• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

shmogie

Well-Known Member
:facepalm:
I have to chuckle at the naivete exhibited here - from a creationist that, doubtless, fancies himself to be some sort of 'well read' and 'well informed' person that totally 'God created people from soil, there you go. the science.'

Extrapolation? HA!

Sorry - it is supported by many lines of actual evidence.


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 - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

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 hereby CONCLUDE 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]. "​
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.

Too much "jargon" for someone that has "studied" all this for decades, I know.... I am beginning to lose faith in the honesty of creationists who make these embellished claims of having great scientific knowledge.
What are you raging on about, again ? Do you know what the word extrapolation means ? I think you ought to look it up.

Once again, you bring up creationism, your obsession.

So, I was wrong when I said shared physical characteristics, and shared DNA leads to the idea that humans are related to monkeys.

Then please tell me what shared physical characteristics and shared DNA do mean.

"Claims about having vast scientific knowledge¨. I never claimed that, and you are simply saying so for your own purposes, something you seem to do frequently, usually as a tool of degradation.

I did say that I have tried to follow abiogenesis research, and have a pretty good handle on the various hypotheses.

Keep digging in old posts, as you desire, you might find a gotcha somewhere, which is really your only purpose.

I must have really stung you along the way for you to make nonsense up and present it as fact.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
What are you raging on about, again ?
Laying the groundwork for an 'intellectual' martyrdom claim, I see...
Do you know what the word extrapolation means ? I think you ought to look it up.
Yes, yes I DO understand what extrapolate means.
Curious - do you know what those papers I referenced mean? What their analyses mean re: you claim of "extrapolation"? It seems pretty obviously not.
Once again, you bring up creationism, your obsession.
Your obsession, it seems. You know, up there, top left of the page? There is a little 'search' box. One need only search for keywords like, I don;t know, 'creation ', and then maybe use 'shmogie' as the member, and all manner of 'creationism' talk pops up.

Weird that you seem almost... ashamed of the fact that you are a creationist.
So, I was wrong when I said shared physical characteristics, and shared DNA leads to the idea that humans are related to monkeys.

In a way, yes. Like when you said these "similarities" are extrapolated into concluding they came from the same 'family tree.'

There is no real need to extrapolate when using DNA analyses. You could have understood this had you read and been able to understand the series of papers I referred to. But, seeing as how your reply was generally just whining and setting up a martyrdom escape clause for yourself at some point, and not one actual comment about the science, I am pretty sure you, at best, scanned the title of the first paper and realized that you had nothing of merit to reply with.

But that is just me... raging...
Then please tell me what shared physical characteristics and shared DNA do mean.
They mean that tales of creation of distinct 'Kinds' via deity magic a few thousand years ago is untenable and contrary to the evidence, and if one is an OEC, same problem, since OECs also accept the evidence-free world wide flood tale.

It is not mere similarity that matters - this is an over-simplification. In terms of anatomy, context matters - there is a distinct progression that, golly, just coincidentally, I guess, that in many cases clearly demonstrates a pattern of shared characters within a temporal framework. That is, that basic anatomical 'frameworks', like, say, 5 digits per manus, can be seen to transform into distinct patterns over time.

Regarding DNA, you could have just read the parts of the papers I cited. Mere similarity tells us quite a bit, to be sure - but far more informative is the patterns of shared, unique characters we see - the patterns of shared, unique mutations. Mutations in terms of ERVs; duplications; satellite DNA; deletions and insertions; SNPs; etc. It is these patterns of shared mutations that provide more direct, testable evidence for shared ancestry than mere similarity (which, I should say, is NOT to be dismissed itself).
"Claims about having vast scientific knowledge¨. I never claimed that, and you are simply saying so for your own purposes, something you seem to do frequently, usually as a tool of degradation.
More martyrdom stuff. It is implicit. Look at your laughable antics re: abiogenesis - you insist that your opinion that there is nothing to it, that it is false, etc,m TRUMPS the combined conclusions of actual OOL researchers. You dismiss or ignore experimental results - why would you do this unless you felt your knowledge base was superior to theirs?
Believe it or not, people other than you can read between the lines. And even 'extrapolate' as needed.
I did say that I have tried to follow abiogenesis research, and have a pretty good handle on the various hypotheses.
And apparently you also read a "recent" interview with Stanley Miller - who died in 2007 - in which he 'admitted' that his experiments were failures.
Your "good handle" seems - in your eyes only - to be sufficient to dismiss all of the subsequent Miller-inspired experimentation as discussed in the Wiki article I quoted, claiming to be 'familiar' with it all, but dismissing it nonetheless.

Are you an organic chemist?
Keep digging in old posts, as you desire, you might find a gotcha somewhere, which is really your only purpose.
No, I dig into old posts to see whether people making certain claims can be trusted.
I must have really stung you along the way for you to make nonsense up and present it as fact.
Right - nonsense.

