The Miracle of Water.

[nPeace]

Oh boy..

OK - I had a lengthy response 3/4 written to one of your other tedious posts, but my computer shut down and I lost it, so I think will be my last response to you for a while...

OK, so the history of this particular exchange went like this....

You had written:

"I don't have an agenda....
My faith started from my reason....
You have no verifiable evidence of evolution, so what is the difference?"​

I replied with these links:

The Miracle of Water.

Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?​

You replied to those with some dopey smilies.

I explained that they were links, your response to that is the first line in this post that I am responding to.

Allow me to explain it to you (though I suspect your dismissal is not premised on your 'reason' or your ability to understand what I wrote) -

I provided those links because they contained 1. 1 of the several iterations of my presenting 'verifiable evidence of evolution' and 2. an admission from a creation scientist that people saying that there is no evidence for evolution are ignorant and dishonest.

So yeah, I can see why you can't figure out why I linked to them - your scientific acumen must be on par with Deeje's.


And this insightful reply:


Was in response to my referring to this claim of yours:

"The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do..."​

as being circular. I guess its more begging the question fallacy plus some circularoity, but whatever.

You claim evolution has no 'verifiable evidence' and you write something so childishly naive and fallacious and hypocritical, as your claim is not only 100% devoid not just of verifiable "direct" evidence, but even circumstantial evidence.

This is why I find it difficult to take creationists seriously, so thanks for reinforcing my experience-based stereotype.

Okay, I understand now why you sent the links, but I don't know what they are supposed to prove, other than that they are human interpretations - nothing new to what Deeje and I have already repeatedly acknowledged.
Do you disagree, then place take one at a time and explain how they are not.

Do you understand why I made the statement?
"The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do..."
It was in response to this question.
...what exactly did the Intelligent Designer do? Or did He/she design Evolution, the endocrine system, and our genes?
There is nothing circular about that. It is a simple answer to a simple question.

Yes - because there isn't any.
Analogies to human activity are not evidence.

Specifically what "analogies to human activity" are you referring to?

And there is that lie again.

Here is what scientist and creationist Todd Wood has written about such claims:

The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...
​

What do you know that he doesn't? He, after all, ran the Baraminology study group for many years and has published creation science.

What is your background again?

I don't understand what is your purpose for this blog.
Can you explain please. Is it a reflection of your thoughts?
Was it just to say that the theory of evolution is standing on its props?

 

[nPeace]

The video provided discusses issues of evolution but again does not provide evidence for intelligent design.

The video was not about intelligent design, as far as I know.
Did you answer the question though? I was asking if you can explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design, according to you?

There is still no proof of an intelligent design.

There is no proof of evolution.
We have to analyze the evidence to see where it leads, but that evidence seems to have led persons to different conclusions.

Why would an intelligent designer create the organism to create disease and suffering?

Why do you see the need to ask this question?
Is it a way to try to deny evidence for intelligent design?

No number of time you can say I am not an animal will help. In the end we humans are still proud members of the animal kingdom.

Why do you need to repeat it then?
Do you think the more you repeat it, that somehow it will become true. Why do you say,

we humans are still proud members of the animal kingdom

When I go to public places, or sign documents, I don't see "animal". I see "human".
When a message on my pc says, "Verify that you are human." I follow the instructions. What do you do?
You can be whatever you want to be... and be proud.
I am human.

 

[Bear Wild]

The video was not about intelligent design, as far as I know.
Did you answer the question though? I was asking if you can explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design, according to you?


There is no proof of evolution.
We have to analyze the evidence to see where it leads, but that evidence seems to have led persons to different conclusions.


Why do you see the need to ask this question?
Is it a way to try to deny evidence for intelligent design?


Why do you need to repeat it then?
Do you think the more you repeat it, that somehow it will become true. Why do you say,

When I go to public places, or sign documents, I don't see "animal". I see "human".
When a message on my pc says, "Verify that you are human." I follow the instructions. What do you do?
You can be whatever you want to be... and be proud.
I am human.

Sorry about my misinterpretation for the video. So the video had nothing to do with intelligent design but it did have to do with evolution so that said it still does not reveal any evidence against evolution other than opinion.
Proof? Mathematical, absolute or sufficient evidence to explain something. Which use of the term are you using. Sufficient evidence to support the theory and yes there are those in the differing opinions, that seems to be true for science since there is always new evidence to reevaluate all scientific theories. That is what makes the theory of evolution so compelling. It has been question over and over again yet all the evidence continues to be supportive despite various opinions. What do you think is the alternative theory to evolution that actually has evidence and not just opinion?

