Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Speedwell]

When you can prove there is no God and no heaven, SHOW ME.

Nobody here is trying to disprove the existence of God. Some of us believe in God, and the rest are theologially knowledgeable enough to understand that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[PsychoSarah]

On the license plats of cars it has the state motto: The show me state.

When you have some science based evidence, SHOW ME.

-_- you say to the person making a commitment to a 10 year long evolution experiment, that will document every generation of the control and experimental groups and post all of the data here.

Your poem is another of your biased opinions. When you can prove there is no God and no heaven, SHOW ME.

Lol, what? Since when does my poem say there isn't a god? I'm a seeker, so I'm looking for evidence for god and an afterlife. And my poem is a message against hypocrisy; people that would preach good but don't act on it themselves; people that behave as if being a believer makes them a prophet.

I never think of a forum as as win or lose contest, but and exchange of ideas. I am sure you will outlast me becaue I will no longer respond to post with no evidence.

What's with all this aggression? Your acting like it's my prerogative to crap all over your beliefs.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- you say to the person making a commitment to a 10 year long evolution experiment, that will document every generation of the control and experimental groups and post all of the data here.

I say show me the science that allows it to happen. An honest experiment will show a change of species will not happen.


Lol, what? Since when does my poem say there isn't a god? I'm a seeker, so I'm looking for evidence for god and an afterlife. And my poem is a message against hypocrisy; people that would preach good but don't act on it themselves; people that behave as if being a believer makes them a prophet.

What's with all this aggression? Your acting like it's my prerogative to crap all over your beliefs.

Thanks for the clarification. Your line "all they shall hold is empty air," to me sounded like there is nothing up there, including God. You being an atheist probably influenced my understanding.

 

[omega2xx]

Nobody here is trying to disprove the existence of God. Some of us believe in God, and the rest are theologially knowledgeable enough to understand that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition.

Some are, most are not.

 

[omega2xx]

Anything to avoid the addressing the evidence posted.

If you don't understand it just say so, I doubt anyone could think any less of you at this point.

Opinions are not evidence and to date no one has posted any real scientific evidence to support evolution.

If you think they have cut it, paste it highlight it and tell what it proves.

 

[Jimmy D]

Opinions are not evidence and to date no one has posted any real scientific evidence to support evolution.

If you think they have cut it, paste it highlight it and tell what it proves.

Adaptive Evolution of 5′HoxD Genes in the Origin and Diversification of the Cetacean Flipper

limb modification in the mammals has involved the molecular evolution of the Hoxgenes Hoxd12 and Hoxd13, represent an important addition to this growing body of work and highlights the potential role that Hox genes are likely to have had in more recent evolutionary radiations.

The role of Hoxd12 in the modulation of digit number and development of the flipper was also suggested by the results of branch-site models, in which several sites under positive selection were detected on the branch leading to the cetaceans.

............................................

In the meantime, here is genetic evidence for whale evolution. Note that this is an article, and there is a link to the scientific paper it summarises. There are plenty of references in the original paper. Genes Reveal How Whales Evolved For Ocean Life - Redorbit

............................................

I gave you a link to a paper that is overflowing with the results of scientific analysis of the genomes of a number of whales and (for comparative purposes) other mammals. Here it is again: Minke whale genome and aquatic adaptation in cetaceans

The 'picture' above is actually a Venn diagram showing the amount of overlap of genes for a number of animals, which is a summary of their results.

 

[omega2xx]

Adaptive Evolution of 5′HoxD Genes in the Origin and Diversification of the Cetacean Flipper

limb modification in the mammals has involved the molecular evolution of the Hoxgenes Hoxd12 and Hoxd13, represent an important addition to this growing body of work and highlights the potential role that Hox genes are likely to have had in more recent evolutionary radiations.

The role of Hoxd12 in the modulation of digit number and development of the flipper was also suggested by the results of branch-site models, in which several sites under positive selection were detected on the branch leading to the cetaceans.

............................................

In the meantime, here is genetic evidence for whale evolution. Note that this is an article, and there is a link to the scientific paper it summarises. There are plenty of references in the original paper. Genes Reveal How Whales Evolved For Ocean Life - Redorbit

............................................

I gave you a link to a paper that is overflowing with the results of scientific analysis of the genomes of a number of whales and (for comparative purposes) other mammals. Here it is again: Minke whale genome and aquatic adaptation in cetaceans

The 'picture' above is actually a Venn diagram showing the amount of overlap of genes for a number of animals, which is a summary of their results.

I quit reading evo links and I have told why. Cut and paste the evidence your links provided or forget it.

 

[Jimmy D]

I quit reading evo links and I have told why. Cut and paste the evidence your links provided or forget it.

