tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2615136311028227693..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: How Legs Evolved: Acompañado de Otros Muchos CambiosUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger258125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33454043039281066002012-12-20T21:01:55.560-08:002012-12-20T21:01:55.560-08:00Ritchie,
As my free time is limited as well. I...Ritchie,<br /><br />As my free time is limited as well. I'm only going to respond to a few of you latest comments. Please do not assume those to which I choose not to respond are ones I have no answer for.<br /><br />Nic: "Genetics is its own scientific discipline, it is not, I repeat NOT, based on, or dependent upon evolution. It has been used by evolutionary thought, but is no way dependent on evolution being a fact."<br /><br />Ritchie: "Yes it is. Every mechanism of genetics stems from the (justified) assumption that genes are inherited, mutate and propagate just they way ToE says they do."<br /><br />This is simply poor reasoning. You assume genes act the way they do because of evolution. Yes, genes are inherited, mutate and propagate. But that fact is not evidence for evolution in and of itself. Genes would continue as they do now if evolution was proven to be false. Therefore, genetics is not dependent upon evolution. Evolution is an attempt to explain these facts, but these facts are NOT dependent on the truth of evolution. <br /><br />Nic: "The only thing invalidated would be evolutions interpretation of genetic information."<br /><br />Ritchie: "Precisely. But how else is it to be interpreted? Do mutations spread throughout the genome by miracle?"<br /><br />Mutations spread as a result of reproduction. Again, this fact is not dependent upon the truth of evolution. Creatures would continue to reproduce with the demise of evolution.<br /><br /> Ritchie: "Is it a complete coincidence that a child's DNA will so closely match that of its parents?"<br /><br />No, that's to be expected. Why is this evidence for evolution? Would offspring not inherit parental genes if evolution was false?<br /><br />Ritchie: "Are genetic markers on the inter-species level the result of genuine shared ancestry, but the markers on the intra-species level the result of mischevious angels tinkering around to make it LOOK like common anestry, just to fool us humans?"<br /><br />Why do you assume the answer to be evolution simply because you can't think of another reason for the evidence? <br /><br />To you it's either evolution or a 'mischievous angel'. As there is much more we don't know about genetic inheritance than we do know, perhaps science should practice what it preaches and work to find the reason instead of assuming the answer. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-335886037604920012012-12-20T20:37:06.172-08:002012-12-20T20:37:06.172-08:00Ritchie,
As my free time is limited as well, I wi...Ritchie,<br /><br />As my free time is limited as well, I will only respond to a few comments.<br /><br />"Because not all interpretations are equally valid. Interpretations which make logical sense, are scientific in nature and are supported by a lot of evidence are simply better explanations that those which do not."<br /><br />You're right. And evolutionary science does not provide sound arguments, is not scientific in nature in that it cannot be observed, is not repeatable and cannot be demonstrated. Evolutionary science is any thing but logical. I know you disagree with this assessment, but it's a fact none the less. If you think you can repeat the evolutionary process please demonstrate that.<br /><br />"Wrong again. CA requires this pattern, the pattern is there, therefore the pattern is supporting evidence for CA. That's perfectly logical and valid."<br /><br />It is not logical or valid when you point to homology as evidence for CA, and in turn explain homology as the result of CA. That is circular reasoning any way you look at it. Such thinking is classic in evolutionary circles. You've become immune to it.<br /><br />"Eventually they will be independent species, incapable of cross-breeding. And each would give rise to sub-species of their own."<br /><br />As all these dogs can still breed with one another, your claim they will become sub-species and unable to breed is nothing more than conjecture. Even if they did become unable to breed, they would still be Canines and lend no weight what so ever to the argument for a universal common ancestor.<br /><br />"A does not become non-A. A can give rise to B, C and D WITHIN it. But saying "B, C and D are not A" is like saying "Dobermans, chihuahuas and terriers are not dogs"."<br /><br />You're totally confused. You're the one now saying A gave rise to B,C, and D (non 'A') and they are all dogs. <br /><br />Yes, dogs give rise to only dogs. But if, as you argue, dogs and cats have a common ancestor which was neither Canine or Feline, this CA had to give rise at some point, to another creature which was not like it. If dogs will continue to give rise only to dogs, and cats will give rise only to cats, how did the CA, which in your reasoning, should only give rise to CA, give rise to both Canines and Felines?<br /><br />So, as your argument goes, CA, which was neither Canine or Feline, gave rise to both Canines and Felines. But both Canines and Felines will give rise only to more Canines and Felines. If Canines and Felines will only give rise to more of themselves, what argument do you have that CA could give rise to both of them? Do you really not see the contradiction in your argument?<br /><br />I know what you're trying to argue, my point is you have nothing but presumptive conjecture on which to base your claim. You have nothing of substance at all. You cannot claim to have observed these events. You cannot demonstrate these events, and you cannot repeat these events. As you said in another post, if it is not repeatable, it is not science. Well guess what, the whole nature of your argument is not repeatable and therefore, it is not science. <br /><br />This is called being hoisted on your own petard. <br /><br />I'm sorry, but I'm simply not convinced you understand biology.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46828581375565031312012-12-20T12:25:48.251-08:002012-12-20T12:25:48.251-08:00Nic -
