Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

onceforgivennowfree

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
OnceforgivennowfreePosts: 21Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 3:53 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

****Before I start, just a few notes. DanDan, whoever you are, I pretty much agree with your earlier understanding of my position. I’m glad you get it and that my challenge was clear to you! Also, I will not be replying to anyone else on this forum – only AronRa. If AronRa wants to respond to other people, that’s fine, and if other people want to respond to me, that is fine too, but I will only respond to AronRa since he accepted my challenge and I want to remain on track.

AronRa. Trying to get you to reveal your proof of Evolution is like trying to get a child to show you his imaginary friend. They both keep talking as if it exists, but when it’s time to actually show you, they keep making excuses instead.

AronRa. I want to see your imaginary friend. Just show us. You claimed from the very start that proving Evolution was easy. Ok. Do it. I know I’ve asked this half a dozen time already, but I’m asking again because you keep going down rabbit trails.

AronRa stated that:
Then we first have to establish what evolution is - and what it is not. You you were clearly wrong about what 'evolutionists' believe. That was the point. You're not asking for proof of evolution; you're asking for disproof of God. You just don't understand what you're saying. The definition of evolution does not say that it necessarily excludes "intelligent supernatural agencies" [God].


I’ve explained so many times that I don’t want you to disprove God.
Since you still haven’t given us your proof of Evolution, I’m going to try to be as clear as possible, and tell you exactly why I reject Evolution. I’m tired of your word games. When I said that I already accept descent with modifications, you claimed that:

Then I have no reason to prove evolution. Instead you already accept that evolution is a fact, and I have already satisfied your challenge before we even begin. What you're asking for instead is an entirely different discussion on the subject of emergence.


These are just silly word games. Of course I’m not asking you to prove descent with modifications. If that’s all you had to do, you could just show me one picture of your mommy, one picture of your daddy, and one picture of you. That alone would prove descent with modification. That’s why, in my original challenge, I clearly defined what I wanted you to prove. I asked for proof that:

“Life on Earth is descended via blind random processes – not design”


I do understand that natural selection is non-random. I get that. I used the word in a different way to clarify that there is no guidance from any intelligent source. That’s it. You can pretend the word random isn’t there if it confuses you. You can also ignore the last part, ‘not design’. Just show how the design around us is descended via naturalistic means (point mutations, genetic drift, inversions, natural selection, ect ect).

I just want you to prove that the diversity of life can be accounted for by Evolution. That is what you believe, and I want you to prove it. Show me that mutations and natural selection (and whatever else you happen to want to throw in there, like genetic drift or sexual selection or whatever) is capable of producing the design we see.

Let me make an illustration. There are many systems in the human body that have many interdependent parts, such as the heart, which pumps the blood, through your veins. How can an integrated system such as this evolve? Evolution would require a step-by-step mutational pathway through the entire process, where each mutation had a significant enough advantage for natural selection to select. And obviously the system would need to keep functioning the entire time. Does this step-by-step mutational pathway exist? Can you provide any evidence that it does?

Let’s look at a car engine. It’s pretty complicated and has many interconnected parts that all rely on each other. Just like our hearts, blood, and veins. Now is it possible to build a car engine one piece at a time, so that we can have something functional throughout the entire process, and so that each additional piece provides an advantage? That seems absurd, and you better have very good evidence if you want me to believe that. Of course, when we look at biological systems, the problem is infinitely worse. You can’t just add one piece at a time. Evolution can only work one mutation at a time. So how many mutations are required to build a heart that can pump blood throughout your veins? 1000? 1 million? Several million? Do you realize that for evolution to even have a chance, you would need to have a step-by-step mutational pathway from the ground up? The slow gradual slope up mount improbable must have single-mutation steps. Do you have any evidence that it is? What if a certain step provides no beneficial advantage without at least 3 coordinated mutations? Or 10? Or 1000? What evidence do you have that such a pathway exist? Without this pathway, evolution is dead. Nothing can happen. You might get some variance in existing genes, but you can’t build new systems. I realize that it’s difficult to prove this, so let me make it easier for you. Can you show me that it is at least reasonable to believe that this mutational pathway exists?

