Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

[tas8831]

Let's just take your bolded comments.....

First, keep in mind that these are not MY comments, these are the comments of a PhD -holding creation scientist.

Who can doubt the sheer volume of "evidence" for evolution?
But let me just separate what science "knows" and can demonstrate in a verifiable way, as opposed to what it assumes and suggests without being able to verify it.

Please do, it is so rare that someone on a discussion forum supporting the anti-evolution side deigns to condescend from on-high to instruct me about what is the case in my own field.

Terminology is interesting.....we have "micro-evolution" which is the verifiable part of this theory....and then we have "macro-evolution" which is what science has assumed to have taken place due to deduction, assertion and large amounts of suggestion.

OK, let me stop you there.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

--------------------------------

Just a sampling.​

Show me where the "deduction, assertion and large amounts of suggestion" is in these.

If you have some verifiable evidence that macro-evolution ever happened, I'm all ears.....but there cannot be suggestions or assertions....just real verifiable evidence. OK?

Why is it that the most verbose anti-evolutionists also tend to be the ones that have never bothered to learn anything about it and have no relevant background to understand or discuss it?


Where is your real verifiable evidence for the existence of Yahweh? Any of the events claimed to have happened upon Jesus' crucifixion? And of the events attributed to Yahweh (e.g., creation, flood, etc.)? There cannot be suggestions or assertions....just real verifiable evidence. OK?






*I came across these citations in another forum.

 

[Deeje]

First, keep in mind that these are not MY comments, these are the comments of a PhD -holding creation scientist.

It makes little difference to me who said it. I am not immediately impressed with credentials until I know who issued them. If someone has a degree in science or even theology, I have to ask who taught them what they know, and how accurate was the information students received if it depended entirely on how their teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject.

I don't idolize science when it it comes to their ability to interpret the data used to promote their pet theory....nor do I give credence to Christendom's theological colleges to teach scripture, when it is clear that they are in total confusion whilst trying to appear to be united. Those "Christians" who sell out to science do not know what the Bible teaches about creation.

Please do, it is so rare that someone on a discussion forum supporting the anti-evolution side deigns to condescend from on-high to instruct me about what is the case in my own field.

Oh dear..... a highly trained expert! How dare I deign to question you and your own credentials. Your teachers taught you.....but who taught them? In the world of academia, egos often prevail by demonstrating this exact attitude. How dare anyone question what is asserted! Sorry, but I question everything.

Now with regard to the information provided, may I please ask for an accurate personal interpretation, in plain English of the data you posted.

This quote from the Berkeley "Understanding Evolution" for students website is a favorite of mine because of the simplicity of the language.....

"What's the difference between a phylogeny, an evolutionary tree, a phylogenetic tree, and a cladogram?

For general purposes, not much. This site, along with many biologists, use these terms interchangeably — all of them essentially mean a tree structure that represents the evolutionary relationships within a group of organisms. The context in which the term is used will tell you more details about the representation (e.g., whether the tree's branch lengths represent nothing at all, genetic differences, or time; whether the phylogeny represents a reconstructed hypothesis about the history or the organisms or an actual record of that history; etc.) However, some biologists do use these words in more specific ways. To some biologists, use of the term "cladogram" emphasizes that the diagram represents a hypothesis about the actual evolutionary history of a group, while "phylogenies" represent true evolutionary history. To other biologists, "cladogram" suggests that the lengths of the branches in the diagram are arbitrary, while in a "phylogeny," the branch lengths indicate the amount of character change. The words "phylogram" and "dendrogram" are also sometimes used to mean the same sort of thing with slight variations. These vocabulary differences are subtle and are not consistently used within the biological community. For our purposes here, the important things to remember are that organisms are related and that we can represent those relationships (and our hypotheses about them) with tree structures."

