PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     micro to macro
       how does it not work

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:24 AM on October 6, 2009 :
Derwood,

Radiometric dating is all assumptions - right?


I said there are a lot of assumptions behind radiometric dating. I stand by my assertion.


Of course you stand by your assertion.  ALL YECs stand by their assertions no matter what.  That is the only thing you have - assertions - so of course you will stand by them, and you cannot allow that your assertions might be incorrect, for if you are incorrect on one thing, you might be incorrect on the BIGGER things!  Oh dear!


Why quote me incorrectly? For effect?

If you can show that I actually QUOTED you, please do.  If not - and you cannot, I know this for I did not actually quote you - stop with the infantile and failed attempt at 'gotcha.'

Evos claim whales evolved for hyenas - right?


Ever heard of Pachyaena, Derwood? The California Academy of sciences Natural History museum could show you their museum display which suggests that a hyena-like animal (Pachyaena)evolved into a whale. Why? They had similar teeth to the whale. That's all they need you know to suggest that it turned into a whale over millions of years. So, yes, I stand by that one too.


Of course you do.

Multiple demonstrations that you are incorrect are no matter to the dedicated creationist.  

And a person with a doctorate relying on AiG for factual unbiased information is a sign of a person that did not deserve their doctorate, which they don't have anyway.


Ever heard of Rhodocetus, Derwood? What do you think of that as a missing link for a whale, Derwood?

I've heard of it.  I've not thought much about whale evolution, actually. I know YECs like it though - they like to really toss out their personal incredulity on the issue.  
What do YOu think about it, with your science PhD and all?
Give us YOUR OWN analysis, if you can.


Easy to continue to think you are right about everything when you just ignore exposure of your ignorance, aye Les?


Quote from Lester10 at 09:34 AM on July 25, 2009 :
We really seem to be missing one another in the dark here Derwood. You believe that a hippo –like ancestor turned into a whale over a long period of time and yet hippos only appear after the whales in the fossil record contradicting the entire story; much like the birds found millions of years before archeopteryx.

That you cannot interpret the phylogenetic tree shown twice to you in this thread alone clearly indicates that you have no business pontificating on these matters.  Sorry - elitist and all that, I know, but that is the truth.  
As for the 'birds' found 'millions' of years before archaeopteryx, we again see that the significance of Archaeopteryx is lost on you.



Also what happens to ambulocetus natans, ‘the walking whale’ now that sinonyx is no longer the preferred ancestor? Was that then not an ancestor after all?


Do you consider a great-great-great-great-great grandfather's sister an 'ancestor'?
Or is she completely irrelevant to your family tree?
More specifically, I am not a cetacean phylogeny expert (are you?), this might be informative:
===
Morphologists have long thought that Sinonyx was the direct ancestor of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent DNA phylogenetic analyses[2][3][4] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[5] Even though some scientist do not think Sinonyx is an ancestor of Cetacea [3] the reasons for originally thinking that it was are the following:

Sinonyx's elongated muzzle and tooth shape are atypical compared to other mesonychids, but are features close to those of the cetaceans. Its elongated muzzle, teeth and skull features are common to the earliest primitive whales. The elongation of the muzzle is often associated with hunting fish and all fish-hunting whales and dolphins have elongated muzzles. These features suggest that Sinonyx was developing adaptations that could have later become the basis of the whales' specialized way of life. The triangular shaped teeth have a prominent middle cusp or point and two relatively equal sized cusps on each side that are also similar to cetaceans. Other similarities include a loss of a collarbone and specialized upper arm bones. Mesonychids are also the only 'carnivorous' ungulates, and although many cetaceans are filter feeders of tiny zooplankton, no cetacean is a plant eater. Other characters that Sinonyx has in common to the whales include an enlarged jugular foramen (a natural opening or perforation through a bone or a membranous structure) and a short basicranium (underside of the skull).[6] Furthermore, the ear structure of primitive placentals, including early ungulates, has a larely cartilaginous tympanic auditory bullae (bony capsules enclosing the middle and inner ear). with only a thin ring of bone, the tympanic, which supported the tympanum. But in Sinonyx, the entire bulla had become ossified, as it is in all whales. A thicker bulla and denser bone contribute in three ways to improved high-pitched hearing in cetaceans: "it strengthens the bulla to resist compression more effectively, insulates it acoustically from the rest of the skull better than ordinary bone, and raises the frequency of sound that can be detected."[7]