Precious. You seem to be of the opinion hi...Nic - <br /><br /><b>Precious. You seem to be of the opinion his discoveries exclusively support evolution.</b><br /><br />Evidence is evidence. Facts are facts. And ToE is a more parsimonious explanation of those facts than Creationism.<br /><br />You were the one who mentioned Mendel's personal beliefs as if they were at all relevant.<br /><br /><b>People interpreted it as supporting evolution,as you do. </b><br /><br />It is not just an interpretation. It is the specific mechanism which makes Darwinian evolution possible.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28446899528827973432012-12-19T14:35:45.139-08:002012-12-19T14:35:45.139-08:00Ritchie,
"True. But so what? Do you honestly...Ritchie,<br /><br />"True. But so what? Do you honestly think that means that every objective fact Mendel noticed may only be used to support Creationism?"<br /><br />Precious. You seem to be of the opinion his discoveries exclusively support evolution.<br /><br />"In actual fact, Mendelian genetics supported ToE from the very moment of its conception."<br /><br />People interpreted it as supporting evolution,as you do. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39787886312891373912012-12-19T14:20:25.552-08:002012-12-19T14:20:25.552-08:00Thorton,
"Before their lineage split off the...Thorton,<br /><br />"Before their lineage split off the main mammalian branch and evolved into monkeys monkeys didn't exist. Why can't you understand that?"<br /><br />I could understand that if it could be demonstrated. As it is, this is a claim based solely on the evolutionary assumption this needed to occur.<br /><br />"Nic, do yourself a favor before you make yourself look any more stupid. Get a dictionary. Look up the definitions of ancestor and descendant. HINT: they don't mean the same thing."<br /><br />I don't think I'm the one confused about the meaning of ancestor and descendant.<br /><br />Besides, the nested hierarchy concept is easily incorporated into a design scenario. As such it does nothing to help your case.<br /><br />"Design doesn't predict or require branching nested hierarchies."<br /><br />Says who, you?<br /><br />"It was from a superfamily of mammals known as the Miacidae that first appeared about about 60 MYA. This superfamily gave rise to various extant mammal families such as dogs, cats, bears, badgers, weasels, civets, and seals."<br /><br />Nice story. Got any proof? Your interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient.<br /><br />"Yes, there is both fossil and genetic evidence that supports this."<br /><br />Your interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient. And it does not matter how many people support you. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69007875872645744662012-12-19T14:04:15.901-08:002012-12-19T14:04:15.901-08:00Thorton,
"Because descent with modification ...Thorton,<br /><br />"Because descent with modification produces branching hierarchies. Once you're on a particular branch, all your descendants will also be on that branch."<br /><br />You must really work on thinking your arguments through before presenting them.<br /><br />"Once you're on a particular branch, all your descendants will also be on that branch." <br /><br />Would not the common ancestor of both Felines and Canines been on a particular branch? Would not all its descendants be, as you claim, on the same branch? How did Felines wind up on a different branch than Canines?<br /><br />If you wish to argue the CA was not on a particular branch, you would need to demonstrate it was not and why it was not. Assuming it was not is simply not sufficient.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42579181985720939682012-12-16T23:02:41.981-08:002012-12-16T23:02:41.981-08:00Thorton,
"Sorry nic, but that evolution has ...Thorton,<br /><br />"Sorry nic, but that evolution has occurred is a demonstrated scientific fact. <br /><br />And exactly who demonstrated evolution to be a scientific fact? I would like names, please. <br /><br />Such a stance is truly scientific, by the way. We know the facts, all we're doing is finding out the details. Yes, very scientific attitude. You're simply to funny for words.<br /><br />"You'll never find a paper on new aircraft wing design that doesn't assume Bernoulli's Principle is true either. <br /><br />The difference being Bernoulli's Principle is repeatable, demonstrable and observable. Evolution is, despite your insistence to the contrary, none of these. <br /><br />"That's evolution by definition you dummy."<br /><br />So evolution is nothing more than change. Your up for the hypocrite of the week award. You accuse me of bait & switch and you try to pull this childish manoeuvre? You know full well evolution is much more than change among bacteria. It's change from bacteria to something not bacteria. Which, in fact, does not occur as has been observed in Lenski's experiments. <br /><br />If you wish to believe that it's legitimate to extrapolate that changes in bacteria will lead to 'molecules to man' type evolution, you're free to do so. However, you have nothing more than conjecture to offer for this position. All your claims of evidence, such as bacteria and animal husbandry demonstrate that the only results are variations of the same thing. Hardly sound evidence.