I do not think I said you were not human. I assume you are a human and not a part of the Plantae, Monera, fungi, or Protista kingdoms and also not an alien. That leaves us with the Animal Kingdom to which humans are a part of. Thus humans are just as much animals as mice. I am happy to be a part of the Animal kingdom on this planet. I like the other animals I share this world with, I am sorry feel bad about it.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry about my misinterpretation for the video. So the video had nothing to do with intelligent design but it did have to do with evolution so that said it still does not reveal any evidence against evolution other than opinion.
Proof? Mathematical, absolute or sufficient evidence to explain something. Which use of the term are you using. Sufficient evidence to support the theory and yes there are those in the differing opinions, that seems to be true for science since there is always new evidence to reevaluate all scientific theories. That is what makes the theory of evolution so compelling. It has been question over and over again yet all the evidence continues to be supportive despite various opinions. What do you think is the alternative theory to evolution that actually has evidence and not just opinion?

I do not think I said you were not human. I assume you are a human and not a part of the Plantae, Monera, fungi, or Protista kingdoms and also not an alien. That leaves us with the Animal Kingdom to which humans are a part of. Thus humans are just as much animals as mice. I am happy to be a part of the Animal kingdom on this planet. I like the other animals I share this world with, I am sorry feel bad about it.

You seem to be avoiding my question. Are you, or are you answering, but not based on what I am asking? Do you understand what I am asking?
I think I had the same definition for proof, you had in mind.

I think creating confusion is a brainwashing strategy. So all I can say if if it makes you happy going around telling people what you have been happy to accept, and trying to push that belief on them, do as you wish. Just remember that you are doing no different to people whom you would complain of pushing their belief at, or on you - trying to get you to believe what they believe.

So the next time someone preaches in your face, or others around you, just remember your own actions. Okay?

 

[Bear Wild]

You seem to be avoiding my question. Are you, or are you answering, but not based on what I am asking? Do you understand what I am asking?
I think I had the same definition for proof, you had in mind.

I think creating confusion is a brainwashing strategy. So all I can say if if it makes you happy going around telling people what you have been happy to accept, and trying to push that belief on them, do as you wish. Just remember that you are doing no different to people whom you would complain of pushing their belief at, or on you - trying to get you to believe what they believe.

So the next time someone preaches in your face, or others around you, just remember your own actions. Okay?

I gave you three ways to look at the word proof so I can answer all three for you 1. mathematical proof? No most complex scientific theories cannot have mathematical proof. 2. Absolute proof without question? Impossible for complex scientific theories - probability is used. 3. Sufficient proof - There is more than enough evidence to know that evolution theory is correct. Now I have not avoided your question but answered in three different ways depending on definition.
Now my question to you is identify any evidence of the creation story to be true or even intelligent design? Any actual evidence of the creation story and how it explains what is found in nature beyond belief and not just trying to find a fault with the evolution theory.
Also I do not understand why you reject that you are a part of the animal kingdom. What separates you from the animal kingdom?

 

[ecco]

"The designer designed the genes

I don't need designer jeans, I just wear Levis.

 

[ecco]

I was asking if you can explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design

What "scientists"? The ones who say "Look at that flower, that is PROOF that there is a designer?

 

[tas8831]

Okay, I understand now why you sent the links, but I don't know what they are supposed to prove, other than that they are human interpretations - nothing new to what Deeje and I have already repeatedly acknowledged.

All we have is human interpretations. Some interpretations are better than others. Some are correct and follow logically from the data, others are ad hoc and meaningless. For example, using tested methods on similar data produces results that follow from the data, logically. These interpretations are logical and supportable and believable. Merely dismissing such as 'interpretations' is illogical and ad hoc and such dismissals are the result of an inability to understand the information.

All we have are human interpretations of the many 'versions' of the bible, too. Why do you not dismiss them, being human interpretations and all?

Do you disagree, then place take one at a time and explain how they are not.

As you are the one dismissing the very things you ask for, isn't it up to YOU to explain WHY you dismiss these 'human interpretations'?

I can explain why I dismiss the human interpretations of ancient middle eastern tall tales.

Do you understand why I made the statement?
"The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do..."

Yes - because just-so stories are all you can muster. Circular arguments are a typical creationist 'argument.'

