1. 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!

Featured Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by usfan, Jul 4, 2019.

  1. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    These antics go WAYYY back.

    About 20 years ago, I was on a forum called 'Creationtalk'. This fellow joins, starts a thread asking for evidence - much like this one.
    The fellow writes that he was there for honest scientific debate, but cautioned that he knew he was right and that evolution believers were deceived and deluded and ignorant and going to hell.

    And my goodness - can you believe he was taken aback and shocked - SHOCKED! - at the replies he got????
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Projection.

    You claim to 'know the material,' yet you IGNORE 'the material':

    OK. Here is my case, along with the evidence (hate to be the broken record):

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


    Application of the tested methodology:


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

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



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

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



    A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

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

    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. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relelevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationsit has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.
     
  3. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Apparently by only reading creationist propaganda...
    All this fluff, and yet you ignore the actual evidence presented.


     
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Thanks for proving what I suspected when I read your OP - you are clueless, but think you are not.

    In the papers I presented for you, NOT ONE mentioned morphology.

    You're just anbother pretender.

    OK. Here is my case, along with the evidence (hate to be the broken record):

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


    Application of the tested methodology:


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

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



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

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



    A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

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

    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. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relelevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationsit has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.



    NOTHING ABOUT MORPHOLOGY
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    None that you can grasp, I suppose...
    Weird....

    So in your supposed 40 years (not thirty - sorry, it was some other creationist that made that easily debunked claim) at this, and given your claim of 'knowing the material', when we use actual field-relevant terminology, you find that an obfuscation tactic?


    What that REALLY means is that your claim of 40 years at this is false. Or you wasted 40 years reading creationist garbage and never learned to tell if it had merit or not.
     
    #305 tas8831, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:37 AM
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019 at 11:00 AM
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,623
    Ratings:
    +3,200
    Religion:
    Methodist
    Yes. Yes. We know you have nothing. You do not have to keep demonstrating that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,533
    Ratings:
    +2,878
    Okay, I gotta say......that was freakin' hilarious!! :D To watch a self-described "science geek" try and rebut a paper he clearly doesn't understand at all, and in doing so make egregious, fundamental errors (e.g., bacteria vs. viruses)....a sitcom writer couldn't dream that up!

    Just....plain.....hilarious. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Underinformed, bombastic, AND desperate! Love it!
    Yes, it was a cut and paste of something I've posted before. Is that supposed to be an insult of some kind? Can't you handle it? You, after all, claimed to 'know the material'...
    You made no point. You just dismissed it all as being a long cut and paste. You didn't actually think you had made a point, did you? I no more belittled or insulted you than you have done to us. Why the double standard snowflakery?
    By technobabble, you are referring to actual scientific terminology? Like.. "the material"? 40 years at this and you've never seen an actual scientific paper's abstract?
    I have not once mentioned E. coli or citrates. Sorry.
    Again, YOU claimed to know the material. Was that a lie?
    Oh, that was from the article I posted on E. coli and citrates... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Your reading comprehension is absolute crap.

    Or you are just dodging and flailing out of desperation and panic.

    What it is ACTUALLY saying is that while the underlying premises were sound, no actual direct tests had been done because there were few known phylogenies. This was in 1992, by the way. And guess what they did - they found a known phylogeny, and tested the genetic analyses against that known phylogeny, and the molecular methods WORKED! Amazing what you can learn when you actually read and understand the science you claim to!

    And I do not need to 'bluff' - if I were going to bluff, I would reply to you and bring up things that you had not even mentioned. You know... like you did.
    Are you for real?

    Are just TRYING to get flamed? Because not one of the papers I referred to even MENTIONED citrates.

    Talk about bluffing - you didn't even TRY to read what I posted, did you?

    All of that is bluffing - none of the stuff I presented even mentioned any of that.

    Funny - you seem to do an awful lot of the things you accuse others of doing.
    Hare brained - you mean like believing a tribal deity made a man from dust 6000 years ago?

    And we know that you don't understand what an ad hominem is, but now we see that you don't know what "infer" means, either:


    in·fer
    /inˈfər/
    verb
    1. deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
      "from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing"

    Poor fellow - you try so hard!

    Desperation - like continuing to refer to E. coli and citrate in response to a series of abstracts that did not once mention either?

    You certainly do project and deflect with the worst of your kind...
    It isn't, as yet again, I did not once mention E. coli or citrate. Your bluffing is entertaining and informative, though, I must say.

    And remind me what YOUR 'belief' is based on? Some tall tales written by pre-technological numerologist mystics in the ancient middle east? Cool!
    Cool slogan, bro. Got anything relevant to what I posted?