Of course it’s difficult for you to prove that “all life on earth” is descended this way, so let’s focus on one aspect and get specific. Let’s look at protein sequences. The total number of possible protein sequences that could exist is extremely large. However, the number of proteins that DO exist is much much smaller. Therefore, it seems to me that evolutionists cannot explain either the origin of the first protein (I’m sure you can’t do this), or the protein diversity we currently have (obviously, you can mutate an existing protein and get some variance, but in order to get to a different protein altogether, you would need several coordinated mutations to ‘travel through’ sequence space).

If you wish, we can focus on protein folds, the smallest structural change possible.

If you want, we can also go over some numbers. If you understand basic probability theory (high school level), it’s pretty easy for me to show you some numbers.
If you don’t understand where I’m coming from and need more detail, I can do that. If you haven’t thought about this before, it can seem a little confusing.

So you wanted to know which aspect of Evolution that I don’t accept? This is it (although I’m sure I could come up with other problems). But this is the main reason I reject Evolution on a scientific level. If you can prove that this is no problem for Evolution, then I would be greatly impressed and would admit that Evolution has a much stronger scientific basis then I ever thought it did. However, if you can’t, where does that leave Evolution? If you can’t show that a simple protein fold can reasonably occur, then Evolution is dead in the water.

Still waiting for proof
-OnceForgivenNowFree
Tue May 13, 2014 3:28 am
OnceforgivennowfreePosts: 21Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 3:53 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Gnug215,

Thanks for your concern. To be honest, it is confusing trying to follow the debate between myself and AronRa. Personally, I do read the other comments, but I ignore them in my response. I am only responding to AronRa in order to try and keep things from getting too confusing. AronRa is responding to random comments here and there, but as long as AronRa and myself keep responding directly to each other, it should be fine. Although it would be nice to have a page where only our comments show up. I'll leave the decision up to you (or AronRa).

Thanks,
OFNF
Tue May 13, 2014 3:35 am
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

This is good. It appears we creationists appear to be on the same page with our questions and concerns so Ra will be able to answer a lot of things all at once with his proof for evolution. Hopefully we've made it mostly clear as to what we're looking for in terms of proof.
Tue May 13, 2014 5:46 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2682Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

extremecheese wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:Attention! Welcome to new users extremecheese
Because I was a bit slow to approve their posts, several responses piled up after their posts, and their posts are now a bit far up on the site.
I feel it is important to point them out, since they are posts countering AronRa's posts, and I would not want them to feel as if their say is being stifled or ignored.


Thanks Gnug215!
I should have introduced myself properly!
Basically I'm a western guy living in Hong Kong (for the last 17 years), raised as an atheist / evolutionist, and became a Christian / creationist a few years ago. Having held both viewpoints at different times in my life, the debate between evolution vs creation has always intrigued me, however ultimately it always boils down to your belief of origins, each side then attempts to use science to extrapolate forward.



Well, you are not required to introduce yourself, but it's always nice. :)

It's just that we had to set all new postings to need first time approval in order to stave off a massive influx of spam posters. We figured it would be easier to be... doormen instead of clean-up crew.
But we do approve everyone who isn't a spammer, so there is no need to do anything specific with your first post - apart from not advertising for shady stuff, or otherwise sound like a spammer. ;)

Anyway, welcome aboard.

I guess my story is a bit opposite of yours, having gone from "Christian / creationist" to "atheist / evolutionist". I put all that in quotation marks because I'm not really digging the labels.
At any rate, the debate has also intrigued me a lot, however in recent years I've become rather disillusioned with the whole debate, because, well, it's never much of a "debate", and more like a huge pile of squabbling.
People barely seem to be able to get past the initial stage of actually agreeing on definitions of terms, and consequently the debate ends up with two people yelling from each side about stuff that is essentially meaningless to the other side.

Welp, I hope you enjoy your stay here at least. :)
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Tue May 13, 2014 8:22 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2682Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Onceforgivennowfree wrote:Gnug215,

Thanks for your concern. To be honest, it is confusing trying to follow the debate between myself and AronRa. Personally, I do read the other comments, but I ignore them in my response. I am only responding to AronRa in order to try and keep things from getting too confusing. AronRa is responding to random comments here and there, but as long as AronRa and myself keep responding directly to each other, it should be fine. Although it would be nice to have a page where only our comments show up. I'll leave the decision up to you (or AronRa).