I note that you could not really rebut, much less refute, anything I wrote in the post you are 'replying' to. Nor any other posts I have written in response to you.

Like most creationists, you have what you think are your go-to "arguments" - which are not really arguments, just silly talking points other creationists have been using (and failing at) for decades. You seem obsessed with abiogenesis and Miller's experiments - which you mischaracterize and misrepresent - and of course you are obligated to simply ignore or reject any other experiments that do not fit your preconceived conclusions.

Maybe this time at least try to learn:

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 - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

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 hereby CONCLUDE 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]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Laying the groundwork for an 'intellectual' martyrdom claim, I see...

Yes, yes I DO understand what extrapolate means.
Curious - do you know what those papers I referenced mean? What their analyses mean re: you claim of "extrapolation"? It seems pretty obviously not.

Your obsession, it seems. You know, up there, top left of the page? There is a little 'search' box. One need only search for keywords like, I don;t know, 'creation ', and then maybe use 'shmogie' as the member, and all manner of 'creationism' talk pops up.

Weird that you seem almost... ashamed of the fact that you are a creationist.


In a way, yes. Like when you said these "similarities" are extrapolated into concluding they came from the same 'family tree.'

There is no real need to extrapolate when using DNA analyses. You could have understood this had you read and been able to understand the series of papers I referred to. But, seeing as how your reply was generally just whining and setting up a martyrdom escape clause for yourself at some point, and not one actual comment about the science, I am pretty sure you, at best, scanned the title of the first paper and realized that you had nothing of merit to reply with.

But that is just me... raging...

They mean that tales of creation of distinct 'Kinds' via deity magic a few thousand years ago is untenable and contrary to the evidence, and if one is an OEC, same problem, since OECs also accept the evidence-free world wide flood tale.

It is not mere similarity that matters - this is an over-simplification. In terms of anatomy, context matters - there is a distinct progression that, golly, just coincidentally, I guess, that in many cases clearly demonstrates a pattern of shared characters within a temporal framework. That is, that basic anatomical 'frameworks', like, say, 5 digits per manus, can be seen to transform into distinct patterns over time.

Regarding DNA, you could have just read the parts of the papers I cited. Mere similarity tells us quite a bit, to be sure - but far more informative is the patterns of shared, unique characters we see - the patterns of shared, unique mutations. Mutations in terms of ERVs; duplications; satellite DNA; deletions and insertions; SNPs; etc. It is these patterns of shared mutations that provide more direct, testable evidence for shared ancestry than mere similarity (which, I should say, is NOT to be dismissed itself).

More martyrdom stuff. It is implicit. Look at your laughable antics re: abiogenesis - you insist that your opinion that there is nothing to it, that it is false, etc,m TRUMPS the combined conclusions of actual OOL researchers. You dismiss or ignore experimental results - why would you do this unless you felt your knowledge base was superior to theirs?
Believe it or not, people other than you can read between the lines. And even 'extrapolate' as needed.
And apparently you also read a "recent" interview with Stanley Miller - who died in 2007 - in which he 'admitted' that his experiments were failures.
Your "good handle" seems - in your eyes only - to be sufficient to dismiss all of the subsequent Miller-inspired experimentation as discussed in the Wiki article I quoted, claiming to be 'familiar' with it all, but dismissing it nonetheless.

Are you an organic chemist?

No, I dig into old posts to see whether people making certain claims can be trusted.
Right - nonsense.

I note that you could not really rebut, much less refute, anything I wrote in the post you are 'replying' to. Nor any other posts I have written in response to you.

Like most creationists, you have what you think are your go-to "arguments" - which are not really arguments, just silly talking points other creationists have been using (and failing at) for decades. You seem obsessed with abiogenesis and Miller's experiments - which you mischaracterize and misrepresent - and of course you are obligated to simply ignore or reject any other experiments that do not fit your preconceived conclusions.

Maybe this time at least try to learn:

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 - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

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 hereby CONCLUDE 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]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.
So what ? Yes, I stung you really well. Are you hyperventilating too ? All this because of a 5 or 6 accurate sentence I wrote.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
So what ? Yes, I stung you really well. Are you hyperventilating too ? All this because of a 5 or 6 accurate sentence I wrote.
Fantastic!

Klassic Kreationist Komedy!

I wrote a post - with evidence - that when pasted into Word is almost 5 pages in length, and all you can muster is some cheap, pathetic claim of 'victory'????
Hilarious!

Here is what the guy that, despite being asked FOURTEEN TIMES to provide a link or citation for an interview he claimed to have read won't do so (most likely because he made it all up) totally ignored:


Yes, yes I DO understand what extrapolate means.
Curious - do you know what those papers I referenced mean? What their analyses mean re: you claim of "extrapolation"? It seems pretty obviously not.