Reading trees: A quick review

I have found it very convenient for the scientific elite to hide behind the scientific jargon employed when issuing information. Anyone not trained in the jargon will simply assume that it's all correct because they have no reason to challenge what is stated. So please simplify this information so that everyone can understand what it is saying. But you see how this site waves away the ambiguous use of even the simple language. (underlined) As long as students accept that basic "truth" nothing else matters. Right?

When I go to the doctor and he tells me I have a need for surgery, he doesn't use medical jargon to explain it to me because he knows that I would not understand any of it, so he simplifies the terminology and I walk away understanding the mechanics of the procedure as he explained it. Why do we not expect the same from scientists?

Why is it that the most verbose anti-evolutionists also tend to be the ones that have never bothered to learn anything about it and have no relevant background to understand or discuss it?

Why is it that the scientifically verbose will present information that those, not acquainted with the jargon, cannot understand? I have learned a lot from the Berkeley site concerning the suggestive nature of what science asserts. They can't hide it......you obviously think you can.

Where is your real verifiable evidence for the existence of Yahweh? Any of the events claimed to have happened upon Jesus' crucifixion? And of the events attributed to Yahweh (e.g., creation, flood, etc.)? There cannot be suggestions or assertions....just real verifiable evidence. OK?

You seem to forget....I am one who has, and openly acknowledges, a belief system.....science claims to have "mountains of evidence" to support its theory, yet when I read about its actual claims, I find that anything beyond adaptation is purely speculative.

Let me refer to Berkeley again on the subject of macro-evolution, and see.....

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."

What is macroevolution?

I love this simple language......I see no way to hide the speculative nature of the findings in this particular branch of science. Its all there. See...there is not much difference between dogs and pine trees. Given enough time...anything is possible, as long as there no mention of a Creator.

As I see it, science claims to have all this evidence, when it has nothing more than its own speculation based on its own interpretation of evidence, but it has nothing concrete to back it up. If you have no facts (and many of the scientists here tell me that there are no facts in science) then you have beliefs. Macro-evolution is supposition not fact. It has huge amounts of speculation and suggestion but nothing to really substantiate science's claims.

 

[tas8831]

It makes little difference to me who said it. I am not immediately impressed with credentials until I know who issued them.

it was not my intent to impress, but rather, to counter your absurd assertions that are devoid of rationale (or honesty).

If someone has a degree in science or even theology, I have to ask who taught them what they know, and how accurate was the information students received if it depended entirely on how their teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject.

How thoughtful - so tell us all then, won't you, regarding your position of evolution - who taught you what you know, and how accurate was the information you received if it depended entirely on how your teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject?

Surely you would not expect of others what you are unable to present yourself.

That would be childish.

I don't idolize science

Idolize it? Not at all.

Misrepresent it? That is primarily what I have seen from you thus far.

when it it comes to their ability to interpret the data used to promote their pet theory..

Ah, "pet theory". And your "pet theology"? After all, your take on evolution is not science-based. That much is obvious.

..nor do I give credence to Christendom's theological colleges to teach scripture, when it is clear that they are in total confusion whilst trying to appear to be united. Those "Christians" who sell out to science do not know what the Bible teaches about creation.

Right - but thank goodness YOU are here to set all non-like-you Christians straight - AND to show all of those science-educated folks that they are all wrong, too.

I am honored to be in the presence of so humble an expert on all things. And I'm betting self-taught?

Oh dear..... a highly trained expert!

Oh dear - a non-expert thinking himself better qualified to discuss things than those with relevant education and experience! The Dunning-Kruger Effect is alive and well in the world of creationist!

How dare I deign to question you and your own credentials.

Indeed - especially given the rather obvious dearth of relevant understanding of the topic you have presented. Whence humility?

Your teachers taught you.....but who taught them?

The fact that you keep saying "teachers" tells me much of what I had already inferred.

Most of my 'teachers' were themselves respected researchers in their fields. They 'taught' from first-hand knowledge. I get that it is a 'thing' these days to attack education, but it would be nice if those doing so actually understood how it all works.