Thanks,
OFNF


You have every right and reason to ignore all the other posts as you see fit, but it's always a good idea to let this be known. But you have just done that, so all is good.

I'll leave the decision to make a separate, exclusive thread up to AronRa, then.
(That wouldn't mean this thread would be closed, though, just so everyone knows.)
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Tue May 13, 2014 8:25 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2682Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:Thank you to Gnug for approving my first reply and for making mention that they were up above in the forum so as not to get lost in the shuffle.




No problem.

Like I told extremecheese, the approval system is only there to prevent spammers and spambots, of which we've had way too many to count.

We basically approve everyone who isn't a spammer, and once you've been approved, you don't need more approval, so you're free to post now. :)
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Tue May 13, 2014 8:28 am
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Here you go, hwin:
Also, I will reply to creationist later on when I get the chance.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Reading the abstract it seems obvious that you just did a quick search and found an article you thought would be useful because of its title. However, the abstract states that this is for closely related species, not phylogenetics as a whole. In addition, the paper itself appears to give suggestions for resolving the problem of closely related species. I also do not see how resolving problems between closely related species is a major discordance. Seeing as how you obviously did not read it and I cannot read this article (it is behind a paywall), we will have to wait for someone (probably Isotelus) to verify if my reading of the abstract is correct.


dandan wrote:You don´t have to look at the creationists web sites if you don´t what, that is why I provided a scientific source.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307040

quote from the article
different genes have found considerable
discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids [9–11],
pines [12], cichlids [13], finches [14], grasshoppers [15] and
fruit flies [16] have all detected genealogical discordance so
widespread that no single tree topology predominates.”


The paper is dealing with discordant species trees only (the list of animal groups from the quotes similarly involve closely related species, most of which are in the same genera), which has no effect on the validity of congruence in higher-level phylogenetic ranks. Even if it did, the paper would still not be sufficient evidence for major discordance, as it is describing a statistical means by which to both predict and detect its incidence in gene and species trees: the key here is realizing that the mechanisms of discordance are well-understood. The paper is in effect stating that it is not actually a hindrance and can instead be used to determine the causes of its own occurrence, as well as extract information on ancestral populations. The paper describes the results found in some of the articles quoted above, and in spite of discordance, the gene trees could be cross-examined with other statistical methods such that they were able to resolve the relationships and divergence times between the species, as well as determine ancestral population sizes. Incidentally, one study included found that the (human+chimp)gorilla) tree was the most well-supported, which is a conclusion shown by other research and is the current majority consensus.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Tue May 13, 2014 10:02 am
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Isotelus wrote:
The paper is dealing with discordant species trees only (the list of animal groups from the quotes similarly involve closely related species, most of which are in the same genera), which has no effect on the validity of congruence in higher-level phylogenetic ranks. Even if it did, the paper would still not be sufficient evidence for major discordance, as it is describing a statistical means by which to both predict and detect its incidence in gene and species trees: the key here is realizing that the mechanisms of discordance are well-understood. The paper is in effect stating that it is not actually a hindrance and can instead be used to determine the causes of its own occurrence, as well as extract information on ancestral populations. The paper describes the results found in some of the articles quoted above, and in spite of discordance, the gene trees could be cross-examined with other statistical methods such that they were able to resolve the relationships and divergence times between the species, as well as determine ancestral population sizes. Incidentally, one study included found that the (human+chimp)gorilla) tree was the most well-supported, which is a conclusion shown by other research and is the current majority consensus.



Interesting, but it is still a fact that we don´t see consistent phylogenetic trees, we don´t see gens organized in a nested hierchy.
I you want to claim that this discordances are not statistically significant please provide your statistical model.

one study included found that the (human+chimp)gorilla) tree was the most well-supported, which is a conclusion shown by other research and is the current majority consensus


In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other; This means that 30% of the genome contradicts evolutionary predictions,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10842.html
Tue May 13, 2014 12:31 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Onceforgivennowfree wrote:*

AronRa. Trying to get you to reveal your proof of Evolution is like trying to get a child to show you his imaginary friend. They both keep talking as if it exists, but when it’s time to actually show you, they keep making excuses instead.

AronRa. I want to see your imaginary friend. Just show us. You claimed from the very start that proving Evolution was easy. Ok. Do it. I know I’ve asked this half a dozen time already, but I’m asking again because you keep going down rabbit trails.