<br /><br />It was one thing to make a Golden Retriever from a Golden Lab, it's quite another to make a whale from some imagined land mammal in the distant past.<br /><br />"What is the mechanism,...<br /><br />Genetics. I have observed results from 10's of thousands of generations of bacteria producing only bacteria, and Fruit Flies producing only Fruit Flies, canines only producing canines, cattle only producing cattle. What have you got? Only your belief that eventually these things will evolve into something else. In other words, you've got nothing.<br /><br /><br />You want me to name the mechanism which prevents this. I can't. But the problem you have is that even though I can't name a mechanism, does not mean a mechanism is not there. And all observations clearly indicate some mechanism is indeed there.<br /><br />So how about you demonstrate the non-existence of such a mechanism? Care to try that one? I kind of doubt it as you usually run when you're asked fro specifics.<br /><br />"Animals that have evolved complex social behaviors like humans can exhibit different behaviors at different times. Apparently that's too hard for a simple minded Creationist to grasp."<br /><br />It's not creationists who cannot grasp what's going on, it's evolutionists. What's the survival advantage of altruism? What's the survival advantage of selfishness? Being contradictory in nature how does NS select both? How does NS even recognize such factors when they are not genetically detectable? You really need to think things through a little more.<br /><br />"Funny that it 'cuts it' with 99.99% of the professional scientists who study and work in the fields. But I'm sure an ignorant Creationist thinks his uneducated layman's opinion should be given equal weight."<br /><br />Are you serious? Argumentum ad populum is the best response you've got? What if 100% of geologists believed the world was flat, would you agree with them? As an uneducated laymen you seem to think your opinions carry weight.<br /><br />"So what's your mechanism that explains all that empirical data Nic? You always seem to go quite when I ask for your details."<br /><br />My opinion is the data is best explained in a design scenario. It's an opinion which, despite what you think, is growing and will continue to grow. Genetic research is going to kill evolution. Its ghost will linger and will most likely carry the majority opinion. That's not to be unexpected however. This never has been a scientific debate, it has always been and always will be a clash of world views. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-487947240202373962012-12-15T07:48:33.954-08:002012-12-15T07:48:33.954-08:00testtestRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5398087243627145412012-12-15T07:47:42.632-08:002012-12-15T07:47:42.632-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26757271616558087832012-12-15T05:56:46.513-08:002012-12-15T05:56:46.513-08:00... actually, on that last point, perhaps it would...... actually, on that last point, perhaps it would be more helpful to say:<br /><br />"A can give rise to A1, A2 and A3 WITHIN it."Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27400006289430872942012-12-15T05:39:08.239-08:002012-12-15T05:39:08.239-08:00Joe -
What does that have to do with natural sel...Joe - <br /><br /><b>What does that have to do with natural selection? What does it have to do with random mutations?</b><br /><br />It was a specific prediction. Based on the assumption of common ancestry. With a very high degree of improbability. Which made it highly falsifiable.<br /><br />And yet it was borne out. Which makes it a wonderfully strong piece of supporting evidence for common ancestry.<br /><br /><b>The fusion allegedly occurred in the HUMAN lineage.</b><br /><br />Correct. And it was predicted on the logic that, since other great apes have 24 pairs, and humans share common ancestry with other great apes, we too must have had 24 pairs in the recent past.<br /><br /><b>So perhaps with humans it is required that the information never be separated. And the easiest way to accomplish that was by splicing the two together. Snip off the excess and splice.</b><br /><br />It is only the easiest way if you START with a creature that has 24 pairs of chromosomes. If you are, say, designing a species from scratch, isn't it easier to simply put all the relevant genetic information into a single pair of chromosomes in the first place?<br /><br /><b>So HC2 is explained as a design feature, for humans.</b><br /><br />No, Joe, all you have demonstrated is that it is possible to make up an explanation for HC2 on the assumption of design. <br /><br />But this is pretty meaningless. Design doesn't NECESSITATE a fused chromosome. Design would be just as valid an explanation had there been no fused chromosome.<br /><br />Common ancestry, however, would have been in trouble. Which is why the discovery of the fused chromosome is upporting evidence for CA.<br /><br />Really, this is so simple, I'm certain you would pick it up in a single minute if you weren't so absolutely determined NOT to understand. If you didn't take it as a matter of religious faith that there absolutely MUST be a flaw in the ToE somewhere.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45568999617597915202012-12-15T05:28:41.339-08:002012-12-15T05:28:41.339-08:00Joe -
Just all the difference in the world.
