To the evolution deniers

[tas8831]

Because for personal reasons most dismiss the notion of a creator as a possibility before they even address the issue.

Of all the shallow, condescending, pathetic, self-righteous garbage I see from creationists, this sort of BS probably annoys me the most.

 

[Ophiolite]

Where is the written historical evidence to backup the supposition? There must have been some eyewitness accounts going back that far....

Of course there are. They are written in the language of our genes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of all the shallow, condescending, pathetic, self-righteous garbage I see from creationists, this sort of BS probably annoys me the most.

I know, right...........

I'm still a bit in shock from a few posts back... where a creationist talked about a "harmfull mutation that worked towards the organism's advantage"

That was both shocking as well as hilarious.

I'm so confused.
A "harmfull mutation with beneficial effect" on the carrier. That's just brilliant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Easy there fella! And it's Captain Kirk, with capitals to you.

This is the Star Trek Laser Rifle:

... as it was used by Captain James R. Kirk:

Question: What powers this thing?

 

[Almost there]

Whenever cars start reproducing by passing along genetic material to offspring, you might begin to have an analogy.

Give them a few billion years, monkeys and typewriters.

 

[Almost there]

David Menton reminds you of Piltdown man? well, he does have crazy eyebrows...

I take it that you accept, at face value, tales of conspiracies and intrigue churned out by your favorite creationist organizations?

No. That would be incorrect.

 

[redleghunter]

Really? I've already answered that. My something is pretty much your something.

Which means you did not proffer a distinct third option.

I'm done with this nonsense. You proffered two options, I demonstrated that there were more. Therefore you presented a false dichotomy.

You admitted above that your something is pretty much my Something. Therefore, you did not proffer a valid alternative and the claim of false dichotomy is frankly invalid.

This is a vanishingly small point. My correction of your oversight was not intended to lead to the Spanish Inquisition. The sensible thing for you to have done would have been to say, "Good point" and we could have moved on. But instead you are trying to herd cats. Ridiculous.

If I said "good point" I would be dishonest.

Unless you post something so eloquent, erudite and unexpected that stops me in my tracks, I have nothing further to say on the matter.

KING HENRY V

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

 

[tas8831]

No. That would be incorrect.

So, you have 'researched' (data mined?) this all on your own, yet you still imply that it was a big lie... OK...

 

[Almost there]

So, you have 'researched' (data mined?) this all on your own, yet you still imply that it was a big lie... OK...

I was responding to this question:

"I take it that you accept, at face value, tales of conspiracies and intrigue churned out by your favorite creationist organizations?"

And my answer is, no, that would be incorrect.

 

[Jimmy D]

And the model keeps changing.

When I think of evolution theory and all the changes that must be made as new discoveries are made, I'm reminded of Ptolomy.

Something else I think about when people mention evolution theory is my old 2001 Chrysler 300m. Imagine some race of beings coming to our planet a couple of million years from now, long after mankind is extinct or has left the planet a Mars-like hulk. They find my car perfectly preserved in ice or many layers of rock, etc.

Now, imagine they find a 2001 Dodge Neon from the same year, but catastrophies have placed it in a layer of rock they determine to be a million years older. As they look at the makeup of both cars, they notice that they share the same, exact door handle (they do). When analyzing the qualities of the cars and the suggested age of each, they deduce that the 300m evolved from the Neon. And to further complicate things, they later find a 2001 dodge intrepid and announce they have found the missing link!

Except what really happened was this:

1. Both cars were designed for human occupants.
2. Both cars were designed to be effectively useful for humans to transport humans and some of their stuff.
3. Both were designed for the same road conditions and environment.
4. Both were designed by the same company with the same general goals.
5. The company believed in efficiency of production and economy, and saw no reason to design two separate door handles when one design and manufacturing process was sufficient.

i.e. the similarites between species do not prove evolution. They prove design.

"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." --- Peter Gabriel (The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Genesis)

These aliens have mastered interstellar travel but are stupid enough to think that manufactured mechanical objects are subject to biological evolution? Their knowledge of geology allows them to accurately date rock samples but they are unaware of basic geological processes?

You know we can actually study the world around us if we want to learn about it, we don't need to invent fantastical analogies.

 

[tas8831]

I was responding to this question:

"I take it that you accept, at face value, tales of conspiracies and intrigue churned out by your favorite creationist organizations?"

And my answer is, no, that would be incorrect.