You have to be patient, before presenting the evidence for evolution Aron still has to explain to you things like:

-How science works
-What the scientific method is
-How does the scientific method works
-Why is science objective
-What is a scientific fact
.-What is a scientific theory
-what is evidence
-How biology works
-what is a gene, a genome, a protein a base pair etc.
-What is a mutation
-What is Natural selection
-What is sexual selection
-What is genetic drift
-What is descend with modification

Etc.

After he explains all that maybe, just maybe he will present his proof for evolution. So please be patient.


After all, since you are a creationist you are very stupid, and you need some education before you can aspire to understand the evidence for evolution.
Tue May 13, 2014 3:11 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

"After all, since you are a creationist you are very stupid, and you need some education before you can aspire to understand the evidence for evolution."

This is certainly the belief most widely held by a lot of evolutionists. I think it would be fair to say that a lot of creationists tend to feel the same way towards evolutionists.

I think what most of them miss is that it's not that we DON'T understand evolution, it's that we DO understand evolution and that's why we can see the weaknesses and 'faith' that goes into believing it's somehow responsible for the diversity of life around us.

So the bigger question is "Why don't they see the same things we do?" Most of my experiences have shown that they're not idiots. They're smart for all intents and purposes. What you find when you really start digging into their background is that they're indoctrinated and not educated. Ask them what books or classes have they taken on the weaknesses of evolution? What books have they read on creation? Or ID? Or some other idea that isn't centered around Darwinian evolution and most, if not all, haven't done any research of any kind on other ideas or the weaknesses of the Darwinian mechanisms. That's indoctrination. It's all confirmation bias on their part.

So if they're not indoctrinated then what else could it be? That's the thing I can't seem to figure out. I don't know if they're all scared that God really exists. Maybe they're so deep into their atheism that to come forward and admit they were wrong would be too embarrassing. I don't know. I haven't figured that part out yet. All I know is that if a person isn't scared to objectively look at ALL the evidence, especially what modern science is showing us, then seeing God in all of it really isn't all that difficult. It becomes a very reasonable and logical conclusion.
Tue May 13, 2014 4:07 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:"After all, since you are a creationist you are very stupid, and you need some education before you can aspire to understand the evidence for evolution."

This is certainly the belief most widely held by a lot of evolutionists. I think it would be fair to say that a lot of creationists tend to feel the same way towards evolutionists.

I think what most of them miss is that it's not that we DON'T understand evolution, it's that we DO understand evolution and that's why we can see the weaknesses and 'faith' that goes into believing it's somehow responsible for the diversity of life around us.

So the bigger question is "Why don't they see the same things we do?" Most of my experiences have shown that they're not idiots. They're smart for all intents and purposes. What you find when you really start digging into their background is that they're indoctrinated and not educated. Ask them what books or classes have they taken on the weaknesses of evolution? What books have they read on creation? Or ID? Or some other idea that isn't centered around Darwinian evolution and most, if not all, haven't done any research of any kind on other ideas or the weaknesses of the Darwinian mechanisms. That's indoctrination. It's all confirmation bias on their part.

So if they're not indoctrinated then what else could it be? That's the thing I can't seem to figure out. I don't know if they're all scared that God really exists. Maybe they're so deep into their atheism that to come forward and admit they were wrong would be too embarrassing. I don't know. I haven't figured that part out yet. All I know is that if a person isn't scared to objectively look at ALL the evidence, especially what modern science is showing us, then seeing God in all of it really isn't all that difficult. It becomes a very reasonable and logical conclusion.




Yes, at the end of the day weather if you are an evolutionist or a creationists has nothing to do with how intelligent you are, or how much knowledge you have. It depends on your preconceive ideas and on how open are you to supernatural explanations.

If you start with the assumption, that supernatural explanations are impossible or unacceptable, then it´s obvious that you ´ll become an evolutionist, because evolution after all is the best naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life.

If you star with the assumption that genesis is literally true, then you will be a creationists.

I try not to make any of those fallacies, I simply asked myself how would the universe/life look like is evolution where true and how would they look like if Intelligent design is true.

