Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

In Willowtree's thread Some Evidence against Evolution, Willowtree has offered precious little scientific evidence so far (after the thread has run over more than 300 posts).Let's ignore the "scientism" and other religious / philosophical arguments and the quote mining. Let's actually discuss the scientific evidence which Willowtree offers refuting evolution without having it lost in the rest of the material in the original thread.I believe that Willowtree has only offered Milton's assertion that certain placental and marsupials species have at least superficial smilarities. Coragyps has effectively refuted this assertion by referencing this link . BTW, I find it amusing that the thylacine is cited as the equivalent of the placental wold when it is commonly referred to as the Tasmanian tiger. This is indicative of the superficiality of resemblences between marsupials and a vaguely reminiscent placental mammal.To date, willowtree does not appear to have rebutted the evidence contradicting his position.I would also like to offer a test of the alternatives of evolution and Miltonism (for want of a better term). Make a comparison of the genomes of kangaroo, Tasmanian tiger and placental wolf. Evolution would predict that the Tasmanian tiger would be genetically more similar to the kangaroo than the placental wolf because marsupials diverged from placental mammals tens of millions of years ago but the common ancestor of the kangaroo and thylacine would be a marsupial and much more recent. Milton would predict that the Tasmanian tiger would genetically more similar to the placental wolf than the kangaroo because of the shared "wolf-like" mutations.Is this a fair test of your understanding of evolution and Miltonism, willowtree? O2U.

My large, hairy friend, thanks for the info. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, no conventional scientist appears to have done a comparison of the thylacine and Canis lupus. So willowtree is able to make a prediction using Miltonism without knowing the outcome.

Surely they resemble eachother if Milton says so, eh willowtree?

willowtree, the local description for you would be a gutless wonder. I note that you have been very free with your insults on the previous thread but then bleat about "blackmail" and "insult" when you are challenged to confine your discussion to the scientific evidence which supposedly disproves the theory of evolution.It is becoming obvious that you have nothing to offer as "evidence" except your own distorted views about science, evolution, atheism and philosopy.No, no courtesy. Just put up or shut up.

quote:

---

On page 193 of Milton's book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" he has the two skulls side by each. As in the above link they look very similar. If that is all you had to go by good luck figuring out which is which.

---

Do you think that one skull might have dentition very similar to most placental mammals and the other might have dentition very similar to most marsupial mammals? It's quite obvious that the two skulls have significantly different dentition. This webpage spell it out clearly.You really are talking rubbish, jp, as you have on your previous visitations here.

jp, I think the presence of shared pseudogenes, eg. GLO pleudogene, supports the claim of common ancestry for humans and chimpanzee. At the same time it is strong evidence against convergent evolution of the 2 species. How could convergen evolution explain possession of a non-functional gene by two different species?

Has Brad Mcfall taken on a new handle?

So willow has reinserted the dummy and offers scientific evidence which contradicts evolution? Hardly.willowtree admits that he starts with an assumption (evolution is not true) and then seeks anything to support it (The evidence I offer is from a non-creationist Richard Milton. This person becomes independant corroboration). It's evident that willow doesn't understand what evidence is.willow proclaims: "Anyone who cares needs to read this thread. It is the foundation of my evidence which also evidences my proven claim that included in the scientific evidence offered by Darwinists is the assumption of their worldview that God does not exist."Whilst this assertion is laughable on its own, it borders on hilarious when one reads the Milton webpage and discovers that Milton does not once mention "god", "divine" or "worldview".The closest that Milton comes to supporting willow's views is in his ravings about the evolutionist conspiracy to conceal or ignore fossil evidence. But surely willow would not fall into such behaviour. So, surely willow will address the test of Miltonism vs neoDarwinism in the question of the thylacine relatedness as proposed in message #1.

willowtree, where is the scientific evidence against the theory of evolution? 100 posts and you haven't posted anything relevent to the topic.

quote:

---

You are right Asgara, nobody is posting content relevant to my posts.
I will cease the philosophical attack and claim victory by default.
(exemption to NosyNed)
  —willowtree

---

Apparently willowtree is lacking in comprehension skills and is unable to discern the meaning of the topic title. The word "scientific" is significant in the title. Why s/he would claim victory for presenting a philosophical argument is a complete mystery.

quote:

---

Even though I initially refused to participate in this topic, I've been prodded to reconsider.

