Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That claim is false. Incomplete lineage sorting is a known and understood mechanism.
Gorilla, Orangutan, Chimp and Human Genomes: Population Genetics and Intelligent Design | Letters to Creationists
We would expect that the majority of the human genome should be more closely related to chimps, and it is with 70% of the human genome being more like the chimp genome than the gorilla genome. The predictions hold up, as does the nested hierarchy.
I can even show you how this works in the case of a human family. Siblings share a more recent common ancestor than cousins, so should we see that for every single part of the genome that siblings are more closely related than cousins are? No. Let's say that there are two alleles for a gene that we will call A and B. It is entirely possible that your siblings can have AA while you have BB, and that your cousins will also be BB. It is entirely possible that you will be more closely related to your cousins for parts of your genome than you are to your siblings.
More importantly, we can make predictions on how much incomplete lineage sorting should impact each genome, and those predictions are born out. We can predict that ILS should make us share more genes with gorillas than we do orangutans, and that is exactly what we observe. We can use the nested hierarchy to predict the percentage of ILS, and those predictions bear out.
This can't be explained by common design. There is absolutely no reason that common design should look exactly like evolution. None. And yet there is the evidence that exactly mimics what we would expect from evolution.
There are no such studies, assuming I can parse your tangled sentences. There are studies that show that some traits can be transmitted to offspring without being transmitted by DNA, which adds an interesting wrinkle to evolution but in no way contradicts it.Latest studies have shown that a parent with say blues eyes can have a sibling with brown eyes and they dont have the gene for the blue eyes. Yet a cousin or distant cousin picks up that parents blue eyes and gene for those blue eyes.
There are no such studies, assuming I can parse your tangled sentences. There are studies that show that some traits can be transmitted to offspring without being transmitted by DNA, which adds an interesting wrinkle to evolution but in no way contradicts it.
What you're claiming is simply not the state of science today. Common descent is an explanatory principle that is woven throughout research in genetics. It is used every day and is in no way in question. Maybe geneticists are collectively wrong, but collectively they do indeed accept evolution.
Latest studies have shown that a parent with say blues eyes can have a sibling with brown eyes and they dont have the gene for the blue eyes. Yet a cousin or distant cousin picks up that parents blue eyes and gene for those blue eyes.
Once again i will post links that are from non religious sites and are science sites some are universities, some from nature.com. They say that nested hierarchy is in question and show how it is.
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.10885!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/486460a.pdf
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - Video
Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Just in case you question Denis nobles qualifications.
Denis Noble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Denis Noble CBE FRS FRCP (born 16 November 1936) is a British biologist who held the Burdon Sanderson Chair of Cardiovascular Physiology at Oxford University from 1984 to 2004 and was appointed Professor Emeritus and co-Director of Computational Physiology. He is one of the pioneers of Systems Biology and developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960.[1] His research focuses on using computer models of biological organs and organ systems to interpret function from the molecular level to the whole organism. Together with international collaborators, his team has used supercomputers to create the first virtual organ, the virtual heart.
As Secretary-General of the International Union of Physiological Sciences 1993-2001, he played a major role in launching the Physiome Project, an international project to use computer simulations to create the quantitative physiological models necessary to interpret the genome, and he was elected President of the IUPS at its world congress in Kyoto in 2009[2]
I think you need to catch up with the times. You see in the last 20 years since genetics have come about it is starting to examine the claims made by evolutionists based on the fossil record and the incredible stories they made up about wolf like animals becoming whales and all that. This is now in dispute. If you cant see that then you have your head in the sand. I have already posted the links and they are scientific links from nature.com to universities and renowned evolutionists.
Common descent and the way evolutionists say that certain animals belong together by the fossil records because they assessed that they had links through using their anatomy are starting to be proved wrong. how many times do i have to say it. I have referenced 10 plus links maybe more from science organizations. Now your saying they are all wrong and telling lies. Yet you dont provide one, zero zilch, nothing in reply. All you give is denial out of your own mouth and no backup. In fact you ridicule me with things like criticizing my writing style which shows where you are coming from. Thats right play the man and not the ball.
Here ill even put what richard Dawkins said who is one the the greatest proponents of evolution.
Dawkins was clearly unhappy with the claims of Nelson and Platnick and the transformed cladists:It isnt that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolutionNow even more backup.
Richard Dawkins
Transformed Cladism
So Dawkins is saying or he tends to agree that it would be better for the taxonomy if they forget about evolution because the genetic evidence is starting to not support it.
This is from liberty university are they wrong.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Is he wrong and lies.