I might be wrong, but at least I know that being creationists was an intellectual decision, and I have a good idea on what would convince me that evolution is true.
Tue May 13, 2014 4:29 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Please try to stay on topic, friends. If you wish to discuss how daft so-called evolutionists are or whether Genesis is a better yarn than The Origin of Species, you may do so here.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Tue May 13, 2014 5:07 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

I try not to make any of those fallacies, I simply asked myself how would the universe/life look like is evolution where true and how would they look like if Intelligent design is true.


This is a very interesting way of approaching it. This whole conversation will be interesting as to how it plays out since it seems we're all coming at it from a little different angle. This should be fun.

I wasn't always a creationist. I was more of a theistic evolutionist coming out of college. It wasn't until I started look at actual modern science instead of the extremely dated science I was being told was true in college that I started to realize that creation was a much better explanation. Modern science is all but doing away with Darwinian evolution. It's definitely a dinosaur. The naturalist will have no option but to find another naturalistic explanation over the next 20 years or so because the mechanisms of mutation and nat sel are being shown they don't have the almighty powers ascribed to them by the evolutionists.
Tue May 13, 2014 5:11 pm
ldmitrukUser avatarPosts: 241Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Onceforgivennowfree wrote:
Let’s look at a car engine. It’s pretty complicated and has many interconnected parts that all rely on each other. Just like our hearts, blood, and veins. Now is it possible to build a car engine one piece at a time, so that we can have something functional throughout the entire process, and so that each additional piece provides an advantage? That seems absurd, and you better have very good evidence if you want me to believe that. Of course, when we look at biological systems, the problem is infinitely worse. You can’t just add one piece at a time. Evolution can only work one mutation at a time. So how many mutations are required to build a heart that can pump blood throughout your veins? 1000? 1 million? Several million? Do you realize that for evolution to even have a chance, you would need to have a step-by-step mutational pathway from the ground up? The slow gradual slope up mount improbable must have single-mutation steps. Do you have any evidence that it is? What if a certain step provides no beneficial advantage without at least 3 coordinated mutations? Or 10? Or 1000? What evidence do you have that such a pathway exist? Without this pathway, evolution is dead. Nothing can happen. You might get some variance in existing genes, but you can’t build new systems. I realize that it’s difficult to prove this, so let me make it easier for you. Can you show me that it is at least reasonable to believe that this mutational pathway exists?

-OnceForgivenNowFree


Well the internal combustion engine has a very long history of different parts being added to increase the functionality, so yes it is possible to build an engine one piece at a time, adding complexity over time. I think you're diving into Behe's so called irreducible complexity which has been refuted.
Tue May 13, 2014 5:34 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:
I try not to make any of those fallacies, I simply asked myself how would the universe/life look like is evolution where true and how would they look like if Intelligent design is true.


This is a very interesting way of approaching it. This whole conversation will be interesting as to how it plays out since it seems we're all coming at it from a little different angle. This should be fun.

I wasn't always a creationist. I was more of a theistic evolutionist coming out of college. It wasn't until I started look at actual modern science instead of the extremely dated science I was being told was true in college that I started to realize that creation was a much better explanation. Modern science is all but doing away with Darwinian evolution. It's definitely a dinosaur. The naturalist will have no option but to find another naturalistic explanation over the next 20 years or so because the mechanisms of mutation and nat sel are being shown they don't have the almighty powers ascribed to them by the evolutionists.


Yes, I have a similar story, I was a theistic evolutionist and a Christian, in fact I was not aware that there was such thing a creationism, I was not aware that some people reject evolution and millions of years.

By coincidence I watch one of Kent Hovinds lectures, I obviously didn´t become a creationist right away, but I became aware that many of the “facts” that I learned where not really facts but interpretations.

Then I was like yoyo, I change my view many times, from evolution to creation to evolution to creation etc.

Then it became obvious t that life and the universe has the attributes that we would expect if they were designed.