It was in response to this question.
...what exactly did the Intelligent Designer do? Or did He/she design Evolution, the endocrine system, and our genes?
There is nothing circular about that. It is a simple answer to a simple question.

It was devoid of evidence or data and was mere question begging. You have nothing to offer but such slogans and question begging, all based on human interpretation which you claim can be dismissed.

But since you think this is not circular, please EXPLAIN how Jehovah did those things - supported with interpretation-free evidence, of course.

I'm sure you can do this to my satisfaction since you are the expert on what is and is not evidence.

Specifically what "analogies to human activity" are you referring to?

The standard 'this is complex, complex things come from a mind, so...' assertion. Like your The designer designed the genes thing. How do you know the Designer designed things?

I don't understand what is your purpose for this blog.

Really? This blog:

The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...​

You really don't understand why I posted that in response to creationists foolishly and dishonestly claiming "there is no evidence for evolution"?

Can you explain please. Is it a reflection of your thoughts?

It is the expression of the experiences of a CREATIONIST with a doctorate in science and a history of doing research.

Quite unlike you and Deeje.

Perhaps you can explain how one that does not understand scientific research above a grade school level, who needs grown-up science dumbed-down for them, nevertheless feels justified in criticizing science and dismissing evidence?

What goes through the mind of such a person?

Was it just to say that the theory of evolution is standing on its props?

No, it was to say:


"Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason"

 

[nPeace]

I gave you three ways to look at the word proof so I can answer all three for you 1. mathematical proof? No most complex scientific theories cannot have mathematical proof. 2. Absolute proof without question? Impossible for complex scientific theories - probability is used. 3. Sufficient proof - There is more than enough evidence to know that evolution theory is correct. Now I have not avoided your question but answered in three different ways depending on definition.
Now my question to you is identify any evidence of the creation story to be true or even intelligent design? Any actual evidence of the creation story and how it explains what is found in nature beyond belief and not just trying to find a fault with the evolution theory.
Also I do not understand why you reject that you are a part of the animal kingdom. What separates you from the animal kingdom?

This would make the third time I am repeating the question.
Can you please explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design, according to you?

All we have is human interpretations. Some interpretations are better than others. Some are correct and follow logically from the data, others are ad hoc and meaningless. For example, using tested methods on similar data produces results that follow from the data, logically. These interpretations are logical and supportable and believable. Merely dismissing such as 'interpretations' is illogical and ad hoc and such dismissals are the result of an inability to understand the information.

All we have are human interpretations of the many 'versions' of the bible, too. Why do you not dismiss them, being human interpretations and all?

As you are the one dismissing the very things you ask for, isn't it up to YOU to explain WHY you dismiss these 'human interpretations'?

I can explain why I dismiss the human interpretations of ancient middle eastern tall tales.



Yes - because just-so stories are all you can muster. Circular arguments are a typical creationist 'argument.'

It was devoid of evidence or data and was mere question begging. You have nothing to offer but such slogans and question begging, all based on human interpretation which you claim can be dismissed.

But since you think this is not circular, please EXPLAIN how Jehovah did those things - supported with interpretation-free evidence, of course.

I'm sure you can do this to my satisfaction since you are the expert on what is and is not evidence.


The standard 'this is complex, complex things come from a mind, so...' assertion. Like your The designer designed the genes thing. How do you know the Designer designed things?

Really? This blog:

The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...​

You really don't understand why I posted that in response to creationists foolishly and dishonestly claiming "there is no evidence for evolution"?



It is the expression of the experiences of a CREATIONIST with a doctorate in science and a history of doing research.

Quite unlike you and Deeje.

Perhaps you can explain how one that does not understand scientific research above a grade school level, who needs grown-up science dumbed-down for them, nevertheless feels justified in criticizing science and dismissing evidence?

What goes through the mind of such a person?



No, it was to say:


"Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason"

An interpretation can be correct or it can be incorrect.
We can have two or more interpretations that are logical and supportable and believable.
My argument is not that interpretations or inference are wrong. There are necessary in life, since we have to work out things that we may not see directly or have a complete understanding of.
What I am saying is that some seem to believe that their interpretations and inferences are somehow infallible.

 

[tas8831]

An interpretation can be correct or it can be incorrect.

So your interpretation of Scripture is incorrect, then.

We can have two or more interpretations that are logical and supportable and believable.

Sometimes. But not always.
What is your interpretation of this:

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.​

My argument is not that interpretations or inference are wrong. There are necessary in life, since we have to work out things that we may not see directly or have a complete understanding of.
What I am saying is that some seem to believe that their interpretations and inferences are somehow infallible.