The transition from Mesonychid to cetacean was thought to be easy to follow from the fossil evidence. Mesonychids were often shore dwelling animals that hunted both on land and in the shallows, and it was not hard to imagine a shore dwelling creature becoming more specialized and eventually returning to the ocean. Intermediate forms such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus especially closely resemble Mesonychids with their fully functioning legs and similar tooth morphology. Pakicetus has a similar body design, but a head more closely resembling archaic cetaceans. Ambulocetus is similar in design to Pakicetus, with the addition of flippered feet, and most likely moved better in the water than on land like a modern otter or seal. Beyond Ambulocetus, it is easy to trace the ancestry directly to modern cetaceans[8]: Sinonyx (land-dwelling) -> Pakicetus (swims occasionally) -> Ambulocetans natans (swims predominantly) -> Rodhocetus (paddling reduced hind legs) -> Basilosaurus (vestigial hind limbs) -> Dorudon.

===

Is it now considered to not be a whale of any description (wouldn’t surprise me, never did look anything like one).

And you conclude that based on your in-depth anatomical knowledge, correct?

So that whole story was an invention, obviously but we must believe the new invention because genetics apparently supports it, which wasn’t noticed before (some things were overlooked).

An "invention" based on existing evidence, which I know is anathema to the creationist, who prefer their stories to be made up by tweaking the myths of other civilizations which were in turn made up completely.


Aside from that how did the hippo like ancestor start developing flippers and a whale’s tail?
Mutations don’t seem to be a good explanation for bringing forth something required for the deep water.

Right, so because they do not seem 'good enough' to some internet creationist, clearly it must be incorrect.  
Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?




Did this creature start developing the flippers and tale after venturing into the water or did they start developing before leading the hippo to the impression that it would be better off in the deep sea?

I don't know.

Why did Yahweh 'create' all those extinct animals that show up in a sequential fashion in the fossil record and appear to those who know what they are looking at to be transitional forms?
Was Yahweh just practicing?


If Lamarckism is dead, then how does this happen in your opinion?


In my opinion, the mutation precedes the adaptation (in most cases) and, of course, it is environment dependant.


It’s one thing to believe it, it’s quite another to get a stupid person to believe it. Baffling with bullshit is not so effective as giving a good clear explanation for how this could have occurred. Do you have a good clear explanation, tables and diagrams aside?    

Unlike so many creationists lacking even basic biology backgrounds, I do not claim to be an expert on things I am not.  I do not know that much about whale evolution, other than having read some of the related papers in the scientific literature.  
Of course, if tables and diagrams are too much for you to understand, I fail to see how an in-depth, detailed explanation would comfort you.



The fact of the matter is you have not supported your claim that I quoted in the OP.  
It was a blanket assertion almost certainly premised on the misleading information/disinformation/half-truths/misinterpretations/outright lies you've read on creationist websites or in creationist books like Johnson's or Wells'.

(Edited by derwood 10/6/2009 at 12:15 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:13 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh Lester - still curious as to why you keep ignoring this:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009 :
It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.


It's amazing to me that so-called scientists are so lost in philosophy without recognizing it and seem unable to distinguish between it and actual science.

Yeah, us poor "so-called" scientists.  I mean obviously we are not actual scientists - like the creation scientists - because we do not immerse ourselves in syllogisms and pseudologic.

Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.


'Fraid not. As you very well know, you cannot compare the genomes of extinct creatures to living creatures so there is nothing to check but the whale.

'Fraid you just keep exposing how little you actually know about the study of evolution and the use of genetic data generally.