Well - off to 'teach' some young impressionable minds all about evilution. And I will do so based on not only what my 'teachers' taught me - but from what I learned doing my own research. And you have your web essays.. Goodie for you.

more later.

 

[Audie]

it was not my intent to impress, but rather, to counter your absurd assertions that are devoid of rationale (or honesty).

How thoughtful - so tell us all then, won't you, regarding your position of evolution - who taught you what you know, and how accurate was the information you received if it depended entirely on how your teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject?

Surely you would not expect of others what you are unable to present yourself.

That would be childish.


Idolize it? Not at all.

Misrepresent it? That is primarily what I have seen from you thus far.


Ah, "pet theory". And your "pet theology"? After all, your take on evolution is not science-based. That much is obvious.


Right - but thank goodness YOU are here to set all non-like-you Christians straight - AND to show all of those science-educated folks that they are all wrong, too.

I am honored to be in the presence of so humble an expert on all things. And I'm betting self-taught?


Oh dear - a non-expert thinking himself better qualified to discuss things than those with relevant education and experience! The Dunning-Kruger Effect is alive and well in the world of creationist!


Indeed - especially given the rather obvious dearth of relevant understanding of the topic you have presented. Whence humility?


The fact that you keep saying "teachers" tells me much of what I had already inferred.

Most of my 'teachers' were themselves respected researchers in their fields. They 'taught' from first-hand knowledge. I get that it is a 'thing' these days to attack education, but it would be nice if those doing so actually understood how it all works.


Well - off to 'teach' some young impressionable minds all about evilution. And I will do so based on not only what my 'teachers' taught me - but from what I learned doing my own research. And you have your web essays.. Goodie for you.

more later.

Maybe you have some thoughts to offer on
the difference between memorizing "facts",and
understanding a subject

Between "teaching" and, guiding someone to learn.

And between religions, as a culture of faith,and
science, as a culture of doubt.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe you have some thoughts to offer on
the difference between memorizing "facts",and
understanding a subject

Memorizing facts is a foundational task, something to be done in introductory-level courses. With a foundation of facts, one can then use those facts to conceptualize, make connections, etc. and work on their understanding.
Trying to understand a subject without having ever learned about, much less "memorized" such things, is in my experience an endeavor bound to fail.

Between "teaching" and, guiding someone to learn.

A good teacher does both. They are not mutually exclusive. Not all students are up to the task, at least not initially, of being able to accept guidance, and many are resistant to learning.

And between religions, as a culture of faith,and
science, as a culture of doubt.

Not much to say on that. I have taught classes on the philosophy of science is to scientists the nature of science and the philosophy of science, and found myself siding with Feynman - " “philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". Many disagree, but I don't.

 

[tas8831]

Now, where was I...

Sorry, but I question everything.

Sure you do...

Now with regard to the information provided, may I please ask for an accurate personal interpretation, in plain English of the data you posted.

What - you mean you lack the education and experience to understand actual scientific publications IN THOSE AREAS that you declare there to be no evidence in????

Hilarious! My goodness the Dunning-Kruger effect has taken hold.

It is very simple for those that understand basic genetics and evolution (which you do not, which makes me even more perplexed as to how you can declare there to be no evidence for evolution!).


- long history (back to turn of the last century) of using molecular data to infer ancestor-dependent relationships
- in the 1980s/90s, the methods were becoming more sophisticated, new technology allowed for analyzing amino acid sequences of proteins, and the DNA sequences of genomes
- use of such data to infer phylogenies became very common
- researchers sought to test the reliability/accuracy of the methods used
- the papers cited used either known natural phylogenies or generated known ones experimentally, and applied the molecular techniques
- the techniques represented the known relationships to a high degree of accuracy
- I then added several examples of the results of the use of these tested methods

IOW - no assertion, suggestion, or speculation. Just the application of tested methods.

