Evolution is a fact?!

[Subduction Zone]

As I keep realizing, I see there really is no evidence. There are just artifacts, and some bits and pieces of bones. And I'm not.even bringing a Creator for the most part into the picture. Evolution no longer adds up.

And once again you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[tas8831]

And once again you do not understand the concept of evidence.

And not even bits of bone for bible miracle tales...

 

[tas8831]

We were discussing evolution and the start of supposed evolution. Since there IS no evidence of the "start" of life on the earth except that life is here --

OK... So where is the evidence for the 'start' of the deity in the bible?

the only thing you have is dna from artifacts, which proves that these fragments have dna. That's what it proves.

Amazing... Again, I wonder how it is that someone can be 'involved' in this 'debate' for so long and still not even come away from it with a grasp of the basics.... ESPECIALLY when they are pretending to make arguments using material they are spectacularly ignorant of!!!

I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

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:​

Please note - these first few citations are about testing the METHODS of molecular phylogenetic analysis for reliability/accuracy/etc. - NOT to test whether to not evolution can explain "all life"... THAT IS, THE USE OF DNA TO RECONSTRUCT THE ANCESTOR/DESCENDANT RELATIONSHIPS OF TAXA.

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.
​

Please note that the above rationale for providing the previous 3 references clearly indicated why they were presented - and also quite clearly show that you did not read this far down (too many science words?), or you did and couldn't understand it (quite likely), or did, understood where this was going, and decided to go into 'desperate creationist mode.'

Application of the tested methodology:
​

Please note that this heading clearly indicates that the methods tested in the previous references - tested on "knowns" and shown to be accurate and reliable - are now going to be applied to 'unknowns'. A quite rational scientific series of events. I can see why you were afraid to read beyond your out of context attempt to ignore the fact that yours is a failing position to hold, but come on - we can see it in your words and antics. There is no hiding it.

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]. "


No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.
​

Strange that the creationist never presents evidence FOR what they claim to be the truth, they just misrepresent and distort evidence for reality to protect their fantasies.

ADDED IN EDIT:
Funny thing - I had actually provided this SEVEN TIMES in that thread - FOUR times specifically in response to YOU, each time your ignored it or dismissed it. So much for your "scientific literacy".

Sept.25, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Dec.12, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.5, 2021
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.21, 2021
- replied with "You asked a question about dust and I ask you to think about why it wouldn't be a result of creation."
​

Most telling...

 

[tas8831]

I see that the Bible says the earth was devoid, formless, dark, before God started making life on the earth.

Where is your evidence for the 'start' of God? Remember? There has to be evidence for the start.

How did Moses know that? Was he a genius and maybe figured it out? Why wouldn't Moses think life always was on the earth?

Tall tales premised on the usual attempts of ancient peoples to try to explain things they couldn't understand.
Duh.

 

[ecco]

Everything. You are so biased against evolution by your religious beliefs that you do not even take the time to obtain some basic knowledge of the science.

Your comment "evolution of the Darwinian kind" attests to this.

But that's what it is. Some I've spoken to here actually say that humans evolve when they mate and produce offspring of different or similar colored skin.

You are so biased against evolution by your religious beliefs that you do not even take the time to obtain some basic knowledge of the science.

Do you know what is meant by: "humans evolve when they mate and produce offspring of different or similar colored skin"? You might, if you had even a fundamental understanding of evolution. It's clear you don't.

 

[ecco]

How do you feel about the following?
...

Why do you ask questions when you don't want to address comments directed to you? Does it make you uncomfortable to consider that your god killed 230,000 in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami and killed 20,000 in the Japanese tsunami and directed the Covid virus to kill 560,000 Americans? Remember you said...(my emphasis)

I believe there are earth shiftings insofar as plate techtonic and landslides and eruptions, among other things. Tsunamis, floods. I also believe God has power over these things as He desires.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll reiterate as I understand it, what you said. We, you and I and others, have life. If we didn't have life, we wouldn't know life. We have genetic inheritance. This does not mean we evolved. If you think it does, please let me know so we can be at least agreeing on some-thing.

Yes, it does mean we evolved.
As I've told you many times before, evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. We have that. It is a fact of life that life evolves.

You do not understand what evolution is or how it operates. That is clear.
What is not clear is why you refuse to take in the information and evidence being presented to you.

 

[ecco]

You ask a lot of questions, which is good.

You dodge answering questions. That is typical of religious fundamentalists.

Quoting from history.com - How Did Humans Evolve? - HISTORY

"There’s a lot anthropologists still don’t know about how different groups of humans interacted and mated with each other over this long stretch of prehistory. Thanks to new archaeological and genealogical research, they’re starting to fill in some of the blanks."

What is your problem with the above quote?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not evidence. It's like convicting someone with no eyewitnesses, based on things left behind perhaps, and frankly -- the history of animal life as well as plant life no longer convinces me of evolution. No matter how compelling the jury finds the things presented to them, they have been wrong in their conculsions. So that's how we differ, I no longer find the "evidence" compelling to form a conclusion that various forms came about by evolution.
When I was in school, I believed without question that what I was being taught about evolution was true. I did well because I memorized the textbooks. There was no alternative, no questioning of the material presented as written in the books.
But there is no real evidence of forms evolving. Nothing. Anything used is then put together by those who think they know, and so they guess things like: bonobos, chimpanzees and humans had an "Unknown Common jAncestor."

People get convicted of crimes without any eyewitnesses all the time.
Eyewitness testimony is actually known to be quite faulty and unreliable.
DNA evidence, left behind at the scene of a crime, for instance, is not faulty and unreliable.
We don't solve crimes by just talking to eyewitnesses for Pete's sake. We solve crimes by inspecting the evidence left behind at the scene, like DNA, for example.

There are mountains of evidence indicating that life evolves which is why it's considered a biological fact.
There are also mountains of evidence indicating that you do not understand evolution, which probably has everything to do with why you reject it.




P.S. You sidestepped the point yet again. Boy, you really need to avoid this one for some reason, eh?

" So the fact that you share DNA with your family members doesn't indicate that you are related to each other. (?) "

 

[SkepticThinker]

If someone wants to believe that, so be it. If I thought it made sense to me, I might go that way. So it makes me wonder why a person claims to be a "Christian," or -- a Jew -- and then say that Moses or Jesus did not exist. I figure it's family alliances, also national affiliation when making decisions.

Yeah, people believe a lot of things they can't demonstrate.

That seems like a problem to me.

You didn't address the point again.
I'm wondering when you demonstrated that Moses existed or that anything you believe is true?
I'm wondering this because you're on a thread overflowing with empirical evidence for a robust, well-accepted scientific theory that you reject for (ironically and erroneously) lack of evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Amazing. And you say my arguments sound silly.

Yes they do.

The fact that you completely avoided my point speaks volumes about your silly arguments.

 

[ecco]

Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism (thefederalist.com)
(Plus thefederalist calls it "Darwinism." Darwinisn? Yes, Darwinism.

In your linked article there is a reference to: Ben Stein documented a crackdown within the academy on criticism of Darwin in his 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”

Stein tried to put down Evolution by showing that many scientists today realize that some of Darwin's findings were elementary and basic and needed improvement. Stein tried to make the argument that this disproved Evolution. That ridiculous tactic worked to the extent that it convinced people like you. It is still being used and articles related to it are quoted by people who like to pretend that advances in knowledge refute the basic concepts of Darwin. They haven't and they don't.

This is from your own link...

Since then, understanding of complexity has grown such that Laland and others believe EES or another supplement is necessary to keep up. It is not a replacement or rejection of Neo-Darwinism, but can be deployed alongside it as a way to understand key processes of nature the theory neglects.​

Do you understand it?

Darwin proposed Evolution and explained how it worked based on what science knew then. Everything science has learned since then has only provided more evidence for the accuracy of the concept.

You refuse to accept that and grasp at straws anywhere you can and even places where there are none.

 

[ecco]

I believe there are earth shiftings insofar as plate techtonic and landslides and eruptions, among other things. Tsunamis, floods. I also believe God has power over these things as He desires.