We do not need DNA from extinct creatures to infer phylogeny.

Thus the genetic story is not complementing the fossil data because it doesn't exist. The entire fairytale is morphology based and there is no corroborating evidence.

I am always amazed at how confident those are who understand the least.  This is actually
documented , by the way.

Of note, I saw that you never responded to my offer to send you some DNA sequences and a free alignment prgram to see if your amazing lack of bias produced analysis outcomes that differed friom my biased notions.  Wonder why....


as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.


I have never rejected actual scientific evidence but the rubbish based on philisophical presumption is rejected with good reason.

Well, isn't that special - you just label everything as being based on philosophical presumption in order to dismiss it.  How intellectual!

So, why not use your special YEC-philosophy to interpret this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.




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.


or this:

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.


It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.
Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place.


How about you stop misrepresenting what you reply to?  How about you stop butchering what you reply to in order to try to turn the tables (which you are not very good at)?  How about you leave in the context:


Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?





Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.



Think you can do that?

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.


I only dismiss claims for which there is no actual evidence -so drop the supercilious tone and hear what I am saying.

This from the person who wrote about "so-called scientists" and the like.. how rich..
I DO hear what you are saying - you say that if an evolutinist presents somethign as evidence you automatically dismiss it because you feel the evidence was generated/interpreted using a metaphysical worldview that you disdain.
No?

Why was there so much speculation surrounding Rodhocetus? Because it is in the nature of fossils and the philisophical beliefs surrounding them that people who believe whales must have evolved from a mammal will find missing links somewhere even in animals that may be unsuitable for the job. It is unfortunate that one man's speculation got rolled out as proof. I doubt he meant it to go that far. This happens rather often in the world of evolutionary speculation. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believable much like their stories they knit about how one creature became another.


I think you are conflating a museum display with 'proof.'

The speculations were made premised on what was known at the time. NEW INFORMATION showed that the earlier speculations were incorrect.  NEW INFORMATIOn in the form of additional fossil evidence.

Imagine that.

Being 'believable' is not what evidence-based speculation is about in science. Being consistent with the evidence that is available is.  There is a clear and obvious difference.

I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'


No, I meant imagination.

Then you are not talking about science, you are talking about your metaphysic tainted understanding of what you need science to be.
We cannot 'observe' atoms, yet I doubt that you would declare our depictions of atoms to be imagination.


Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.


You wish you had so much to infer from. You should recognize the difference between inference and imagination but I see that amongst evolutionists it is quite common to conflate the two and still call it 'science'.


I see some insults and such, but no real reply.


In your case you have this sort of philisophical inference:
One very old tooth which has the shape 'strongly suggestive' of a imagined link between apes and humans. No blood, no murder weapon, no clothing, no other evidence whatsoever -just the one tooth.So strong is the evidence that a top scientific journal writes an article accompanied by an artist's depiction of the half-human half-ape as well as his wife and family, his home and surroundings showing how this all would probably have looked. Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig) and the story is retracted -usually this happens very quietly in some obscure corner of the journal while the main story is splashed all over the front cover. It has it's expected effect -more people see the image and believe. Seldom does anyone see the retraction.


So, you have to resort to misrepresenting the claims made by one overzealous amateur anthropologist from close to 100 years ago to tar an entire field of science?  
You write that as if you think that is ALL we have for anything.

You are either engaging in this unprecedenmted hyperbole for rhetorical purposes or you really are that uninformed.

Why do you think Rodhocetus is still on display with fluke and flippers?

Perhaps because the museum does not thave the money to change the display?  I've not seen it, myself, so I cannot guarantee that your depiction of it is accurate.  You've seen it, have you?

Because it is seen by the 'believers' to be representative of the truth they believe in even if they don't quite have the correct bones yet.

Well, that must be it.

Perhaps if you had actually addressed the question about the bones I asked above (instead fo lopping off the context and spinning it) you may see that how they were depicted is not that important.


In this case, as in so many, the suspect was innocent despite being framed with all sorts of subsidiary imaginative pictorial additions.