Rhe...Joe - <br /><br /><b>Just all the difference in the world.</b><br /><br />Rhetoric.<br /><br />Geneticists are still comparing DNA samples to measure similarity. You will be more closely related to someone who is more geneticall similar that to someone who is less.<br /><br />This principle holds whether we are talking inter-species or intra-species. Why on Earth would it be different?<br /><br /><b>Great- what does the mitochondria DNA say about our relationship with chimps?</b><br /><br />I'm glad you asked.<br /><br />It says we are 95 - 98% per cent identical.<br /><br />Which is a closer match than either with orangutans.<br /><br />Implying we share a more recent common ancestor with them than we do with orangs.<br /><br />For exactly the same reason that your DNA is a closer match with your brother than it is with your cousin.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36411492819904306162012-12-15T05:21:25.919-08:002012-12-15T05:21:25.919-08:00Joe -
Just about anything can form a nested hiera...Joe -<br /><br /><b>Just about anything can form a nested hierarchy. It all depends on the criteria used. IOW nested hierarchies are not anything special and they are all manmade constructs.</b><br /><br />Well, not really no. I mean, technically you can redifine anything to fit anything, yes, but nested hierarchies are a specific concept. Which living species do fit. And it does imply common descent.<br /><br />Genetic markers indicate that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to an orangtuan, in exactly the same way as genetic markers indicate you are more closely related to your brother than you are to your cousin.<br /><br /><b>As Knox said an Army forms a nested hierarchy and it has NOTHING to do with common ancestry. </b><br /><br />True, but we know how people become members of the army - they are recruited. Usually at the lowest level and then climb, though I don't doubt some people jump straight in at a higher rank.<br /><br />Living creatures only appear because they have been birthed by their parents. From whom they have inherited their genes (with only occassionally copying errors). In that scenario, if A has more genes in common with B than either does with C, it is logical this is because A and B are more closely related - ie, they share a more recent common ancestor. C has been seperate for longer, thus allowing time for more mutations. How is this in any way not logical?<br /><br /><b>"You cited his paper in direct support of this sentence in your blog and here."<br /><br />Yes, that ONE sentence pertaining to ancestor-descendent relationships.</b><br /><br />And you have taken it out of context. That is a quote mine. Knox was not saying, as you implied, that natural species form non-nested hierarchies <b>AS OPPOSED TO</b> nested ones. He was saying they form non-nested hierarchies <b>AS WELL AS</b> nested ones, depending on your point of view.<br /><br />Shame on you for that.<br /><br /><b>ONLY if you use OTHER criteria- criteria that has NOTHING to do with ancestor-descendent relationships, can you form a nested hierarchy.</b><br /><br />Wow! STILL not grasping this!<br /><br />Nested hierarchies <b>DO</b> reveal ancestor-descendant relationships!<br /><br />Genetically you are more similar to your brother than you are to your cousin. What the Hell do you think this indicates if not an ancestor-descendant relationship?<br /><br /><b>"Joe, living species are ordered into nested hierarchies"<br /><br />Except when they are not, like single-celled organisms.</b><br /><br />That is because single-celled organisms are capable of HGT. How many times? That does not invalidate the fact that multi-cellular species form nested hierarchies, or that this indicates common descent, and nor does it invalidate common ancestry in singular-celled organisms either. It just makes it more difficult to demonstrate.<br /><br /><b>But again the observed nested hierarchy, ie Linnean taxonomy, has NOTHING to do with common ancestry. Nothing at all. Get over it.</b><br /><br />LOL!<br /><br />Again, you are genetically more similar to your brother than you are to your cousin. And this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with common ancestry?<br /><br />Oh dear...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28052220002480528692012-12-15T04:26:24.846-08:002012-12-15T04:26:24.846-08:00Nic -
Even if you do have two biology degrees, y...Nic - <br /><br /><b>Even if you do have two biology degrees, you'll have to forgive me for saying 'big deal', they don't make you right. Also, I'm not impressed by those who like to throw around claims for their educational status thinking it should make me quake in my boots. That is simply a fallacious appeal to authority.</b><br /><br />It isn't fallacious. A FALLACIOUS appeal would be to ask an expert for their opinion on a topic which is OUTSIDE their field of expertise. Asking their opinion on a topic INSIDE their field is a perfectly rational appeal to authority.<br /><br />And I'm sorry to sound like a pompous arse here, but I only mentioned it because you keep throwing out childish and casual insults about my intelligence, knowledge and credentials. You keep making me out to be some armchair, "internet intellectual" with no idea of biology.<br /><br />Well I'm sorry, but I DO have relevant qualifications. I demonstrably DO understand biology (specifically Evolutionary Biology, and Zoology) to a certain degree. I'm not saying it makes me an expert, I'm not saying it makes me infallible, I'm not even saying it (necessarily) makes me more intelligent than you, but if you do not have at least equal qualifications, then it DOES mean I am likely to be better informed about biology than you. When we argue about what ToE does and doesn't say (for example), I AM more likely to be correct. Because I have studied it. And you can call me an ass for pointing it out, but it's still true. Like it or lump it.<br /><br />In the same vein, your pastor's opinion of biology is simply not the equivalent of a biologist's opinion. Just fyi...<br /><br /><b>Show me where I denied the existence of Acanthostega.</b><br /><br />I refer you to your post on this specific thread at December 12, 2012 1:31 PM. I never said you denied Acanthostega's exitence. But you erroneously said that I did.