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - Video
Nature.com one of the best science sites are they wrong.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Evolution news is a science site and they have a prominent scientist from oxford university even stating that there is a gaping hole in the evolution theory.
With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views
Do i need to say more. If you cant admit that there are problems with the theory then all i can say is you refuse to even look at what they are saying and i give up. Look ill even come half way and say maybe evolution may be found true when they find more answers and re evaluate their theory. But to say that evolution and common decent is not in question is crazy with the amount of evidence. To say there are no such studies is also absolutely crazy as i have just linked 10 plus studies showing this in the last few posts. Are all these just false links with false studies and scientists making false statements. The genetic evidence is there in every study.
To be honest at the end of the day it doesn't worry me, you see thats where im lucky because i have a faith in god which doesn't depend on being proved by science. That faith is personal and it allows me to know of gods greatness and that he is bigger than the universe.
Keep it up Steve.
.
Latest studies have shown that a parent with say blues eyes can have a sibling with brown eyes and they dont have the gene for the blue eyes. Yet a cousin or distant cousin picks up that parents blue eyes and gene for those blue eyes.
Once again i will post links that are from non religious sites and are science sites some are universities, some from nature.com. They say that nested hierarchy is in question and show how it is.
I think you need to catch up with the times. You see in the last 20 years since genetics have come about it is starting to examine the claims made by evolutionists based on the fossil record and the incredible stories they made up about wolf like animals becoming whales and all that. This is now in dispute.
If you cant see that then you have your head in the sand. I have already posted the links and they are scientific links from nature.com to universities and renowned evolutionists.
Common descent and the way evolutionists say that certain animals belong together by the fossil records because they assessed that they had links through using their anatomy are starting to be proved wrong. how many times do i have to say it. I have referenced 10 plus links maybe more from science organizations. Now your saying they are all wrong and telling lies. Yet you dont provide one, zero zilch, nothing in reply. All you give is denial out of your own mouth and no backup. In fact you ridicule me with things like criticizing my writing style which shows where you are coming from. Thats right play the man and not the ball.
Dawkins was clearly unhappy with the claims of Nelson and Platnick and the transformed cladists:It isn’t that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolutionNow even more backup.
Richard Dawkins
Transformed Cladism
So Dawkins is saying or he tends to agree that it would be better for the taxonomy if they forget about evolution because the genetic evidence is starting to not support it.
This is from liberty university are they wrong.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Is he wrong and lies.
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - Video
Nature.com one of the best science sites are they wrong.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Evolution news is a science site and they have a prominent scientist from oxford university even stating that there is a gaping hole in the evolution theory.
With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views
Do i need to say more. If you cant admit that there are problems with the theory then all i can say is you refuse to even look at what they are saying and i give up. Look ill even come half way and say maybe evolution may be found true when they find more answers and re evaluate their theory. But to say that evolution and common decent is not in question is crazy with the amount of evidence. To say there are no such studies is also absolutely crazy as i have just linked 10 plus studies showing this in the last few posts. Are all these just false links with false studies and scientists making false statements. The genetic evidence is there in every study.
To be honest at the end of the day it doesn't worry me, you see thats where im lucky because i have a faith in god which doesn't depend on being proved by science. That faith is personal and it allows me to know of gods greatness and that he is bigger than the universe.
I don't mean to sound rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm one of those university scientists, and the picture you're trying to paint of what's going on in genetics has no connection to reality. I've worked on or witnessed at close hand pretty much every major project in human genetics in the last 15 years. I've looked at thousands of genetics papers, attended hundreds of talks, collaborated with hundreds of geneticists and talked to many more, and in that time I have never, even once, encountered one who had any doubt about or dispute with the core of evolution. It just does not happen.I think you need to catch up with the times. You see in the last 20 years since genetics have come about it is starting to examine the claims made by evolutionists based on the fossil record and the incredible stories they made up about wolf like animals becoming whales and all that. This is now in dispute. If you cant see that then you have your head in the sand. I have already posted the links and they are scientific links from nature.com to universities and renowned evolutionists.
Here ill even put what richard Dawkins said who is one the the greatest proponents of evolution.
Dawkins was clearly unhappy with the claims of Nelson and Platnick and the transformed cladists:It isnt that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution
Richard Dawkins
Transformed Cladism
So Dawkins is saying or he tends to agree that it would be better for the taxonomy if they forget about evolution because the genetic evidence is starting to not support it.