I apologize for these comment I know that nobody cares about my personal story  If the moderator considers it prudent, he can remove these comments and I won´t get offended.
Tue May 13, 2014 5:46 pm
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan, it’s very easy to look at a paper or portions of it and key in on certain statements that initially seem to support your position, but problems can and will arise when context is not considered, as is the case here. Again, this paper does not prove your point. For one, it’s another example of what the first paper you linked was referring to, and it states right in the abstract that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees.

dandan wrote:In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other; This means that 30% of the genome contradicts evolutionary predictions,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10842.html


That is not what it means. Contrary to what you claim, the 30% of the genome supports evolutionary predictions as the remaining 70% represents the similarities shared by humans and chimpanzees. As I stated previously, discordance can be anticipated, and in this case they recognized it as a case of incomplete lineage sorting (or possibly gene flow as well), a very-well understood and predicted process that can be both detected and corrected for by using statistical analysis. When viewing the tree in consideration of ILS, a consistent pattern occurs where the human genome most frequently matches that of the chimpanzee, followed by the gorilla. The location of these 30% similarities also has to be considered. Note that they decrease significantly in coding portions of the genome, i.e. the regions that make a gorilla a gorilla, or human a human, etc.

dandan wrote:Interesting, but it is still a fact that we don´t see consistent phylogenetic trees, we don´t see gens organized in a nested hierchy.
I you want to claim that this discordances are not statistically significant please provide your statistical model.


But not interesting enough. You have actually provided yourself with exactly what you claim does not exist. Both papers you linked contradict your statements and instead support phylogenetics as a valid means of taxonomic classification. The first paper explained that discordance is a predictable and useful tool, ergo the fact that it can be statistically significant is not the issue. If you want to see a working statistical model, read the papers you provided in their entirety, in addition to the supplementary material included.

edit: corrected spelling
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Tue May 13, 2014 8:56 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Isotelus wrote:
That is not what it means. Contrary to what you claim, the 30% of the genome supports evolutionary predictions as the remaining 70% represents the similarities shared by humans and chimpanzees. As I stated previously, discordance can be anticipated, and in this case they recognized it as a case of incomplete lineage sorting (or possibly gene flow as well), a very-well understood and predicted process that can be both detected and corrected for by using statistical analysis. When viewing the tree in consideration of ILS, a consistent pattern occurs where the human genome most frequently matches that of the chimpanzee, followed by the gorilla. The location of these 30% similarities also has to be considered. Note that they decrease significantly in coding portions of the genome, i.e. the regions that make a gorilla a gorilla, or human a human, etc.




You are missing something.

Of course some animals are more similar to humans than others, and in this case the chimp happened to be more similar to humans than any other animal, there is nothing special about these some animal had to have this designation. The same would be true if organisms where designed.
If you look at man made objects, cakes for example, you will see a similar pattern, where some cakes are more similar to a certain cake.
What both of my papers show is that similarities among animals depend on the portion of DNA that you analyze.

Evolution since it´s a mechanisms that involves descend with modification, we would expect to see a nested hierchy, where every portion of DNA shows the same family tree, with few, if any exceptions.



But not interesting enough. You have actually provided yourself with exactly what you claim does not exist. Both papers you linked contradict your statements and instead support phylogenetics as a valid means of taxonomic classification. The first paper explained that discordance is a predictable and useful tool, ergo the fact that it can be statistically significant is not the issue. If you want to see a working statistical model, read the papers you provided in their entirety, in addition to the supplementary material included.





It seems like it doesn´t matter how many discordance are found you will always say ”evolution did it” you have to provide a statistical model that explain how many discordances can be explain by evolution.

¿honestly how can 2 portions of DNA evolve independently in two different branches?

For example if gorillas and humans share a mutation, evolution would predict that these mutation occurred in the common ancestor that gorillas and humans share, therefore we would also expect to find that mutation in chimps, because chimps also share that exact same common ancestor. This is what evolution predicts, if these prediction where true I would accept evolution. It would be extremely unlikely to have even a single exception.
On exception would imply that gorillas and humans had the exact same mutation in the exact same location independently, the chances of that happening is 1 in 30,000,000.

We know this because we know that the mutation rate is about 100 mutations per generation, and we know that genomes are about 3,000,000,000 base pairs long (3,000,000,000 divided by 100 = 30,000,000, these are the probabilities of having a mutation on a desired spot.
Tue May 13, 2014 10:50 pm
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:One of the weakest arguments from a evolutionary perspective is the argument from comparative anatomy. Just because one thing may look like something else doesn't mean "nature-did-it". The mechanisms of mutation and nat sel have to be shown to be able to create such things in the first place in order for the argument to hold any weight. Not only that but one fossil find can completely destroy the whole "this thing looks like that hence one is ancestral to the other" such as has happened concerning fish to tetrapod evolution and whale evolution. Your direction above appears to be headed that way. For instance....