<br /><br /><b>Evidence on its own is static, it only takes on life through interpretation... Then why are those who disagree with evolution wrong?</b><br /><br />Because not all interpretations are equally valid. Interpretations which make logical sense, are scientific in nature and are supported by a lot of evidence are simply better explanations that those which do not.<br /><br /><b>CA requires this pattern, the pattern is there, therefore CA. That's nothing more than circular reasoning.</b><br /><br />Wrong again. CA requires this pattern, the pattern is there, therefore the pattern is supporting evidence for CA. That's perfectly logical and valid.<br /><br /><b>That doesn't answer the question.</b><br /><br />If that is so, then I don't understand the question. You asked "why does the evidence not show similar creatures which were unique onto themselves?" If you were not asking for creatures with unique features which did not leave descendants, then what were you asking for?<br /><br /><b>Who said anything about linear change? The pathway need not be linear to result in A becoming non-A.</b><br /><br />And how does a branching pattern entail A becoming non-A?<br /><br /><b>For the sake of argument, let's say yes.</b><br /><br />Great. And that's how species are nested!<br /><br />See? Dobermans do not stop becoming dogs just because they are the start of a (potential) new lineage. Keep dobermans and chihuahuas and terriers apart for long enough and their gemones will accumulate more and more unique mutations. Eventually they will be independent species, incapable of cross-breeding. And each would give rise to sub-species of their own.<br /><br />But at no point would they stop being dogs.<br /><br />Dogs do not give birth to non-dogs.<br /><br />A does not become non-A. A can give rise to B, C and D WITHIN it. But saying "B, C and D are not A" is like saying "Dobermans, chihuahuas and terriers are not dogs".<br /><br />That is how new species arise. Do you see?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38810645551279075082012-12-15T04:25:39.821-08:002012-12-15T04:25:39.821-08:00Nic -
the discipline of genetics owes its origin...Nic - <br /><br /><b>the discipline of genetics owes its origin to Gregor Mendel, a creationist.</b><br /><br />True. But so what? Do you honestly think that means that every objective fact Mendel noticed may only be used to support Creationism?<br /><br />In actual fact, Mendelian genetics supported ToE from the very moment of its conception. Mendel saw that it demonstrated the very thing Darwin's theory needed but had not yet discovered - the unit of inheritance - the gene.<br /><br /><b>It was not meant as an insult, simply a fact.</b><br /><br />Mature. Good one.<br /><br /><b>"A scientific fact is not an absolute fact."<br /><br />How convenient for you. You can claim evolution is a fact while still denying it's a fact.</b><br /><br />No, Nic, you just haven't grasped the difference between a scientific fact and an absolute fact.<br /><br /><b>Nothing will ever be allowed to disprove evolution... It explains everything and therefore explains nothing.</b><br /><br />You are getting confused between a theory which would account for every possible scenario or bit of evidence (like ID/Creationism) and a theory which merely accounts for a lot of observed facts (like ToE). ToE is highly falsifiable in theory. The same cannot be said for ID/Creationism.<br /><br /><b>Correct predictions do not justify a theory on their own. One can make a successful prediction based on false beliefs.</b><br /><br />In principle, true. But if you keep making these predictions over and over and keep getting it right, then the chances of it just being a coincidence become vanishingly small.<br /><br /><b>That is your opinion, and I grant, the opinion of the majority of the scientific community. But I again point out your own statement that the evidence is being interpreted assuming the truth of evolution.</b><br /><br />And why are they doing that? I mean, really? Do you think they just drew a theory at random? Or do you think all scientists are in on The Big Atheist Conspiracy to make it LOOK like God is unnecessary just so we can turn people away from Him and usher in Satan to destroy humanity: <b>MWAH HA HA HA HA HA!!</b> ??<br /><br />No. Scientists do not just guess. Nor are they the pawns of the Devil. ToE is the basis for the whole of modern biology because it has been put through its paces, and it WORKS. It makes sense of the data. And that's a whole load of data, let me tell you.<br /><br /><b>How could Tiktaalik be the ancestor to tetrapods when it is known tetrapods existed 80 million years before Tik?</b><br /><br />1) 80m? I think you mean 18m, possibly.<br /><br />2) You are confused as to what these fossils represent. These are snapshots in a progression that spanned roughly 25 million years and involved thousands of species. No-one is claiming these were the only species in the sequence.<br /><br />3) 'The first tetrapod' is not the same thing as 'the last common ancestor of all living tetrapods'. I'd elaborate, but it is tangental to the point of what Tiktaalik represents and I don't want to confuse you.<br /><br /><b>Why am I required to interpret it your way?</b><br /><br />Despite being asked, you have simply failed to explain how else we are to sensibly interpret these fossils. What do YOU think they represent, if anything? Are they related at all? Are their similarities mere coincidence? Is the fact that they show progression of features just chance? You tell us.<br /><br /><b>It's evidence that the two creatures had different characteristics. It's interpretation which leads you to believe those differing characteristics mean one evolved from the other.</b><br /><br />But the interpretation is not based on nothing. It is not a whimsical guess. It is based on evidence such as this transition of fossils represents.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68947087460918828702012-12-15T04:24:15.684-08:002012-12-15T04:24:15.684-08:00Nic -