Yes - you and your type.

Given that the post you replied to was quite lengthy, and you only replied to one thing, I am concluding that you have conceded the rest.

Thanks you for the concession.

 

[Bear Wild]

This would make the third time I am repeating the question.
Can you please explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design, according to you?


An interpretation can be correct or it can be incorrect.
We can have two or more interpretations that are logical and supportable and believable.
My argument is not that interpretations or inference are wrong. There are necessary in life, since we have to work out things that we may not see directly or have a complete understanding of.
What I am saying is that some seem to believe that their interpretations and inferences are somehow infallible.

Again I will ask what is the evidence for intelligent design. The fact that there are complex genetic systems which increase variation is predicted by evolution and supportive natural evolution and not intelligent design. I have not seen any evidence at all that a force outside of the natural world is creating or created genetic material or is actively influencing genetic material. Intelligent design does not give us anything that better explains the fossil record which shows a progression in living things as predicted by the evolutionary theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you are making claims that are not accurate.
Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

There is no real evidence that supports the evolution theory, if you are referring to changes on a large scale, that is, but good science does support ID, and as I said, I believe in good science.

Wrong. All available evidence from multiple fields of science, collected by multiple groups of independent researchers from all over the world, over the past 160 years points to the fact of evolution.
It is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth that currently exists. Nobody has managed to falsify it in all that time.

I know there are millions, perhaps billions of people who don't believe in that philosophical argument that humans are animals, and just as a friendly warning, be carefully how you use that philosophy.
Some folk will definitely demonstrate what you are suggesting of them, but once they complete their demonstration, they will remind you that they are human.
I certainly am no animal.

Anyone who wants to skip along merrily with the theory are free to do so. To me it doesn't matter who does. When it crumbles, they will too.
It's like a sinking ship. There are people who would get on a ship for their own personal reasons, and they may not be aware of the danger, until the reality is realized.
People have lost their lives to disasters because of making bad choices for oftentimes materialistic reasons.
In fact, there is a prophecy regarding the time when people will realize that their money and material treasures will mean nothing to them, but it won't save them.

I was just looking at a video, about the situation with the theistic evolutionist, and evolution itself. You might not be interested, but I'll link it just in case.

You might want to skip to 8:40

Animal
noun, plural: animals

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment
Animal - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary


You are an animal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The video was not about intelligent design, as far as I know.
Did you answer the question though? I was asking if you can explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design, according to you?


There is no proof of evolution.
We have to analyze the evidence to see where it leads, but that evidence seems to have led persons to different conclusions.


Why do you see the need to ask this question?
Is it a way to try to deny evidence for intelligent design?


Why do you need to repeat it then?
Do you think the more you repeat it, that somehow it will become true. Why do you say,

When I go to public places, or sign documents, I don't see "animal". I see "human".
When a message on my pc says, "Verify that you are human." I follow the instructions. What do you do?
You can be whatever you want to be... and be proud.
I am human.

You are both an animal and a human. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bread and butter. So bread is butter.

Is that supposed to be an answer?
Or have you realized that what you've said is silly?

Some people will go to any length to avoid a logical argument - twist your words to reflect something entirely different to what you say.
My post looked like this:
Were any of those people biologist, chemist, and other ists? What do you think their reason is for rejecting it?
Oh wait. Don't tell me. They want to believe in a book of fairytale.
What about the ones that don't believe or follow the book? Wait. I know. They need to believe in some god.
But they are scientists that believe in god(s) and believe in evolution.

You broke it up to this:

SkepticThinker, isn't that dishonest. Or perhaps you made an honest mistake. Did you?

What I had originally said was that I suspect that the reason most people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand it. (Post #600)

This does not address my argument, since you decided to break it up into pieces... it has no bearing.

What argument?

So a 7 year old being pressured to feel that she is ignorant and stupid to believe what her parents are teaching her about God and the Bible, by an atheistic authoritative figure, she is taught to respect, is nothing?

Why didn't you bother responding to my point?

These boys and girls enter our organizations [at] ten years of age, and often for the first time get a little fresh air; after four years of the Young Folk they go on to the Hitler Youth, where we have them for another four years . . . And even if they are still not complete National Socialists, they go to Labor Service and are smoothed out there for another six, seven months . . . And whatever class consciousness or social status might still be left . . . the Wehrmacht [German armed forces] will take care of that. - Adolf Hitler 1938

Source: Victims Or Perpetrators? Photos Of Life Inside The Hitler Youth


Don't you say, that because people back then had no understand of certain phenomenon, they got terrified and attributed these to gods? Or am I mistaken? If I am, forgive me, please.

