Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[whois]

He is not. He is a scientist working in the field.



The evidence is two-fold.

First, we have direct observations of mutations happening in living species. Each human is born with about 50 mutations. This happens in every generation. Since you contribute half of your genome to each offspring, your child will have 25 of the mutations that are specific to you, 25 of the mutations from their other parent, and 50 mutations of their very own. In two generations, we are up to 100 mutations. Each generation in a lineage will add 50 more mutations. There is simply no way around this.

i believe this is an assumption.
i don't think you really know if these mutations "add up".
the fossil record doesn't support that assertion either.
in my opinion, it's these transposons that are responsible for the major changes in organisms, not the environment and not mutations.
mutations are almost always deleterious.

Second, we can compare the genomes of living species that share a common ancestor. When we do this with chimps and humans, we can see which mutations have accumulated over the last 5 million years in each lineage. Since you are interested in trasposons, you may want to check out table 2 in the chimp genome paper:

Table[bless and do not curse]2 : Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Nature

You will see that Alu and LINE-1 elements account for 7 million bases of the differences between the two species. The total number of bases that separate humans and chimps, including indels, is 100 million bases (substitions at 35 million and indels at 70 million). Transposons make up about 5 to 10% of the overall differences between chimps and humans on a per base comparison.

i mistrust statistical analysis, and for a good reason.

 

[sfs]

you ain't just yanking my chain are you?

You're the one blithely dismissing the work of thousands of scientists without understanding it. I think it's my chain that's being yanked.

the first piece of evidence you can help me with is the matter of "accumulating change".
where is this evidence?

As loudmouth said, when you compare genomes, you find genetic differences. The differences look exactly like the result of accumulating mutations. I've previously described the details of the comparison of humans and chimpanzees here.

This kind of genetic data is in very good agreement with the expectations of common descent. I would compare with the expectations of creationism, but there's nothing to compare. Creationists simply won't touch this data, and will never, ever venture any predictions about what we should see in the future.

(*) With the likely exception of Todd Wood

 

[whois]

I think it's my chain that's being yanked.

you want your chain yanked?
you see that pond of goo over there?
one of these days it will write down the theory of relativity.
do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
creationist can't do much better, they don't even have a pond of goo to point to.
so there you go, wobbling down a knife edge.

As loudmouth said, when you compare genomes, you find genetic differences. The differences look exactly like the result of accumulating mutations. I've previously described the details of the comparison of humans and chimpanzees here.

This kind of genetic data is in very good agreement with the expectations of common descent. I would compare with the expectations of creationism, but there's nothing to compare. Creationists simply won't touch this data, and will never, ever venture any predictions about what we should see in the future.

(*) With the likely exception of Todd Wood

like i said before, i mistrust statistical analysis, and you can't honestly blame me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

i mistrust statistical analysis, and for a good reason.

Mostly because you don't like the results.

 

[sfs]

you want your chain yanked?

No, I don't want my chain yanked. I want you to engage honestly with the data, rather than just ignoring it.

like i said before, i mistrust statistical analysis, and you can't honestly blame me.

Of course I can blame you. Your "distrust of statistical analysis" seems to consist of closing your eyes and humming really loud. It's not like you're offering any other kind of analysis. You just say whatever occurs to you -- like your claim that evolution is just an excuse to do without God -- without any reference to the facts. When offered facts, you "distrust statistics".

Forget statistics. Tell me why genetic differences between humans and chimps look so much like accumulated mutations if common descent is false. Either offer another explanation, or stop pretending that you want to look at evidence. Because all you've done here is refuse to look.

 

[Split Rock]

you want your chain yanked?
you see that pond of goo over there?
one of these days it will write down the theory of relativity.
do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Of course it sounds ridiculous... that's exactly the way you wanted it to sound when you wrote it. You are basically arguing from incredulity. With out examining the evidence, you can't see how to get from unicellular life to humans. Evolution isn't obvious... but that doesn't mean it isn't correct. Sometimes intuition is wrong. That is why we have science.

like i said before, i mistrust statistical analysis, and you can't honestly blame me.

I don't know what your issue with statistical analysis is. We have to have a way of determining the likelihood of a given data set actually being different from another data set. Once again, sometimes when our intuition says one thing, in reality it is something else.

 

[whois]

No, I don't want my chain yanked.

you ain't know phun.

I want you to engage honestly with the data, rather than just ignoring it.

i have been.
but i do assign various weights to various sources.

Of course I can blame you.

hmmm . . .
you know, i'm almost tempted to ask if you graduated high school.
instead i'll ask if you ever took statistics.
you cannot possibly tell me you have never heard of false statistical correlations.
you need to reevaluate your answer.
remember, you want honesty, right?