"I can't go into much detail at this exact moment, but as a supplementary explanation, the brains of all craniates (from hagfish to us) consist of the same basic structural organization (telencephalon, diencephalon = forebaain, mesencephalon = midbrain, metencephalon, mylencephalon = hindbrain, and the spinal cord). "

Simply observing that the brains of all craniates have the same basic structural organization doesn't mean they 'evolved' from one another. It simply means they look like one another. It is a HUGE leap of faith to then project that the mechanisms of mutation and nat sel are responsible for the changes between the two and ultimately the reason one 'evolved' into another. The same thing can be said for the statement you made of

"Amphibian and fish brains are actually very similar, particularly in terms of the relative function, morphology, and nerve connections of the individual segments."


I understand what you are saying in regards to similarity, but you have in turn presented a weak argument against the usefulness and validity of comparative anatomy (and functional anatomy, for that matter). It isn’t simply assessing similar things and claiming nature did it. I imagine you know things are never that simple, but it has to be made clear that comparative anatomy is an integrative field of study that utilizes and compliments a number of other disciplines, including phylogenetics. It isn’t simply similarity that’s being compared, it’s degrees of similarity that denote modification relative to the ancestral condition. The frail, faith-ensared field of comparative anatomy can be used to recognize whether or not similarity is due to relatedness.

Not only that but one fossil find can completely destroy the whole "this thing looks like that hence one is ancestral to the other" such as has happened concerning fish to tetrapod evolution and whale evolution.


Everyone in this forum knows that this is my number one pet peeve concerning misconceptions of evolution. Fossils are not and never have been assumed to be directly ancestral to crown lineages, and I can expand on this further if you provide specifics. Are you referring to Tiktaalik and the footprints from Poland?

That's all find and dandy and an interesting observation but it proves nothing. From a creationist perspective I could just as easily say "The same designer, God in this case, simply used one organism as a blueprint for the other" and I would every bit as much evidence for my side as you do for yours.


But you wouldn’t. Fish and amphibian brains have the same structural organization because their ontogenetic development follows the same pathways. The same applies to the CNS of craniates in general. The problem with claiming design based on similarity here is that often structures characteristic of other groups appear in the embryo that are absent in the adult, or developmental timing may shift such that the adult form of one species resembles the juvenile stage of another, and vice versa (a brief account of this in the fossil record: https://arago.elte.hu/sites/default/fil ... ye_ASD.pdf). See these as well. They are not public access, but you can at least read the first page: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature08789, http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature716. The suggestion that it takes faith to believe that gene alterations and NS cannot account for the types of changes discussed is refuted by the scientific literature. Also, see my last statement below.

The point is evolutionists tend to give the mechanisms of mutation and nat sel some kind of supernatural nearly cosmic all powerful abilities but can't seem to show evidence that these powers actually exist from these mechanisms outside of their own blind faith and fairy tale stories. This becomes the real crux of the evolution/creation debate. We creationists don't believe that mutations and nat sel are capable of the super powers that the evolutionists give them. We recognize that they might be able to change a beak into a slightly different beak but when have we ever observed those types of changes add up to a point where one population of organisms in a particular Family of organisms receive so many changes that they are no longer considered in the same Family of organisms? It's these types of things that are highly disputed by the creationists.


And on what valid basis do you dispute this? You are creating an unnecessary separation between microevolution and macroevolution as though they are different processes while providing no mechanism by which the two are divided.

I’m going to link to a post I made to another creationist a few months back; it covers essentially everything I mentioned above but in slightly more detail, as well as includes more papers. I highly suggest you look it over.

viewtopic.php?p=154122#p154122

Edit: changed link
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Last edited by Isotelus on Wed May 14, 2014 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue May 13, 2014 11:39 pm
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:
You are missing something.

Of course some animals are more similar to humans than others, and in this case the chimp happened to be more similar to humans than any other animal, there is nothing special about these some animal had to have this designation. The same would be true if organisms where designed.
If you look at man made objects, cakes for example, you will see a similar pattern, where some cakes are more similar to a certain cake.
What both of my papers show is that similarities among animals depend on the portion of DNA that you analyze.