Yes, and so my question to you regarding how you drew your conclusions remains un-answered.

 

[tas8831]

And the model keeps changing.

When I think of evolution theory and all the changes that must be made as new discoveries are made, I'm reminded of Ptolomy.

Something else I think about when people mention evolution theory is my old 2001 Chrysler 300m. ... And to further complicate things, they later find a 2001 dodge intrepid and announce they have found the missing link!

And amazing - ANOTHER absurd and irrelevant car analogy.

i.e. the similarites between species do not prove evolution. They prove design.

It is a shame that so few creationists understand basic evolutionary concepts as well as they insist or assert or imply that they do.

I wrote this for another creationist that claims to know all about evolution being based on similarities and such... He didn't get this. Maybe you will?

The fact that you mention"similarities" proves that you do not understand the methods or know about any of the data used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees.

Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns or shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods:

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.

"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." --- Peter Gabriel (The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Genesis)

"You've got to get in to get out." Peter Gabriel (The Carpet Crawlers - Genesis)

 

[Almost there]

And amazing - ANOTHER absurd and irrelevant car analogy.

Opinions vary.

 

[tas8831]

Opinions vary.

Yes, and those of the opinion that a dopey cars=evolution is a good one are wrong.


I have found that those relying on such inapt analogies do so because they have nothing of any real value to contribute.

Analogies are not evidence.

Oh and it is so weird - you must have hit the post button early on accident, for you left this off:


It is a shame that so few creationists understand basic evolutionary concepts as well as they insist or assert or imply that they do.

I wrote this for another creationist that claims to know all about evolution being based on similarities and such... He didn't get this. Maybe you will?

The fact that you mention"similarities" proves that you do not understand the methods or know about any of the data used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees.

Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods:

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.

 

[Almost there]

Analogies are not evidence.

You are correct. I use them for the same reason Jesus used parables.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[BradB]

"Completely new arrangement" is so ambiguous that it could be anything from 1 base pair deletion to two chromosomes fusing. This is not a standardized scientific term.

You’re blowing a smoke screen here. Look your theory says that all life on this planet is the result of many Universal Common Descents and the mechanism is random mutations creating new traits in which natural conditions favor (aka natural selection). The theory says that single celled life became multi celled life in the water, which became fish that breathe through gills, which became amphibians with lungs that could breathe air, which developed a warm blooded system and became mammalian, and eventually developed higher levels of thinking and moved into condominiums. It is literally a frog to prince fairytale. All I am saying is I’m from Missouri…SHOW ME! All these changes obviously require a whole lot of new genetic information to have been added over time. I just want an example of the process observed at work in a multi celled organism. If it happens too slowly to be observed just say so and I’ll accept that. But then you have to stop claiming you have biological evidence for evolution.

 

[BradB]

Right. As usual, this discussion is not about theism vs atheism. It's about a Protestant minority vs everybody else, theist and atheist alike.

Well for starters it is a discussion board called… uh hem… “Christian” forums. So you should be expecting what type of “theists” you will be interacting with. Secondly I would point out that of all the religious writings, scrolls, books, prophets, gurus, priests, and “enlightened ones” so called, of the world, only the writings and the prophets of the Bible can pass what I call the SHIP test. Meaning the texts we have in the Bible passes and in many ways surpasses known science, it agrees 100% with known history and is substantiated over and over by archaeology. There is not a single inconsistency found though it had 40 different authors from 3 different continents who ranged from kings to cattle and goat herders, contains three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), and was written over a 1500 year span. And it passes the prophetic test 100% demonstrating its divine inspiration. Hundreds of detailed prophecies written hundreds and even thousands of years in advance are fulfilled exactly as they said.

The point I am making Speedwell, is that yes there may be many other beliefs in many other deities. However there is only one true one and that is the God of the Bible. Are we the minority? I’ll let Jesus Himself answer this question.

narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:14

 

[BradB]

What does "completely new arrangement" mean though? I ask, because DNA mutations are based on replication of prior sequences. And while something like a single nucleotide substitution can have a dramatic effect on gene function, the sequence itself may be still similar to the sequence that came prior.

