Whale with hooves

Jimmy D said:

Day One in university biology cla$$...

*Looks warily over both shoulders*

"Right everyone, keep it quiet but evolution is false, just maintain the pretense and watch the ca$hola keep rolling in....KERR CHING! Yachts for everyone!"

Click to expand...

Yes, there's no surer way to the 1% than spending years in a graduate program and finally landing a (likely part-time) job as a college bio instructor..

morse86 said:

But look at the rubbish you believe.....everything in the universe coming instantly from something smaller than a dot in 1 billionth of a second.

Click to expand...

And look at the rubbish YOU believe - everything in the universe coming instantly from the will of one of many Hebrew tribal deities 6-10,000 years ago from NOTHING.

That is more rubbish than the possibility of having a creator.

Click to expand...

Cool assertion, bro. Any REASON that your rubbish is any better than anyone else's?

And by the way - at least 'our ' rubbish is supported with some evidence. Yours? Ancient middle eastern myths, most of which are not original but stolen and modified pagan tales..

You wouldn't see a building and say it created itself. It had to have a designer.

Click to expand...

Of course I would - a human designer, because we know that humans build things. What a silly attempt at 'argument'. Analogies, by the way, are not arguments or evidence, especially when it actually undermines your fantasies.

So, I guess we can conclude that YES, you DO believe that Jehovah breathed into dust of the ground and a fully formed adult human male popped out.

Brilliant rubbish.

morse86 said:

Click to expand...

When the videos come out, you know the creationist has nothing of value to offer, and has never actually thought about things like an educated adult.

morse86 said:

I can't believe you're still pushing that garbage. Those "hind leg and pelvic structure" are not vestigial, they are used for mating! This was proven long ago.

Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises | Science | Smithsonian

Click to expand...

Another genius in our midst...

This is the type of garbage fraud $cientists keep pushing. 100% of evolution has already been proven wrong and yet they keep pushing it.

Click to expand...

I love the smell of projection in the morning.

it smells like the implosion of ancient middle eastern fairy tales.

morse86 said:

Illiterate? Please give the man some credit, he speaks more than 5 languages.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Ok, bro... Whatever you need to tell yourself.

How much $$$ does that clown rake in from the rubes, do you think?

Here is where Joel O$$$tein lives:




So humble - Jesus, in his sandals and cloak, must be so proud. I'm betting Jesus is wondering how that will fit through the eye of a needle....

We believe in real science: observable, testable, repeatable. Big Scam Theory and Evolution are none of those things.

Click to expand...

And what in the zany dust-to-Dan creation myth of Christianity is observable, testable, repeatable?

What in Baraminology is observable, testable, repeatable?

What miracles are observable, testable, repeatable?

You are wayyyy out of your league...

Finding a bunch of bones in the dirt = meaningless, Radio Carbon Dating (where 1 bone is 1 million years old, the bone next to it is 20,000, talk about >90% margin of error) = meaningless.

Click to expand...

Not as meaningless as lying through your teeth, I guess.

Give us the observable, testable, REPEATABLE evidence. Otherwise, don't try and push this "religion" disguised as $$$$$cience.

Click to expand...

OK - but I bet the folk$$ here are tired of $eeing it:

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 posted this more than a dozen times 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."

morse86 said:

Click to expand...

Rubbi$h.

@morse86 , the sorts of arguments you are paraphrasing are really not arguments at all.

I recommend that you look into writings that are at least a little more informed. Are you interested in doing so?

There is a book called Genesis, Creation, and Early Man by Fr Seraphim Rose. He is a sober writer. It may give you a better foothold in "traditional" Christian teaching about these matters. Or something to push back against.

I am not saying that this is the greatest book ever. Only that it stands head and shoulders above the nonsensical, head-in-the-sand claims about how all bio teachers are in it for the big $$$.

I understand it is hard to feel like you are asked by the wider culture to swallow something you haven't studied. I haven't, either. And it is unpleasant to be treated like a dope for the worldview that is meaningful to you. But you are not really learning anything from your sources. Why not read a summary of what ancient Christian writers had to say, and also a popular science book about evolution? I bet you if you did so, you might be able to have a more fun and productive thread on here with "evolutionists" and"creationists."

morse86 said:

Click to expand...

Steven Anderson..........LOL............not a good source of information about anything other than how to be a bigoted, anti-Semitic blowhard.

Christopher Broughton's Pastor Steven Anderson Prays for President Barack Obama's Death

Steven Anderson, Wacko Tempe Pastor, Now in Anti-Semitism Business

Meet the Pastor Who Told Me He Hoped I Got Brain Cancer and Died | HuffPost

Brightmoon said:

How? The ancestors of whales were land animals with hooves

Click to expand...

you dont know that. you assume that. its the argument from common similarity. why a truck is similar to a car? and by the way that fossil may be in the wrong place actually:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

archer75 said:

Why not expose this extreme worldwide fraud?

Click to expand...

i dont think that its a fraud but just a wrong interpretation base on common similarity. many designed objects are similar that doesnt mean that they evolved from each other.

Brightmoon said:

Carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years at a maximum.

Click to expand...

so if i will take a sample that is far less then 50, 000 years i will always get an accurate result?

Grumman Tomcat said:

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

Click to expand...

can we know where it moved to?

xianghua said:

you dont know that. you assume that.

Click to expand...

It is more of an inference, not an assumption.

its the argument from common similarity.

Click to expand...

Common similarity is the best kind of similarity.
Of course, given the amount of time you have been presenting your non-existent case on here, you should by now understand that there is no such thing as an argument from common similarity. You folks sure like to leave out a lot of details, probably to make your lame misrepresentations sound correct to yourselves.

why a truck is similar to a car?

Click to expand...

Because they are both made by people to perform similar tasks?

Why would a self-replicating creation-disproving robot penguin drive a truck carrying fossils?

xianghua said:

so if i will take a sample that is far less then 50, 000 years i will always get an accurate result?

Click to expand...

Depends.
If a qualified technician or scientist took appropriate measures to avoid contamination, etc., then probably so. If you are an underhanded, devious, dishonest creationist seeking to try to 'disprove' the concept of radiometric dating, and give the lab doing the dating fake information to try to trip them up, then you might get errant results. But that is the sort of thing we have self-replicating robot penguins to take care of.

tas8831 said:

Because they are both made by people

Click to expand...

here you go.

tas8831 said:

If a qualified technician or scientist took appropriate measures to avoid contamination

Click to expand...

but i can you be sure that there is no contamination?

xianghua said:

here you go.

Click to expand...

Here I go where? Why did you never bother to actually learn about evolution before venturing out into the real world with you silly, inapplicable nonsense in the hopes that your fantasies would convince people that you had something of merit to say?

but i can you be sure that there is no contamination?

Click to expand...

How can you be sure that your self-replicating robot penguin was not sent by our alien overlords to poison your mind?

xianghua said:

you dont know that. you assume that. its the argument from common similarity. why a truck is similar to a car? and by the way that fossil may be in the wrong place actually:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

Click to expand...

You need to stop comparing evolution to mechanical constructs. This has been explained to you time and time again that they aren't the same thing.
And why did you post a link that does no support what you claim?

Gracia Singh said:

Sorry...

Click to expand...

How did you do that?