Yes, they're wrong. Unpublished papers by creationists who are not geneticists are really not doing much to advance your claim about genetics.This is from liberty university are they wrong.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
No, he's not wrong, although he's intentionally overstating things a little for polemical purposes. He's describing inadequacies with evolutionary theory as it existed in the mid-20th century; he advocates a more complex and nuanced set of evolutionary models (which have, in fact, by and large been accepted by biologists). By what kind of insane logic does this suggest that common descent is wrong?Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Is he wrong and lies.
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - Video
No, they're not wrong. Improved data and methods are continually changing details of our accounts of evolutionary history, and many of those details will continue to change, since the evidence is often slim. That's why scientists still have jobs: there's still lots of stuff that isn't well understood. What does this have to do with questioning common descent?Nature.com one of the best science sites are they wrong.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Evolution news is an intelligent design site. Since it is, it is best to assume that anything they say is a distortion in some way. Yeah, there are holes in evolutionary theory; it's a simple for model for a very complex phenomenon. Again, so what? The review they're appealing to has this to say about evolution itself (rather than the theory describing it): "The evidence for evolution itself is robust as it comes from the three independent lines that each tells the same story: history (fossil record and isotope dating), morphology (taxonomic relationship and comparative embryology in living organisms - evolutionary change starts off as developmental change) and molecular sequence relationships." If you think this is a reliable source, are you willing to agree with that statement?Evolution news is a science site and they have a prominent scientist from oxford university even stating that there is a gaping hole in the evolution theory.
With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views
The links you've provided show precisely zero doubt about common descent among working geneticists. Would you like to try again?Do i need to say more. If you cant admit that there are problems with the theory then all i can say is you refuse to even look at what they are saying and i give up. Look ill even come half way and say maybe evolution may be found true when they find more answers and re evaluate their theory. But to say that evolution and common decent is not in question is crazy with the amount of evidence. To say there are no such studies is also absolutely crazy as i have just linked 10 plus studies showing this in the last few posts. Are all these just false links with false studies and scientists making false statements. The genetic evidence is there in every study.
I have faith in God too. That doesn't mean I have to accept falsehoods just because they're told in his name.To be honest at the end of the day it doesn't worry me, you see thats where im lucky because i have a faith in god which doesn't depend on being proved by science. That faith is personal and it allows me to know of gods greatness and that he is bigger than the universe.
I think you need to catch up with the times. You see in the last 20 years since genetics have come about it is starting to examine the claims made by evolutionists based on the fossil record and the incredible stories they made up about wolf like animals becoming whales and all that. This is now in dispute. If you cant see that then you have your head in the sand. I have already posted the links and they are scientific links from nature.com to universities and renowned evolutionists.
Common descent and the way evolutionists say that certain animals belong together by the fossil records because they assessed that they had links through using their anatomy are starting to be proved wrong. how many times do i have to say it. I have referenced 10 plus links maybe more from science organizations. Now your saying they are all wrong and telling lies. Yet you dont provide one, zero zilch, nothing in reply. All you give is denial out of your own mouth and no backup. In fact you ridicule me with things like criticizing my writing style which shows where you are coming from. Thats right play the man and not the ball.
Here ill even put what richard Dawkins said who is one the the greatest proponents of evolution.
Dawkins was clearly unhappy with the claims of Nelson and Platnick and the transformed cladists:It isn’t that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolutionNow even more backup.
Richard Dawkins
Transformed Cladism
So Dawkins is saying or he tends to agree that it would be better for the taxonomy if they forget about evolution because the genetic evidence is starting to not support it.
This is from liberty university are they wrong.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Is he wrong and lies.
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - Video
Nature.com one of the best science sites are they wrong.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Evolution news is a science site and they have a prominent scientist from oxford university even stating that there is a gaping hole in the evolution theory.
With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views
Do i need to say more. If you cant admit that there are problems with the theory then all i can say is you refuse to even look at what they are saying and i give up. Look ill even come half way and say maybe evolution may be found true when they find more answers and re evaluate their theory. But to say that evolution and common decent is not in question is crazy with the amount of evidence. To say there are no such studies is also absolutely crazy as i have just linked 10 plus studies showing this in the last few posts. Are all these just false links with false studies and scientists making false statements. The genetic evidence is there in every study.
To be honest at the end of the day it doesn't worry me, you see thats where im lucky because i have a faith in god which doesn't depend on being proved by science. That faith is personal and it allows me to know of gods greatness and that he is bigger than the universe.
I have faith in God too. That doesn't mean I have to accept falsehoods just because they're told in his name.