Your obsession, it seems. You know, up there, top left of the page? There is a little 'search' box. One need only search for keywords like, I don;t know, 'creation ', and then maybe use 'shmogie' as the member, and all manner of 'creationism' talk pops up.

Weird that you seem almost... ashamed of the fact that you are a creationist.


In a way, yes. Like when you said these "similarities" are extrapolated into concluding they came from the same 'family tree.'

There is no real need to extrapolate when using DNA analyses. You could have understood this had you read and been able to understand the series of papers I referred to. But, seeing as how your reply was generally just whining and setting up a martyrdom escape clause for yourself at some point, and not one actual comment about the science, I am pretty sure you, at best, scanned the title of the first paper and realized that you had nothing of merit to reply with.

But that is just me... raging...

They mean that tales of creation of distinct 'Kinds' via deity magic a few thousand years ago is untenable and contrary to the evidence, and if one is an OEC, same problem, since OECs also accept the evidence-free world wide flood tale.

It is not mere similarity that matters - this is an over-simplification. In terms of anatomy, context matters - there is a distinct progression that, golly, just coincidentally, I guess, that in many cases clearly demonstrates a pattern of shared characters within a temporal framework. That is, that basic anatomical 'frameworks', like, say, 5 digits per manus, can be seen to transform into distinct patterns over time.

Regarding DNA, you could have just read the parts of the papers I cited. Mere similarity tells us quite a bit, to be sure - but far more informative is the patterns of shared, unique characters we see - the patterns of shared, unique mutations. Mutations in terms of ERVs; duplications; satellite DNA; deletions and insertions; SNPs; etc. It is these patterns of shared mutations that provide more direct, testable evidence for shared ancestry than mere similarity (which, I should say, is NOT to be dismissed itself).

More martyrdom stuff. It is implicit. Look at your laughable antics re: abiogenesis - you insist that your opinion that there is nothing to it, that it is false, etc,m TRUMPS the combined conclusions of actual OOL researchers. You dismiss or ignore experimental results - why would you do this unless you felt your knowledge base was superior to theirs?
Believe it or not, people other than you can read between the lines. And even 'extrapolate' as needed.
And apparently you also read a "recent" interview with Stanley Miller - who died in 2007 - in which he 'admitted' that his experiments were failures.
Your "good handle" seems - in your eyes only - to be sufficient to dismiss all of the subsequent Miller-inspired experimentation as discussed in the Wiki article I quoted, claiming to be 'familiar' with it all, but dismissing it nonetheless.

Are you an organic chemist?

No, I dig into old posts to see whether people making certain claims can be trusted.
Right - nonsense.

I note that you could not really rebut, much less refute, anything I wrote in the post you are 'replying' to. Nor any other posts I have written in response to you.

Like most creationists, you have what you think are your go-to "arguments" - which are not really arguments, just silly talking points other creationists have been using (and failing at) for decades. You seem obsessed with abiogenesis and Miller's experiments - which you mischaracterize and misrepresent - and of course you are obligated to simply ignore or reject any other experiments that do not fit your preconceived conclusions.

Maybe this time at least try to learn:

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 - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

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 hereby CONCLUDE 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]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.​


Poor creationist - he tries so hard to make evolution go away, primarily by embellishing/fibbing about it all and conflating abiogenesis with it and failing all the time. Must be hard to live like that. But I have no sympathy and delight in refuting his nonsense.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
This topic is not about evidences “FOR” or “AGAINST” evolution.

This topic is about creationists showing demonstrable evidences that man (Adam) can be created from the earth, as some scriptures say, like the Genesis 2 and Qur’ān 15, 23, 38 & 55.

According to Genesis, Adam is made out of dust from the earth.



As I understand it (verse), this “dust” would be “soil” of some types, which I had learned in my subjects on soil testing and foundation, in my days of studying civil engineering course, and “soil” could be of 3 basic types:
  1. sand,
  2. silt,
  3. or clay.
Soil of these types have different chemical compounds and molecular structures of degraded rock minerals.

Before soil were made, the original source to soil are from rocks. The process of turning rock into soil...

(A) begins with “weathering” rock, where rock minerals (eg quartz or feldspar) have broken away from rock,
(B) and then over time, these rock minerals will degrade, turning rock minerals into clay minerals or silt minerals.​

Genesis is not very specific about the soil type, only that Adam’s creation is set somewhere in the Garden of Eden.

In the Qur’an, the soil is the last one, clay.

The story of Adam’s creation, in the Qur’an is entwined with the creation and fall of Iblis, the Islamic version of Satan/Devil.