Typical insulting rhetorical insinuations.  Best you YECs have, I guess.

So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of years old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'


It isn't. It is the incorrect interpretation of the evidence based on philisophical imaginings and the exclusion of anything but naturalism in the definition of the new 'science'.


Ah, so NOTHING is 'true' science in your world.

What ID 'true science', I have to wonder -Seeing the blessed Virgin in a water stain on the side of a building?


Don't worry there's lots of good science out there but all of it is based on observation and experimentation unlike evolution which is based on wishful thinking.


More insulting unsupported rhetoric.


I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  


You might be able to find one example out there but in general YEC's are anything but vicious. I've heard some real bombastic, supercilious evos out there though.

I've seen the opposite.  Must be my metaphysical position.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?
Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


What 'knowns' are you suggesting here? You need to look again and see if your 'knowns story isn't based on the same old assumptions. I have no doubt they are.


Imagine that - a non-scientist YEC (let me guess - you maybe have a BS in something non-science-related, yes?) denigrating those in a field he knows demonstrably very little about.  that must be the 'Christian' way.

I've recently posted them, but here you go again:

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.

and


Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

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.


I can't wait to hear your metaphysical stories about how this is all 'assumptions' and the like...


That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.


No, that is your ad hoc rationalization for why you should discount what I'm saying with no proper justification.


The justification is that the exact same claims can be just as logically made for any mythological construct.  You wrote:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

A person could, with the same justification and rationale, write:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a flying spaghetti monster that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?


I don't have a clue how many original bats were on the ark -it depends entirely on whether they can procreate or not and how much genetic variability the original bats had programmed into them by their creator.

You presuppose that they HAD such "genetic variability... programmed into them by their creator" - you conclude what you seek to support.
Most mutations are neutral.
No, they aren’t.
It depends on where they occur.


I tell you what -why don't you show me all your morphological mutations that have occurred leading to something other than distortion of what that gene used to do and I'll direct you to some demonstrably harmful morphological effects of mutation. After all mutations leading to altered morphology is what we need for the raw material of evolution.


And once again the YEC goal posts twist and shift.

You declared that mutations are not neutral, now you are demanding that show you a mutation that beneficially alters morphology.

How about we stick to one demand at a time?  Perhaps you have heard that Steven Pinker had his genome sequenced and it was compared to Craig Venter's, and you know what was discovered?  Pinker and Venter's DNA differed by many millions of mutations.  According to your folk YEC science, one or both of them should be hideopusly disfigured mutatnts, if alive at all.  Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of genetics?

Oh, and you ignroed this twice:




[where is a] Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.


Posted that twice and you ignored it both times.  I can see why.



Make that thrice.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:41 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radiometric dating is all assumptions - right?
I said there are a lot of assumptions behind radiometric dating. I stand by my assertion.


Are you denying the many assumptions of radiometric dating, Derwood. You seem to be missing the point on purpose.

stop with the infantile and failed attempt at 'gotcha.'


That is the infantile game you play on this forum everyday Derwood.

Ever heard of Pachyaena, Derwood? The California Academy of sciences Natural History museum could show you their museum display which suggests that a hyena-like animal (Pachyaena)evolved into a whale. Why? They had similar teeth to the whale. That's all they need you know to suggest that it turned into a whale over millions of years. So, yes, I stand by that one too.
Of course you do.

Multiple demonstrations that you are incorrect are no matter to the dedicated creationist.  

And a person with a doctorate relying on AiG for factual unbiased information is a sign of a person that did not deserve their doctorate, which they don't have anyway.


Not AIG Derwood. ..The California Academy of Sciences Natural History Museum. Do you deny that this display exists?

I've heard of it.  I've not thought much about whale evolution, actually. I know YECs like it though - they like to really toss out their personal incredulity on the issue.


No, we don't like it Derwood. We think it is dumb, not believable, childish, imaginary. We point it out because it is supposed to be one of your best 'evidences' for macroevolution and transitional forms. We think your best example makes evolution look ridiculous. (Which it is )

they like to really toss out their personal incredulity on the issue.