Despite evidence to the contrary, my free ...Nic - <br /><br />Despite evidence to the contrary, my free time is finite, and we seem to be making a lot of the same points over and over, so I'll try to condense a bit...<br /><br /><b>Genetics is a scientific fact, evolution is not.</b><br /><br />No, evolution IS a scientific fact. Genetics is a scientific field.<br /><br />The DNA of every individual is unique - and so is the DNA of every species. Every biological change in individuals and species is controlled by, and recorded in, its DNA - as is its ancestry. Genetics uses precisely the same mechanisms and principles to establish relationships between individuals as it does to establish them between species. There is zero difference. <br /><br /><b>Do you seriously believe that if evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, a paternity test done today indicating a child was mine, would the following day not indicate the child was mine?</b><br /><br />If it were proven tomorrow that, say, humans and chimpanzees do not share a common ancestor, that would show that the principles and mechanisms of genetics were flawed. As such they would have no ability to show relationships between yourself and your child either, since the principles previously used to establish such a relationship are clearly wrong.<br /><br /><b>Why not? As you say facts are facts.</b><br /><br />Quite so. And it wouldn't stop your child BEING your child. But genetics would simply be powerless to conclude a relationship from your DNA samples. That would be a conclusion. Drawn from principles which had just been shown to be flawed.<br /><br /><b>that has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of evolution.</b><br /><br />As I said, the exact same principles and mechanisms of genetics are used to establish relationships between individuals as they are between species. And it says all species share a common ancestor. If that is wrong, then the principles and mechanisims of genetics are wrong, and we lose all ability to draw any conclusions whatsoever.<br /><br /><b>BINGO! The ASSUMPTION of evolution.</b><br /><br />Technically the word is correct. But you are using it to imply we have no reason to believe evolution is true. This is not the case at all. It is not merely a guess.<br /><br /><b>When you look for conclusions based on presupposition you're going to accept only what satisfies those presuppositions.</b><br /><br />Facts are facts. And if your starting assumptions are flawed, then you will probably be unable to make much sense of your data. The fact that genetics is a thriving field of study indicates its starting principles and assumptions are likely to be true.<br /><br /><b>There are geneticists who are not evolutionists, are they all wrong when they disagree with evolutionary interpretation?</b><br /><br />Science does not necessitate atheism. As long as a person is willing to assume <i>methodological naturalism</i> (MN), they can perform science, whatever their religious beliefs. Of course, how they reconcile assuming MN while simultaneously holding a belief that miracles can and do occur seems contradictory to me, but what can you do?<br /><br /><b>Genetics is its own scientific discipline, it is not, I repeat NOT, based on, or dependent upon evolution. It has been used by evolutionary thought, but is no way dependent on evolution being a fact.</b><br /><br />Yes it is. Every mechanism of genetics stems from the (justified) assumption that genes are inherited, mutate and propagate just they way ToE says they do.<br /><br /><b>The only thing invalidated would be evolutions interpretation of genetic information.</b><br /><br />Precisely. But how else is it to be interpreted? Do mutations spread throughout the genome by miracle? Is it a complete coincidence that a child's DNA will so closely match that of its parents? Are genetic markers on the inter-species level the result of genuine shared ancestry, but the markers on the intra-species level the result of mischevious angels tinkering around to make it LOOK like common anestry, just to fool us humans?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19218296010919756562012-12-14T17:00:20.805-08:002012-12-14T17:00:20.805-08:00Nic
70+ years of verified and corroborating evide...<i>Nic<br /><br />70+ years of verified and corroborating evidence based on the assumption that evolution is true. Find me a research paper supporting evolution which does not categorically state in its abstract the fact of evolution. If you assume your answer from the outset, you'll get it every time.</i><br /><br />Sorry nic, but that evolution has occurred is a demonstrated scientific fact. All that are being researched now are the details of the specific mechanisms. <br /><br />You'll never find a paper on new aircraft wing design that doesn't assume Bernoulli's Principle is true either. Science doesn't have to reinvent the wheel with every new paper - it builds off of previously verified work. <br /><br /><i>I wish you were listening. Lenski's work demonstrates changes in bacterial colonies, nothing more.</i><br /><br />That's evolution <b>by definition</b> you dummy.<br /><br /><i>Animal husbandry works because genetic traits can be altered. But all experience shows definite limits to what can be accomplished, as any breeder will tell you.</i><br /><br />What is the mechanism that sets these claimed limits? Please be specific.<br /><br /><i>As for evolution being logically consistent, how does that work when it tells us we evolved to be selfish, while also telling us we evolved to be altruistic. Or that we evolved to be polygamous, while we also evolved to be monogomous. Yes sir, it's really logically consistent. </i><br /><br />Animals that have evolved complex social behaviors like humans can exhibit different behaviors at different times. Apparently that's too hard for a simple minded Creationist to grasp.<br /><br /><i>A century's worth of data interpreted on the assumption of evolution. 'Evolution did it' won't cut it either, pal.</i><br /><br />Funny that it 'cuts it' with 99.99% of the professional scientists who study and work in the fields. But I'm sure an ignorant Creationist thinks his uneducated layman's opinion should be given equal weight.<br /><br />So what's <b>your</b> mechanism that explains all that empirical data Nic? You always seem to go quite when I ask for your details.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34786636936443937982012-12-14T16:43:54.603-08:002012-12-14T16:43:54.603-08:00Nic