Evolution since it´s a mechanisms that involves descend with modification, we would expect to see a nested hierchy, where every portion of DNA shows the same family tree, with few, if any exceptions.


No, you're the one doing the missing, and for the third time. See below.

It seems like it doesn´t matter how many discordance are found you will always say ”evolution did it” you have to provide a statistical model that explain how many discordances can be explain by evolution.

¿honestly how can 2 portions of DNA evolve independently in two different branches?

For example if gorillas and humans share a mutation, evolution would predict that these mutation occurred in the common ancestor that gorillas and humans share, therefore we would also expect to find that mutation in chimps, because chimps also share that exact same common ancestor. This is what evolution predicts, if these prediction where true I would accept evolution. It would be extremely unlikely to have even a single exception.
On exception would imply that gorillas and humans had the exact same mutation in the exact same location independently, the chances of that happening is 1 in 30,000,000.

We know this because we know that the mutation rate is about 100 mutations per generation, and we know that genomes are about 3,000,000,000 base pairs long (3,000,000,000 divided by 100 = 30,000,000, these are the probabilities of having a mutation on a desired spot.


Once again, this was explained in the very same papers you linked, and they're not claiming "2 portions of DNA evolve independently in two different branches". Evolution is not as clear-cut as you are assuming it is, and if you had read the papers, you would know that your following statement is not necessarily what is predicted. Incomplete lineage sorting is the prediction. It explains that populations exhibit genetic variation and certain alleles may be imperfectly segregated during speciation events, which explains why certain parts of the genome might suggest a different relationship. Precisely how would this phenomenon occur in a design scenario? And in regards to a nested hierarchy, the second paper confirmed this by supporting the ((H+C)G) tree.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Wed May 14, 2014 12:24 am
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Isotelus wrote:
dandan wrote:
You are missing something.

Of course some animals are more similar to humans than others, and in this case the chimp happened to be more similar to humans than any other animal, there is nothing special about these some animal had to have this designation. The same would be true if organisms where designed.
If you look at man made objects, cakes for example, you will see a similar pattern, where some cakes are more similar to a certain cake.
What both of my papers show is that similarities among animals depend on the portion of DNA that you analyze.

Evolution since it´s a mechanisms that involves descend with modification, we would expect to see a nested hierchy, where every portion of DNA shows the same family tree, with few, if any exceptions.


No, you're the one doing the missing, and for the third time. See below.

It seems like it doesn´t matter how many discordance are found you will always say ”evolution did it” you have to provide a statistical model that explain how many discordances can be explain by evolution.

¿honestly how can 2 portions of DNA evolve independently in two different branches?

For example if gorillas and humans share a mutation, evolution would predict that these mutation occurred in the common ancestor that gorillas and humans share, therefore we would also expect to find that mutation in chimps, because chimps also share that exact same common ancestor. This is what evolution predicts, if these prediction where true I would accept evolution. It would be extremely unlikely to have even a single exception.
On exception would imply that gorillas and humans had the exact same mutation in the exact same location independently, the chances of that happening is 1 in 30,000,000.

We know this because we know that the mutation rate is about 100 mutations per generation, and we know that genomes are about 3,000,000,000 base pairs long (3,000,000,000 divided by 100 = 30,000,000, these are the probabilities of having a mutation on a desired spot.


Once again, this was explained in the very same papers you linked, and they're not claiming "2 portions of DNA evolve independently in two different branches". Evolution is not as clear-cut as you are assuming it is, and if you had read the papers, you would know that your following statement is not necessarily what is predicted. Incomplete lineage sorting is the prediction. It explains that populations exhibit genetic variation and certain alleles may be imperfectly segregated during speciation events, which explains why certain parts of the genome might suggest a different relationship. Precisely how would this phenomenon occur in a design scenario? And in regards to a nested hierarchy, the second paper confirmed this by supporting the ((H+C)G) tree.



As I said earlier, if you prove that organisms are organize in concordant nested hierchies I would accept evolution, because that Is what we would expect to find.
Each portion of DNA makes a different family tree; this pattern is expected if Intelligent design where true. In fact his pattern is observed in things that are known to be designed.
You are making evolution unfalsifiable, it doesn´t matter how many discordances we find, evolution can always explain it.
Wed May 14, 2014 3:10 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests