Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    I would like to see some of that evidence.
    I'm sure you would, like an inerrantist would like to see "just one contradiction" in the Bible. I don't play that game any more, and I'm not playing this one now.

    It's a waste of time. No matter what I say to the inerrantist, they respond, "That's not a contradiction." No matter what I show you, you'll respond, "That's not evidence."

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Let me ask you a question. Do you believe we are related to monkeys based on this genetic similarity in protein coding sequences?, If so then you must also believe we are related to mice based on the same similarities in protein coding sequences

    "A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"
    To be honest, I have no idea. You make a good point though.

    If you have the time ID, you might like to start a thread on Natural Science. Some of the guys over there are fairly well versed on these matters. I think you are making some excellent points.

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fo...al-Science-301
    Last edited by seer; 06-24-2014, 07:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • IDScience
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    If that were the only datum we had about the relationship between humans and other primates, it wouldn't show a thing, but we do have a ton of other data as well. The genetic similarity very nicely confirms what all the other data show, but it is just one of many nails in the coffin of creationism.
    You have repeatedly said we have "a ton" of evidence for Darwinian evolution, I would like to see some of that evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • IDScience
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Thanks ID, I think.
    Let me ask you a question. Do you believe we are related to monkeys based on this genetic similarity in protein coding sequences?, If so then you must also believe we are related to mice based on the same similarities in protein coding sequences

    "A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"

    Leave a comment:


  • IDScience
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    I believe both. Modification is not equivalent to destruction. The core of evolutionary theory is descent with modification from common ancestry. That core idea has not been touched by any discovery made since Darwin wrote Origin of Species.
    Incorrect, the theory of descent with modification can only be inferred (not proven) if the phylogenetic relationships match, if they do not match, the inference of Darwin's theory does not exist. And Darwin himself admitted if this inference in the fossil record did not exist, his theory would be proven false

    Here is your problem. Darwinian evolution (all species descendant from a single cell) was established as a scientific fact based solely on the observation of minor fluctuations in phenotypes (which we now know is phenotypic plasticity), and the rest of the theory was a complete and total extrapolation without any evidence to support it. Evolutionary science of that time believed future generations would find the transitional fossils that would infer the theory of decent with gradual modification, but this did not happen. Gould said Darwin, as well as all other paleontologists, were embarrassed by the fossil record because it did not verify the prediction, hence the reason why Gould invented P.E. to save face

    So because the fossil record did not show the predicted inference of descent with gradual modification, the hopes to prove the prediction were then pinned on genetics, but this has also failed. As I have shown you the predicted "tree of life" which is essential to infer common decent, does not exist. All we have now is a mangled "bush of life", and that mangled bush has no possible way to validate the inference of common descent with modification because its branches do not form a predictable pattern, thus the inference of the phenotypes matching the genotypes does not exist, thus your entire theory of radical phenotypic speciation has no actual or inferential evidence.

    You fail to understand evolutionary theory (unlike all other scientific theories) has no ability to prove its validity by the scientific method of observation and testing. We can't observe the phenotypic changes that science claims takes many millions of years, therefore your theory stands solely on inferences of common decent, and if those inferences do not exist, you don't have a theory, you have an ideology. Therefore because the phylogenetic relationship inferences do not exist you stand by faith alone in your theory

    At this point in our intellectual history, it looks about as robust as the theory of gravity
    Here is the difference, the theory of gravity does not extrapolate the theory eventually morphs into radical, untestable and unpredictable changes that can't be verified by observation and experimentation. Your "robust" theory of evolution is nothing more than a highly sophisticated environmentally induced adaptation mechanism that selects from a pool of preloaded conserved slight variations that are needed for survival in a changing environment, and this is why we only observe minor variations in the fossil record and in species, because this is the only evolution that takes place. And this is why we have 500 million year old living fossils and stasis throughout the fossil record, the rest of your theory is an extrapolation in your head by faith in P.E.

    For example. The cecal valves of lizards is common example used by evolutionists to prove descent with modification, but we know these features do not accumulate as predicted by Darwin, the features in these lizards were lost in less than 4 months when the diet/environment changed

