Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

EternalDragon · Aug 24, 2013

Here is some more from the previous cited article and a quote from real science that supports my claims. I take it you did not read the article I linked or you would have seen it.

A paper in the journal PLOS Biology entitled, “Bushes in the Tree of Life.” The authors acknowledge that “a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality,” observing that one study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom.”9 The paper suggests that “certain critical parts of the [tree of life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available.”10 The paper even contends that “[t]he recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics.”11

Unfortunately, one assumption that these evolutionary biologists aren’t willing to consider changing is the assumption that neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry are correct.

EternalDragon · Aug 24, 2013

lasthero said:
Except, here's the thing - Casey Luskin is a liar.

Smoke and Mirrors, Whales and Lampreys: A Guest Post by Ken Miller : The Loom

Anyone or anything that contradicts evolution is called a lie by you guys. Get over it already.

lasthero · Aug 24, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Anyone or anything that contradicts evolution is called a lie by you guys. Get over it already.

It's not an empty accusation. The link I provided shows examples of him lying. It's no sin to call him what he is.

Also, I like how you complain about Subduction Zone not reading the link you gave, then turn around and ignore the one I provide without a moment's hesitation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuppRSL1uvw

Subduction Zone · Aug 24, 2013

EternalDragon said:
So when real science, as you call it, finds contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out failures of the molecular data to provide a clear picture of phylogenetic history and common descent, then ignores it all, is that not a lie? Or at best bad science?

Then the ones that expose this are called liars.

You throw that word around a lot when confronted by the real evidence.

No, I post that claim a lot because creationists lie a lot.

for example the method of lying that was used time after time in that particular article was quote mining. Quote mining is a method of lying. They quoted out of context time after time.

What they were misquoting is that at the very "base" of the tree of life it is not "tree-like". Single celled life can sometimes swap and trade DNA with other single celled life so it is more of a mesh at that point. When you get to multicelled life the "tree of life" holds up very well.

It is a lie when you try to take a refinement of evolution and claim that debunks the theory.

One of the big reasons that evolutionists do not like creationists is because of these lying creationist sites. Bearing false witness is supposed to be a sin and yet they do it constantly.

EternalDragon · Aug 24, 2013

lasthero said:
It's not an empty accusation. The link I provided shows examples of him lying. It's no sin to call him what he is.

Also, I like how you complain about Subduction Zone not reading the link you gave, then turn around and ignore the one I provide without a moment's hesitation.

I am aware of most of what went on at the Dover trial, having read about it.

I typically ignore childish complaints of someone lying at face value. What needs to be addressed are the main underlying issues.

Subduction Zone · Aug 24, 2013

lasthero said:
It's not an empty accusation. The link I provided shows examples of him lying. It's no sin to call him what he is.

Also, I like how you complain about Subduction Zone not reading the link you gave, then turn around and ignore the one I provide without a moment's hesitation.

Casey Luskin Lies on Fox news(MIRROR) - YouTube

Excellent. I watched that video after I made my previous post and see that Casey Luskin was making the exact same sort of lies as were in E.D.'s linked source.

Subduction Zone · Aug 24, 2013

EternalDragon said:
I am aware of most of what went on at the Dover trial, having read about it.

I typically ignore childish complaints of someone lying at face value. What needs to be addressed are the main underlying issues.

And in that trial they showed that the underlying issues were that they were trying to sneak a religious belief, creationism, into schools by renaming it.

It is not childish to complain about someone's lying when that person is lying.

Is that such a hard concept for you to understand.

Here is an honest question for you:

Is it okay to lie for Jesus?

lasthero · Aug 24, 2013

I'm not complaining, merely stating facts. You said that we just call people who disagree with evolution as liars without reason. There are reasons we call them liars.

Because they lie.

lasthero · Aug 24, 2013

Oh, and if you like that, Subduction, you'll love this.

Holy Hallucinations 27 - YouTube

Warning: Some vulgarity...okay, quite a bit of it.

Subduction Zone · Aug 24, 2013

lasthero said:
Oh, and if you like that, Subduction, you'll love this.

Holy Hallucinations 27 - YouTube

Warning: Some vulgarity...okay, quite a bit of it.

Too late, I am already subscribed to The Living Dinosaur.

I saw the Luskin interview in the past too, what I liked was how well it fit in with my post.

Split Rock · Aug 24, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Here is some more from the previous cited article and a quote from real science that supports my claims. I take it you did not read the article I linked or you would have seen it.

A paper in the journal PLOS Biology entitled, Bushes in the Tree of Life. The authors acknowledge that a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality, observing that one study omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom.9 The paper suggests that certain critical parts of the [tree of life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available.10 The paper even contends that [t]he recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics.11

Unfortunately, one assumption that these evolutionary biologists arent willing to consider changing is the assumption that neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry are correct.

All the author did was to quote mine out of contex from a paper that highlighted the difficulties in resolving the tree in certain areas because of homoplasty. One can read the original paper here, which of course you never bothered to do PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

No where does Casey Luskin provide a superior explanation of the data, utlizing I.D. or anything else for that matter. All he claims is that any difficulties in elucidating the tree of life automatically provides support for I.D. All he offers in support of this assertion is a quote mine. He never even addresses any of the data directly. Not once.