    If you cannot understand the abstracts despite claiming to be a science geek and to have been at this for 4 decades, I have to wonder what you were actually doing all this time.
    No, it is pretty obvious any ONE of us is too much for you - you rely WAYYYY too much on these pre-fabricated slogans that you probably scalped from some half-wit professional creationist.

    Let me know when you think you can actually address molecular phylogenetics. As it stands, you are way out of your league, but too prideful and too geeked up on the Dunning-Kruger effect to be taken seriously..

    In a way, I feel sorry for folks like you - so desperate to try to make your actual religious beliefs seem valid and rational by attacking that which you fear, that you seemingly do not care how foolish you come across.

    In another way, I'm totally cool with your antics. Shows the shallowness and desperation of the religious fanatics out there.
     
    #308 tas8831, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:56 AM
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019 at 11:12 AM
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  9. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    I know, right? Almost as pathetic as his indicating that molecular phylogenetics papers were about morphology - do you think that he doesn't actually know the difference, or just doesn't care as he is more concerned with living out his intellectual martyrdom fantasy?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,533
    Ratings:
    +2,878
    And immediately going off about Lenski's E. coli experiment, as if the work you posted had anything to do with it.

    Well as you know, that's kinda the long-running question about internet creationists....do they really believe the crap they post and are they really as dim as they seem to be?

    I don't know the answer, but I do know that it's what keeps me coming back. I just had to weigh in after reading his "rebuttal" to what you posted, because.....I mean, come on.....does he truly believe he's posted a legitimate counter-argument? Is he really that clueless and arrogant?

    Dunning-Kruger indeed. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036

    Gosh, so much technobabble! canidae? Genetic base? Please stop, you are making me feel inferior!
    Thanks for clarifying. When I read a creationist essay on, say AiG or ICR, I have to remind myself that it was written by creationists with the assumptions of creation dispersed throughout.
    GOOD LORD, NOOOOOO!!!!

    I have to ask - are you referring to this paper:

    Genome Res. 2006 Aug; 16(8): 990–994.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.5117706
    PMCID: PMC1524871
    PMID: 16809672
    Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication
    Susanne Björnerfeldt,1 Matthew T. Webster,1,2 and Carles Vilà3

    Because the abstract - you know, that paragraph packed with obfuscating technobabble - ends thusly (emphases mine):



    ...Here we show that dogs have accumulated nonsynonymous changes in mitochondrial genes at a faster rate than wolves, leading to elevated levels of variation in their proteins. This suggests that a major consequence of domestication in dogs was a general relaxation of selective constraint on their mitochondrial genome. If this change also affected other parts of the dog genome, it could have facilitated the generation of novel functional genetic diversity. This diversity could thus have contributed raw material upon which artificial selection has shaped modern breeds and may therefore be an important source of the extreme phenotypic variation present in modern-day dogs.​


    So I'm not sure what you read, but it sure looks like you engaged in some heavy-duty fantasizin'.

    More later, if I feel it necessary to pile on.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. usfan

    usfan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    939
    Ratings:
    +274
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    The intent, it seems, is to pile on with ridicule, deflections, and fallacies. I prefer to NOT 'debate' under such conditions. I don't mind a little snark, in context, and topical, but page after page is childish and boring.

    My conditions stand.
    1. Single argument/evidence
    2. Ditch the ad hom

    I know, that dogpiles of ridicule is a favorite pastime of hecklers and pseudoscience devotees, but all it does is make me glaze over, and grieve the loss of reason and civility in our culture.

    Repeating the same assertions is not evidence. Long cut and pastes, that do not support a point made (if any), are bluff.

    Obsessing over my knowledge or understanding is ad hom, especially when you cannot clearly present an argument or evidence of your own..

    As usual, science is avoided and trampled, for the preferred antifa tactics of heckling and disruption. Your needling and constant belittling of me, personally, is an open admission of scientific impotence.

    Don't blame me, that the best evidence for common descent is 'it could have happened!', and 'e.coli!'

    Hsve your fun.. matters little to me.. mostly amused by the effort.. your beliefs are secure and well defended by the jihadist warriors, here. They will not accept blasphemy toward the sacred beliefs of common descent! :D
     
  13. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,623
    Ratings:
    +3,200
    Religion:
    Methodist
    I am confused. If a person has 40 years of experience reading and understanding scientific papers, then the technical terminology should be a second language to them. What confuses me is that claims of decades of understanding and knowledge are submitted simultaneously with claims that the language is too technical. Implying that there is no 40 years of understanding and acquisition of knowledge.

    How can it be both?

    I have that paper. Like you, I do not see any confirmation from it for the assertions about variation I have seen bandied about.

    Are you saying that a lot of the opposition is just made up and they know it is made up or that they are repeating propaganda that they are too ignorant to recognize for what it is?

