The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[tas8831]

Skipping the BS...

The above is an illogical considering that the work that some of these scientists present is in peer reviewed mainstream journals which is reviewed for its honesty and validity to published in the first place. Unless you want to say that the journals themselves are disonsts and then question their entire process. These papers are then open to critical analysis by other scientists.

Yes - and the reviews are not favorable as evidenced in the D&S paper.

My point was that people wanted to take the position that Sanford was religious and therefore his science was wrong. I pointed out that he is also a genetic scientist and his paper is about genetics which makes him qualified to know what he is talking about.

Yes, I saw that, then I countered with a quote from his book demonstrating that he is NOT the expert you think he is in all aspects of genetics. His beliefs inform his "knowledge" - either he does not actually understand basic population genetics and evolutionary biology, or he purposefully distorted it for his religious ends. That he, along with some non-geneticists, was able to cobble together a paper that made it into print does not make him the ultimate expert; it does not mean that what he wrote is 100% true or accurate.

Some chose to focus on his religious connections rather than his scientific ones which is a fallacy when determining his ability to write on the topic he is trained in.

Some choose to ignore his history and motivations to try to make his work seem more relevant and meaningful and to provide very interesting quotes and parts of quotes and repeated quotes for the same purposes.

The problem with your reference that Sanford cites a YEC is also an unbalanced view of his work in that he also cites non religious main stream scientists from main stream journals that support his results which kind of negates what you are implying.

And there you go again...

I am fully accept that Sanford's work on the Gene Gun was fantastic.
How his patented Gene Gun stuff means that he is the ultimate authority on things he is not is a mystery understood only by creationists and their allies who frequently embellish the credentials and importance of their heroes. That Sanford relied on an electrical engineer for his 'genetics' says much, does it not?
That you fail to grasp that the D&S paper was NOT FAVORABLE to their claims only adds weight to what is now pretty much a fact that you are engaging in the argumentum and verecundiam - a fallacious appeal to authority.

This is irrelevant to the time problem in his paper which is based on the biological and genetic processes.

Providing that yes, evolution only proceeds in the fashion that Intelligent Design advocates and creationists insist it must - one mutation at a time, followed by another pre-specified one...

Perhaps I will write a paper one day critical of IDC in which I describe and define IDC as requiring a blue genie physically joining nucleotides together while holding his breath underwater and dismiss critics who explain that this is not what IDC requires...

Yet Lynch supports Sanfords findings that it would take a prohibitively long time for human evolution to do this.

The Lynch paper that you favorably cited and quoted and psychosarah refers to here? The one in which is looking at the same 2-pre-specified mutations deal? The one in which the abstract indicates:

"A recent paper in this journal has challenged the idea that complex adaptive features of proteins can be explained by known molecular, genetic, and evolutionary mechanisms. It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic"

And you are citing him as if he SUPPORTS the findings of Behe and Snoke and Sanford???
Right, OK...

but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581952/

Keep pasting that quote as if it means what you need it to, and I will reply with this Lynch quote - whom you declare supports your creationist pals:

"A recent paper in this journal has challenged the idea that complex adaptive features of proteins can be explained by known molecular, genetic, and evolutionary mechanisms. It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic"


Shockingly, Sanford, informed by ReMine, actually mentions Haldane's dilemma!

"This problem came to be known as Haldane’s Dilemma. Kimura [3] agreed with Haldane’s assessment of the problem, and this motivated him to develop his neutral model of evolution. He reasoned that since selective amplification is too slow to fix very many mutations, most genetic fixations must result from random genetic drift."

These people have no shame at all. I would like to see who actually reviewed this paper, to allow such propaganda to make it to print.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, that is exactly the "straw man" we're talking about. Thank you for giving us such an easily understandable example of creationist perfidy so we can better explain the idea to Steve.

It’s only a straw man because you don’t like the truth. We both know that at some point in the evolution of flippers to feet, they would become disadvantaged to either mode. You can pretend it’s not true all you like, but then evolutionists have a history of pretending things....

 

[Speedwell]

It’s only a straw man because you don’t like the truth. We both know that at some point in the evolution of flippers to feet, they would become disadvantaged to either mode. You can pretend it’s not true all you like, but then evolutionists have a history of pretending things....

I don't know any such thing. The theory of evolution neither predicts or requires it, nor has any evidence of such a thing ever been found. It is basically nothing but a creationist lie.

 

[stevevw]

Why? Not if they make the distinction between the odds of a particularly favourable outcome and the odds of any one of all possible favourable outcomes.

And that is what the paper was about. Estimating the time for a particular set of strings in a particular part of the genome with certain multiple mutations. It does not matter where it happened in the genome it is the chances of that particular event happening anywhere in the genome.

If we want to include more possible events in the genome happening else where each and every one of those will have to also conform to the same criteria. Just because there are many of those events happening does not deminish the specific requirements for each of them to happen.

But they don't assume--as you appear to do-- that it was the only thing which could have happened.

How can they know what causes a new function to happen? Is it the result of pre-existing development processes as in the EES or random mutation events. Are the mutations positive, deleterious or neutral. As mentioned both sides disagree as to what is most likely regarding what type of mutation will result and claim they have scientific support.

The actual science if anything supports long time results as there are several studies showing that deleterious mutations have a high chance of happening and even if neutral or beneficial the accumulated effect of mutations will often have a fitness decrease through negative epistasis especially in human populations.

 

[stevevw]

LOL! Evidently, you didn't read that paper clear though or didn't understand it--all standard undergraduate inferential statistics.

As far as I understand the article a bell curve measurement or SD and mean measurement cannot accurately reflect whats happening to cause that variation. As stated it only can measure a small example and one small example to another can be different depending on the variation of that small portion which will depend on the circumstances of that small group.So small example do not reflect the real situation.

But besides this unpredictable and unreliable method, better and more accurate data points to other processes besides random events. The fact that all variation for complex creatures, for example, fall within a narrow range of certain types of variation for example such as two eyes instead of 1,3,5,6 etc. 4 limbs instead of 3, 5,6 or 8, 3 segmented bodies as opposed to 2, 4, 5 or 6 etc.

You could go through all the particular body parts and find that all living things fall within a narrow range of numbers, positions and orientations which points to non-random variation. In fact not just in phenotypes but also down to the molecular level. This fits well with the EES processes such as developmental bias where certain forms are favoured more than others.

In other words, if any new form is going to come about it is going to fall within these narrow parameters as opposed to random events which should produce many more possibilities. In fact, we can go back in time and find that even when living things first appeared in the fossil record that they are also confined to this narrow range and have ever since.

There is no record of any variation or experimenting with other forms besides these. These narrow range of forms/body plans appeared suddenly and together in the fossil record and any new forms appear suddenly and well defined within the same range. If you did a measurement of the entire animal kingdom taking all this into consideration it would not form a bell curve. For me, this is striking evidence that variation is not random.

 

[Speedwell]

As far as I understand the article a bell curve measurement or SD and mean measurement cannot accurately reflect whats happening to cause that variation. As stated it only can measure a small example and one small example to another can be different depending on the variation of that small portion which will depend on the circumstances of that small group.So small example do not reflect the real situation.

But besides this unpredictable and unreliable method, better and more accurate data points to other processes besides random events. The fact that all variation for complex creatures, for example, fall within a narrow range of certain types of variation for example such as two eyes instead of 1,3,5,6 etc. 4 limbs instead of 3, 5,6 or 8, 3 segmented bodies as opposed to 2, 4, 5 or 6 etc.

You could go through all the particular body parts and find that all living things fall within a narrow range of numbers, positions and orientations which points to non-random variation. In fact not just in phenotypes but also down to the molecular level. This fits well with the EES processes such as developmental bias where certain forms are favoured more than others.

In other words, if any new form is going to come about it is going to fall within these narrow parameters as opposed to random events which should produce many more possibilities. In fact, we can go back in time and find that even when living things first appeared in the fossil record that they are also confined to this narrow range and have ever since.

There is no record of any variation or experimenting with other forms besides these. These narrow range of forms/body plans appeared suddenly and together in the fossil record and any new forms appear suddenly and well defined within the same range. If you did a measurement of the entire animal kingdom taking all this into consideration it would not form a bell curve. For me, this is striking evidence that variation is not random.