Now tell us all about your impressive science background such that you could not figure that out from the information provided.

This quote from the Berkeley "Understanding Evolution" for students website is a favorite of mine because of the simplicity of the language.....

...The context in which the term is used will tell you more details about the representation (e.g., whether the tree's branch lengths represent nothing at all, genetic differences, or time; whether the phylogeny represents a reconstructed hypothesis about the history or the organisms or an actual record of that history; etc.) .... For our purposes here, the important things to remember are that organisms are related and that we can represent those relationships (and our hypotheses about them) with tree structures."

I have found it very convenient for the scientific elite to hide behind the scientific jargon employed when issuing information.

So you are upset that terminology within a field that you hate is sometimes used in a context-dependent manner?

Do you feel the same way about doctors and theologians, or just scientists?

I have found it convenient for the anti-science layman to make all manner of implicit unsavory accusations against those they disagree with on the grounds that they do not like the implications of their work and not that they understand it.

Anyone not trained in the jargon will simply assume that it's all correct because they have no reason to challenge what is stated.

Anyone not trained in the jargon will, by necessity, also not be trained in the actual field in question and will thus not be in possession of sufficient relevant knowledge to draw informed opinions - hence your absurd claim about their being no evidence for evolution. You just don't know any better.

This simple fact often hurts the feelings of those suffering from the D-K-e, for they tend to think rather highly of themselves. This makes them upset when people within a field - and this is shocking, I know - actually use the jargon employed within their field when discussing those subjects.

Shocking.

So please simplify this information so that everyone can understand what it is saying.

But you have presented yourself as the ultimate arbiter on the evidence for evolution! How is it that you can pontificate on a subject yet cannot understand even basic information on the subject?

Can you not see the absurd egotism of your position?

When I go to the doctor and he tells me I have a need for surgery, he doesn't use medical jargon to explain it to me because he knows that I would not understand any of it, so he simplifies the terminology and I walk away understanding the mechanics of the procedure as he explained it. Why do we not expect the same from scientists?

Do you go into your doctor's office and tell your doctor that everything he thinks he knows is wrong? That you KNOW this, somehow?

Who wrote this:

"But let me just separate what science "knows" and can demonstrate in a verifiable way, as opposed to what it assumes and suggests without being able to verify it."

YOU did.

And who wrote this:

"Evolution is very flawed and without substantive evidence for its proposed scenario."

YOU DID.

And who, inexplicably, wrote this:

"when it it comes to their ability to interpret the data used to promote their pet theory.."

HOW WOULD YOU EVEN KNOW?????

Yet here you are telling me that you DON'T KNOW what science 'knows' because you can't understand the jargon and need it dumbed-down!

If you are so sure that evolution is all speculation, should it not be because you have done more than looked at the "Evolution 101" website?

What you have done here is akin to me rushing into your church, declaring your religion to be false, all made-up nonsense and that I know this because I see all the speculation and assertion and jargon employed in it, then say "Now, can one of you tell me who Jesus is."

Why is it that the scientifically verbose will present information that those, not acquainted with the jargon, cannot understand?

Why is it that those ignorant of the science will present themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not scientific despite not being knowledgeable in any relevant scientific subject? What is and is not evidence?

I - foolishly, it seems - assumed that, given your cocky, condescending attitude and certainty of your pontifications, you actually understood all the relevant material. Yet instead, we just have another pseudo-know-it-all, dead set on furthering his religious beliefs by denigrating people that work in science.
Quaint.

I have learned a lot from the Berkeley site concerning the suggestive nature of what science asserts. They can't hide it......you obviously think you can.

You obviously think you understand more than you do, and are oddly unashamed of your unwarranted lack of humility.

You seem to forget....I am one who has, and openly acknowledges, a belief system.....science claims to have "mountains of evidence" to support its theory, yet when I read about its actual claims, I find that anything beyond adaptation is purely speculative.