    "Our results suggest that in P. sicula, at least some of the changes associated with a dietary shift toward a higher proportion of plant material may be plastic. Specimens from the Pod Mrcaru population, which in nature eat substantial amounts of plant material exhibited a reduction in digestive tract length AND A TOTAL LOSS OF CECAL VALVES AFTER BEING FED AN EXCLUSIVELY ARTHROPOD DIET FOR 15 WK" - Bart Vervust
    Last edited by IDScience; 06-23-2014, 04:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I have heard a lot about certain primates and humans being very similar genetically, like something on the order of 95% similar. Doesn't this show that we are related biologically?
    If that were the only datum we had about the relationship between humans and other primates, it wouldn't show a thing, but we do have a ton of other data as well. The genetic similarity very nicely confirms what all the other data show, but it is just one of many nails in the coffin of creationism.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Thanks ID, I think.
    If you would only realized the IDScience's view is not science. It is ENRON bookkeeping of selective out of context and ridiculously false sound bites to justify a religious agenda.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-22-2014, 07:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    That percentage was based on comparing the protein coding sequences which is only 1.5% our DNA, and because of the false prediction that the other 98.5% was useless "junk", they came to the 97-98% similarity conclusion. The percentage has recently has been lowered to 70% or lower
    http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

    Also the similarities between humans and chimps do not take in to account the HAR (Human accelerated regions) regions

    Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human brain capacity-Tim Stephens

    http://cbse.soe.ucsc.edu/news/article/1581?ID=1581
    "Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases (bases are subunits of DNA, the As, Cs, Ts, and Gs that spell out the genetic code). This similarity means the DNA sequence remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history, an indication that it performs a biologically important function. But sometime after the human lineage diverged from its last common ancestor with chimpanzees 5 to 7 million years ago, HAR1 began to change rather dramatically"-

    "We found 18 differences between chimps and humans, which is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard said


    But more importantly, the only evidence for evolution is in the observable transition from one state to another, not in static highly conserved similar regions. Similarities in species is not evidence of "evolution", its evidence of similarities, nothing more.

    This is why Senior editor of Nature magazine Henry Gee said

    "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."- Senior editor of Nature Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

    Also we know its gene regulation, controlled by "junk DNA" (one of a long list of failed predictions) that determines how identical genes will be expressed. Humans have some of the same genes as plants do, but its the non-coding DNA that contains the blueprints for the species and determines how the identical genes will be expressed

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...ession-in-1086
    Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (though not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism’s diploid, nucleated cells, even though these cells form tissues with drastically different appearances, properties, and functions. Why then, is there such great variation among and within such organisms? Quite simply, the way in which different genes are turned on and off in specific cells generates the variety we observe in nature. In other words, specific functions of different cell types are generated through differential gene regulation” Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryote: Theresa Phillips. Nature

    Mice also have the same similarities in protein coding genes

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC395773/
    "A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"

    And because its the non-coding regions that determines how identical genes will be expressed, it therefore follows its the non-coding regions that contain the species blueprints, and its these regions that bring the percentage of the chimp similarities to 70%. And its no coincidence its the non-coding DNA that is also the most conserved, and this is why we have species that have not evolved in hundreds of millions and billions of years, because of these highly conserved (do not evolve) regions in non-coding DNA. But with the *magic* of punctuated equilibrium we can make it appear as if they did.

    “Now scientists are starting to speculate that proteins, and the regular DNA that creates them, are just the nuts and bolts of the system. ‘They’re like the parts for a 757 jet sitting on the floor of a factory,’ says University of Queensland geneticist John Mattick. The noncoding DNA is likely “the assembly plans and control systems.” Unfortunately, he concludes, because we’ve spent 30 years thinking of it as junk, we’re just now learning how to read it.” Steve Olson Wired Magazine 2/2007, page 113,
    Thanks ID, I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Make up your mind here Doug, do you believe as you said.. "If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified".. or do you believe modifying the theories failed predictions to fit the newly discovered evidence is the way scientific theories should be conducted?.
    I believe both. Modification is not equivalent to destruction. The core of evolutionary theory is descent with modification from common ancestry. That core idea has not been touched by any discovery made since Darwin wrote Origin of Species. At this point in our intellectual history, it looks about as robust as the theory of gravity.

    Originally posted by IDScience
    the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record

    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    No, it never predicted that. It predicted gradual transitions in the characteristics of populations. Whether and how the fossil record would record those transitions is not addressed by any biological theory. It's addressed by geological theory.
    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Physical characteristics of species is exactly what I meant and you know this.
    No, I don't know that. When someone says the predictions of evolutionary theory have been falsified, I cannot assume anything about what they know or what they might mean.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    But the "sudden appearance and stasis" quotes from palaeontologists are numerous.
    Sure they are, but they don't prove that evolutionary theory has been falsified.

    Leave a comment:


  • IDScience
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I have a question ID. I have heard a lot about certain primates and humans being very similar genetically, like something on the order of 95% similar. Doesn't this show that we are related biologically?
    That percentage was based on comparing the protein coding sequences which is only 1.5% our DNA, and because of the false prediction that the other 98.5% was useless "junk", they came to the 97-98% similarity conclusion. The percentage has recently been lowered to 70% or lower
    http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

    Also the similarities between humans and chimps do not take in to account the HAR (Human accelerated regions) regions

    Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human brain capacity-Tim Stephens

    http://cbse.soe.ucsc.edu/news/article/1581?ID=1581
    "Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases (bases are subunits of DNA, the As, Cs, Ts, and Gs that spell out the genetic code). This similarity means the DNA sequence remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history, an indication that it performs a biologically important function. But sometime after the human lineage diverged from its last common ancestor with chimpanzees 5 to 7 million years ago, HAR1 began to change rather dramatically"-

    "We found 18 differences between chimps and humans, which is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard said


    But more importantly, the only evidence for evolution is in the observable transition from one state to another, not in static highly conserved similar regions. Similarities in species is not evidence of "evolution", its evidence of similarities, nothing more.

    This is why Senior editor of Nature magazine Henry Gee said

    "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."- Senior editor of Nature Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

    Also we know its gene regulation, controlled by "junk DNA" (one of a long list of failed predictions) that determines how identical genes will be expressed. Humans have some of the same genes as plants do, but its the non-coding DNA that contains the blueprints for the species and determines how the identical genes will be expressed

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...ession-in-1086
    Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (though not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism’s diploid, nucleated cells, even though these cells form tissues with drastically different appearances, properties, and functions. Why then, is there such great variation among and within such organisms? Quite simply, the way in which different genes are turned on and off in specific cells generates the variety we observe in nature. In other words, specific functions of different cell types are generated through differential gene regulation” Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryote: Theresa Phillips. Nature

    Mice also have the same similarities in protein coding genes

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC395773/
    "A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"

    And because its the non-coding regions that determines how identical genes will be expressed, it therefore follows its the non-coding regions that contain the species blueprints, and its these regions that bring the percentage of the chimp similarities to 70%. And its no coincidence its the non-coding DNA that is also the most conserved, and this is why we have species that have not evolved in hundreds of millions and billions of years, because of these highly conserved (do not evolve) regions in non-coding DNA. But with the *magic* of punctuated equilibrium we can make it appear as if they did.

    “Now scientists are starting to speculate that proteins, and the regular DNA that creates them, are just the nuts and bolts of the system. ‘They’re like the parts for a 757 jet sitting on the floor of a factory,’ says University of Queensland geneticist John Mattick. The noncoding DNA is likely “the assembly plans and control systems.” Unfortunately, he concludes, because we’ve spent 30 years thinking of it as junk, we’re just now learning how to read it.” Steve Olson Wired Magazine 2/2007, page 113,
    Last edited by IDScience; 06-23-2014, 03:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • IDScience
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified. If you actually knew any science, you'd understand that.
    That's correct Doug, if all of a theories predictions are falsified, then the entire theory is falsified. That's why I have been telling you Darwinian evolution is not a real scientific theory, its an atheistic ideology that will never be allowed to be publicly falsified until another valid theory that does not include God as a mechanism is proposed. (atheists need the aliens to land soon).

    This is why "Teach The Controversy" (teaching the failed predictions in schools) proposed by ID proponents is forbidden by evolutionary science, because they know the theory will collapse, and that combined with the blatant appearance of design in the cells (even admitted by atheists Crick and Dawkins) will allow ID a foot hold in students minds.

    Originally posted by IDScience:
    evolutionary science simply modifies the theory to accommodate the current evidence
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    And you think that's unscientific?
    Make up your mind here Doug, do you believe as you said.. "If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified".. or do you believe modifying the theories failed predictions to fit the newly discovered evidence is the way scientific theories should be conducted?.

    Originally posted by IDScience:
    the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    No, it never predicted that. It predicted gradual transitions in the characteristics of populations. Whether and how the fossil record would record those transitions is not addressed by any biological theory. It's addressed by geological theory.
    Physical characteristics of species is exactly what I meant and you know this. But the "sudden appearance and stasis" quotes from palaeontologists are numerous. And the poor geological recording excuse is not accepted by paleontologists. Features do not change in the exact same species spanning many millions and billions of years of geological records. And we have living fossils existing in every strata layer that contain fossils in it.

    So, starting with cyanobacteria 3.5by, all through Cambrian, and in every other strata layer that contain fossils, we have some of those same species alive today that did not participate in your theory. Yet your theory teaches other organisms of the exact same species living in the exact same environment went through rapid bursts of evolutionary change at a speed so fast we can't prove it actually happened.