Adaptive Evolution of 5′HoxD Genes in the Origin and Diversification of the Cetacean Flipper

The homeobox (Hox) genes Hoxd12 and Hoxd13 control digit patterning and limb formation in tetrapods. Both show strong expression in the limb bud during embryonic development, are highly conserved across vertebrates, and show mutations that are associated with carpal, metacarpal, and phalangeal deformities. The most dramatic evolutionary reorganization of the mammalian limb has occurred in cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), in which the hind limbs have been lost and the forelimbs have evolved into paddle-shaped flippers. We reconstructed the phylogeny of digit patterning in mammals and inferred that digit number has changed twice in the evolution of the cetacean forelimb. First, the divergence of the early cetaceans from their even-toed relatives coincided with the reacquisition of the pentadactyl forelimb, whereas the ancestors of tetradactyl baleen whales (Mysticeti) later lost a digit again. To test whether the evolution of the cetacean forelimb is associated with positive selection or relaxation of Hoxd12 and Hoxd13, we sequenced these genes in a wide range of mammals. In Hoxd12, we found evidence of Darwinian selection associated with both episodes of cetacean forelimb reorganization. In Hoxd13, we found a novel expansion of a polyalanine tract in cetaceans compared with other mammals (17/18 residues vs. 14/15 residues, respectively), lengthening of which has previously been shown to be linked to synpolydactyly in humans and mice. Both genes also show much greater sequence variation among cetaceans than across other mammalian lineages. Our results strongly implicate 5′HoxD genes in the modulation of digit number, web forming, and the high morphological diversity of the cetacean manus.

 

[omega2xx]

Adaptive Evolution of 5′HoxD Genes in the Origin and Diversification of the Cetacean Flipper

The homeobox (Hox) genes Hoxd12 and Hoxd13 control digit patterning and limb formation in tetrapods. Both show strong expression in the limb bud during embryonic development, are highly conserved across vertebrates, and show mutations that are associated with carpal, metacarpal, and phalangeal deformities. The most dramatic evolutionary reorganization of the mammalian limb has occurred in cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), in which the hind limbs have been lost and the forelimbs have evolved into paddle-shaped flippers. We reconstructed the phylogeny of digit patterning in mammals and inferred that digit number has changed twice in the evolution of the cetacean forelimb. First, the divergence of the early cetaceans from their even-toed relatives coincided with the reacquisition of the pentadactyl forelimb, whereas the ancestors of tetradactyl baleen whales (Mysticeti) later lost a digit again. To test whether the evolution of the cetacean forelimb is associated with positive selection or relaxation of Hoxd12 and Hoxd13, we sequenced these genes in a wide range of mammals. In Hoxd12, we found evidence of Darwinian selection associated with both episodes of cetacean forelimb reorganization. In Hoxd13, we found a novel expansion of a polyalanine tract in cetaceans compared with other mammals (17/18 residues vs. 14/15 residues, respectively), lengthening of which has previously been shown to be linked to synpolydactyly in humans and mice. Both genes also show much greater sequence variation among cetaceans than across other mammalian lineages. Our results strongly implicate 5′HoxD genes in the modulation of digit number, web forming, and the high morphological diversity of the cetacean manus.

Not a word of HOW. Just the usual evo rhetoric

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not a word of HOW. Just the usual evo rhetoric

I think this is the point where you come clean and simply admit that no amount of data, theories with testable predictions, fossils, genetic analysis, observations,... is every going to convince you.

That you are dogmatically attached to your religious story and that no amount of evidence will ever change that.

It is as Dr Gregory House once said: "You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into...."

 

[Jimmy D]

Not a word of HOW. Just the usual evo rhetoric

So do hox genes play a role in the evolution of limb formation or not? If not why not.

Your denial doesn't cut it, you need to explain why.

(FYI. I do realize that you haven't got a clue about what you're denying and that you're just basically trolling)

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There are many other examples - but one has to wonder why, if they are so sure that they are correct, why do they engage in these acts of dishonesty?

And if they are acts of incompetence, why should their followers trust them?

Lying v. Stupid - the dichotomy of the professional creationist.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not a word of HOW. Just the usual evo rhetoric

Yes. Quite so. It gets painful after a while. Nothing but solid evidence, detailed explanations, mutiply validated experiments, well constructed arguments, sourced from fields as diverse as anatomy, embryology, genetics, palaeontology, microbiology, botany, zoology, cladistics, biochemistry and more, all assembled into a wall of sound, well resourced rhetoric. Disgusting. Those evoes are truly evil!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

-_- you say to the person making a commitment to a 10 year long evolution experiment, that will document every generation of the control and experimental groups and post all of the data here.

What is your experiment? Is it described in another thread?

 

[omega2xx]

Yes. Quite so. It gets painful after a while. Nothing but solid evidence, detailed explanations, mutiply validated experiments, well constructed arguments, sourced from fields as diverse as anatomy, embryology, genetics, palaeontology, microbiology, botany, zoology, cladistics, biochemistry and more, all assembled into a wall of sound, well resourced rhetoric. Disgusting. Those evoes are truly evil!

Please don't embellish what I say. That is dishonest I have never said or implied that evolutionists are evil. "Since you seem to think genetics contribute to evolution, explain how the offspring can get a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.