We find your credulity the most incredible actually. How long did that land mammal need to tread water while all those lucky mistakes accumulated?

Give us YOUR OWN analysis, if you can.


Oh I have analysed it, but I really need to hear your opinion on this one.

An "invention" based on existing evidence, which I know is anathema to the creationist,


It just amazes me the rate at which new inventions have to be summonsed up to replace old inventions. Does the 'test of time' mean nothing to the evolutionist. You barely get one book of fairytales out on the shelf when you have to invent the next. It must be a marketing ploy.

Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?


You've pulled that one on me before, Derwood. Don't you remember? You left my question about how that obviously deleterious mutation was going to be reproduced in the wild  (or reproduce at all) hanging. If her parents liked swimming too much, you would call it a Lamarckian slip.













-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:06 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh Lester - still curious as to why you keep ignoring this:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009 :
It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.


It's amazing to me that so-called scientists are so lost in philosophy without recognizing it and seem unable to distinguish between it and actual science.

Yeah, us poor "so-called" scientists.  I mean obviously we are not actual scientists - like the creation scientists - because we do not immerse ourselves in syllogisms and pseudologic.

Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.


'Fraid not. As you very well know, you cannot compare the genomes of extinct creatures to living creatures so there is nothing to check but the whale.

'Fraid you just keep exposing how little you actually know about the study of evolution and the use of genetic data generally.

We do not need DNA from extinct creatures to infer phylogeny.

Thus the genetic story is not complementing the fossil data because it doesn't exist. The entire fairytale is morphology based and there is no corroborating evidence.

I am always amazed at how confident those are who understand the least.  This is actually
documented , by the way.

Of note, I saw that you never responded to my offer to send you some DNA sequences and a free alignment prgram to see if your amazing lack of bias produced analysis outcomes that differed friom my biased notions.  Wonder why....


as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.


I have never rejected actual scientific evidence but the rubbish based on philisophical presumption is rejected with good reason.

Well, isn't that special - you just label everything as being based on philosophical presumption in order to dismiss it.  How intellectual!

So, why not use your special YEC-philosophy to interpret this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.




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.


or this:

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.


It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.
Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place.


How about you stop misrepresenting what you reply to?  How about you stop butchering what you reply to in order to try to turn the tables (which you are not very good at)?  How about you leave in the context:


Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?





Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.



Think you can do that?

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.


I only dismiss claims for which there is no actual evidence -so drop the supercilious tone and hear what I am saying.

This from the person who wrote about "so-called scientists" and the like.. how rich..
I DO hear what you are saying - you say that if an evolutinist presents somethign as evidence you automatically dismiss it because you feel the evidence was generated/interpreted using a metaphysical worldview that you disdain.
No?

Why was there so much speculation surrounding Rodhocetus? Because it is in the nature of fossils and the philisophical beliefs surrounding them that people who believe whales must have evolved from a mammal will find missing links somewhere even in animals that may be unsuitable for the job. It is unfortunate that one man's speculation got rolled out as proof. I doubt he meant it to go that far. This happens rather often in the world of evolutionary speculation. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believable much like their stories they knit about how one creature became another.


I think you are conflating a museum display with 'proof.'

The speculations were made premised on what was known at the time. NEW INFORMATION showed that the earlier speculations were incorrect.  NEW INFORMATIOn in the form of additional fossil evidence.

Imagine that.

Being 'believable' is not what evidence-based speculation is about in science. Being consistent with the evidence that is available is.  There is a clear and obvious difference.

I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'


No, I meant imagination.

Then you are not talking about science, you are talking about your metaphysic tainted understanding of what you need science to be.
We cannot 'observe' atoms, yet I doubt that you would declare our depictions of atoms to be imagination.


Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.


You wish you had so much to infer from. You should recognize the difference between inference and imagination but I see that amongst evolutionists it is quite common to conflate the two and still call it 'science'.


I see some insults and such, but no real reply.