    The only reason people believe this ridiculous ideology posing as a theory is because its enforced by media propaganda, intimidation and ridicule of its detractors, just as the catholic church did at one time

    And ill end this by saying. I do not understand why many intelligent theists cling so tightly to a atheistic origins of life and species even when they have been presented extensive evidence to the contrary. The only reasons I can come up with is they are either completely blind to the facts, or liberals towing the party line and have succumbed to the pressures of political correctness for fear of ridicule if they speak out against it. For many people accepting the politically correct ideology that they know is untrue, is more palatable than the true alternative that brings discomfort to their lives
    Last edited by IDScience; 06-21-2014, 02:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    I have a question ID. I have heard a lot about certain primates and humans being very similar genetically, like something on the order of 95% similar. Doesn't this show that we are related biologically?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    And never once did I say science admitted to falsifying "the theory", I repeatedly said "the predictions" in the theory have failed, thats it.
    If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified. If you actually knew any science, you'd understand that.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    evolutionary science simply modifies the theory to accommodate the current evidence
    And you think that's unscientific?

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record
    No, it never predicted that. It predicted gradual transitions in the characteristics of populations. Whether and how the fossil record would record those transitions is not addressed by any biological theory. It's addressed by geological theory.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    you need to stop extending the quotes beyond what they claim
    I'll remember that the next time some inerrantist gets on my case for quoting the Bible out of context.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    The fact is its one of a long list of failed predictions in the theory that have failed, and you know it.
    You say so.

    You have presented your evidence, and I have addressed it. I see nothing to be gained by continuing this discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • IDScience
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    That didn't take as long as I was afraid it might.

    First up: Carl Woese, "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 95, No. 12 (Jun. 9, 1998), pp. 6854-6859.

    What Woese is saying here is not that common ancestry has been falsified. He is saying that there remain many unanswered questions about particular relationships among several taxonomic groups.
    I'm not going to address all of Woese's quotes because your rebuttals are redundant, and the tactic of altering my premise will not work here.

    First of all, never will you find any evolutionist admitting to "falsifying" the entire theory, this will never happen. And never once did I say science admitted to falsifying "the theory", I repeatedly said "the predictions" in the theory have failed, thats it. Quotes from science are never intended to prove "the theory" has been falsified, they are intended to prove the "specific predictions" were falsified.

    Also, common ancestry (all life-forms with a single identical genetic code) has been falsified. Craig Venter briefly explains this in the video below starting at 8:45 to 11:45. And it does not surprise me that evolutionary biologists are unaware of this because even atheisms high priest Dawkins was unaware of this in 2011. Craig Venter told Dawkins and Davies that Darwin's tree of life does not exist (Venter said "there may be a bush of life") , and Dawkins was confounded and upset by this news, and Venter only laughs at Dawkins in response

    I suggest you watch "The Great Debate - What is Life?" on the science network.
    http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...e-what-is-life

    Therefore the "specific prediction" that species believed to be closer related must also have similar genotypes, and vice versa, creating the predicted phylogenetic tree of life has failed.

    No matter how many false predictions the theory makes, evolutionary science simply modifies the theory to accommodate the current evidence

    "Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78,

    For example the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record, and when the specific prediction was falsified, evolutionary science invented punctuated equilibrium (evolution so fast it leaves no evidence it happened) as the excuse. Therefore the new prediction of P.E. is then verified by the fossil record. So the entire theory is being "verified" through Ad hoc circular reasoning, which proves its not real science, its an atheistic ideology posing as science and you allow yourself to be duped by it

    "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67

    "But the danger of circularity is still present.... The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation....for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.", Evolution Vol. 28, p.466

    Gould admits P.E. has no mechanism to prove its validity

    "In this crucial sense, the theory of punctuated equilibrium adopts a very conservative position. The theory asserts no novel claim about modes or mechanisms of speciation; punctuated equilibrium merely takes a standard microevolutionary model and elucidates its expected expression when properly scaled into geological time. Gould * p. 778"

    Next is: James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, New Series, Vol. 283, No. 5410 (Mar. 26, 1999), pp. 2027-2028.

    The clonal theory is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was a specific hypothesis about particular relationships among early lineages. The gene relationships that were discovered were inconsistent not with the general theory of common ancestry but with that hypothesis.
    Tell to me how a specific hypothesis (within the theory) that predicts to explain prokaryotes to eukaryotes evolution is not a part of the theory of evolution?. The fact is its one of a long list of failed predictions in the theory that have failed, and you know it. And a theory is only as good as the predictions it makes

    Then we come to: W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science,
    New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5423 (Jun. 25, 1999), pp. 2124-2128.

    Your quotation:
    Source: IDScience

    "Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."