As I told Sarah this is a smoke screen. Evolution theory says that all life on this planet is the result of many Universal Common Descents and the mechanism is random mutations creating new traits in which natural conditions favor (aka natural selection). The theory says that single celled life became multi celled life in the water, which became fish that breathe through gills, which became amphibians with lungs that could breathe air, which developed a warm blooded system and became mammalian, and eventually developed higher levels of thinking and moved into condominiums. It is literally a frog to prince fairytale. All I am saying is I’m from Missouri…SHOW ME! All these changes obviously require a whole lot of new genetic information to have been added over time. I just want an example of the process observed at work in a multi celled organism. If it happens too slowly to be observed just say so and I’ll accept that. But then you have to stop claiming you have biological evidence for evolution.

which appears in part at least to be the result of novel mutations in those strains.

Well firstly scanning through the article I missed the part where it was conducted under a controlled condition and the DNA involved was known to not exist in any of the population prior. Secondly don’t you think in a debate were all animal life is believed to be related that at least some of the evidence should involve…eh hem…animals?

Selective pressures are invariably a result of environment and a "controlled" environment implies one which is artificially controlled; and thus subject to artificial selection pressure.

Huh? Are you implying that the change is the result of environmental “pressures?” Because all evolution theory I have ever read says that the changes are completely the result “random” mutations and that it is the environment that chooses which random mutations will move forward…ie…a mutation gives an animals offspring much more hair that it’s relatives and it is able to survive a harsher winter and pass on the trait. It isn’t the harsh winter that causes the longer hair mutation. This has nothing in comparison with “selective breeding.”

Whether or a not a particular mutation is known to exist beforehand or not seems somewhat irrelevant.

Well it is not irrelevant to me because the presence of the trait in the population shows that it already existed as an allele in the population in some minority. And just because the majority of the population dies off and that minority then becomes the majority doesn’t demonstrate UCD mechanisms. It merely demonstrates survival of the species not existence of the species.

 

[Tayla]

The Bible does not state the shape of the earth. As a result, I accept that it is spherical because it has been proven to be spherical.

The word "firmament" refers to a dome above the earth. You can only have a dome above a flat earth. The notion of the earth as a sphere did not appear until long after Genesis was written, with the early Greeks.

Therefore, the Bible teaches flat earth.

It is revisionism to go back and modify the original writer's thinking.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You’re blowing a smoke screen here.

I'm not at all. It takes just 1 base pair deletion or addition to shift the reading frame of a gene, resulting in the production of a potentially drastically different protein than the original gene produced. One could consider that a completely new arrangement. It is entirely possible for something that small to produce a gene that is entirely new. That, or one could interpret "completely new arrangement" as referring to the DNA as a whole, and it would take a much bigger change for all the genes on the DNA to change their relative positions.

Look your theory says that all life on this planet is the result of many Universal Common Descents and the mechanism is random mutations creating new traits in which natural conditions favor (aka natural selection).

I'm not a UCA supporter, so no comment on that. The rest of it is an ok interpretation, though you neglect that traits which are detrimental also have a huge influence on this.

The theory says that single celled life became multi celled life in the water, which became fish that breathe through gills, which became amphibians with lungs that could breathe air, which developed a warm blooded system and became mammalian, and eventually developed higher levels of thinking and moved into condominiums.

Oversimplifying anything can make it sound stupid. Here is gravity: people don't float into the sky because their bodies and the planet are drawn together. It's a way to misrepresent a concept without outright lying about it.

It is literally a frog to prince fairytale.

-_- I don't have the tact to respond to this nicely.

All I am saying is I’m from Missouri…SHOW ME!

Don't see how where you are from is relevant, but I am doing a 10 year long evolution experiment. Feel free to participate by voting for 2 traits to be selected for, and if you are so inclined, perform the experiment independently for yourself along with me. I specifically designed it so that the whole thing costs significantly less than $100.

All these changes obviously require a whole lot of new genetic information to have been added over time.

Which measurably happens. Every human born, for example, has 40-60 mutations that neither of their parents do.

I just want an example of the process observed at work in a multi celled organism.

Participate in my experiment, then! I'm using Triops, which are multicellular.

If it happens too slowly to be observed just say so and I’ll accept that. But then you have to stop claiming you have biological evidence for evolution.

Too slowly to observe in our own species, since our lifespan is only about 5 of our generations at best. But for an organism that has a new generation every 3 weeks? That's a different story, good sir. The longer the experiment, and the harsher the selective pressures, the more change in less time. I calculated it out, and one should be able to see a difference between my experimental population and the control group within less than 2 years if the mutation rate of this species is decent.