Split Rock · Aug 24, 2013

EternalDragon said:
I am aware of most of what went on at the Dover trial, having read about it.

I typically ignore childish complaints of someone lying at face value. What needs to be addressed are the main underlying issues.

What you guys need to address is that those who lie in support of creationism/ I.D. are free to do so at will. There are no consequences for lying, hense the prevalence of lying which has become systemic in creationism/I.D. circles. No one is held accountable.

lasthero · Aug 24, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
Too late, I am already subscribed to The Living Dinosaur.

I saw the Luskin interview in the past too, what I liked was how well it fit in with my post.

I suspected you were, but I figured any excuse to post Holy Hallucinations was a good excuse.

Valiantis · Aug 24, 2013

Split Rock said:
What you guys need to address is that those who lie in support of creationism/ I.D. are free to do so at will. There are no consequences for lying, hense the prevalence of lying which has become systemic in creationism/I.D. circles. No one is held accountable.

Who is going to hold them accountable creationists? the creationists who know what is going on are in there telling lies, the creationists who make up the majority are not smart enough to check so the lies work on them every time.

All we can hope is that the young ones coming up will not fall for the same lies their parents did,
the Internet will give them access to the information their parents never had, it is information that will kill creationism,
even Fox News is slowly dying and the Republican party will be doing the biggest 'U turn' ever seen in American politics.

USincognito · Aug 24, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Really? It just shows you misclassified hedgehogs and shrews as different species, but are figuring out they might be the same kind.

On this new data set there is a strong tendency for the hedgehog and its relative, the gymnure, to join with the other Laurasiatherian insectivores (mole and shrews).

I'm sorry, what? Hedgehogs and shrews aren't just different species, they're in entirely different orders. That paper was trying to figure out relatedness of all mammals and was using some representative species in order to do so. Their analysis suggested that hedgehogs were related to moles and shrews under Insectivora. They would be right - they are related, but are now placed in two separate orders that replaced Insectivora - Erinaceomorpha (hedgehogs and kin) and Soricomorpha (moles, shrews and kin). Both of them are part of the Laurasiathere superorder that includes beings as diverse as bats, elephant seals, horses, cows and dolphins.

Are you suggesting Laurasiatheria is a "kind"?

Justatruthseeker said:
Just proves scientists enjoy the name game and have no idea what belongs to what species. Just shows that instead of 4 species, we are down to one when it comes to hedgehogs, gymnure, moles, and shrews.

Boom goes the irony meter. In the first sentence you claim that scientists have no idea what belongs to what species, then you follow that gem up by claiming, falsely, that scientists have placed hedgehogs, gymnures, moles and shrews into one species. That's a priceless example of Dunning-Kruger effect worthy of a FSTDT nomination.

Justatruthseeker said:
Just shows if you can mix up living animals, without a doubt you have mixed up extinct animals. I am looking forward to better DNA examination, so we can continue to get rid of half the species you have classified incorrectly and put them all back into their respective kinds.

Given the laughers you presented in the first two paragraphs of this post, you'll forgive us if we don't take this last one very seriously.

USincognito · Aug 24, 2013

CabVet said:
Haha, excellent! Ladies and gentlemen, those two are now the same "kind":

They're not just the same "kind". JaTS claims that the paper I linked (and he completely ignored the fact that his question about bats and bears was responded to sufficiently) asserts that moles and shrews are the same species.

Just shows that instead of 4 species, we are down to one when it comes to hedgehogs, gymnure, moles, and shrews.

USincognito · Aug 24, 2013

Casey Bloviatin said:
Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations.

What a bunch of claptrap. There are literally millions of morphological, molecular and genetic discoveries that would falsify common ancestry.

Birds with wings and arms.
Shrimp with backbones.
Primates with chitinous exoskeletons.
Completely different DNA for plants, animals and fungi.
Lungs in lobsters.
Gills on gorillas.
Chloroplasts in cows.
Melanocytes in flowering plants.

That we never find such things does not mean that common ancestry is unfalsifiable, it means it is unfalsified. The issues that do arise are more along the lines of are taxon A more closely related to taxon 1 or taxon 2.

USincognito · Aug 24, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Here is some more from the previous cited article and a quote from real science that supports my claims. I take it you did not read the article I linked or you would have seen it.

The paper is availible on-line. You can read it yourself rather than Casey's bloviating spin on it.
PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

For instance this quote:

observing that one study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom.”

discusses analysis trying to resolve phylogenies for Metazoa - all animals.

A similar inability of still larger datasets to resolve cladogenetic patterns is observed among metazoan clades that diverged even farther back in time. Many recent studies have reported support for many alternative conflicting phylogenies [5,6,9,10]. For example, Wolf and colleagues [9] analyzed 507 genes by maximum likelihood, finding support for Coelomata—a clade that joins phyla possessing a true coelom, such as arthropods and chordates, to the exclusion of phyla without one, such as nematodes (left-most tree in Figure 2D). In contrast, Dopazo and Dopazo [10] analyzed 610 genes also by maximum likelihood and, after exclusion of genes evolving at a faster rate in nematodes, found support for Ecdysozoa (rightmost tree in Figure 2D).