    © Copyright Original Source



    This statement does not appear in the article. If it is supposed to be a paraphrase, you had no business putting quotation marks around it. In any case, like the others, the statement is not in any way contrary to any prediction of evolutionary theory.
    That is your mistake, not mine. I never used the title ""Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," with Doolittle's quote or in any of my quotes

    My quote was... "Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea." W. Ford Doolittle Science 286, 1999."

    We also have: Michael Lynch, "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla," Evolution, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 319-325

    Source: Lynch

    Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees (Table 1) (p. 323).

    © Copyright Original Source



    Nothing in this statement entails the falsification of common ancestry.
    Don't claim the quote doesn't say something it nor I ever said it did. Snopes is famous for this same tactic of extending the claim beyond what it actually says, then saying its a "false" claim. The quote says proving the predicted phylogenetic relationships has been an "elusive problem", thus the "specific prediction" failed.

    And finally: Herve´ Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 49 (1999), pp. 509-523.

    Source: Philippe and Forterre

    With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each others as well as the rRNA tree (p. 510).

    © Copyright Original Source



    The article reports no falsification of common ancestry. The sequencings reported in this article show that we do not yet know all the particular details about relationships among early taxa. They do not show that there could not have been a common ancestor for all organisms.
    The quote clearly says the "phylogenies contradict each other" which means the "specific prediction" for the tree of life failed. And you need to stop extending the quotes beyond what they claim, or read them slower so you understand them

    There is not one common ancestor for all organisms, and Woese also admits this

    "The high, pervasive levels of horizontal gene transfer at early times created an evolutionarily communal state of living systems in the sense that the aboriginal organismal community evolved as a collective whole, not as individual cellular lineages." -Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree, Carl R. Woese*
    Last edited by IDScience; 07-31-2014, 03:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    You wouldn't have that problem if you knew the difference between a reference and a quotation. I didn't ask for any quotations.

    You did include references, though.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    You asked for the pertinent information, and I gave it to you.
    What I asked for a lot more specific than "pertinent information."

    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    People who do not know, and will not learn, how to punctuate and spell correctly have no one but themselves to blame if people have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Yes, but in my experience people who feel the need to argue about punctuation usually do so because they have no argument to be made about the main point, so they take what ever victory in the debate they can get
    When you've driven me to the point where I have nothing to criticize but your punctuation, everyone on this forum will know about it.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    But the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests mind and brain are separate entities
    There's a reason it's called an interpretation rather than a theory.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    quantum entanglement, which Eisenstein called "spooky action at a distance",
    Eisenstein was a 19th-century mathematician. You're thinking of Einstein.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    defies the conventional law of physics that prohibits information traveling faster than the speed of light.
    Yes, this discrepancy between quantum theory and special relativity is a scientific puzzle.

    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    Because your idiosyncratic semantics makes you unintelligible.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    It appears you may prefer the use of philosophical double negative poetic rhetoric (aka liberal logic).
    I guess that's possible.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Certainly you must be able to grasp the basic concept that the process of intelligently designing life must be verified before is can be referred to as a successful theory of intelligent design.?. Its the successful process that verifies the theory. I can't get anymore basic that that
    If you say that you can't make any better sense than that, I believe you.

    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    Because in your worldview, disagreement with you is proof of ignorance.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    On this issue it is ignorance. Would you like me to post the information on how those who are critical of Darwinian evolution are treated by academia?.
    I've watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled." Do you have anything to add to it?

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Darwinian evolution is a "religion" of sorts because it does not follow the tenets that all other areas of science follow, which is to continually attempt to prove the theory wrong. All other scientific theories teach the problems in their theory, in fact they encourage looking for holes in the theory. But evolutionary science hides these gaping holes in the theory
    I've studied science, including its historical development, for 50 years. You don't know what you're talking about.

    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    That sounds a lot like logical positivism. I would never have guessed you had any sympathy for that philosophy.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Yes it is, and considering my position on liberal atheists, and the fact falsification came from the liberal atheist Popper, you should have seen that position coming.
    I should have expected you to sound like the people you hate? You just might have a point there.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    Darwinian evolution makes predictions of relatedness based on the fossil record sequences and physical characteristics of species.
    It makes predictions based on whatever evidence is available. When Darwin published his book, fossils and observable physical characteristics were the only evidence at hand. Now we have tons of other kinds of evidence.

    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
    But the tree of life that predicts divergence is not a clean tidy tree as predicted it would be
    The theory never predicted a clean and tidy tree. All it ever predicted was a tree of some kind.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
1 response
38 views
0 likes
Last Post Christian3  
Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
97 responses
522 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
557 responses
3,486 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
21 responses
189 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
144 responses
1,079 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X