No, it happened before creatures had much by way of hard, fossilizable components, so you won't find much in the fossil record about it. But never mind, I can see we're not going to talk you out of it. No big deal. You're bent on proving something that, as a Traditional Christian, I have no need of and don't see any point to, but I suppose there's no real harm in it for you. I'm just sorry that you are being presented so much misinformation by creationist scoundrels.

 

[stevevw]

No, it happened before creatures had much by way of hard, fossilizable components, so you won't find much in the fossil record about it. But never mind, I can see we're not going to talk you out of it. No big deal. You're bent on proving something that, as a Traditional Christian, I have no need of and don't see any point to, but I suppose there's no real harm in it for you. I'm just sorry that you are being presented so much misinformation by creationist scoundrels.

I don't base my views on Creationists sites or ideas. I have not cited one creationists site. I have mostly cited mainstream papers and when I have cited one or two scientists from mainstream journals who happened to be associated with religion all hell breaks loose like I have broken the law of thou shall not cite religiously connected info.

My motivation is more to do with showing how there are more ways in which living things can change than Neo-Darwinism and how the evidence points to this. In some ways, some can stick to this gene-centric and adaptive view religiously just as much as they say creationists stick to their beliefs. I still support evolution but do not agree with the Standard theories view of how living things can change.

It does not matter if the formation of body plans happened before hard bodies creatures came along because evolution just doesn't stop there. We have seen totally new body forms evolve along the way including dino to a bird, ape to man, dog-like mammal to whale. In all those changes the same narrow range of body plans are produced and no experimentation happens.

If soft-bodied creatures began the body plans of all life then you are acknowledging that the code for all variation in life was installed very early at the beginning that pre-determined all life forms for the future. Evolution was directed and there was no other option for it to take but the ones we see today. That in itself acknowledges pre-set development programs that are already in place ready to be tapped into and activated or de-activated. That conforms well with the EES processes and the evidence we are seeing.

It should not matter if a person of faith believes in creation, they have every right to do so and this is not going to deter their right to be saved. Salvation is not determined by how much science you know and some people do not have or are not interested in the details of evolution and biology.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't base my views on Creationists sites or ideas. I have not cited one creationists site. I have mostly cited mainstream papers and when I have cited one or two scientists from mainstream journals who happened to be associated with religion all hell breaks loose like I have broken the law of thou shall not cite religiously connected info.

Rank exaggeration on all counts.

My motivation is more to do with showing how there are more ways in which living things can change than Neo-Darwinism and how the evidence points to this. In some ways, some can stick to this gene-centric and adaptive view religiously just as much as they say creationists stick to their beliefs. I still support evolution but do not agree with the Standard theories view of how living things can change.

All you are doing is making a straw man out of "Neo-Darwinism" for some reason you have failed express clearly.

It does not matter if the formation of body plans happened before hard bodies creatures came along because evolution just doesn't stop there. We have seen totally new body forms evolve along the way including dino to a bird, ape to man, dog-like mammal to whale. In all those changes the same narrow range of body plans are produced and no experimentation happens.

Those are not examples of "totally new body forms" by any reasonable understanding of the phrase. Of course the same narrow range of body plans are produced because evolution of basic body plans ceased long before.

If soft-bodied creatures began the body plans of all life then you are acknowledging that the code for all variation in life was installed very early at the beginning that pre-determined all life forms for the future.

What I am "acknowledging" is that variation in body plans, and consequently their evolution, ceased long ago for reasons well understood by evolutionary biologists.

It should not matter if a person of faith believes in creation...

It only matters if they use the faith of others to attempt to impose creationist views or as the basis of a political agenda.

 

[stevevw]

Rank exaggeration on all counts.

Lol fair enough. Oh well you have to have a bit of banter.

All you are doing is making a straw man out of "Neo-Darwinism" for some reason you have failed express clearly.

How so, I thought I was pretty clear and simple. The Standard theory or Modern Synthesis is about Natural selection directing evolution by acting on the variations produced by random mutations. The EES challenges this and says there are other influences that direct change such as in development processes like development bias, plasticity, extra inheritance factors, and niche construction.

These processes direct evolution and will minimize and bypass natural slection therefore changing the way we conceptualize how living things can change. One is through random and blind processes the other is through well suited and integrated processes that are pre-existing, self organising and directed towards certain outcomes.