Not as long as I've been waiting for you ...<i>Nic<br /><br />Not as long as I've been waiting for you to explain how it is evolution. </i><br /><br />The Lenski experiment documented over 30,000 generation of E coli in 12 separate colonies that all started from a single cloned bacteria. All 12 colonies developed their own unique individual mutations and genetically diverged from one another. One of the colonies developed an entirely new feature never before seen in E coli.<br /><br />That's evolution Nic, in everyone's book. It's A evolving into non-A.<br /><br />Now explain why you think it's not evolution. Maybe you can start be giving us your definition of evolution. <br /><br /><i>No one denies you can alter genetic patterns which result in different forms of dogs, cats, cattle, etc. What you can't and never will be able to demonstrate is that it is anything more than genetic tinkering. </i><br /><br />LOL! What you call "genetic tinkering" <b>is</b> evolution by definition you dummy.<br /><br /><i>Also, find us an animal breeder who will not state there are definite limits as to what can be achieved through breeding. </i><br /><br />In the short run by just recombinations in the existing gene pool, yes. What magic barriers limit the amount of change in the long run, over millions of years when new genetic myutations are being constantly introduced?<br /><br /><i>I owe you nothing. It's not flattering to yourself to play dumb with this, as you know full well what A to non-A means in this context</i><br /><br />LOL again! I knew you'd be too dishonest to answer. Your whole childish rhetorical game hinges on you keeping your definitions hopelessly vague.<br /><br />Big time FAIL for you here Nic. I'm sure you make yourself feel better with your mental masturbation but you don't affect scientific reality one iota.<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40831833578993878942012-12-14T15:11:00.707-08:002012-12-14T15:11:00.707-08:00Thotrton,
"Only if "wishful thinking&qu...Thotrton,<br /><br />"Only if "wishful thinking" is defined as 70+ years of verified and corroborating scientific evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines."<br /><br />70+ years of verified and corroborating evidence based on the assumption that evolution is true. Find me a research paper supporting evolution which does not categorically state in its abstract the fact of evolution. If you assume your answer from the outset, you'll get it every time. <br /><br />"You do enjoy being ignorant, don't you?"<br /><br />If I was ignorant I might be able to answer that. As I'm not,...<br /><br />"I already did with the Lenski long term E coli experiment."<br /><br />I also asked you to demonstrate how Lenski's<br />work demonstrates evolution. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and...<br /><br />"What is your explanation for the Lenski results? What is your explanation for why artificial selection in animal husbandry works? I'm listening."<br /><br />I wish you were listening. Lenski's work demonstrates changes in bacterial colonies, nothing more. It's pure conjecture based on an assumption of evolution to claim anything more than that.<br /><br />Animal husbandry works because genetic traits can be altered. But all experience shows definite limits to what can be accomplished, as any breeder will tell you.<br /><br />"Evolutionary theory doesn't have "needs". Evolutionary theory is a comprehensive and logically consistent explanation for the empirically observed data. As new data is discovered the theory is modified accordingly. That's how all science works Nic.<br /><br />Evolution has many 'needs'. It needs genetics to support its claims. As you said yourself, if genetics could not be interpreted to support evolution, that would be the demise of the theory. Obviously evolution has needs.<br /><br />As for evolution being logically consistent, how does that work when it tells us we evolved to be selfish, while also telling us we evolved to be altruistic. Or that we evolved to be polygamous, while we also evolved to be monogomous. Yes sir, it's really logically consistent. <br /><br />"There's the better part of a century worth of data out there that needs an explanation Nic. ToE has proven to be an excellent one. You have a mechanism that explains the data, ALL the data, better? GAWDIDIT won't cut it."<br /><br />A century's worth of data interpreted on the assumption of evolution. 'Evolution did it' won't cut it either, pal.<br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66858369245857056142012-12-14T14:53:04.499-08:002012-12-14T14:53:04.499-08:00Troy,
"And next is the apocalypse, right Nic...Troy,<br /><br />"And next is the apocalypse, right Nic?"<br /><br />"Pathetic moron." <br /><br />Is that the best you can do, insults? I wonder who really qualifies as the 'pathetic moron'?<br /><br />My past experience tells me I cannot expect anything more from you however. Too bad. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12334597737170552532012-12-14T14:39:38.647-08:002012-12-14T14:39:38.647-08:00Thorton,
"Hey Nic, I'm still waiting for...Thorton,<br /><br />"Hey Nic, I'm still waiting for your "it's not evolution" explanation of the Lenski E coli experiment results.<br /><br />Not as long as I've been waiting for you to explain how it is evolution. <br /><br />"I'm also waiting for your "it's not evolution" explanation for why artificial selection and animal husbandry works."<br /><br />No one denies you can alter genetic patterns which result in different forms of dogs, cats, cattle, etc. What you can't and never will be able to demonstrate is that it is anything more than genetic tinkering. <br />If you feel up to it, demonstrate this is evolution in action. Conjecture based on assumption is not considered evidence.<br /><br />Also, find us an animal breeder who will not state there are definite limits as to what can be achieved through breeding. I live in a highly agricultural area and know numerous breeders of all kinds of animals, and not one of them will hesitate to categorically state there are definite limits to what can be achieved through breeding. <br /><br />"You still owe us your definition of "A" and "non-A" in your other dumb rhetorical exercise too, but no one is holding their breath."<br /><br />I owe you nothing. It's not flattering to yourself to play dumb with this, as you know full well what A to non-A means in this context. The truth is, you have no response, so this is just your pathetic attempt at avoidance and deflection. Just admit you can't answer the question and move on. I won't hold my breath however. I'll simply wait for more demands, avoidance, deflection and name calling.<br /><br />When do I get my Mook of the Day trophy? <br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15374217125159047862012-12-14T13:44:04.274-08:002012-12-14T13:44:04.274-08:00Ritchie,