But how can this possibly be, since you could not even understand some snippets of abstracts relevant to the discussion without them being made child-like for you?

I submit that when you read about evolution, the reason you find it all "purely speculative" is that you are too ignorant of the subject matter to draw informed opinions.

Let me refer to Berkeley again on the subject of macro-evolution, and see.....

Oh goody!

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

...

And?

I love this simple language..

LOL!

You WOULD!

I mean, it IS called "Evolution 101", implying that it is meant for people like you - ignorant of evolution and incapable of understanding actual science - an INTRODUCTION to evolution, not an in-depth treatise on its evidence. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

I am shocked that a super-intellect such as yourself did not realize this...

....I see no way to hide the speculative nature of the findings in this particular branch of science.

You have become a parody of yourself.

You find the content of a website, whose goal is to introduce a concept to people that have no background in it and by necessity 'dumbs things down' for people like you, somehow 'exposes' the speculative nature of the science - science that you have proudly admitted that you do not understand.

Absolutely amazing. You people never cease to shock me.

All of that, and in the end, you still did not even try to explain how it is that your patently ridiculous claim about there being no evidence for evolution trumps a creation scientist's claim to the contrary.

I just wasted 30 minutes on someone that thinks a site called "Evolution 101" - which by design does not go into great detail - has shown him all he needs to know...

And btw, I will probably not reply to you any more. I don't need the aggravation.

 

[tas8831]

Ooooh! The JARGON!

Let me bold all the hard-to-understand jargon in here that makes it all totally impenetrable to the uninformed (who nevertheless feel justified in passing judgement on the topic) - I will only bold a term the first time it comes up:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of the Pan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

--------------------------------

Wow... 14 or so jargon words in there... Too hard to understand... Too hard to look up... Too hard to have avoided were one actually informed on the subject matter...

 

[Jose Fly]

You find the content of a website, whose goal is to introduce a concept to people that have no background in it and by necessity 'dumbs things down' for people like you, somehow 'exposes' the speculative nature of the science - science that you have proudly admitted that you do not understand.

Absolutely amazing. You people never cease to shock me.

So you too see the "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario Deeje has constructed.

Post a published paper? Well all that jargon makes it impossible to understand, which is just what those sneaky scientists want and is how they hide the complete lack of evidence for evolution!

Post a dumbed down, layperson-oriented website? Well look how simplistic it is, which just goes to show how weak the science is behind evolution!​

Hilarious.

 

[tas8831]

So you too see the "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario Deeje has constructed.

Post a published paper? Well all that jargon makes it impossible to understand, which is just what those sneaky scientists want and is how they hide the complete lack of evidence for evolution!

Post a dumbed down, layperson-oriented website? Well look how simplistic it is, which just goes to show how weak the science is behind evolution!​

Hilarious.

Indeed.

And they are so proud of themselves when they do this....

 

[Deeje]

And btw, I will probably not reply to you any more. I don't need the aggravation.

Fine with me.....strangely, I've heard it all before. You have presented nothing new. But you behave in a very predictable manner.

The main underlying truth is that you can back up adaptation with experimental data, witnessed and documented in real time....but anything that stretches the data outside of what is testable....is pure speculation....based on deduction and assertion. When scientists use the words "might have " or "could have" or "leads us to believe..." where has the scientific terminology gone? That is where the truth is.

I'm not a "him" BTW.

 

[gnostic]

The things about creation, those found in scriptures of various religions, are stories of ancient cultures and ancient people, these authors really have very limited understanding of nature works and how the world around them works.

Their knowledge are rudimentary, sometimes what they describe are true, but most of the times, they are wrong. But even on those rare occasions when they get it right, their description are not exploratory and investigative.

Science relied on being able to explain what any phenomena are, and how they work, and testing if the explanations are true or false, through verifiable observations, eg the gathering of accumulative evidences or through rigorous experimentations.

