nPeace
Veteran Member
Fly, you are asking me to make an assumption, and then come up with an idea to explain that assumption. Sorry, but I believe this is what has been done by Darwinists.
Okay, fair enough. Let's take the specific example you provided (A. afarensis). If humans shared an evolutionary ancestry with other primates, what do you think a "transitional fossil" in that scenario would look like? What sort of characteristics would you expect it to have?
Only the Creationist ones, right?Yes, very much so. If someone says "there are no transitional fossils" it stands to reason that they would have some idea of what a "transitional fossil" is, don't you think? Whether you believe they exist or not, you should have some idea of what they would be. Otherwise, how can you know whether they exist or not, if you don't even know what they are?
To be blunt....because they have been found, by the thousands....in fact, by the hundreds of thousands. I know you believe otherwise, but paleontologists are not stupid, delusional, or habitual liars.
I already did. Can you refute it?That's an interesting claim. Can you support it?
Does it? Why? Why do you assume an ancestor and a descendant... and what they would be?Sticking with human/primate common ancestry, a transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits shared characteristics between primitive apes and modern humans. Does that seem reasonable to you?
What if someone says it because it is true, and they can show you? Anyone can be in denial of what they don't like.Well, to be accurate here, all you've done so far is say that this is so. You've not done anything to show it to be so. I mean, anyone can go online and say pretty much anything. I can say "the moon is made of cheese", but have I actually made any sort of case that the moon is made of cheese?
Source
The most serious problem of Theobald’s analysis is that he used aligned sequences compiled by Brown et al., who were interested in resolving the phylogenetic relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes, including whether each domain of life constitutes a monophyletic clade. So they a priory assumed the existence of UCA. Indeed, alignment is a procedure based on an assumption that the sequences have diverged from a common ancestral sequence. Brown et al. wrote “Individual protein families were first computer aligned and then we manually refined the alignments. We removed poorly conserved regions in individual protein alignments.” This procedure clearly assumes the existence of UCA, and this was not a problem for Brown et al., because what they were interested in was the phylogenetic relationship among all species on Earth, and the existence of UCA was supported by circumstantial evidence. However, in proving the existence of UCA, the alignment procedure should not be used, because it gives a strong bias for the UCA hypothesis.
A scientist said that, and we don't have to be rocket scientists, to know that it happens.
Most of the circumstantial evidence used to support the idea of UCA takes an approach of circular reasoning. A blind man can see that... imo.
That's a hypothetical, which I don't see has anything to do with circumstantial evidence. The same way one takes a photo, they can video record. It's not that difficult.Of course, but not all interpretations are equally valid, are they? If a flat-earther "interprets" a NASA photo as a fraud perpetrated by Satan, is that on equal footing with the interpretation that it's a real photo of a spherical earth?
We are talking about a real situation. One where an idea can be used to support an idea that is presumed to be true.
Why are we using hypotheses to establish other hypotheses. Is that the correct way of doing science?
All creatures have various traits - some similar to other. Similarities does not mean common ancestry. The varieties of trees all have similar structures A trunk, branches, and leaves. They all require sunlight and water. I already made myself clear about what is assumed by those who have presumed an idea to be true.As I noted above, a "transitional fossil" under human/primate common ancestry would be a specimen that has a mixture of primitive apelike and humanlike characteristics. Does A. afarensis show that?
A back and forth argument is not going to change what has already been said by either of us.
I looked at the fossils as well as a few wiki articles, and journals. The fossils could be an ape that is slightly different to others. So?Or maybe we should take a step back.....have you done any studying at all on A. afarensis?
Yes. So I can walk in a room, find fingerprints, DNA, and come to a conclusion that makes my story right, just because I have those things right?But circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence, just like fingerprints or DNA at a crime scene. So what you wrote above isn't consistent with your earlier statement that there is zero evidence for UCA.
Either you don't quite understand what I said, or you may be seeing only one side of the coin.
If circumstantial evidence is gathered, that never says anything, like, "I did this or that", and I claim that it says A, when it never said A, there is no evidence it says A. I have concluded it says A.
There is no evidence it says A. Is there evidence it says B, or C, or D?
Circumstantial evidence can look like evidence for A, but it may well be evidence for B.
Prove that it's A. The other person will try to prove it is B
Both believe that they are right.
Really Fly. trust me when I say, this was fantastic. Keep it up.
That's your opinion, and I think it is a wrong one, and I detect a bit of bias, as well as clouded vision... a lot of that.Thanks for explaining...very informative.
The main takeaway for me after reading it, is that you view pretty much everything associated with evolution through a theological/religious lens. IOW, for you this is primarily a spiritual issue, rather than a scientific one. So even if someone were to show you all sorts of evidence supporting UCA, your reflex would be to attribute it to Satan, and figure the person you were talking to was separated from God and scripture.
That's why in my last post to you I said I don't really see any point in showing you scientific evidence. You have a ready-made explanation for whatever is presented.
So given everything you described earlier in this post, I have to wonder.....why do you care about the science? Why do you feel compelled to try and counter it, if this is primarily a theological issue for you?
So basically what you just did, apparently, is deny all Creationists - who question, or deny the hypothesis (idea) of UCA - the ability, and right to apply the words of biologist Masatoshi Nei.
"...any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. .... Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books.
You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science."
You have pretty much just said that we are not capable of using commonsense to examine anything.
Isn't that the way you have been thinking all along in this conversation... and all because we do not accept an idea which you believe, and which has not been verified to be true.
You are only now outright admitting it. Isn't that true? Isn't that how you really feel? Be honest with me Fly.
No problem.Honestly, it's just as easy for you to go back through our conversation and find the posts where that's covered. And given the recent turn our conversation has taken, I'm not really sure what the point would be. I think you've explained your viewpoint very well.
You can always google it.Hard to say, since I don't know what you mean by "genetic adaptation".
Again, it's very difficult to say without a specific example of what you're talking about.
I explained that already.Apparently not.
In the experiment I conducted and described to you, how do you think the antibiotic resistance arose?
The body plan of all living things is in its "blueprint" for life - the genetic code in DNA, That's why I don't have an arm where my eye is, and the other where my foot is, like what happens when scientists mess around with the Hox genes.You said "All cells carry genes. They all have different purposes.... by design." What do you mean by "design"?
I believe that's by design. That information is there because an intelligence drew up the 'blueprints' on how each creature was to be. That's why we have sex, and organs for reproduction. That's why the bees and flowers have such a unique relationship... a necessary one. etc. etc.
Hope you understand.
Last edited: