Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Common ancestry PREDICTS that we should see those objectively and empirically measured patterns in the data. Those patterns are there, in spades. Yes, beyond any reasonable doubt. It is no different than planetary orbits matching the predictions made by Einstein's theory of relativity. It is no different than any other verification of theory in the rest of science. Beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. Why isn't that the case? We are talking about many, many independent lines of evidence all predicted by the theory and all observed. There is no serious doubt with respect to the theory of evolution amongst working biologists because of the mountains of confirmed predictions.

I mentioned differences in sequence conservation between exons and introns for orthologous genes in diverse species. Here is a picture from the UCSC genome browser:Towards the top of the image are several box and line diagrams (labelled ACE2). The black boxes are exons and the lines that connect the boxes are introns.If you look farther down the image you will see the 100 Vert. Cons graph. The spikes in the graph are areas with higher conservation between 100 vertebrate model organisms. As you can see, the spikes in conservation correlate with exons while there is little to no conservation in intron sequence.Further down you see a handful of model vertebrates and how their sequences compare to the human sequence. Rhesus monkey has a lot of shared sequence, but as you move further away from humans evolutionarily the less overall sequence conservation you see until the only regions with recognizable sequence conservation are the exons.This is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution and common ancestry are true. There is very little, if any, sequence in introns that has sequence specific function. Therefore, they accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. However, the exons do have sequence specific function, so deleterious mutations that occur in exons will be selected against which leads to sequence conservation. The more distant the common ancestor the larger divergence you will see between exons and introns, just as we see.So how does ID/Creationism explain this pattern?

Taq:

---

There is no serious doubt with respect to the theory of evolution amongst working biologists because of the mountains of confirmed predictions.

---

Lol, so now you are reverting to the infamous "mountains" of evidence. I thought you had your smoking gun evidence right here. But it turns out to be weak, in need of other evidence to support.And you are unable to present an objective scientific experiment that you used to determine the level of doubt. And you come with a test, assuming randomness and where you calculate p-values, which you poorly understand.But agreed, the p-values are at such low level, that randomness can be rejected and ruled out. That does not mean that your theory that the non-randomness comes from shared ancestry, has the same certainty as the conclusion that non-randomness is there.You can have your arguments as "there is no reason for similar sequences with seperate ancestors" and that is all fine. But again, these arguments do not share the same certainty as the rejection of the pure randomness.

Why wouldn't I? I keep presenting piece after piece of this evidence and really don't get a response. The evidence from exons and introns is yet another piece of those mountains, and you have no response. Already did with the example of the matching independent phylogenies. I also did the same with the correlation between the observed mutation bias for transition and transversion substitutions and the observed differences between the human and chimp genomes. There are 10^38 possible trees, and yet two independent phylogenies produce the very same tree out of all those possibilities just as the theory predicts. You are still ignoring the match between prediction and observation.

Common design would explain it just fine.

quote:

---

For #1 the response is that TOE has no answer for this, nor is TOE interested in answering this.

---

That is hardly an honest assessment.
The answer is that it is not currently known, that research continues, but that it is completely insufficient as evidence against evolution.
Rather than answer that you choose to invent the claim that scientists - I assume that you aren’t treating the theory itself as a person - have no interest in finding the answer.

quote:

---

For #2 the response is that TOE has no answer to this, and tells the questioner to go figure it out for himself.

---

MY answer is that the information can be readily found - and even give you a link. And I gave an example falsifying the claim that a partial eyeball cannot work.

quote:

---

For #3 the response is that TOE has no answer for this, and replies with an irrelevant counter-question.

---

The answer was that information was available - including the fact that lungs are not necessary (which you falsely reject as “irrelevant”. As with the previous question you chose to ignore the link and pretend that the information does nor exist.

quote:

---

For #4 the response is that TOE has no answer for this, and replies, irrelevantly, that other features of the chameleon are similar to other creatures.

---

The common features are those that are used to build the tongue (indeed, long sticky tongues are hardly unknown in other animals). I will be generous and mark this one down as an arrogant misunderstanding rather than an outright lie.

quote:

---

We see a pattern: TOE has no answers to the big macroevolution questions, but seems to have a ready set of go-to evasive responses

---

The pattern we see is of Creationists offering dishonest rhetoric instead of honest discussion. There is no attempt to show that these issues give us any reason to reject the theory. Instead we see misrepresentation and outright lies.Which is typical of Creationism.

quote:

---

You really are a lying and deceitful bastard, aren't you?

---

No, that’s you as you continually demonstrate. And you’re proud of it, too.I await the time when you deal with the actual point instead of spouting lies and insults.

So you’re saying in the beginning your creator made different organisms but made some with millions of years worth of mutations that correspond to a faked heredity with the others? Clever. But why the subterfuge? Your god a clown? Loki, the false jester god? Does he have bells on his hat?

That isn't necessarily so, so...no.

But that is exactly what you said Taq's graph showed ... common design ... complete with an entire history of mutations spanning millions of years. He does have bells on his hat doesn't he.

It has been a very long time indeed since I was taught evolution in school, and I don't remember in any great detail what exactly we were presented with. But it seems unreasonable to me to expect the simplified version of evolutionary theory presented to children to be an exact match to the real and messy world of scientific research. I do remember that when I was first taught about the structure of atoms we were shown an image that looked a bit like this: Showing Bohr's "solar system" model of an atom, in this case Carbon-12. This is known to be wrong. It has been known to be wrong for a very long time, but the real structure of the atom is far too complex for an introductory class and only the most basic elements of it are taught before undergraduate level classes. In mathematics I remember first being taught division-with-remainder, then fractions, then decimal notation; and I remember that we were taught that one could not take the square root of a negative number before learning at 17 how to handle imaginary and complex numbers. Education proceeds from simpler versions to more complex, with the details necessary to start real scientific research taught only at university level (and beyond).I think Zallinger's "March of Progress" in its original form is a wonderful illustration of what was known about Human evolution at the time that it was drawn with the simplification necessary for a non-scientific audience. But, I also agree with the many evolutionary scientists who have long argued that it is too simplistic and gives the unfortunate impression of evolution as a directed process akin the medieval idea of the great chain of being.I am rambling, let me come to my point.The aim of school education in science is mostly to give students a very basic grounding in the major ideas and topics that are important. It is not to convey the complicated details, nor to communicate everything that is necessary to demonstrate the truth of what is conveyed. This, unfortunately in my view, tends to leave students with the impression that science is a body of facts to be learnt rather than a process for understanding the world. Scientific communication, such as the text for which the "March of Progress" was drawn is also aiming to communicate findings in a way intelligible for a lay audience.What you have been presented with is not the vast body of evolutionary research, but rather the simplified version for children. Just as the solar system model of the atom is not quantum mechanics, the "March of Progress" is not evolutionary theory.

Hi Tanypteryx, A life form—also spelled as life-form or lifeform—refers to any entity that exhibits the characteristics of living organisms. These entities include:Plants (Flora): Plants are life forms that perform photosynthesis, converting sunlight into energy. They range from tiny mosses to towering trees.2ndAnimals (Fauna): Animals encompass a vast array of species, from microscopic organisms to complex mammals. They exhibit mobility, sensory perception, and often consume other life forms for sustenance.3rd Fungi (Funga): Fungi include mushrooms, molds, and yeasts. They play essential roles in decomposition, nutrient cycling, and symbiotic relationships. While over five billion species have existed throughout Earth’s history, more than 99% of them are now extinct1. As of now, we have not discovered any form of extraterrestrial life
In essence, life forms weave the intricate fabric of our planet, shaping ecosystems, cycles, and the very essence of existence.God Bless

You've asked variations of this same question repeatedly, most recently in Message 315: And I answered it in the very message you're replying to, yet you ignored it: And I said a lot more that you ignored. To move the discussion forward you have to address the answers provided, not reformulate the same question over and over. I think you're misinterpreting the reactions here, and if evolutionary biologists are doing science in a way different from the other sciences then you're going to have to explain what those differences are. I addressed this already, again in the very message you're replying to: These points that I made previously directly address the question you're repeating here, yet you ignored them. How would you propose science apply unknown natural processes? You haven't described processes that don't fit. You've only asked questions we can't answer, which can be done for all fields of science. You're not questioning the laws of physics even though you could easily ask the unanswerable question, "Where did the asteroid Apophis that will make a near Earth approach in 2036 come from?" You could even ask questions in the same style as your evolution questions, like this:

quote:

---

However, Science is characterized by perpetual inquiry and relentless skepticism. This is why I have a problem with physics being presented as settled fact, such as it is. There is more about physics that is as yet inadequately addressed – like my questions above which are met with generalized speculations that defer to orbital calculations as much as possible – than has been addressed.

---

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. How should science account for "completely unknown processes?"Science does seek out "completely unknown processes" when it has unaddressed issues. I alluded to one earlier: Where did all the anti-matter go? According to physics as we currently understand it there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter produced in the Big Bang which then annihilated each other leaving almost nothing behind. Yet here we are in a universe filled with matter and with almost no anti-matter. Why are we even here? What happened to the anti-matter?And so scientists are seeking effects and particles that lie outside the Standard Model. What analogous question or questions do you see within evolutionary science that imply "completely unknown processes?" You haven't identified any yet. For some reason you think unanswered questions about evolution (details of whale evolution) invalidate evolution, but unanswered questions about astronomy (Jupiter's Great Red Spot) isn't a problem.
​ Anything which is in some way apparent to our senses is deemed natural. Everything else is made up, or as you like to call it, supernatural.--Percy

Just as a macrohike (hiking a trail) consists of a bunch of microhikes (single steps), macroevolution is just a bunch of microevolutionary steps. It's still just natural selection operating on modified descent. There are no mysteries of which we're aware that demand additional processes.Creationists are free to assert that evolution could not produce the diversity of life we see today, but their arguments are tailored for religious laypeople who know little of evolutionary biology and so are easy marks for such arguments. There are no creationist arguments of scientific merit.--Percy

Then explain the differing patterns of sequence conservation across exons and introns using Common Design. Let's see it.