What does it say there on their belt buckles? Oh right, "Gott mit uns." Do you know what that means?

Your attempt to equate atheism and/or evolution with Nazism is ridiculously misguided. Ben Stein and Dr. Dino want their stupid argument back. You should let them have it.

Again?

Yes, and again and again until you provide some evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

What I had originally said was that I suspect that the reason most people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand it.

FYI, at least in the US the primary reasons behind evolution denialism are (in order of importance): 1) religious beliefs, 2) political affiliation, and 3) knowledge of genetics. CLICK HERE for the relevant study.

 

[nPeace]

What is your interpretation of this:

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.​

There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says.
Blah blah blah 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.

So in my simple way of putting it...
"By looking at this data - data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice, we can examine it along with the trees we drew up, and see what they can tell us.
No, the gene tree, and the species tree are not accurate but there are not all that bad. At least they are far better than the hypothesized phylogenetic tree, since we can actually observe some of these events where species reproduce and adapt. Thus the loci can help us in our research about ancestral populations.
However, there are still problems that get in the way of accuracy. No problem though."

When gene copies are sampled from various species, the resulting gene tree might disagree with the containing species tree. The primary causes of gene tree and species tree discord include incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, and gene duplication and loss. Each of these events yields a different parsimony criterion for inferring the (containing) species tree from gene trees. With incomplete lineage sorting, species tree inference is to find the tree minimizing extra gene lineages that had to coexist along species lineages; with gene duplication, it becomes to find the tree minimizing gene duplications and/or losses.

Perhaps you see differently.

Again I will ask what is the evidence for intelligent design. The fact that there are complex genetic systems which increase variation is predicted by evolution and supportive natural evolution and not intelligent design. I have not seen any evidence at all that a force outside of the natural world is creating or created genetic material or is actively influencing genetic material. Intelligent design does not give us anything that better explains the fossil record which shows a progression in living things as predicted by the evolutionary theory.

I seem to be missing something.
You said,
Not going against science? I am sure you love the intelligent design scientists, but they have absolutely no scientific evidence for and intelligent design so they find fault with real evidence of science that supports evolution.

I responded
I think you are making claims that are not accurate.
Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

Why are you asking me for evidence? Did you make that statement without knowing what scientific evidence ID scientists provide? Stating that you don't see evidence, just as we do concerning evolution, is not explaining why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design.

 

[Bear Wild]

There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says.
Blah blah blah 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.

So in my simple way of putting it...
"By looking at this data - data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice, we can examine it along with the trees we drew up, and see what they can tell us.
No, the gene tree, and the species tree are not accurate but there are not all that bad. At least they are far better than the hypothesized phylogenetic tree, since we can actually observe some of these events where species reproduce and adapt. Thus the loci can help us in our research about ancestral populations.
However, there are still problems that get in the way of accuracy. No problem though."

When gene copies are sampled from various species, the resulting gene tree might disagree with the containing species tree. The primary causes of gene tree and species tree discord include incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, and gene duplication and loss. Each of these events yields a different parsimony criterion for inferring the (containing) species tree from gene trees. With incomplete lineage sorting, species tree inference is to find the tree minimizing extra gene lineages that had to coexist along species lineages; with gene duplication, it becomes to find the tree minimizing gene duplications and/or losses.

Perhaps you see differently.


I seem to be missing something.
You said,
Not going against science? I am sure you love the intelligent design scientists, but they have absolutely no scientific evidence for and intelligent design so they find fault with real evidence of science that supports evolution.

I responded
I think you are making claims that are not accurate.
Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

Why are you asking me for evidence? Did you make that statement without knowing what scientific evidence ID scientists provide? Stating that you don't see evidence, just as we do concerning evolution, is not explaining why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Sorry but what I meant was I do not know of a single piece of evidence that the ID scientists have supporting their claim of intelligent design. Maybe you can give me a piece of evidence they have that the intelligent designer exists and actually started life on earth and or continued to direct life? Do they recognize the creation story is a myth since it clearly is not supported by any evidence? This may help me in answering your question.

 

[nPeace]

Wrong. All available evidence from multiple fields of science, collected by multiple groups of independent researchers from all over the world, over the past 160 years points to the fact of evolution.
It is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth that currently exists. Nobody has managed to falsify it in all that time.