Those are not examples of "totally new body forms" by any reasonable understanding of the phrase. Of course the same narrow range of body plans are produced because evolution of basic body plans ceased long before.

What I am "acknowledging" is that variation in body plans, and consequently their evolution, ceased long ago for reasons well understood by evolutionary biologists.

So if it ceased long before these creatures when there were soft bodies organisms then what new evolution has happened. Isnt this just a rehashing of what is already been produced. Does not this point to the code for life being produced very early in the scheme of things and it is just a case of activating pre-existing development programs.

It only matters if they use the faith of others to attempt to impose creationist views or as the basis of a political agenda.

I agree that no one should try to force their view on anyone and dogmatic views about creation as well as evolution are wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Skipping the BS...
Yes - and the reviews are not favourable as evidenced in the D&S paper.

Yes that is part of the process, but what you are doing is assuming that D&S review is the be all and end all. Behe did respond to their criticism and answered their objections. It still doesn't take away from the fact that they also agreed that there is a prohibitively long waiting time for human populations of 100 million years for evolving just 2 specific and connected mutations to create a new function.

Yes, I saw that then I countered with a quote from his book demonstrates that he is NOT the expert you think he is in all aspects of genetics. His beliefs inform his "knowledge" - either he does not actually understand basic population genetics and evolutionary biology, or he purposefully distorted it for his religious ends. That he, along with some non-geneticists, was able to cobble together a paper that made it into print does not make him the ultimate expert; it does not mean that what he wrote is 100% true or accurate.
Some choose to ignore his history and motivations to try to make his work seem more relevant and meaningful and to provide very interesting quotes and parts of quotes and repeated quotes for the same purposes.

At the end of the day his work was assessed and accepted by a mainstream journal who used the peer review process. Your personal views are irrelevant and can be applied to anyone.

And there you go again...

I fully accept that Sanford's work on the Gene Gun was fantastic.
How his patented Gene Gun stuff means that he is the ultimate authority on things he is not is a mystery understood only by creationists and their allies who frequently embellish the credentials and importance of their heroes. That Sanford relied on an electrical engineer for his 'genetics' says much, does it not?

Its funny though that Mendel who was also a plant geneticist and the father of modern genetics had a religious connection is well accepted and being an expert in the field of genetics but Sanford who has a similar background is not. I would have thought his background gives him the expertise to give qualified work in this field.

I find it fascinating that a scientist that supports evolution is not scrutinized and could even have an irrelevant background but anyone who disagrees is put under the microscope and any deviation is exploited to discredit them. This could not be more obvious in the fact that you place so much faith in D&S as being the great evolutionary scientists who have shown Behe who is a biologists and Sanford who is a genticist are wrong when they are mathematicians.

Considering you went to great lengths to point out that Sanfods genetic background does not mean he knows genetics and biology I think that it should be applied more to D&S who actually dont have relevant backgrounds. Talk about double standards.

That you fail to grasp that the D&S paper was NOT FAVORABLE to their claims only adds weight to what is now pretty much a fact that you are engaging in the argumentum and verecundiam - a fallacious appeal to authority.

I thought debating or challenging what is claimed is part of science and not arguing. As mentioned you seem to think that the D&S paper is the holy grail and therefore everyone should stop challenging things and accept their findings as final. Like I said Behe responded to their paper showing the mistakes they made in their assessments. D&S have the right to reply as well. That is how it works. The debate may go on but I would not be jumping to any conclusions just yet. Plus it still does not take away from the fact that they agree with the long waiting times for human populations.

 

[Heissonear]

Really? Do tell. Because whenever I have written this ......................... then only creationists cling doggedly to them at all costs. D&S took the assumptions of others and applied them to the Behe assertions and showed how silly they were.

As per OP, it is observational evidence in the fossil record that there is not one fossil sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Zero evidence evolution has occurred.

You mention above about something based on assumptions and being silly. Look at your foundation, the fossil record.

It is evident that evolution has zero real world evidence.

Evolutionists present grand conjecture. And present evolution to the masses as fact, and any other faith in how life came about as silly. As a farce.

It is pretty high up for the Elite who speak down on others. Even the Elite who's foundation is conjecture-based, and what they present are words of speculation.