Instead of listing some science subjects, try including the evidence each one uses to prove evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

So do hox genes play a role in the evolution of limb formation or not? If not why not.

Your denial doesn't cut it, you need to explain why.

(FYI. I do realize that you haven't got a clue about what you're denying and that you're just basically trolling)

I always get this response when the the person can't produce any evidence for what they say. Your saying it does , does not cut it. When you explain HOW, scientifically of course, I will explaining why it doesn't. Until then it is you who is trolling.

 

[omega2xx]

I think this is the point where you come clean and simply admit that no amount of data, theories with testable predictions, fossils, genetic analysis, observations,... is every going to convince you.

Of course there is. It is called verifiable evidence. What testable predictions? You have no intermediate fossils, according to your most respected expert, Gould. Genetics actually refute evolution, and you have no observations of evolution taking place.

You need to come clean and admit nothing will change your mind that evolution is based on science.

That you are dogmatically attached to your religious story and that no amount of evidence will ever change that.

Maye you can post where I have mentioned religion or the Bib le.

It is as Dr Gregory House once said: "You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into...."

My view is not based on reason. It is based on what is evidence and is the evidence based on proven science. I will mention one thing from teh Bible that is proved by observation thousands of times every day for thousands of years and can't be falsified---After their kind.

Now I will quote you an old adage---Seeing is believing.
Evolutionists have made that old adage into "not seeing is believing."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course there is.

Owkay.
Then pray tell, what evidence would convince you?
And please be specific.

It is called verifiable evidence

The nested hierarchy of life, phylogenies, mutation, natural selection,... all very verifiable.

What testable predictions?

An uncountable amount in terms of nested hierarchies of life.
Things like, for example, that you won't find any mammal with feathers, any reptile with mammary glands, any non-primate with which we share more ERV's then other primates, etc etc etc.

You have no intermediate fossils

That is simply hilariously false. Here are just two lineage examples out of MANY:

Genetics actually refute evolution

How, exactly?

and you have no observations of evolution taking place.

Only if you ignore all observed instances of evolution taking place, both in the wild as well as the lab.

A simple google of "observed speciation" will yield plenty of results.

You need to come clean and admit nothing will change your mind that evolution is based on science.

Evolution theory is a model of biology, which IS science.

Maye you can post where I have mentioned religion or the Bib le.

Ow please........ are you really going to pretend that your denial of evolution isn't inspired by creationist religious beliefs?

Come on, now....................

My view is not based on reason

We agree there. Hence my mention of Dr Gregory House's hilarious quote.

It is based on what is evidence and is the evidence based on proven science.

The science is found in biology. Where the consensus is that evolution happens.
If you are additionally going to deny that mainstream science universally agrees on evolution theory, then you are either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest.

I will mention one thing from teh Bible that is proved by observation thousands of times every day for thousands of years and can't be falsified---After their kind.

Evolution doesn't claim otherwise.
Every creature ever born was of the same species as its direct parents.
Evolution is a gradual process. Meaning that cats will produce more cats (with very slight modification/variation). Cats will not produce a non-cat.

Now I will quote you an old adage---Seeing is believing.

Here you can see the pattern that emerged by blindly counting DNA matches in fully sequenced genomes. Note that this chart wasn't created by a human, but generated by a blind algoritm that does nothing but count matches by comparing DNA and plotting those matches on a graph.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

This hierarchy is exactly the pattern that should emerge, if it were the result of evolution.

You asked about testable predictions, right? There you have another one: evolution PREDICTS a nested hierarchy. As in: without such a pattern, evolution is false. And when we look, we find out that that is exactly the pattern that exists.

Evolutionists have made that old adage into "not seeing is believing."

No, that would be what creationists are doing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Please don't embellish what I say. That is dishonest I have never said or implied that evolutionists are evil.

If you are offended by rhetorical techniques that seek to highlight the inanity of an argument pehaps you should offer better arguments. If you are unable to recognise appropriately used hyperbole, perhaps you should take an appropriate English course.

I shall overlook your accusation of dishonesty on this occassion.

"Since you seem to think genetics contribute to evolution, explain how the offspring can get a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.

Mutation.

Instead of listing some science subjects, try including the evidence each one uses to prove evolution.

If I actually believed you would make a serious study of the evidence I would be happy to do so. Given that such evidence is available in a host of textbooks, popular science books, research journals and online sites, you have had extensive opportunities to expose yourself to it.

I will give you this promise. If you assure me that you will examine the evidence I provide in an open minded fashion then I shall open a thread wherein that evidence is presented and debated. My intention would be to deal with one category of evidence from one "science subject" at a time. Let me know which of my listed topics you would wish me to begin with, along with your commitment to an open minded study of the material. For your convenience, here were the topics:

• anatomy
  
• embryology
  
• genetics
• palaeontology
• microbiology
• botany
• zoology
• cladistics
• biochemistry

 

[PsychoSarah]

What is your experiment? Is it described in another thread?

Yes, it's in the thread "Evolution Experiment: Creationists, Choose their Fate!"