"But the FIELD of genetics would ut...Ritchie,<br /><br />"But the FIELD of genetics would utterly collapse. It is an area of study that is absolutely based on the assumption (and I use that word only in the sense that it is not an absolute fact,) of evolution."<br /><br />Utter, complete and total rubbish! Genetics is its own scientific discipline, it is not, I repeat NOT, based on, or dependent upon evolution. It has been used by evolutionary thought, but is no way dependent on evolution being a fact. It's simply mind boggling that you would think that way. <br /><br />Demonstrate for us what would change, genetically speaking, if evolution was proven wrong.<br /><br /><br />"If ToE was wrong, there would be no reason to believe any of our CONCLUSIONS from genetics. Data remains unchanged. Facts are simply facts. But we would have absolutely no basis to say "X is Y's father" or "Mr X was at the crime scene" or "Genetic evidence shows these bones to be Neanderthal bones."<br /><br />Why not? As you say facts are facts.<br /><br />"Though, in actual fact of course, if ToE was not true, the field of genetics would never have gotten as far as it already has."<br /><br />Again, complete rubbish. What of the work of those geneticists who do not believe in evolution? I suppose in your world they are not real geneticists. <br /><br />Really, I'm serious, where do you come up with this absolute tripe?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38708233054835743232012-12-14T13:29:39.492-08:002012-12-14T13:29:39.492-08:00Ritchie,
"Because that is absolutely NOT the...Ritchie,<br /><br />"Because that is absolutely NOT the basis of evolutionary theory. Change is not linear. There are not cut-off points like that. There is only speciation. The pattern that generates is BRANCHING."<br /><br />Yes, it is. Who said anything about linear change? The pathway need not be linear to result in A becoming non-A. <br /><br />"Do you agree that all domestic dogs descend from a common ancestor?"<br /><br />For the sake of argument, let's say yes.<br /><br />"Do you accept this common ancestor was a Grey Wolf?"<br /><br />For the same reason, I'll say yes.<br /><br />"All breeds of dog are their own breed, but they have never stopped being a domestic dog. Once the dobermans appeared, they did not stop becoming dogs. They were simply a new type of dog. Are you with me so far?"<br /><br />Yep.<br /><br />"And by logical extension, since the domestic dog is a sub-species of Grey Wolf, it too has never stopped being a Grey Wolf. It is merely a certain type of Grey Wolf - and so are all its breeds. All poodles, labradors, German Shepards, huskies, chihuahuas, great danes and dobermans are still Grey Wolves."<br /><br />OK.<br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51307037566979410522012-12-14T13:06:47.849-08:002012-12-14T13:06:47.849-08:00Hey Nic, I'm still waiting for your "it&#...Hey Nic, I'm still waiting for your "it's not evolution" explanation of the Lenski <i>E coli</i> experiment results.<br /><br />I'm also waiting for your "it's not evolution" explanation for why artificial selection and animal husbandry works.<br /><br />You still owe us your definition of "A" and "non-A" in your other dumb rhetorical exercise too, but no one is holding their breath.<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65341676139140402292012-12-14T13:05:43.413-08:002012-12-14T13:05:43.413-08:00Ritchie,
"It is a fact that Eusthenopteron s...Ritchie,<br /><br />"It is a fact that Eusthenopteron shows the characteristic of a pretty-much exclusively aquatic lifestyle, while Hynerpeton shows all the signs of an amphibious tetrapod. That is evidence." <br /><br />It's evidence that the two creatures had different characteristics. It's interpretation which leads you to believe those differing characteristics mean one evolved from the other. <br /><br />"On that basis, the interpretation that Eusthenopteron was fully aquatic and that Hynerpeton was an amphibious tetrapod is not a massive leap of conjecture."<br /><br />No it's not, but it is not necessarily evidence of one evolving from the other either. That's simply your belief based on the assumed fact of evolution. <br /><br />"Alone, not necessarily no, but it is very indicative when each of these creatures shows progressive steps in the exact same features."<br /><br />Why are they steps? That's a display of your assumed answer.<br /><br />"And it does support common ancestry since common ancestry necessitates this pattern."<br /><br />CA requires this pattern, the pattern is there, therefore CA. That's nothing more than circular reasoning. <br /><br />"Oh it does. There are plenty of species that lived without leaving any descendants. The non-avian dinosaurs being a classic example. Also there are no living ancestors of such creatures as Basilosaurus, Hyaenodon, Entelodon, Liopleurodon and many, many others. Speciation makes the extinction of the majority of species inevitable."<br /><br />That doesn't answer the question.<br /><br />"I perfectly acknowledge there is more than one way of interpreting evidence. What I do not believe is that there are BETTER explanations for the data than evolution."<br /><br />So, all you have is your opinion. That being the case, why am I wrong?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.com