    Surely not. That boils down to two conclusions. Arguments against science, based on creationism, are either lies or ignorance. That is not a good place to work from.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,623
    Ratings:
    +3,200
    Religion:
    Methodist
    Do not put yourself down. The material you posted on dogs was excellent evidence for common descent. You convinced me that common descent is the best explanation for the evidence we see and I already accepted it as such. That is pretty compelling.

    Thank you so much.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,533
    Ratings:
    +2,878
    You should appreciate how the ridicule is entirely deserved. On one hand you describe yourself as a "science geek" who "knows the material", but you follow that up with errors that are so fundamental and basic, it practically begs for ridicule. I mean, not knowing the difference between bacteria and viruses? Thinking the work Tas posted was at all related to the Lenski experiments? Completely misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the work as a whole?

    It's like if I went into a Christian forum, declared myself to be a "student of Scripture", claimed that I knew all about the Christian Bible, but then started talking about how Abraham took the Ten Commandments aboard the Ark, but then dropped them overboard after Jesus told him to change them.

    I'm pretty sure I would get ridiculed, and I hope you understand why such behavior would invite it. And once you appreciate that, apply the same thinking to your own behavior in this thread.

    Um, no. When a person presents himself as an expert in a subject, but then immediately makes fundamental mistakes when discussing that subject, it's entirely reasonable for folks to question that person's knowledge and understanding of the subject.

    Surely you don't disagree with that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  16. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,162
    Ratings:
    +3,776
    Once again, you focus on the very thing you previously claimed you would ignore, and refuse to acknowledge even a single actual, scientific argument or source presented to you.

    And yet again you misuse the "ad hominem" fallacy, despite it being explained to you multiple times by multiple posters.

    Why are you being so obtuse?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,504
    Ratings:
    +2,663
    Religion:
    None
    When one is faced with the ridiculous the most appropriate thing to do, definitionally, is to ridicule it.
    Then please stop wasting bandwidth.
    The quantity of snark varies directly with the lack of quality of your musings.
    You've had the stuffing beaten out you on a number of single arguments and evidences yet you continue to exhibit the Black Knight Syndrome.
    Not to mention the loss of learning, discernment, intelligence and honesty.
    Denying appropriate evidence (or just ignoring it) is a bug, not a feature.
    No, pointing out that you know nothing about the subject is no an "ad hom" it is a legitimate observation, as is pointing out that you do not know what an "ad hom" is. It would be an "ad hom" if I were to say that your opinion is wrong because you are a, say, pederast.
    No, it is in recognition of the complete absence of any quality in your absurd arguments.
    The best evidence is, as you've been repeatedly told, is nested hierarchies.
    Truth appears to matter little to you.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,623
    Ratings:
    +3,200
    Religion:
    Methodist
    I do not disagree with it.
     
  19. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Is this the coward's way of admitting that you totally biffed it when you replied to my molecular phylogeny evidence with BS about E. coli, citrate, and morphology, all because you are clueless about the actual science?

    You are not fooling anybody. You've been 100% exposed as a pretender. Continuing to pretend and act all indignant as a pretense for not addressing that which you are ignorant of is just more krazy kreationist komedy.


    40 years of bluster, bombast, and empty assertions wasted.
     
    #319 tas8831, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:45 PM
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM
    • Like Like x 2
  20. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    So you ignored my breakdown and explanation of it all?:Typical creationist.
    No, it really isn't.
    When you reply to abstracts re: molecular phylogenetics with dopey ranting about E. coli and citrate and morphology, it is pretty clear that you either 1. did not bother to actually read any of it 2. could not understand any of it, or 3. knew it was problematic for your ancient mythology and the lies you read on YEC websites so decided to deflect and dodge.

    Your knowledge is a RELEVANT component here. That you cannot understand that by definition, and ad hom is an 'argument' premised on an IRRELEVANT characteristic.
    And besides - wondering about your lack of knowledge has been done AFTER having dismantled your pathetic 'arguments.'

    You are not fooling anyone but yourself.
    LOL! Like when you copy-pasted wiki? Like when you paraphrase YEC essays re: Lenski (in response to nothing about Lenski)???

    Here is a hint, skippy - unlike a retired 'home builder' and 'science geek' who claims to 'know the material' and to have been doing this for 40 years but who claims actual scientific paper abstracts are just "technobabble" meant to obfuscate, I have actually done original research and actually have scientific publications. That I won't write like a 5th grader (Trump) so some random creationist can understand it is just more evidence that you are a pretender.
    Not as much as replying to DNA papers by crying 'morphology' and 'citrate' and E. coli!
    Why blame you for parroting a creationist lie? On second thought...

    Still laughing at your scientific incompetence.

    Keep it up hero - I can point out the ignorance of creationists all day long.
     
    #320 tas8831, Jul 12, 2019 at 1:02 PM
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 1:23 PM
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...