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.
just replace "cars" with "creatures" and here you go...
I hadn't seen that post. I don't believe I've ever said that those results shouldn't exist. I said that transposon insertions shouldn't be scattered randomly throughout a phylogenetic tree. They're not, as the papers you cite themselves indicate.its interesting you said that. since in the last time we discussed about evolution i gave you examples that you said should not exist if common descent is true:Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?
Then your comment is off-topic. I'm talking about reality, not your latest imaginary scenario. On this planet, studying the human species that actually lives here, I was able to use common descent to correctly infer something about human biology. What would happen on your imaginary world with 10 million year old human populations is not relevant.i talk about theoretical case.
Sure, let's.great. lets talk about science.
Still sorry -- I agreed to talk about science, not about another one of your imaginary worlds.do you agree that if we will find two different self replicating cars, the best conclusion will be a common design rather then a common descent?
That reports them, but never explains how mutations a million base pairs long come to be without destroying the host. You have repeatedly rationalized the extent, what was it last time, 97%. No I've yet to see the indels addressed or the deleterious effects of mutations for that matter. The ERVs for me was the last straw, you really expect me to believe that 8% of the human genome is the result of viral germline invasions? Yea you deal with it Steve, your as able as anyone to dismiss the obvious problems with them.We talk about them quite a lot; there's an extensive and ongoing body of research on large indels.
, you really expect me to believe that 8% of the human genome is the result of viral germline invasions?
At this point, after more than a decade of arguing this topic, NOBODY expects you'll ever accept it.
You've never explained why it should destroy the host. Healthy humans are known to have mutations up to 3 million base pairs long. So how could it be impossible?That reports them, but never explains how mutations a million base pairs long come to be without destroying the host.
Evolutionary processes are a particular type of trial-and-error process.I am familiar with the trial and error method, though I will still call it the trial and error method.
The apostles did not teach something else. They and Christ taught from the scriptures and used the scriptures to support what they taught. Yes they also taught new things such as communion. BUT they wrote those things down. We have ZERO evidence that what is taught as tradition is what the apostles taught. If tradition contradicts scripture tradition is wrong. Because scripture is our ONLY evidence of what the apostles taught.The Apostles did not believe that the scriptures were the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Most Christians still don't, whether they believe in common ancestry or not, even those who accept the Genesis stories as historical.
No cigar unless you can explain the change of voicing.
Wrong. The most you can say is that the Apostles and early church Fathers believed the stories to be historical (as many non-creationist Christians do now). There is no hint of Protestant fundamentalism in their writings, your blatant revisionism notwithstanding.
Probably so, but that is not evolution from a common ancestor.Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
I tried this on other thread but never got an answer....
If humans settled a planet with 1.3 times earth’s gravity do you agree that future generations would likely be shorter, more muscular and have other characteristics like denser bones ?
I'm looking for something more substantive than a bare-bones definition. Do you have anything more substantive to offer?
I've never made such a claim. Rather, I've provided examples of the fact that biological evolution is an applied science. In other words, that it has real-world scientific application.
"Common design" lacks a scientific basis, and consequently there are no scientific applications derived from it.
I've most certainly provided demonstrable examples (repeatedly) whereby shared ancestry ancestry has scientific application.
Here is an example of such a post, directed specifically to you. You just gave a hand-waving response to it though, suggesting you probably didn't even read it. Do you want to try again?
I also started an entire thread on the subject, but the creationist response was generally disappointing.
No, common design is not accepted because it has no scientific backing. At best it's been a political movement with a pseudo-scientific veneer.
And you're back to your generic denialism. Interesting.
Once again you use assumptions as do the scientists in your paper. And I quote.
Phylogenetic trees are more than just pretty pictures. They describe a specific data set of relationships between respective species describing both which species/taxa share common ancestry, as well as the relative levels of divergence between each (given via the branch length).
They speak of common ancestry as fact. Yet there is no evidence of it ever occurring. This paper does answer my question. Cannot common design do the same thing? What is learned from this paper that is not assumptive? The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions based upon common design. No real discovery is made here. It's simply pointing out commonalities among creatures. Nothing new is discovered that cannot be discovered by simply recognizing that God designed all life using commonalities of building blocks.
Try again. Give me one scientific breakthrough where evolution was the only answer and common design would have failed.
Yet you can't show that any of the evolutionary claims of common ancestry ever really happened.How what? How did we estimate the mutation rate variation from the data?
No, we couldn't. We were looking at human population variation and distinguishing the contributions of mutation rate variation and shared genealogical history.
Yes, I know, since I was there when we wrote that.
Sorry, but we're in a better position to determine what a fact is in biology than you are.
Exactly what kind of mutations were you looking at? No one here is arguing that mutations do not occur. Much like the moth that mutated it's coloring. I think we can all agree that stuff like that occurs. What we disagree with is the mutations being so strong that it creates a new creature eventually. Like the common ancestor eventually evolving into us. It's nonsense and unobservable and can't be shown to ever have occurred. In fact there is no evidence of any kind of change like that.How what? How did we estimate the mutation rate variation from the data?
No, we couldn't. We were looking at human population variation and distinguishing the contributions of mutation rate variation and shared genealogical history.
Yes, I know, since I was there when we wrote that.
Sorry, but we're in a better position to determine what a fact is in biology than you are.
As to the original question, it is completely irrelevant.
Watermelons are more than 60% water, humans are more than 60% water , does that mean we have a close ancestor to watermelons? No, of course not. But that is what the question is suggesting if you follow the logic.
To compare Chimpanzee DNA to Human DNA is nonsense. Humans were created in the image of God, Chimpanzees were not.
Evolutionary processes are a particular type of trial-and-error process.
So, yes, your god COULD HAVE created life such that it fits into nested hierarchies to deceive us, and make MANY people, including those who believe in him, incorrectly believe that evolution is true.
They speak of common ancestry as fact. Yet there is no evidence of it ever occurring.
This paper does answer my question. Cannot common design do the same thing?
What is learned from this paper that is not assumptive?
The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions based upon common design.
No real discovery is made here.
It's simply pointing out commonalities among creatures. Nothing new is discovered that cannot be discovered by simply recognizing that God designed all life using commonalities of building blocks.
Give me one scientific breakthrough where evolution was the only answer and common design would have failed.
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?