Why Evolution is True (3)

[Loudmouth]

darwin understood that if thete was something that had specified complexity then his theory would fail.

He never used the phrase "specified complexity". I dare you to find it anywhere in any of his writings.

and nested heirarchy does not exist.

It does for complex life.

spoon similiar to pots dont imply common decent. they implya common designer.

That's right, because spoons and pots do not fall into a nested hierarchy and do not reproduce. Thanks for making my point.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have presented zero evidence to back this claim. You haven't shown how determing phylogenies is biased, nor how it begs the question.

You also need to explain why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. If a nested hierarchy is not what we would expect from evolution, then what would we expect?



That isn't even close to the relationship between evolution and nested hierarchies. A nested hierarchy can be determined independently of any claim of common ancestry or evolution. You can determine that cars and automobiles do not fall into an objective nested hierarchy. You can do the same for many, many things that are intelligently designed. However, when those same tests are applied to life, life falls into an objective nested hierarchy.



I don't have to disprove empty claims.

well if you could prove phylogenies then we would not be wasting our time here discussing it. nevermind the bias for a moment. I am questioning your premise that phylogenies exist. now you are the one making the positive statements about the existence of phylogenies. the burden of proof is on you making the positive claims. I believe because like macro evolution, phylogenies are unobserved in the real world tha there is bias in them. the next statement would be to prove yourself correct.

 

[dad]

We are showing you the proposed relationships instead of the strawman version you were pushing.

If you are going to argue against evolution, at least learn what the theory states.

The tree that you envision is an evil godless tree, and you try to supplant God and His creation with imaginary trees, imaginary unproven past states, and phantom common ancestors of whom you have no evidence, but plenty of belief. Not impressed.

 

[Loudmouth]

well if you could prove phylogenies then we would not be wasting our time here discussing it. nevermind the bias for a moment. I am questioning your premise that phylogenies exist.

There are online programs that allow you to construct phylogenetic trees from sequence alone:

ETH - CBRG - Services

I already showed you the results from one gene comparison with a group of species. You get the expected differences, with the most distantly related species having the least sequence identity:

HomoloGene - NCBI

Although phylogenies are a bit more complicated than straight identity, this does give you an idea of what I am talking about. The closest are humans and chimps followed by humans and macaques then humans and dogs. Distantly related are fruit flies. There is the tree for all to see.

Not only that, but you get genetic equidistance with a similar distance between dogs and chickens as you get with humans and chickens.

I believe because like macro evolution, phylogenies are unobserved in the real world tha there is bias in them. the next statement would be to prove yourself correct.

And yet you can't show us the bias.

 

[Loudmouth]

The tree that you envision is an evil godless tree, and you try to supplant God and His creation with imaginary trees, imaginary unproven past states, and phantom common ancestors of whom you have no evidence, but plenty of belief. Not impressed.

I have presented the evidence in this very thread, and yet you can't address any of it. All you have are empty tirades.

 

[dad]

We have found a pattern, and it is the nested hierarchy predicted by common ancestry and evolution.

Adam had no inherited traits. Trees had no inherited traits. In the former nature we do not even know how traits came about. You cannot claim they were inherited traits! Not all of them at least. Look around you and tell us if you think all people are the same in every way? Physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. We are all different, despite having similar dna.


" Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people."


What is DNA? - Genetics Home Reference


Are you the same as Hitler?? Life comes from God. He gives the gift of life to each person in the womb. One could even argue before that. DNA has relatively little to do with who we are.

That is why the theory is accepted, because it makes accurate and useful predictions.

Not one anywhere ever.

You can't explain why we see this pattern.

God made us that way, and we also adapted since creation.



Look at what DNA is, and how it works! For example, Guanine. "It binds to cytosine through three hydrogen bonds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanine

"A hydrogen bond is the electromagnetic attractive interaction between polar molecules, in which hydrogen (H) is bound to a highly electronegative atom, such as nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) or fluorine (F)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond

Now you realize as do we all here, that this means the forces and laws of physics we know are what makes things happen with DNA! If they were different, then it would not work that way.

Your head is planted deep in the sand.

You should be so lucky, at least it smells good here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Adam had no inherited traits. Trees had no inherited traits. In the former nature we do not even know how traits came about.

Why don't we start here.

Please present your evidence for these claims.

Are you the same as Hitler?? Life comes from God. He gives the gift of life to each person in the womb. One could even argue before that. DNA has relatively little to do with who we are.

Seriously?

Do you happen to have a sign in your grocery cart that says "THE END IS NEAR!!!"?

 

[dad]

Why don't we start here.

Please present your evidence for these claims.

God said so, that works for me. Man knows precious little and certainly has nothing to say about it.

Seriously?

Yes, last time I checked, despite over 99% of all people on earth having the same DNA, they are all different!

 

[46AND2]

again until my scientific papers are read and reviewed why should I read and review yours? I guess you will have to do your own homework.

Seriously? You ASKED for us to produce a peer reviewed paper!

 

[createdtoworship]

Seriously? You ASKED for us to produce a peer reviewed paper!

we should all review peer reviews, to make sure they are accurate. It's called logical deduction.

 

[createdtoworship]

The closest are humans and chimps followed by humans and macaques then humans and dogs. Distantly related are fruit flies. There is the tree for all to see..

your whole argument goes down the tubes when you say we are related to fruit flies. Thats discusting. I mean really. And immoral.

 

[createdtoworship]

The closest are humans and chimps followed by humans and macaques then humans and dogs. Distantly related are fruit flies. There is the tree for all to see..

your whole argument goes down the tubes when you say we are related to fruit flies. Thats discusting. I mean really. And immoral.

now if you can prove common ancestry to fruit flies,

there are many people who will personally pay you lots of money.

kent hovind has a 250,000 dollar challege for anyone to prove common ancestry to distant relatives, like say monkeys, or fruit flies for that matter (now)

http://creationwiki.org/Evolutionis...'s_challenge_to_prove_evolution_(Talk.Origins)

granted the IRS may have confiscated some of this, the offer still stands lol

btw some of the various kinds of evolution :

"1.Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2.Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3.Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4.Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5.Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6.Microevolution- Variations within kinds
Microevolution, or natural selection, is the only one of these we actually observe
"

"speciation is not evidence for macroevolution, because variation within groups of organisms (however you wish to define those groups) only proves that creatures can adapt to their environments, but does not qualify as evidence that these adaptive changes are without limitation. That is like saying “I watched someone jump really high, so that is proof that they used to be able to fly.” Evolutionists commonly use the bait ‘n switch method of using “microevolution” to prove “macroevolution.” "
above quotes from above link

 

[createdtoworship]

He never used the phrase "specified complexity". I dare you to find it anywhere in any of his writings.



It does for complex life.



That's right, because spoons and pots do not fall into a nested hierarchy and do not reproduce. Thanks for making my point.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
above quote from:
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162.

the above is an example of specified complexity. (and this is implied, when he mentions that it could not be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications) that is what the term specified entails.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

your whole argument goes down the tubes when you say we are related to fruit flies. Thats discusting. I mean really. And immoral.

No worse than saying we share a common ancestor with Hitler.

No worse than saying we were once from dirt.

Your disgust is clearly generated on purpose to help you remain against evolution. You have to use such methods because evidence and logic are failing you.

 

[lasthero]

How are fruit flies immoral?

 

[createdtoworship]

How are fruit flies immoral?

I guess if you can collect human feces and lay your eggs in it, and be okay with it....then it's not immoral.

(I use this as a gross exaggeration of the morals of flies, I understand fruit flies are different, but not that much).

 

[46AND2]

again until my scientific papers are read and reviewed why should I read and review yours? I guess you will have to do your own homework.

we should all review peer reviews, to make sure they are accurate. It's called logical deduction.

*emphasis mine


Too funny.

 

[46AND2]

your whole argument goes down the tubes when you say we are related to fruit flies. Thats discusting. I mean really. And immoral.

immoral?

What the heck does that have to do with morality? Must have missed the part of the Bible that says "thou shalt not claim fruit flies as relatives."

Guess it wouldn't surprise me, though...

 

[lasthero]

I guess if you can collect human feces and lay your eggs in it, and be okay with it....then it's not immoral.

It's not something I'd care to do, but that hardly makes it immoral. I wouldn't care to collect acorns, either. That's something squirrels do. Is collecting acorns immoral?

It's just a fruit fly doing what a fruit fly does. Morality doesn't enter into it.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Religion in the UK (not Islam) is mostly for form filling, when asked what is your religion most people just put C of E.
In the UK religion is usually a personal thing (as it should be) unless it's an import like Mormonism, then like an American car salesman they try to force it on to people, they think that because they are fool enough to believe it everyone is.


People do not 'believe' in evolution they 'accept' it as being the best explanation of why things are like they are.
You I take it would prefer to go with magic, miracles and the supernatural, none of which are explainable,
you might just as well claim that Zeus, Thor or the great JuJu did it all.
Are other faiths claims all ridiculous to you?

You continue to evade questions, then you ask silly ones in what seems to be baiting. Sorry, I am looking for more sincere and academic discussions, not emotionally based monologues where all you seem interested in is your own opinions of and bantering other posters with nonsense.

By the way, the only two theories of the origin of life that I reject are young earth creation and atheistic evolution. I am undecided between two theories that are more intellectually appealing: old earth creation, and theistic evolution.

And I have a Master of Science degree from a highly competitive university in the USA.

Finally, for all those who think only the lesser educated constitute Christians in the USA, I know 6 Fortune 500 CE0s and 4 professors of neurosurgery including one from an Ivy league school who are all Christian. In fact, I know about 50 MDs and not one is an atheist, though I know a lot of smart people are atheist, so I'm merely pointing out that some assumptions about the intelligence of US Christians is false.