Again, zero fossil record evidence showing evolution ever occurred. Not one sequence showing proof.

Evolutionists do not like to hear this and do not like to face the music. They do not want to face the fact their foundation is missing.

After growing up a Naturalist and becoming academically educated (historical geology, paleontology, ....) I found the foundation of evolution was missing. And became enlightened to the grandscale speculation from what geologic teachers promote, even biochemists and geneticist who claim molecular biology proves evolution; pieced together molecular and environmental jargon of how life on Earth has evolved from one another over time.

Conjecture and speculation at its highest form of itellectualism, without proof it happened even once over time in the past. Zero fossil record evidence.

This is the state natural sciences are in. And the wayward-ism many natural scientists are in. All has been recorded and will be exposed by the Most High.

 

[tas8831]

As per OP, it is observational evidence in the fossil record that there is not one fossil sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

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:

Zero evidence evolution has occurred.

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.​

You mention above about something based on assumptions and being silly. Look at your foundation, the fossil record.

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

It is evident that evolution has zero real world evidence.

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...?

Evolutionists present grand conjecture. And present evolution to the masses as fact, and any other faith in how life came about as silly. As a farce.

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

It is pretty high up for the Elite who speak down on others. Even the Elite who's foundation is conjecture-based, and what they present are words of speculation.

Broken record keeps repeating unsupported erroneous assertions.

Again, zero fossil record evidence showing evolution ever occurred. Not one sequence showing proof.

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

Evolutionists do not like to hear this and do not like to face the music. They do not want to face the fact their foundation is missing.

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

After growing up a Naturalist and becoming academically educated (historical geology, paleontology, ....)

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

I found the foundation of evolution was missing. And became enlightened to the grandscale speculation from what geologic teachers promote, even biochemists and geneticist who claim molecular biology proves evolution; pieced together molecular and environmental jargon of how life on Earth has evolved from one another over time.

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.

Conjecture and speculation at its highest form of itellectualism, without proof it happened even once over time in the past. Zero fossil record evidence.

This is the state natural sciences are in. And the wayward-ism many natural scientists are in. All has been recorded and will be exposed by the Most High.

BORING....

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

 

[tas8831]

Yes that is part of the process, but what you are doing is assuming that D&S review is the be all and end all. Behe did respond to their criticism and answered their objections.

Did he "answer" them, did he? Did he actually demonstrate that they were in error?
No.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that they also agreed that there is a prohibitively long waiting time for human populations of 100 million years for evolving just 2 specific and connected mutations to create a new function.

And this is why I am not wasting my time on you any more.
You keep ignoring how D&S and Lynch said that such an assumption is ridiculous.
You seem to think that anyone but Behe and creationists think that this is how evolution works.

 

[46AND2]

You can not take a question as an answer. You do not think hard enough.

Lol. I know this post is old, and on the first page of this thread, but c'mon juve, you do this ALL THE TIME. You've even said that you ask questions as answers on purpose to get the other person to think deeper or some such.

 

[juvenissun]

Lol. I know this post is old, and on the first page of this thread, but c'mon juve, you do this ALL THE TIME. You've even said that you ask questions as answers on purpose to get the other person to think deeper or some such.

You don't get it.
I use a question as an answer.
He used an answer as a question.

 

[stevevw]

Did he "answer" them, did he? Did he actually demonstrate that they were in error?
No.

Actually yes he did answer them and showed where they went wrong with their assumptions.

And this is why I am not wasting my time on you any more.
You keep ignoring how D&S and Lynch said that such an assumption is ridiculous.
You seem to think that anyone but Behe and creationists think that this is how evolution works.

As mentioned D&S are mathematitions and Behe is a biologists so I think Behe knows more on the subject than they do. In fact, it is D & S who make the unrealistic assumptions about evolution. Behe used a specific example of chloroquine-resistance mutation in malaria where two specific mutational changes are required in a sequence and based his calculations for the long time factor on empirical support.

“My figure of 1020 [the odds of a malaria parasite developing resistance to chloroquine] is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.”

