Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

Herman Hedning said:

Isn't most human dancing also really a mating display?

Click to expand...

choreographed dance isn’t - like ballet or any other memorized
performance art
If you’re at a party - yeah, I’d agree with that.

Herman Hedning said:

Isn't most human dancing also really a mating display?

Click to expand...

It is when I do it.

EastCoastRemnant said:

It's a "theory"... all they have is their debating points.

Click to expand...

Hilarious.

EastCoastRemnant said:

I said physical evidence, as in show me evidence that an ape became a man. You can't.... you can theorize til the cows come home but it doesn't make it so.

Click to expand...

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:

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."

--------------------------------

EastCoastRemnant said:

Those are suppositions not evidence.

Bones are just bones...
Environment is just a location...
DNA shows nothing but the similarity that most animals have in common and doesn't show the evolution of species, genus, family, order, class, etc...
Behavioral patterns are grasping at straws to create a narrative, not evidence...

Click to expand...

So, while we are busy concocting idiosyncratic definitions of things to rescue your beliefs, allow me to adopt your apparent definitions - where is the physical evidence that Jehovah breathed life into a pile of dust of the ground and a fully formed adult human male emerged, and were there witnesses?

EastCoastRemnant said:

Seeing as how your "theory" on God's existence is wrong, imo, why should I believe your "theory" of the universes origin?

Click to expand...

What is your evidence that the theory as you describe it is wrong? A mere assertion will not work.

EastCoastRemnant said:

Because it isn't... if I say that I have a theory of invisibility and can't produce any evidence of such a theory, then it's just supposition. I can state that the evidence of such a theory is there but it's just invisible.... the same circular arguments used by evolutionists.

Click to expand...

This was written by a young earth creationist Christian, who also has a PhD in biochemistry and was at one time the director of the Baraminology Study Group:


So I ask - what do YOU know that he does not?
It seems very much like he is referring directly to people like you. In addition, angry, self-rightous, condescending posts like yours are a prime impetus for the sorts of things the thread-starter is referring to.

Clint Edwards said:

Yes, abiogenisis is always preached as a separate discipline. Of course that begs the question, how can evolution be discussed thoroughly without discussing the alleged beginning of the process ? Can a comprehensive discussion on cancer exist without discussing the pre cancer changes in the cells ? My own OPINION is that abiogenisis is so obviously questionable and nebulous, it must be separated to maintain the facade that macro evolution is a slam dunk fact. Understandable.

Click to expand...

Inapt analogy -
A better one would be "Can a comprehensive discussion on cancer exist without discussing the origin of cells ?"

EastCoastRemnant said:

Only the Creator is able to not only give life but to take it...

Click to expand...

Mere assertion.

Where is your physical evidence?

EastCoastRemnant said:

Evolutionary science is dogmatic in it's variableness over time... hardly compelling as truth.

As far as faith, it is true that evolution and Christianity both require it.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, repetitious strawman fallacies are not helping you come across as an honest broker.

Uber Genius said:

But your suggestion of a discussion format that looks at the best explanation of biological diversity based on evidence one premise at a time is helpful. My sense is that many on this site lack the background for such intellectual rigor.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Including many that fancy themselves to be in possession of expertise that they do not possess, such that even their plagiarism cannot bail them out of a tough spot.

Justatruthseeker said:

Case in point. Attack the poster instead of the subject of the post. You just supported everything I said.....

Click to expand...

I know this will come as a shock, but merely being told you are wrong is not an 'attack'.

Chinchilla said:

If you studied genetics you would know that about 70% mutations end with thymine , so your whole DNA would be all thymine over time . They are not 25% each like you assume .

Click to expand...

Right... Well, it has been like 2 years since I taught Genetics, so I could be a little rusty, but I am pretty sure nothing that you wrote makes any sense whatsoever.