• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why Evolution is True (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
excuse me you have done none of the sort. you simply state just that but offer no rebuttal everytime. Wikipedia is edited by the public, and it is easier to put a text wall on to the site than to get it removed. If you want text removed, any one can undo changes for any reason whatsoever. So it basically caters to the input, not to the output. but errors are not easily corrected, if you remove a post too many times you are suspended for what they call "vandalism." Then you have to go to arbitration. a mess.

We have too. We have linked articles that show the rate of error, even with the semi-open editing, that Wikipedia is still almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

And we have pointed out the fallacy of your article too. They found that there were only disagreements on public personas with what was on the Wiki articles about them. It was not about the errors in Wikipedia in general.

Do you really need me to post the article that shows that you were not being honest?

Once again, why not try being honest for once. Admit that you were wrong. It is the only way to learn.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We have too. We have linked articles that show the rate of error, even with the semi-open editing, that Wikipedia is still almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.



Do you really need me to post the article that shows that you were not being honest?

Once again, why not try being honest for once. Admit that you were wrong. It is the only way to learn.

Wikipedia is edited and created by the public, no degree necessary.

when Wikipedia is in error, the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily, there is red tape and hindrance of free speech from other non decreed pseudo-professionals who come from a common sometimes outdated view of said thing in question.

thats why the majority are errorsome:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

but please, make a case for your encyclopedia brittanica. I am listening.

btw I just found another one:

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors


And we have pointed out the fallacy of your article too. They found that there were only disagreements on public personas with what was on the Wiki articles about them. It was not about the errors in Wikipedia in general.
"The research was conducted by Marcia W. DiStaso, Ph.D., co-chair of PRSA's National Research Committee and an assistant professor of public relations at Penn State University in State College, Pa. DiStaso surveyed 1,284 public relations professionals from PRSA, the International Association of Business Communicators, the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, the Institute for Public Relations and the National Investor Relations Institute to assess their working relationship with Wikipedia. The Arthur W. Page Center at Penn State's College of Communications funded the research.
"It does not surprise me that so many Wikipedia entries contain factual errors," said DiStaso. "What is surprising, however, is that 25 percent of survey respondents indicated they are not familiar with the Wikipedia articles for their company or clients. At some point most, if not all, companies will determine they need to change something in their Wikipedia entries. Without clear, consistent rules from Wikipedia regarding how factual corrections can be made this will be a very difficult learning process for public relations professionals."

above from:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm

and another one:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

wikipedia states this itself:

" Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, or duplication"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Wikipedia is edited and created by the public, no degree necessary.

when Wikipedia is in error, the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily, there is red tape and hindrance of free speech from other non decreed pseudo-professionals who come from a common sometimes outdated view of said thing in question.

thats why:

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online

Actually, Wikipedia has gone through a lot of effort to improve its accuracy in recent years as a result of criticism such as that.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Actually, Wikipedia has gone through a lot of effort to improve its accuracy in recent years as a result of criticism such as that.

well like I said, I tried to have an error removed from Wikipedia (obvious error), and it was reverted. I tried it probably 12 or more times during the period of one week, all reversed by others who liked the scope of the article, even though it was technically inaccurate. Others have posted similar findings on the cite pages, but those are rarely ever seen.

but see my last post, it's getting ridiculous. Bias, misinformation, it's dangerous to an intellectual society.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
well like I said, I tried to have an error removed from Wikipedia (obvious error), and it was reverted. I tried it probably 12 or more times during the period of one week, all reversed by others who liked the scope of the article, even though it was technically inaccurate. Others have posted similar findings on the cite pages, but those are rarely ever seen.

but see my last post, it's getting ridiculous. Bias, misinformation, it's dangerous to an intellectual society.

Then just ask for other sources besides Wikipedia and don't use it yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
well like I said, I tried to have an error removed from Wikipedia (obvious error), and it was reverted. I tried it probably 12 or more times during the period of one week, all reversed by others who liked the scope of the article, even though it was technically inaccurate. Others have posted similar findings on the cite pages, but those are rarely ever seen.

but see my last post, it's getting ridiculous. Bias, misinformation, it's dangerous to an intellectual society.

What specific error?

It may be an error in your opinion only. You have not shown yourself to be the most trustworthy sort when it comes to error detection.
 
Upvote 0

Naturalism

Skeptic
Jun 17, 2014
536
10
✟23,259.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
sorry I don't have time to watch the video's I am working 7 days a week and a good portion of my posts are on android.

You probably shouldn't be posting here if you can't be bothered to review the data & respond to it, otherwise it just all comes off as a little disingenuous. Doesn't really speak highly of your efforts or your (creationist) cause.

Working 7 days a week, that sucks so sorry. If you can't view YouTube on your android then that sucks too, so sorry. I can't really see why you couldn't watch it on your smart phone, but too bad. You said most of your posts occur from your android so you apparently do have a computer so watching the vids and responding shouldn't be an issue other than finding the 15 minutes.

But your illustrations don't prove ancestry to both sides.

Now hold on, I never said proof or that it would prove it. "Proofs" is not how science works, at least not for theoretical models explaining factual phenomena. If you want proofs you're left with some logic and maths and that's about it.

You asked for sufficient evidence of shared ancestry with terrestrial mammals and cetaceans (whales). In asking for more specifics you said some evidence for those intermediate transitions. If those illustrations are not sufficient in illustrating those transitional then why are they not sufficient? I hear creationists often howl, "show me something mid-way between X & Y. Well, here you have numerous species right in between the final descendant and the oldest likely basal ancestor for and you just ignore it all???

For example it would have to prove ancestry for both a dog and a whale.

But dogs are notancestral to whales... You do know that don't you?

Wolves are ancestral to dogs. If you trace the ancestry of Wolves far enough back if you find a common ancestor for that organism and the ones that would eventually become Pakicetus, though that is not what you asked.

800px-Cladogram_of_Cetacea_within_Artiodactyla.png


Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of those in picture are one or the other.

I like you how you don't provide any justification for your statement, no evidence, nothing. Just assert it and move on. Brilliant! [/Sarcasm]

Didn't you notice how some of the ones in the middle show signs that that they are semi-aquatic? The evidence for the habitat they lived in is also remarkable as it further supports they were an example of the representative species as transitionals. Like in how the arms are receding and the nasal orifice has migrated from the tip of the nose to the middle of the head? Oh that's right, you're on an android, so you likely didn't bother to review any of it!

Lucy was said to be a transition between man and ape, but no, it's actually an ape like creature.

Now instead of trying to provide some evidence or justification on the evidence I provided is wrong you've shown how weak your hand is and are opted to move onto another discussion for a different lineage. How disingenuous again.

Well, no surprise but there is where you're wrong again. It's not that A. Afarensis (of which "Lucy" is one specimen) was just an ape like creature, it's that it she was a Ape in the same way we are still Ape's and belong to the Great Ape Family. Lucy was an Ape in the same way we are, in the same way we're both Mammals.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
LOL, gradyl cited Conservipedia in an argument against Wikipedia^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^

Plus you used your debunked article yet again.

And please we are talking about Wikipedia as a scientific source. The supposed errors about companies could be just a difference of opinion between the company and critiques of that company. Also those are small petty articles. As a source of general science Wikipedia is very very good.

Here again is a link to a report that Wiki is about as accurate as the Enc. Birt.:

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

I will have to see if there is anything more recent.
 
Upvote 0

Naturalism

Skeptic
Jun 17, 2014
536
10
✟23,259.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
no thanks, in 10 years I haven't seen evidence for macro evolution. If you need the media to spruce up your evidence, then it probably goes to show, it's not there. But if you want to change my view of this matter, simply sum up the videos. And we can proceed.

You don't comprehend it and you refuse to review the evidence and you conflate that it's media spin. The ignorance is great here, but maybe there is hope for you.

"Human Chromosome 2:


Since the mid-1800s, biologists have generally shared the belief that all living things descended from a single common ancestor. Based on fossil evidence and comparative anatomy, Charles Darwin proposed that humans and great apes–which include chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans–share a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. More recent research has propped up Darwin's theory of common descent (also called common ancestry): genome analysis reveals the genetic difference between humans and chimps to be less than 2 percent. In other words, humans and chimps have DNA sequences that are greater than 98 percent similar.

While the genetic similarity between human and ape strengthened Darwin's theory, a significant, unexplained discrepancy remained. While great apes all have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), humans have only 46 (23 pairs). If humans and apes shared a common ancestor, shouldn't both have the same number of chromosomes in their cells?

The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.

A fundamental part of the process by which science is done involves developing a testable prediction, also known as a hypothesis. Scientists offered two possible explanations for the discrepancy: Either the common ancestor had 24 pairs, and humans carry a fused chromosome; or the ancestor had 23 pairs, and apes carry a split chromosome. Their focused research led them to find a mutation on one human chromosome that explained what had happened.

In 2005, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published results of the tests. It turns out that chromosome 2, which is unique to the human lineage of evolution, emerged as a result of the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Three genetic indicators provide strong, if not conclusive, evidence of fusion. First, the banding (or dye pattern) of human chromosome 2 closely matches that of two separate chromosomes found in apes (chimp chromosome 2 and an extra chromosome that does not match any other human chromosome). Second, a chromosome normally has one centromere, or central point at which a chromosome's two identical strands are joined. Yet remnants of a second, presumably inactive centromere can be found on human chromosome 2. And third, whereas a normal chromosome has readily identifiable, repeating DNA sequences called telomeres at both ends, chromosome 2 also has telomere sequences not only at both ends but also in the middle."


The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
 
Upvote 0

Naturalism

Skeptic
Jun 17, 2014
536
10
✟23,259.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
lysenkoism was an by product of evolution

Not really, it was more a product of Russian orthodoxy and control over science in defining what evolution was and was not. Ultimately russian progress in biology was setback for many decades for this commitment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Naturalism

Skeptic
Jun 17, 2014
536
10
✟23,259.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
excuse me you have done none of the sort. you simply state just that but offer no rebuttal everytime. Wikipedia is edited by the public, and it is easier to put a text wall on to the site than to get it removed. If you want text removed, any one can undo changes for any reason whatsoever. So it basically caters to the input, not to the output. but errors are not easily corrected, if you remove a post too many times you are suspended for what they call "vandalism." Then you have to go to arbitration. a mess.

Ultimately certain subjects can be locked for proper edited and source control and further committees are in place to help ensure accuracy in the articles posted and lastly you have in many cases, especially where science and knowledge is concerned, many levels of citations and linked articles that any reader is welcome to refer to for any inaccuracies or possible discrepancies.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You don't comprehend it and you refuse to review the evidence and you conflate that it's media spin. The ignorance is great here, but maybe there is hope for you.

"Human Chromosome 2:


Since the mid-1800s, biologists have generally shared the belief that all living things descended from a single common ancestor. Based on fossil evidence and comparative anatomy, Charles Darwin proposed that humans and great apes–which include chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans–share a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. More recent research has propped up Darwin's theory of common descent (also called common ancestry): genome analysis reveals the genetic difference between humans and chimps to be less than 2 percent. In other words, humans and chimps have DNA sequences that are greater than 98 percent similar.

While the genetic similarity between human and ape strengthened Darwin's theory, a significant, unexplained discrepancy remained. While great apes all have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), humans have only 46 (23 pairs). If humans and apes shared a common ancestor, shouldn't both have the same number of chromosomes in their cells?

The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.

A fundamental part of the process by which science is done involves developing a testable prediction, also known as a hypothesis. Scientists offered two possible explanations for the discrepancy: Either the common ancestor had 24 pairs, and humans carry a fused chromosome; or the ancestor had 23 pairs, and apes carry a split chromosome. Their focused research led them to find a mutation on one human chromosome that explained what had happened.