D & S used their own model which was based on assumptions and went against the empirical data. They assumed any first mutation in a population could be used as a starting point to increase the chances and reduce the time when it needed to be a specific one. But as Behe states

Consider the chloroquine-resistance mutation in malaria. There are about 10^6 possible single amino acid mutations in malarial parasite proteins, and 10^12 possible double amino acid mutations (where the changes could be in any two proteins). Yet only a handful are known to be useful to the parasite in fending off the antibiotic, and only one is very effective — the multiple changes in PfCRT. It would be silly to think that just any two mutations would help. The vast majority are completely ineffective.

D & S also wrongly based their findings on assuming that the other 9 nucleotides in the sequence string example remained unchanged while waiting for the 10th mismatched codon to mutate to the correct one creating a new transcription-factor-binding site. Just as the last nucleotide has to change and there need to be many duplications to get that change the likelihood of one or more of the other 9 changing and therefore making the entire string useless is very high. It is unrealistic to assume that the only change to any of the 10 nucleotides will be the one needed when all are subject to the same chqnce of changing just as much as each other.

By adding this situation it dramatically reduces the chances and increases the time. They also assume the first mutation is neutral when evidence shows it is more likely to be deleterious which also influences the time factor. Like I said it is all about how the scenario is viewed as to the possible positive and negative events that will influence the outcome.

The third problem also concerns the biology of the system. I’m at a bit of a loss here, because the problem is not hard to see, and yet in their reply they stoutly deny the mistake. In fact, they confidently assert it is I who am mistaken. I had written in my letter, ”… their model is incomplete on its own terms because it does not take into account the probability of one of the nine matching nucleotides in the region that is envisioned to become the new transcription-factor-binding site mutating to an incorrect nucleotide before the 10th mismatched codon mutates to the correct one.” They retort, “This conclusion is simply wrong since it assumes that there is only one individual in the population with the first mutation.” That’s incorrect.

That is just a couple of the mistakes Behe points out. You will have to read his reply to see the rest.
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/best_of_behe_wa/

 

[tas8831]

I already indicated that I am done with you. I will address just one thing:

Behe used a specific example of chloroquine-resistance mutation in malaria where two specific mutational changes are required in a sequence and based his calculations for the long time factor on empirical support.

So is it Behe's and your position that this is how ALL evolution proceeds? If so, please provide the evidence that Behe uses to support this claim.

If not, then who cares about Behe's ego stroking and sad attempts at face-saving (by writing 'rebuttals' on a non-reviewed creationist website)?

 

[stevevw]

I already indicated that I am done with you. I will address just one thing:

So is it Behe's and your position that this is how ALL evolution proceeds? If so, please provide the evidence that Behe uses to support this claim.

If not, then who cares about Behe's ego stroking and sad attempts at face-saving (by writing 'rebuttals' on a non-reviewed creationist website)?

First the article I cited was citing Behe reply which was from a peer reviewed paper. It just happened to be a better description as Behe was commentating on it. But the sections I quoted were the same in the paper.

The example Behe uses is the same one that D&S use so there is no disputing the method for which they are using to evaluate how evolution works. This example is a good example of how evolution works through duplication and how mutations to the copies can bring new function/change. It calculates how evolution works as it is showing the probability for changing an existing nucleotide and replacing it with a new one that is needed to complete a change in a sequence string for a relatively simple protein function change. As explained by Behe describing D&S method.

They develop a population genetics model to estimate the waiting time for the occurrence of two mutations, one of which is premised to damage an existing transcription-factor-binding site, and the other of which creates a second, new binding site within the nearby region from a sequence that is already a near match with a binding site sequence (for example, 9 of 10 nucleotides already match).

The only differences between the two is in the assumptions explained in my previous post. Considering this is a simple example that gives the benefit of the doubt of using an already evolved string without going into calculating the difficulties of how the rest of that sequence string came about it begs the question of the odds and time for more complex changes. As Sanford stated in his papers for longer strings the time factor becomes a very big problem.

 

[tas8831]

Somebody sure seems to go silent when their false charges are exposed...

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...

 

[tas8831]

The only differences between the two is in the assumptions explained in my previous post. Considering this is a simple example that gives the benefit of the doubt of using an already evolved string without going into calculating the difficulties of how the rest of that sequence string came about it begs the question of the odds and time for more complex changes. As Sanford stated in his papers for longer strings the time factor becomes a very big problem.

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.