The passage in Qur’an 38:71-77, repeated the creation of man in similar but slightly in more detail about the fall of Iblis (Satan). So I won’t bother quoting this passage.

In Qur’an 55:14, we have god shaping the clay into man, like pottery”.



But in Qur’an 23:12-14, we have some more detail about another material (“sperm-drop”) to make, and how all these, were .



The questions are, how can it be possible to make a living, breathing man of silt or clay or vague “dust”?

If we break down human flesh and bones into their molecular structures, they are not the molecular structures of clay or silt. How do you account for the chemical compositions (of human anatomy and soil) being so different?

So what evidences that you have that man is made directly out of the earth (soil)?

It shouldn’t be possible to create man from soil, unless it is all “magic” and supernatural.


But, but, but.... "god can do anything"
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Ya think ? Why is that ?

Because the topic is about what creationists believe and what evidence they can provide in support of THAT position.

Any other position or belief, is therefor off topic.


The answer to the OP is simple, God can make whatever he chooses out of whatever he chooses, Itś called omnipotence.

HA!

My previous post was posted before I read this one. It read "but god can do anything". It was a sarcastic joke, but I know it wouldn't take long before I'ld encounter a post that said that and actually meant it.

So here we go. I didn't even need to go to page 2, to encounter it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
NO EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS, Iĺl happily debate you on this, lets go. Show me your evidence


The thread is about the creationist position and whatever evidence in support of that position.
It's not about abiogenesis or whatever evidence there is in support of that position.

The fact though, that you keep going back to abiogenesis instead of actually providing evidence for YOUR position (which is the topic of the thread), is very telling indeed.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
God is omnipotent. He could make the city of New York out of a gummy bear. You are trying to cage God inside the physical principles and laws of the universe. God created the universe and itś laws, he is outside of them, they don´t apply to him. You want evidence, well then you are here aren´t you ? Thatś all the evidence you need, unless, of course, you can provide other evidences of why humanity exists. The only other idea is that every living thing is the ancestor of, rock runoff in the rain, but there is no evidence for that either. Either way, we come from dirt.


Here we go again....

"god can do anything"

Off course, if you start with such an assumed conclusion as a premise, then you feel like you can make any wild extraordinary claim and pretend to be exempt from evidence.

Because "god can do anything" - even those things that are impossible.

What a wonderfully fallacious, circular, special pleading position that amounts to absolutely nothing with zero explanatory power.

Glad we sorted this out.

In other words: we can safely ignore any and every creationist claim you can think off.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Here we go again....

"god can do anything"

Off course, if you start with such an assumed conclusion as a premise, then you feel like you can make any wild extraordinary claim and pretend to be exempt from evidence.

Because "god can do anything" - even those things that are impossible.

What a wonderfully fallacious, circular, special pleading position that amounts to absolutely nothing with zero explanatory power.

Glad we sorted this out.

In other words: we can safely ignore any and every creationist claim you can think off.

These omnipotentists dont really
mean it that "god can do anything".
It is just their shabby notion of a terrif
knock down argument.

Pressed, they will reveal that, no,
god cannot do the impossible.
Like up and swallow himself.

Can't even do the distasteful!
"God cannot sin."
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Because the topic is about what creationists believe and what evidence they can provide in support of THAT position.

Any other position or belief, is therefor off topic.




HA!

My previous post was posted before I read this one. It read "but god can do anything". It was a sarcastic joke, but I know it wouldn't take long before I'ld encounter a post that said that and actually meant it.

So here we go. I didn't even need to go to page 2, to encounter it.
And weird that those demanding exquisitely detailed evidence that meets their idiosyncratic personal criteria for abiogenesis/evolution in order for them to even consider it, will accept the dodge 'God did it' with no question or even a second glance...
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The thread is about the creationist position and whatever evidence in support of that position.
It's not about abiogenesis or whatever evidence there is in support of that position.

The fact though, that you keep going back to abiogenesis instead of actually providing evidence for YOUR position (which is the topic of the thread), is very telling indeed.

Wasn't the OP'S question answered on the first page? I believe the answer was none. But you have to admire at times @shmogie 's fine mix of strawman arguments and Tu Quoque fallacies.
 

dad

Undefeated
The questions are, how can it be possible to make a living, breathing man of silt or clay or vague “dust”?
How is it possible to make alive a decaying corpse as Jesus did? How is it possible to speak and have a world come into existence? Just consider it higher science. Much much much higher!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
In other words, with science it is impossible. The observed event, however was very possible with the Great Scientist.


Was it observed? There are no reliable records of it. All there are tales from an oral tradition that were written down more than a generation after the supposed event.

Did you forget the title of this thread? It is about evidence. The Bible is the claim, it is not evidence. Do you have any evidence for your claims?
 
Top