Three observations generally hold true across metazoan datasets that indicate the pervasive influence of homoplasy at these evolutionary depths. First, a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality. For example, Wolf and colleagues [9] omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom (Figure 2D). Second, in all studies, a large fraction of characters—genes, PICs or RGCs—disagree with the optimal phylogeny, indicating the existence of serious conflict in the DNA record. For example, the majority of PICs conflict with the optimal topology in the Dopazo and Dopazo study [10]. Third, the conflict among these and other studies in metazoan phylogenetics [11,12] is occurring at very “high” taxonomic levels—above or at the phylum level.

The third point - that analyses producing conflicting phylogenies occurs at very high taxonomic levels - is the most important part of that paragraph. One would expect that the deeper back in time one goes with genetic analysis, the more opportunity there is for genes to evolve that would create confliting data, noise or other problems.

eta - Should have know Split Rock would not only beat me to it, but would respond in a more succinct and concise manner.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 25, 2013

USincognito said:
The paper is availible on-line. You can read it yourself rather than Casey's bloviating spin on it.
PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

For instance this quote:
observing that one study omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom.
discusses analysis trying to resolve phylogenies for Metazoa - all animals.
A similar inability of still larger datasets to resolve cladogenetic patterns is observed among metazoan clades that diverged even farther back in time. Many recent studies have reported support for many alternative conflicting phylogenies [5,6,9,10]. For example, Wolf and colleagues [9] analyzed 507 genes by maximum likelihood, finding support for Coelomataa clade that joins phyla possessing a true coelom, such as arthropods and chordates, to the exclusion of phyla without one, such as nematodes (left-most tree in Figure 2D). In contrast, Dopazo and Dopazo [10] analyzed 610 genes also by maximum likelihood and, after exclusion of genes evolving at a faster rate in nematodes, found support for Ecdysozoa (rightmost tree in Figure 2D).

Three observations generally hold true across metazoan datasets that indicate the pervasive influence of homoplasy at these evolutionary depths. First, a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality. For example, Wolf and colleagues [9] omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom (Figure 2D). Second, in all studies, a large fraction of charactersgenes, PICs or RGCsdisagree with the optimal phylogeny, indicating the existence of serious conflict in the DNA record. For example, the majority of PICs conflict with the optimal topology in the Dopazo and Dopazo study [10]. Third, the conflict among these and other studies in metazoan phylogenetics [11,12] is occurring at very high taxonomic levelsabove or at the phylum level.
The third point - that analyses producing conflicting phylogenies occurs at very high taxonomic levels - is the most important part of that paragraph. One would expect that the deeper back in time one goes with genetic analysis, the more opportunity there is for genes to evolve that would create confliting data, noise or other problems.

eta - Should have know Split Rock would not only beat me to it, but would respond in a more succinct and concise manner.

1) Seems to me to say that some studies relied on omitted 35% of genes because they produced evidence not consistent with their theory.

2) And that most of the data is so poor, one can say it says anything one wants, by the simple fact everyone does. One says it says this, another says it says that, a third says it says something else all together. Not very convincing evidence at all.

The data doesn't prove anything at all, just shows it is of poor quality and that up to half the data can be ignored at times because it conflicts with a man-made belief of how species evolved.

In the end we know what it will show, kind after kind after kind, as it always does.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 25, 2013

USincognito said:
What a bunch of claptrap. There are literally millions of morphological, molecular and genetic discoveries that would falsify common ancestry.

Birds with wings and arms.
Shrimp with backbones.
Primates with chitinous exoskeletons.
Completely different DNA for plants, animals and fungi.
Lungs in lobsters.
Gills on gorillas.
Chloroplasts in cows.
Melanocytes in flowering plants.

That we never find such things does not mean that common ancestry is unfalsifiable, it means it is unfalsified. The issues that do arise are more along the lines of are taxon A more closely related to taxon 1 or taxon 2.

Why would a bird ever have arms? Birds are one kind, not evolved from something else. Finding a bird with arms would disprove creation, and prove evolution. Not the other way around as you want to twist it.

Same with shrimp and backbones, they never had them, because they have always been shrimp. Not shrimp that evolved from something else into shrimp.

Same.

Same.

Same

All false reasoning. All evidence that supports creation since none of those have been found despite the fact that mutations are supposed to be the cause behind evolution. Yet nothing ever mutates or evolves into something different. All shrimp kind are the same. All Gorillas are the same.

They have always been the same except for basic appearance changes within the kind.

Birds have always been birds, because they never evolved from anything, but were created that way. That is why you never see one with arms. You don't see gills on gorillas because gorillas have never been anything other than gorillas.

The evidence does indeed support creation. When you find any of those above examples, I will then accept evolution as a possibility. Until then it has no evidence at all in the fossil or the genetic realms.

As in both it has been shown, kind after kind after kind.

Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

Counselor

Counselor

Newbie

Regular Member

Counselor

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

Valiantis

Guest

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency