted above but this was quoting a reply from Behe for which he was explaining his peer reviewed paper. You will find all that I have referred to here #1276

But Like I said this is from a peer reviewed paper that I originally quoted and posted if you go back and follow the debate. Such as here #1223, here #1237 and here to give a couple of examples

Virtually all of the papers subsequent to the work of Behe and Snoke have confirmed that waiting times can be prohibitive – depending upon the exact circumstances. Some of the subsequent papers have been critical [15–17, 25]. Yet even those papers show that establishing just two specific co-dependent mutations within a hominin population of 10,000 can require waiting times that exceed 100 million years (see discussion). So there is little debate that waiting time can be a serious problem, and can be a limiting factor in macroevolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

And here is Behes paper and D&S reply if you want to familiarize yourself with the debate.
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581952/
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2644969/

Some have claimed that the above paper is a creationists one but it is from a mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal. Theres no sense coming in half way through making claims about the sources of info when you have not been following things.

 

[VirOptimus]

The only religious site I have used is an ID site that I posted above but this was quoting a reply from Behe for which he was explaining his peer reviewed paper. You will find all that I have referred to here #1276

But Like I said this is from a peer reviewed paper that I originally quoted and posted if you go back and follow the debate. Such as here #1223, here #1237 and here to give a couple of examples

Virtually all of the papers subsequent to the work of Behe and Snoke have confirmed that waiting times can be prohibitive – depending upon the exact circumstances. Some of the subsequent papers have been critical [15–17, 25]. Yet even those papers show that establishing just two specific co-dependent mutations within a hominin population of 10,000 can require waiting times that exceed 100 million years (see discussion). So there is little debate that waiting time can be a serious problem, and can be a limiting factor in macroevolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

And here is Behes paper and D&S reply if you want to familiarize yourself with the debate.
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581952/
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2644969/

Some have claimed that the above paper is a creationists one but it is from a mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal. Theres no sense coming in half way through making claims about the sources of info when you have not been following things.

Where have you found them? At what crestionist/ID (they are the same) site?

You are not a researcher or scientist so you cant have found them on your own.

 

[stevevw]

Where have you found them? At what crestionist/ID (they are the same) site?

You are not a researcher or scientist so you cant have found them on your own.

What do you class as a researcher? If you mean someone who finds verified and valid info then yes I am a researcher. That's what any Uni student has to do for assignments. Those particular papers are from the NCBI which holds databases for different journals. It is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). So the actual papers are from different journals like GENETICS, Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling and Protein and Science.

If you go back through my posts over the years you will find 100s of papers from various non-religious mainstream journals I have used to support my posts. I am not what you class as a scientist but have studied aspects of evolution academically and privately for years. If your criteria for anyone commenting in these threads is they have to be a scientist then we may as well stop all debate and close the threads down as the majority of people are not scientists.

It's funny though if I happen to post anything that may challenge Darwinian evolution it is assumed to be from creationists sites. Or if I happen to post a single article even remotely associated with religion people single that one out and forget all the scientific ones. Not that peer review is the be all and end all of verified science.

 

[VirOptimus]

What do you class as a researcher? If you mean someone who finds verified and valid info then yes I am a researcher. That's what any Uni student has to do for assignments. Those particular papers are from the NCBI which holds databases for different journals. It is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). So the actual papers are from different journals like GENETICS, Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling and Protein and Science.

If you go back through my posts over the years you will find 100s of papers from various non-religious mainstream journals I have used to support my posts. I am not what you class as a scientist but have studied aspects of evolution academically and privately for years. If your criteria for anyone commenting in these threads is they have to be a scientist then we may as well stop all debate and close the threads down as the majority of people are not scientists.

It's funny though if I happen to post anything that may challenge Darwinian evolution it is assumed to be from creationists sites. Or if I happen to post a single article even remotely associated with religion people single that one out and forget all the scientific ones. Not that peer review is the be all and end all of verified science.

Quit dodging.

Just answer, where have you found the articles and arguments. Why the stalling and lies?

 

[stevevw]

Quit dodging.

Just answer, where have you found the articles and arguments. Why the stalling and lies?