I guess he desired to kill 230,000 in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami.
I guess he desired to kill 20,000 in the Japanese tsunami.
I guess he allowed the Covid virus to kill 560,000 Americans.

"as He desires..." He can do whatever he wants, and does not take action if that is what He wants.

So you agree that it was your god's desire to kill 230,000 in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami and to kill 20,000 in the Japanese tsunami and allow the Covid virus to kill 560,000 Americans.

I'm glad you finally owned up to that fact.

 

[ecco]

It's not evidence. It's like convicting someone with no eyewitnesses, based on things left behind perhaps

What eye-witnesses do we have for your Great Flood? NONE!
What evidence do we have for your Great Flood? NOTHING!

Are you really sure you want to use the word "evidence" in any way, shape, or form?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What eye-witnesses do we have for your Great Flood? NONE!
What evidence do we have for your Great Flood? NOTHING!

Are you really sure you want to use the word "evidence" in any way, shape, or form?

I do believe that @YoursTrue may have me on ignore since she will not respond to any of my posts. I am sure that I offered to go over the concept of evidence with her. She never took me up on the offer.

 

[Bear Wild]

n io

I do believe that @YoursTrue may have me on ignore since she will not respond to any of my posts. I am sure that I offered to go over the concept of evidence with her. She never took me up on the offer.

Thank goodness it is not just me. @YoursTrue is selective in who they answer, where they get their information and what they are willing to learn. Of course when you are fighting a loosing argument I guess you need to use whatever tactics you can.
Actual evidence - ignore immediately
Ancient myths - Keep repeating over and over again. Maybe the opposition will wear down after a while and give up. - Or like Trump just say it over and over so that @YoursTrue can continue to convince themselves it must be true.

 

[Astrophile]

As I keep realizing, I see there really is no evidence. There are just artifacts, and some bits and pieces of bones. And I'm not.even bringing a Creator for the most part into the picture. Evolution no longer adds up.

All facts need to be explained theoretically, and all facts are evidence for or against some theory. What is your explanation for the facts that are adduced as evidence for evolution?

Specifically, what other explanation than descent from a common ancestor can you offer for the detailed genetic similarities between humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas? What is your explanation, other than descent with modification over many generations, for the observed succession of fossils, what you call bits and pieces of bones? By the way, most fossils are marine invertebrates, which have shells rather than bones.

You can't get away with saying that there really is no evidence. There is evidence, and if you want to convince anyone that the scientific explanation for it is false, you will have to present a better explanation.

 

[McBell]

All facts need to be explained theoretically, and all facts are evidence for or against some theory. What is your explanation for the facts that are adduced as evidence for evolution?

Specifically, what other explanation than descent from a common ancestor can you offer for the detailed genetic similarities between humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas? What is your explanation, other than descent with modification over many generations, for the observed succession of fossils, what you call bits and pieces of bones? By the way, most fossils are marine invertebrates, which have shells rather than bones.

You can't get away with saying that there really is no evidence. There is evidence, and if you want to convince anyone that the scientific explanation for it is false, you will have to present a better explanation.

for some, "GodDidIt" is a better explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

All facts need to be explained theoretically, and all facts are evidence for or against some theory. What is your explanation for the facts that are adduced as evidence for evolution?

Specifically, what other explanation than descent from a common ancestor can you offer for the detailed genetic similarities between humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas? What is your explanation, other than descent with modification over many generations, for the observed succession of fossils, what you call bits and pieces of bones? By the way, most fossils are marine invertebrates, which have shells rather than bones.

You can't get away with saying that there really is no evidence. There is evidence, and if you want to convince anyone that the scientific explanation for it is false, you will have to present a better explanation.

Without getting into mysticism, it's a FACT if I see a cat coming to my door. The fact is: I saw the cat. Want to fight with that?

 

[Valjean]

for some, "GodDidIt" is a better explanation.

Simple and conveniently sweeps the question under the rug; a favorite of simpletons everywhere.

Doesn't exactly "explain" anything, though, does it?