In your case you have this sort of philisophical inference:
One very old tooth which has the shape 'strongly suggestive' of a imagined link between apes and humans. No blood, no murder weapon, no clothing, no other evidence whatsoever -just the one tooth.So strong is the evidence that a top scientific journal writes an article accompanied by an artist's depiction of the half-human half-ape as well as his wife and family, his home and surroundings showing how this all would probably have looked. Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig) and the story is retracted -usually this happens very quietly in some obscure corner of the journal while the main story is splashed all over the front cover. It has it's expected effect -more people see the image and believe. Seldom does anyone see the retraction.


So, you have to resort to misrepresenting the claims made by one overzealous amateur anthropologist from close to 100 years ago to tar an entire field of science?  
You write that as if you think that is ALL we have for anything.

You are either engaging in this unprecedenmted hyperbole for rhetorical purposes or you really are that uninformed.

Why do you think Rodhocetus is still on display with fluke and flippers?

Perhaps because the museum does not thave the money to change the display?  I've not seen it, myself, so I cannot guarantee that your depiction of it is accurate.  You've seen it, have you?

Because it is seen by the 'believers' to be representative of the truth they believe in even if they don't quite have the correct bones yet.

Well, that must be it.

Perhaps if you had actually addressed the question about the bones I asked above (instead fo lopping off the context and spinning it) you may see that how they were depicted is not that important.


In this case, as in so many, the suspect was innocent despite being framed with all sorts of subsidiary imaginative pictorial additions.

Typical insulting rhetorical insinuations.  Best you YECs have, I guess.

So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of years old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'


It isn't. It is the incorrect interpretation of the evidence based on philisophical imaginings and the exclusion of anything but naturalism in the definition of the new 'science'.


Ah, so NOTHING is 'true' science in your world.

What ID 'true science', I have to wonder -Seeing the blessed Virgin in a water stain on the side of a building?


Don't worry there's lots of good science out there but all of it is based on observation and experimentation unlike evolution which is based on wishful thinking.


More insulting unsupported rhetoric.


I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  


You might be able to find one example out there but in general YEC's are anything but vicious. I've heard some real bombastic, supercilious evos out there though.

I've seen the opposite.  Must be my metaphysical position.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?
Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


What 'knowns' are you suggesting here? You need to look again and see if your 'knowns story isn't based on the same old assumptions. I have no doubt they are.


Imagine that - a non-scientist YEC (let me guess - you maybe have a BS in something non-science-related, yes?) denigrating those in a field he knows demonstrably very little about.  that must be the 'Christian' way.

I've recently posted them, but here you go again:

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.

and


Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

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.


I can't wait to hear your metaphysical stories about how this is all 'assumptions' and the like...


That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.


No, that is your ad hoc rationalization for why you should discount what I'm saying with no proper justification.


The justification is that the exact same claims can be just as logically made for any mythological construct.  You wrote:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

A person could, with the same justification and rationale, write:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a flying spaghetti monster that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?


I don't have a clue how many original bats were on the ark -it depends entirely on whether they can procreate or not and how much genetic variability the original bats had programmed into them by their creator.

You presuppose that they HAD such "genetic variability... programmed into them by their creator" - you conclude what you seek to support.
Most mutations are neutral.
No, they aren’t.
It depends on where they occur.


I tell you what -why don't you show me all your morphological mutations that have occurred leading to something other than distortion of what that gene used to do and I'll direct you to some demonstrably harmful morphological effects of mutation. After all mutations leading to altered morphology is what we need for the raw material of evolution.


And once again the YEC goal posts twist and shift.

You declared that mutations are not neutral, now you are demanding that show you a mutation that beneficially alters morphology.

How about we stick to one demand at a time?  Perhaps you have heard that Steven Pinker had his genome sequenced and it was compared to Craig Venter's, and you know what was discovered?  Pinker and Venter's DNA differed by many millions of mutations.  According to your folk YEC science, one or both of them should be hideopusly disfigured mutatnts, if alive at all.  Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of genetics?