Your "distrust of statistical analysis" seems to consist of closing your eyes and humming really loud.

see immediately above.

It's not like you're offering any other kind of analysis.

all i can give you is opinions, and present the stuff i have.

You just say whatever occurs to you . . .

sometimes.

-- like your claim that evolution is just an excuse to do without God

i said evolution is all about life with no god, and it's a fact.

-- without any reference to the facts.

the "facts" are that evolution is all about "life from natural causes", hence no god.
see immediately above.

When offered facts, you "distrust statistics".

yes, and for reasons you seem to ignore.

Forget statistics. Tell me why genetic differences between humans and chimps look so much like accumulated mutations if common descent is false.

coincidence?
the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms?
the interrelatedness of all life?
you know, i bet with just a little fudging of the data, i could make it appear we came from bananas.
and i'm not being funny.

 

[Loudmouth]

i believe this is an assumption.
i don't think you really know if these mutations "add up".

It isn't an assumption. We have sequenced the genomes of parents and offspring, hundreds of them.

"Here we describe the Genome of the Netherlands (GoNL) Project, in which we sequenced the whole genomes of 250 Dutch parent-offspring families and constructed a haplotype map of 20.4 million single-nucleotide variants and 1.2 million insertions and deletions."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n8/full/ng.3021.html

This is direct observation of accumulating mutations.

the fossil record doesn't support that assertion either.

Why not?

in my opinion, it's these transposons that are responsible for the major changes in organisms, not the environment and not mutations.

Transposons are a source of mutation. When a transposon inserts or excises, it is a change in the DNA sequence of a genome which is a mutation.

I would be interested in which differences between humans and chimps you think are caused by a difference in transposon content.

mutations are almost always deleterious.

They are almost always neutral since only 10% of the genome shows signs of negative selection.

i mistrust statistical analysis, and for a good reason.

You mistrust for no reason other than to protect your dogmatic beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

i said evolution is all about life with no god, and it's a fact.

It is also a fact, the majority of people in the world who believe in a God, also agree with evolution.

How can that be, if evolution is all about life with no God?

You seem to have a hang up, millions do not have.

 

[Loudmouth]

i have been.
but i do assign various weights to various sources.

What weight do you assign to the peer reviewed journal "Nature"? Most scientists consider it one of the top three journals for the biological sciences. What about you?

hmmm . . .
you know, i'm almost tempted to ask if you graduated high school.
instead i'll ask if you ever took statistics.
you cannot possibly tell me you have never heard of false statistical correlations.
you need to reevaluate your answer.
remember, you want honesty, right?

An honest person would show how it is a false correlation instead of making baseless accusations.

all i can give you is opinions, and present the stuff i have.

That isn't true. You could present facts.

i said evolution is all about life with no god, and it's a fact.

sfs is a christian scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. You are telling a falsehood.

the "facts" are that evolution is all about "life from natural causes", hence no god.

Some christians believe that God can act through nature instead of having to work against it.

the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms?
the interrelatedness of all life?
you know, i bet with just a little fudging of the data, i could make it appear we came from bananas.
and i'm not being funny.

Go for it. Methinks that you will just embarrass yourself. Do you know how phylogenetics works?

 

[sfs]

i have been.
but i do assign various weights to various sources.

Based on what?

hmmm . . .
you know, i'm almost tempted to ask if you graduated high school.
instead i'll ask if you ever took statistics.

Yes, I've taken statistics.

you cannot possibly tell me you have never heard of false statistical correlations.
you need to reevaluate your answer.
remember, you want honesty, right?

Of course I've heard of false statistical correlations. As with anything in life, you can do statistics badly. One of the reasons for studying statistics is to avoid doing so.

see immediately above.
all i can give you is opinions, and present the stuff i have.

No, that's not all you can do. You can engage the data.

i said evolution is all about life with no god, and it's a fact.
the "facts" are that evolution is all about "life from natural causes", hence no god.

That's not a fact, as I already pointed out to you. Auto mechanics is all about car troubles from natural causes, plumbing is all about water flow from natural causes, and photography is all about images from natural causes. Do you really think all of them are about "no god"? To a believer, all of them are about things in a world made by God -- and that includes evolution. None of them require invoking the action of God, but all of them are consistent with belief in God. So why single out evolution?

see immediately above.
yes, and for reasons you seem to ignore.

Since you haven't given me any reasons, except a broad-brush distrust of statistics, there's really nothing for me to ignore.

coincidence?

Well, to test that idea, you'd have to employ statistical analysis. Or common sense -- the similarities I'm talking about were predicted in advance. How likely is it that?

Is there any conceivable evidence that you couldn't dismiss as coincidence?

the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms?

Honestly -- did you even read the link I gave? How would the commonality of DNA explain the data I presented?

the interrelatedness of all life?