Scriptures never do this investigations of actively seeking knowledge. The scriptures that have creation stories included, don’t explain and don’t test; instead they relied on rudimentary observations accompanied with superstitions that some gods or spirits are involved. Religions that have creation myths, relied on people’s blind faith and belief in such stories.

In responding to the OP, I would say science and creation are not the same things, and they are not pursuing the same goal. So there are obvious gaps that separate the two.

 

[tas8831]

Fine with me.....

snipped sad face-saving gibberish...


Post a published paper? Well all that jargon makes it impossible to understand, which is just what those sneaky scientists want and is how they hide the complete lack of evidence for evolution!

Post a dumbed down, layperson-oriented website? Well look how simplistic it is, which just goes to show how weak the science is behind evolution! (h/t jose)

The Dunning-Kruger effect has a cozy home in the ranks of the scientifically ignorant anti-evolutionists with no relevant education or experience. Sad bunch, really.

 

[tas8831]

But evolution is not science.

Says the computer graphics guy that thought "continuous variation" is the accumulation of mutations...

Just as Husky mates with Husky and remains Husky. Just as Mastiff mates with Mastiff and remains Mastiff. Yet when Husky mates with Mastiff variation enters the record suddenly and we get the Chinook. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook.....

Where did Husky and Mastiff come from in the first place?

 

[tas8831]

Sure, we have advanced technologically, but can we really say we have advanced culturally given our modern society with every man out for himself????

Seems like the more religious a culture is, the more "every man out for himself" it becomes.

 

[tas8831]

You see....this is what happens when you ask for the proof that evolution ever happened.....you've got nothing. I am not dismissing evolution....I am questioning its validity when no proof for science's assumptions are ever provided.

Unshunning for one post:


Given that since this post, you have unwittingly admitted that the you are not able to competently interpret and thus assess the evidence for evolution unless it is "dumbed down" to a child's level for you. And upon this being the case (as in your linked-to site "Evolution 101"), by virtue of the lack fo detail, you declare that you can magically see all the 'assertion' and 'suggestion.'

You are very disingenuous and dare I say, dishonest, when it comes to the issue of evolution.

Reshun.

 

[tas8831]

It’s why the earths core is still molten........ believe it or not it is not a perpetual motion machine operating against friction for 4 billion plus years........

LOL!

"For all this, however, Marone says, the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. "The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2006-03-probing-earth-core.html#jCp

 

[viole]

They are not mutually exclusive, unless you cling to the ancient literal religious paradigms of Judatism, Christianity and Islam, and selectively dismiss science based on a religious agenda.

And you cling to science. Whose main assumption is naturalism.

In other word, trying to marry the two, damages both the Bible and science.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

And you cling to science. Whose main assumption is naturalism.

In other word, trying to marry the two, damages both the Bible and science.

Ciao

- viole

This is hookus bogus and resembles the dishonest misrepresentation like fundamentalist Christians, of the views expressed in my posts,

Boy! Are you ever coming from the dark side of a red moon!

 

[viole]

This is hookus bogus and resembles the dishonest misrepresentation like fundamentalist Christians, of the views expressed in my posts,

Well, you had it coming by believing in mutually contradicting propositions.

Evolution by natural selection is, by definition, unguided.

True, it could have been the mechanism used by God to create whatever His goal was. If any. But would you, benevolent God, create a mechanism that exploits weaknesses, it is amoral and inefficient, requires catastrophic events, mass extinctions and that is based on the predicate —>

you, little puppy who just lost its mother, you are weak and lonely, and your genetic imprint is suboptimal, therefore go in peace and be eaten. Allelujah.

Really?

I think that is less tenable than believing the earth is 6000 years old.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution by natural selection is, by definition, unguided.

Absolutely false from the Methodological Naturalism perspective, which makes no assumption of whether evolution is guided or unguided.

Ontological Naturalism makes the assumption that evolution is unguided.

<clip - clip> the emotional nonsense and rubbish