[serious];64627681 said:Cherry picked quote, blend of fake science journals and real journal articles that have nothing to do with your claims, and a desperate attempt to claim that a guy stressing a systems approach to biology and inheritance in someway must be on your side.
Seriously, read/watch this stuff before you post it. If you don't understand what is being said or how it directly relates to your central premise, don't post it. You look ridiculous when you toss up this kind of salad of nonsense.
That is what Theobalds Markov chain would predict...
The problem is that gorillas which are suppose to be our 2nd closest ancestor or are not. The Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset are closer to us than the gorilla.
This puts a big dent in the family tree of man as the gorilla was seen as looking more like man and the others are less like man.
It also shows how evolutionists get it wrong by trying to fit fossils into a hierarchy by claiming that the anatomy fits the picture. If they have got this wrong then how many others in the tree have they got wrong.
In fact evidence is now coming out there are more violations to the human family tree.
Nested hierarchy should show that our closest relatives are those which evolutionists have said in the taxonomic are linked by the fossils and anatomy they claim. They should also be closet to us in the genetics.
Now genetics are starting to pull that nested hierarchy apart and branches are falling off the tree they have made. Unexpected results are linking unusual species that they say should not go together.
It is taking out important links they need to prove their theory and placing them in places they shouldn't be if the theory is true. But the most amazing find or should i say conclusion which the evidence is showing is in principle evolution through natural selection is impossible.
Though apes in general are linked closer to humans in the genetics which can also be the case with creation as we both are designed from the same blue print but with a variation in our genetics. The whole family tree going right back to the bacteria evolution say we evolved from is now on shaky ground. The evidence is pointing towards fish coming from fish and birds coming from bird or individual design rather than an evolutionary process.
{quoting someone else}FISH are the common ancestors of humans, birds, and frogs. Ergo birds nest within fish, and so do humans, and so do frogs. That is what Theobalds Markov chain would predict in terms of nesting. But the actual anatomical/taxonomic nesting tells a different story: fish are fish, humans are not fish, birds are not fish, frogs are not fish. Are you going to believe Theobalds Markov chains that you are a fish or are you going to believe youre a human and not a fish?
{quoting someone else}To try to nest humans with fish because we supposedly descended from them is at variance with the nested hierarchy we would build by simply looking and comparing traits instead of fabricating Darwinian stories.
{quoting someone else}For example, in the world of man-made machines, there arent fully functioning vehicles with 2.3 wheels there are 2-wheeled, 3-wheeled, 4-wheeled vehicles, etc The notion of even a conceptual transitional (from 2-wheeled to 3-wheeled) via small steps makes little sense. There is no transition, but rather a leap, per saltum.
{quoting someone else}For example, what is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates? Err, crash hard to conceive of even in principle.
{quoting someone else}Its like looking for a square circle. Those gene sequence worshippers argue the genes show there was a common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates, but they seem to have problem describing anatomically what it would look like. Google common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates and try to find even a hypothetical description of what the common ancestor could look like even in principle. Maybe the lack of transitionals suggest there werent any.
So's Law and no, he's not saying that.Here ill even put what richard Dawkins said who is one the the greatest proponents of evolution.
Dawkins was clearly unhappy with the claims of Nelson and Platnick and the transformed cladists:It isnt that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution
Richard Dawkins
Transformed Cladism
So Dawkins is saying or he tends to agree that it would be better for the taxonomy if they forget about evolution because the genetic evidence is starting to not support it.
This is from liberty university are they wrong.Yes, they're wrong. Unpublished papers by creationists who are not geneticists are really not doing much to advance your claim about genetics.
So's Law and no, he's not saying that.
Transformed Cladism? - hitchens_jnr - RichardDawkins.netI have left till last the oddest aspect of the transformed cladism school of taxonomy ... some transformed cladists have ... concluded that there must be something wrong with evolution itself! ... some of the leading 'transformed cladists' profess an actual hostility to the idea of evolution itself, especially the Darwinian theory of evolution. Two of them, G. Nelson and N. Platnick ....have gone so far as to write that 'Darwinism . . . is, in short, a theory that has been put to the test and found false'. ... It isn't that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. ... But you can't reasonably say that, because you don't need to use a particular theory in the day to day practice of your particular branch of science, therefore that theory is false. ... 'False', note well, is precisely the word Nelson and Platnick used.blue is the quote mine
What he's saying is that while it might be possible to do taxonomy without using evolutionary theory - especially relatedness via ancestry - one cannot conclude that because one could do so that the theory of evolution is false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?