Oh, and you ignroed this twice:




[where is a] Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.


Posted that twice and you ignored it both times.  I can see why.



Make that 4 times.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:33 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:06 AM on October 7, 2009 :
Radiometric dating is all assumptions - right?
I said there are a lot of assumptions behind radiometric dating. I stand by my assertion.


Are you denying the many assumptions of radiometric dating, Derwood. You seem to be missing the point on purpose.


I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Are you against assumptions when NASA assumes that gravity's effects are the same around Neptune as they are here?  Are you against assumptions when creation 'scientists' assume the earth to be only 10,000 years old (they don't really assume that, they conclude is on a priori grounds)?

Tell us what these assumptions are and why they are so terrible.  Oh - and by the way, a list is not an explanation.


stop with the infantile and failed attempt at 'gotcha.'


That is the infantile game you play on this forum everyday Derwood.


Do I?  Please provide one example.


Ever heard of Pachyaena, Derwood? The California Academy of sciences Natural History museum could show you their museum display which suggests that a hyena-like animal (Pachyaena)evolved into a whale. Why? They had similar teeth to the whale. That's all they need you know to suggest that it turned into a whale over millions of years. So, yes, I stand by that one too.
Of course you do.

Multiple demonstrations that you are incorrect are no matter to the dedicated creationist.  

And a person with a doctorate relying on AiG for factual unbiased information is a sign of a person that did not deserve their doctorate, which they don't have anyway.


Not AIG Derwood. ..The California Academy of Sciences Natural History Museum. Do you deny that this display exists?


No, and I do not really care.  If you are going to base your argument on one museum display while ignroing all of the other evidence and explanations offered to you then you are little more than a type of proof-texter.  Lots of YECs are.  Are you going to ignore - yet again - the informaiton I provided to you several times already:

More specifically, I am not a cetacean phylogeny expert (are you?), this might be informative:
===
Morphologists have long thought that Sinonyx was the direct ancestor of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent DNA phylogenetic analyses[2][3][4] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[5] Even though some scientist do not think Sinonyx is an ancestor of Cetacea [3] the reasons for originally thinking that it was are the following:

Sinonyx's elongated muzzle and tooth shape are atypical compared to other mesonychids, but are features close to those of the cetaceans. Its elongated muzzle, teeth and skull features are common to the earliest primitive whales. The elongation of the muzzle is often associated with hunting fish and all fish-hunting whales and dolphins have elongated muzzles. These features suggest that Sinonyx was developing adaptations that could have later become the basis of the whales' specialized way of life. The triangular shaped teeth have a prominent middle cusp or point and two relatively equal sized cusps on each side that are also similar to cetaceans. Other similarities include a loss of a collarbone and specialized upper arm bones. Mesonychids are also the only 'carnivorous' ungulates, and although many cetaceans are filter feeders of tiny zooplankton, no cetacean is a plant eater. Other characters that Sinonyx has in common to the whales include an enlarged jugular foramen (a natural opening or perforation through a bone or a membranous structure) and a short basicranium (underside of the skull).[6] Furthermore, the ear structure of primitive placentals, including early ungulates, has a larely cartilaginous tympanic auditory bullae (bony capsules enclosing the middle and inner ear). with only a thin ring of bone, the tympanic, which supported the tympanum. But in Sinonyx, the entire bulla had become ossified, as it is in all whales. A thicker bulla and denser bone contribute in three ways to improved high-pitched hearing in cetaceans: "it strengthens the bulla to resist compression more effectively, insulates it acoustically from the rest of the skull better than ordinary bone, and raises the frequency of sound that can be detected."[7]

The transition from Mesonychid to cetacean was thought to be easy to follow from the fossil evidence. Mesonychids were often shore dwelling animals that hunted both on land and in the shallows, and it was not hard to imagine a shore dwelling creature becoming more specialized and eventually returning to the ocean. Intermediate forms such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus especially closely resemble Mesonychids with their fully functioning legs and similar tooth morphology. Pakicetus has a similar body design, but a head more closely resembling archaic cetaceans. Ambulocetus is similar in design to Pakicetus, with the addition of flippered feet, and most likely moved better in the water than on land like a modern otter or seal. Beyond Ambulocetus, it is easy to trace the ancestry directly to modern cetaceans[8]: Sinonyx (land-dwelling) -> Pakicetus (swims occasionally) -> Ambulocetans natans (swims predominantly) -> Rodhocetus (paddling reduced hind legs) -> Basilosaurus (vestigial hind limbs) -> Dorudon.
***

Please note that it is more than teeth.