I already have and just told you where the articles came from. You just acknowledged them and said that my articles were from the same site which you assumed was a creationists site. I just told you that this same site is a mainstream scientific one. Now that I have pointed this out you are not satisfied. It is relatively easy to find these articles. You just use Google or any search engine, uni data bases, google scholar. My info comes from a variety of sourses and years of acculmulated research and knowledge and I am not going to be put into a stereotypical box because you think so.

 

[VirOptimus]

I already have and just told you where the articles came from. You just acknowledged them and said that my articles were from the same site which you assumed was a creationists site. I just told you that this same site is a mainstream scientific one. Now that I have pointed this out you are not satisfied. It is relatively easy to find these articles. You just use Google or any search engine, uni data bases, google scholar. My info comes from a variety of sourses and years of acculmulated research and knowledge and I am not going to be put into a stereotypical box because you think so.

No, I know where the articles are, I can read the links. But you must have gitten them from a source. Why wont you tell it?

 

[stevevw]

No, I know where the articles are, I can read the links. But you must have gitten them from a source. Why wont you tell it?

I already did that. There is only one ID type source I used (Evolution News) and that was the one I mentioned above which you must have missed here #1276. But that site only talks about the peer-reviewed paper by Behe. I cannot understand your fixation with whether or not a source comes from a ID or religious site. Its as though you are saying that becuase there is an association with religion then all the content is invalid. Believe it or not ID and religious sites also refer to scientific valid sources.

 

[VirOptimus]

I already did that. There is only one ID type source I used (Evolution News) and that was the one I mentioned above which you must have missed here #1276. But that site only talks about the peer-reviewed paper by Behe. I cannot understand your fixation with whether or not a source comes from a ID or religious site. Its as though you are saying that becuase there is an association with religion then all the content is invalid. Believe it or not ID and religious sites also refer to scientific valid sources.

You dont understand.

I know where the articles come from but you yourself must have found the arguments someehere else.

But as you clearly isnt interested in honesty you wont tell.

 

[stevevw]

You dont understand.

I know where the articles come from but you yourself must have found the arguments someehere else.

But as you clearly isnt interested in honesty you wont tell.

The articles come from my own library. I have been debating for around 10 years now. I have an extensive library of sources. I have gigabytes of links and folders full of docs on different topics. They come from everywhere. I read a variety of views from ID, religious and mainstream articles and then formulate a view and its as simple as that. If you go back say 5 years on this site you will see a similar argument.

I have known about the time argument for many years. The ability for evolution to evolve complexity is an old one and is well known and has even been in the courts in the US. The evolution creation debate is an old one and is all over the internet. It is not something knew. You seem to think I have just come up with this argument yesterday and there is no substance to it.

 

[VirOptimus]

The articles come from my own library. I have been debating for around 10 years now. I have an extensive library of sources. I have gigabytes of links and folders full of docs on different topics. They come from everywhere. I read a variety of views from ID, religious and mainstream articles and then formulate a view and its as simple as that. If you go back say 5 years on this site you will see a similar argument.

I have known about the time argument for many years. The ability for evolution to evolve complexity is an old one and is well known and has even been in the courts in the US. The evolution creation debate is an old one and is all over the internet. It is not something knew. You seem to think I have just come up with this argument yesterday and there is no substance to it.

No I know you have peddled the same (refuted) arguments for years.

 

[stevevw]

No I know you have peddled the same (refuted) arguments for years.

Then why ask where I got my argument from

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why ask where I got my argument from

Because they arent your own, you are peddling others views.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why ask where I got my argument from

Because they arent your own, you are peddling others views.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why ask where I got my argument from

Because they arent your own, you are peddling others views.

 

[stevevw]

Because they arent your own, you are peddling others views.

Of course they are not my arguments. Everyone is the same. Unless you are a brilliant scientists that can come up with an original theory then everyone uses other peoples ideas and arguments. Everyone that makes arguments for and against evolution are using someone elses argument. That is the idea of using science to back what you say. You are using an experts findings and not your own views or opinions. I know for a fact if I posted my own views or arguments then you and others will say where is the scientific citation to support what I say.