I've heard it before. There is no need to keep repeating myself.

Animal
noun, plural: animals

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment
Animal - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary


You are an animal.

You mean after I reasoned with @Wild Fox about what he is doing, you come after and repeat.
Consider this.
Someone walks up to you, shoves a Bible in your face...
Reads...
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt; their acts are vile. There is no one who does good.
Then says...
You are a fool.

Or they read this one...
John 8:42-47
...and then says, "You are a child of the Devil."

Would you accept that? Why not?

 

[Bear Wild]

There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says.
Blah blah blah 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.

So in my simple way of putting it...
"By looking at this data - data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice, we can examine it along with the trees we drew up, and see what they can tell us.
No, the gene tree, and the species tree are not accurate but there are not all that bad. At least they are far better than the hypothesized phylogenetic tree, since we can actually observe some of these events where species reproduce and adapt. Thus the loci can help us in our research about ancestral populations.
However, there are still problems that get in the way of accuracy. No problem though."

When gene copies are sampled from various species, the resulting gene tree might disagree with the containing species tree. The primary causes of gene tree and species tree discord include incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, and gene duplication and loss. Each of these events yields a different parsimony criterion for inferring the (containing) species tree from gene trees. With incomplete lineage sorting, species tree inference is to find the tree minimizing extra gene lineages that had to coexist along species lineages; with gene duplication, it becomes to find the tree minimizing gene duplications and/or losses.

Perhaps you see differently.


I seem to be missing something.
You said,
Not going against science? I am sure you love the intelligent design scientists, but they have absolutely no scientific evidence for and intelligent design so they find fault with real evidence of science that supports evolution.

I responded
I think you are making claims that are not accurate.
Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

Why are you asking me for evidence? Did you make that statement without knowing what scientific evidence ID scientists provide? Stating that you don't see evidence, just as we do concerning evolution, is not explaining why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Sorry but what I meant was I do not know of a single piece of evidence that the ID scientists have supporting their claim of intelligent design. Maybe you can give me a piece of evidence they have that the intelligent designer exists and actually started life on earth and or continued to direct life? Do they recognize the creation story is a myth since it clearly is not supported by any evidence? This may help me in answering your question.

I've heard it before. There is no need to keep repeating myself.


You mean after I reasoned with @Wild Fox about what he is doing, you come after and repeat.
Consider this.
Someone walks up to you, shoves a Bible in your face...
Reads...
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt; their acts are vile. There is no one who does good.
Then says...
You are a fool.

Or they read this one...
John 8:42-47
...and then says, "You are a child of the Devil."

Would you accept that? Why not?

I do not think the devil is a part of the animal kingdom and the analogy of shoving a in the face has nothing to do with this point of biologic fact that humans like our cousins the chimpanzees and gorillas are a part of the animal kingdom thus we are animals. If you cannot accept this simple biological fact, it seems reasonable why there are no biological facts or evidence that you would accept in the theory of evolution.
We belong to the animal kingdom thus we are animals. This is basic biology.

 

[nPeace]

Is that supposed to be an answer?
Or have you realized that what you've said is silly?

Yes. It is an answer, but apparently you don't get it, so I will try again to explain.
You said, "Why are you equating atheists with "evolutionists?" They're not one in the same."

I tried to explain that I was not equating atheists with "evolutionists, and I knew the difference. So I used the definition of "and".
There was an example "bread and butter".

If someone said bread and butter, they are not equating bread with butter, but you are saying that because I say atheists and evolutionists, that that automatically means that I am equating atheists with evolutionists - which I am not.

Atheist raise children. Evolutionist raise children.
The former does not believe in God, the latter believes in evolution.
So some children grow up not being taught anything about God, and some grow up believing that life evolved from unguided natural processes.

Do you understand?

What I had originally said was that I suspect that the reason most people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand it. (Post #600)

Hence why I included people who should understand it, like biologist, chemist, and other ists.

What argument?


Why didn't you bother responding to my point?

What point was that?

What does it say there on their belt buckles? Oh right, "Gott mit uns." Do you know what that means?

Your attempt to equate atheism and/or evolution with Nazism is ridiculously misguided. Ben Stein and Dr. Dino want their stupid argument back. You should let them have it.

Yes, and again and again until you provide some evidence.

You asked me this... What kind of atheist brainwashing was Hitler involved in? Did you not?
Why do you have this idea that everything I say, I am equating one thing with another?