You mean common ancestry? If so, that's what you're objecting to. If not, how would it explain the data?

you know, i bet with just a little fudging of the data, i could make it appear we came from bananas.
and i'm not being funny.

You know, I'll bet you couldn't do that to save your life.

 

[Split Rock]

the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms?

No, that would not explain why chimp DNA sequence is more similar to our DNA sequence than to gorilla DNA sequence. Especially since most of the DNA can be altered without any effect on phenotype.

the interrelatedness of all life?

Yeah, that's called common descent... I thought you didn't agree with that. Are you confusing yourself?

you know, i bet with just a little fudging of the data, i could make it appear we came from bananas. and i'm not being funny.

So, now you are not only implying that scientists misapply statistical analysis, you are also implying that they are falsifying the data as well.. any evidence for all this academic dishonesty? It couldn't be all wishful thinking on your part.. could it?

 

[Gracchus]

you cannot possibly tell me you have never heard of false statistical correlations.

A correlation is fact, although the conclusions drawn from a correlation may be false. A correlation only confirms a line of reasoning. And a consilience of correlations, such as those drawn from paleontology, field biology, embryology, genetics and biochemistry can be quite convincing.

i said evolution is all about life with no god, and it's a fact.
the "facts" are that evolution is all about "life from natural causes", hence no god.

Repetition will not make it so. If supernatural causes could be demonstrated, science could take them into account.

you know, i bet with just a little fudging of the data, i could make it appear we came from bananas.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." --- Joseph Goebbels

The lie is certainly big enough, but your powers of coercion are small. Religion has suffered from that lack of coercive force, and that has been very fortunate for the pursuit of truth.

and i'm not being funny.

I agree with that.

 

[whois]

Transposons are a source of mutation. When a transposon inserts or excises, it is a change in the DNA sequence of a genome which is a mutation.

okay, in order to say this, you must have some kind of "standard" DNA to compare to.

You mistrust for no reason other than to protect your dogmatic beliefs.

i mistrust statistical analysis for the reasons given.
there is no scientist alive that would say i am wrong for doing so.

i can safely say that SFS is either:
1. no scientist
-or-
2. isn't being honest.

why discuss this matter with people that aren't going to be honest.

 

[bhsmte]

i can safely say that SFS is either:
1. no scientist
-or-
2. isn't being honest.

why discuss this matter with people that aren't going to be honest.

I can safely say:

You could not be more wrong!!!!!

 

[sfs]

i mistrust statistical analysis for the reasons given.

And you've been told why your reasons are not adequate. The fact that spurious correlations exist is no reason to dismiss all of statistics.

there is no scientist alive that would say i am wrong for doing so.

See? That's one of those things you've decided to believe without any reason. How many scientists have you discussed statistics with? How many statisticians? But that doesn't matter: you know science better than the scientists. (And you're really trying to argue that no scientist alive trusts statistical analysis? Do you have any idea how nuts this is?)

i can safely say that SFS is either:
1. no scientist
-or-
2. isn't being honest.

As with pretty much anything you declare to be a fact, or to be beyond doubt, or to be something you can guarantee . . . it's something you made up. It's also defamation, but hey, why let that stop you.

 

[Davian]

The word "religion" aside ... yes.

Got it. If you cannot show them wrong, throw mud.

 

[whois]

As loudmouth said, when you compare genomes, you find genetic differences. The differences look exactly like the result of accumulating mutations. I've previously described the details of the comparison of humans and chimpanzees here.

This kind of genetic data is in very good agreement with the expectations of common descent. I would compare with the expectations of creationism, but there's nothing to compare. Creationists simply won't touch this data, and will never, ever venture any predictions about what we should see in the future.

(*) With the likely exception of Todd Wood

correlation does not imply causation, and you know it.

did you know reading skills are correlated to show size?

i can "prove" all kinds of nonsense with "statistical correlations".
and you have the gall to tell me i'm wrong for distrusting it????????????
no scientist on the planet would ever tell me such a thing.

my original assertion stands:
you are either no scientist, or you aren't being honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does vilifying science make you feel that your religion better reflects reality?

The word "religion" aside ... yes.

Got it. If you cannot show them wrong, throw mud.

So your "innocent" question actually Arab phones to:

Does throwing mud (at science) make you feel that your religion better reflects reality?

Is this correct?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

correlation does not imply causation, and you know it.

did you know reading skills are correlated to show size?

i can "prove" all kinds of nonsense with "statistical correlations".
and you have the gall to tell me i'm wrong for distrusting it????????????
no scientist on the planet would ever tell me such a thing.

my original assertion stands:
you are either no scientist, or you aren't being honest.

Yup, we have the gall to tell you that statistics can tell the truth, and correlation can be a clue to causation.