In 2005, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published results of the tests. It turns out that chromosome 2, which is unique to the human lineage of evolution, emerged as a result of the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Three genetic indicators provide strong, if not conclusive, evidence of fusion. First, the banding (or dye pattern) of human chromosome 2 closely matches that of two separate chromosomes found in apes (chimp chromosome 2 and an extra chromosome that does not match any other human chromosome). Second, a chromosome normally has one centromere, or central point at which a chromosome's two identical strands are joined. Yet remnants of a second, presumably inactive centromere can be found on human chromosome 2. And third, whereas a normal chromosome has readily identifiable, repeating DNA sequences called telomeres at both ends, chromosome 2 also has telomere sequences not only at both ends but also in the middle."


The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop the presses! Grady doesn't recognize evidence for macro evolution.

I am sure science will adjust accordingly.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sorry yes, 6-7 K years ago is what you stated earlier.

No comment again on the human chromosome 2 fusion?

Evidence for Evolution - Analysis of Human Chromosome 2 pt1 - YouTube

Evidence for Evolution - Analysis of Human Chromosome 2 pt2 - YouTube

I watched about 30 seconds of both, and I have heard this argument many times before. Genetic similarities between apes and humans is the basic argument (95%).

first of all there are some problems with the said studies found here:
Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

secondly: any small amount of similarity doesn't mean much: for examples we are very genetically similar to pigs as well as well as other mammals:
"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
sources:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

from the above paper the specific figure is figure 1 found here:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675/T1.expansion.html

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

here is the 96% similarity as well to pigs:
Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

(we actually have more homologous genes similiar to cats that we do to chimpanzees) (see figure 1)
so you can easily see how such information is misleading and inconclusive.

thirdly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similar designer, not a similar ancestor. Why are we not looking for human - cat transitions, or human - dog transitions? The evidence is all there right?

Thank you for the Commment
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"working 7 days a week". Yet posts often. Yup, nice excuse.

androids are nice, but my you tube app, is broke. Besides it takes more bars to watch streaming video than it does to post posts. So nice try.

secondly I wasn't motivated to watch it, after doing this 10 years you start to lose hope that there is actually evidence for macro evolution.

(BTW I did watch it, (part of it) and I rebutted it in another post)
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I watched about 30 seconds of both, and I have heard this argument many times before. Genetic similarities between apes and humans is the basic argument (95%).

first of all there are some problems with the said studies found here:
Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

secondly: any small amount of similarity doesn't mean much: for examples we are very genetically similar to pigs as well as well as other mammals:
"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
sources:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

from the above paper the specific figure is figure 1 found here:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

here is the 96% similarity as well to pigs:
Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

(we actually have more homologous genes similiar to cats that we do to chimpanzees) (see figure 1)
so you can easily see how such information is misleading and inconclusive.

thirdly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similar designer, not a similar ancestor. Why are we not looking for human - cat transitions, or human - dog transitions? The evidence is all there right?

Thank you for the Commment

greydll, I see that you are still using another forum, of all things, to interpret an article that you do not understand for you.

Seriously if you want to understand what your article is claiming why not ask sfs here. That is his area of expertise. No one is believing your measurement of relatedness since you cannot defend it.

Second you used a bogus source again. Evolutionnews is not a valid site. It is a bogus site that was set up by the Discovery toot.

Try to find respectable websites when you want to post support for your claims.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not really, it was more a product of Russian orthodoxy and control over science in defining what evolution was and was not. Ultimately russian progress in biology was setback for many decades for this commitment.

you said "it was more" meaning that part of it was in effect a by product by evolution, and you didn't deny it. So this proves my point nicely, thankyou.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Stop the presses! Grady doesn't recognize evidence for macro evolution.

I am sure science will adjust accordingly.

I rebutted it simply by showing inconsistencies in evolutionary thought, hypocrisy and more. We have more similarities to cats genetically speaking, thus we should be looking for cat-human transitions, not ape-human.

and this is not happening, see my other post.

nice try macro evolution has yet to be observed, if you wish to give it a try....

please provide one transition that meets the qualifications of macro evolution.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.