I've heard of it.  I've not thought much about whale evolution, actually. I know YECs like it though - they like to really toss out their personal incredulity on the issue.


No, we don't like it Derwood. We think it is dumb, not believable, childish, imaginary.

Dumb, childish, and imaginary.. Sort of like, say, a unicorn?  A talking snake?  A worldwide flood?

You know, if the reality of the situation really were as you present it, your claim might have merit, but as it stands, all you are doing is engaging in misrepresentation and fallacious argumentation.


We point it out because it is supposed to be one of your best 'evidences' for macroevolution and transitional forms. We think your best example makes evolution look ridiculous. (Which it is )


I note that other than repeated assertions and the equivalent of proof-texting and your personal incredulity, you've not really offered any sort fo reasoned explanations for your position.

they like to really toss out their personal incredulity on the issue.


We find your credulity the most incredible actually. How long did that land mammal need to tread water while all those lucky mistakes accumulated?


Silly caricature.

Seems to be all you've got.

Give us YOUR OWN analysis, if you can.


Oh I have analysed it, but I really need to hear your opinion on this one.


I am not the one presenting it as  amajor cornerstone of my position.  YOU are.  And all you seem able to do is hurl assertions and denigrations.

EXPLAIN what a transitional SHOULD look like and WHY you think this.
My bet is that you cannot do it.

An "invention" based on existing evidence, which I know is anathema to the creationist,


It just amazes me the rate at which new inventions have to be summonsed up to replace old inventions. Does the 'test of time' mean nothing to the evolutionist. You barely get one book of fairytales out on the shelf when you have to invent the next. It must be a marketing ploy.


Right.  I guess we should be more like creationists, who will maintain their original beliefs regardless, even in spite of , new evidence.  Their position will never change no matter what, and they actually see this as a positive.

Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?


You've pulled that one on me before, Derwood. Don't you remember?

I remember you ignored it all.


You left my question about how that obviously deleterious mutation was going to be reproduced in the wild  (or reproduce at all) hanging. If her parents liked swimming too much, you would call it a Lamarckian slip.


Once again, you seem to ignore the facts and your own writings.
Here is the thread where I first brought it up:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=49600

You ignored it.

Tell us what you think about this creature:


Know what it looks like with its skin on?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:49 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello?

Les?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:41 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, the agonizing crickets...


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:15 PM on February 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Abandoning this thread doesn't prevent for him to keep talking about micro and macro in any other one.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:12 PM on February 5, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:52 AM on April 26, 2010, in the thread Equine evolution:
When they are found in the same continent (eg. John Day formation in Oregon); 3-toed and 1-toed are found in the same stratum.
So after all this time you don't yet understand that an ancestral species doesn't have to die for a new one to evolve... Gee... And you think that's a problem for us?
(...)
No I don’t think it’s a problem to you because evolution, as you believe it, is essentially unfalsifiable.
Go and find unevolvable traits, or shut up.
Show me evidence for macroevolution or shut up.
Sorry, what? Did you say "macroevolution" while you were trying to dodge my request? Because this was the right thread to discuss that. Remember?

Until you address your dodges you can't keep asking for us to keep showing you stuff.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:03 AM on April 26, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



(Edited by wisp 5/3/2010 at 08:44 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:43 AM on May 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, Lester... I can't help but notice that you're still talking about micro and macro, as if you had not cowardly run away from this thread.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:23 PM on August 5, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.