---

Your childish behaviour has been noted. However, even when presented with a simple test of your Miltonian beliefs in the initial post, you have refused to address the test or the subsequent data which demonstrate that Milton's assertions on the thylacine and convergent evolution are absurd.

quote:

---

All posts in this topic from now on will be scientific evidence.

---

That was the original intention of the thread.

quote:

---

Please give me until after the New Year (Jan.2 or 3).

---

Does this mean that you have never had the "scientific" evidence against evolution available?

quote:

---

It doesn't matter why someone isn't able to respond immediately. No one is required to devote any time to the forum that they can't afford to. There are probably some more important things to do.
  —nosyned

---

Nosy, I think your rationalisation of willowtree's reluctance to provide scientific evidence against the theory of evolution is overly generous.wt has been posting on this site for a number of weeks. In an earlier thread wt asserted to have scientific evidence against evolution (as well as the philosophical piffle, mined quotes, appeals to inappropriate authorities and conspiracy fantasies). My purpose in this thread was to offer wt the opportunity to provide the scientific evidence against evolution. In all of that time, apart from bleating about being goaded into responding to this thread and reiterating claims of the superiority of the philosophical argument against evolution, wt has not provided one substantive post providing scientific evidence against evolution. And wt's claim of lacking time at the moment does not prevent wt from posting further insubstantial messages.I think my conjecture on the absence of wt's claimed scientific evidence is firmly supoorted. But I await with bated breath wt's long-foreshadowed scientific evidence.

quote:

---

I side with evidence that supports my worldview UNLESS a preponderance of facts is given that overrides the bias.

---

LOL It seems to be extremely difficult to imagine willowtree changing his/her worldview when that worldview includes the escape clause that any evidence which is offered which contradicts said worldview is a fallacy concocted by conspiring atheist evolutionists.No wonder a crackpot like Milton is so attractive to willowtree.

Is this willowtree's way of saying that he has exhausted his supply of "scientific evidence" against evolution and must again drag us back to his religious and philosophical objections to the theory of evolution?

Has Willowtree left the building?

quote:

---

You are the creator of this topic and you have yet to respond to...post # 116.

---

I note that your post #116 has already received 4 responses from 4 different people and you have continued discussions on 3 of those responses. The other respondents have addressed all of the pertinent parts of your post #116, usually more intelligently and eloquently than I would be able to. Do you consider it necessary for me to respond to your post as well merely to reiterate similar arguments? If that is your requirement, perhaps you could directly address the proposal of a genetic comparison of Milton's supposely closely related placental and Tasmanian wolfs which I raised in message #1 and which you have never addressed. You don't want to be hypocritical, do you?

quote:

---

There is new evidence posted in thread # 116 and until someone replies to it we are where we are.

---

Hmmm. New evidence? Let's see. Lots of space on theology and philosophy and nonsense about godsense. No new scientific evidence there. Reiteration of Milton's assertion of similarity of mammalian wolf and Tasmanian wolf skulls. Nothing new there and it has already been debunked as scientific evidence. Reiteration of Milton's quote of Leakey and Pilbeam. Nothing new there and does not consititue scientific evidence, and has been debunked on another thread. Blah blah blah about WT's personal knowledge and things that he can't understand. No scientific evidence there. More Milton, this time talking about cuckoos. The discussion on this "scientific" evidence with Quetzal quickly ran out of steam and ended up merely as an argument from personal incredulity, not scientific evidence. Finally quotes from Johnson making assertions about irreduciibly complex molecular mechanisms which rely on Behe's assertions and examples which have been debunked. No new scientific evidence there.Perhaps WT could identify which "new evidence" remains to be addressed. BTW, note that the topic emphasises scientific evidence so please restrict to this type of evidence.[This message has been edited by wj, 01-28-2004]