Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 82 of 968 (589400)
11-02-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Larni
10-24-2010 7:40 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
quote:
I know this thread is old but is there anyone who can present evidence that ToE has been falsified (not how it could be, I mean actual evidence that has falsified ToE)?
  —Larni
The falsification of neo-Darwinian TOE will be a scientific process. It won't happen with one paper. However, I believe that the process has begun.
Now before I begin, I would like to define some terms for clarification:
TOE = The change in gene (allele) frequencies within a population over time. This is a narrow theory, and is often referred to as a "fact".
Neo Darwinian TOE = NDTOE = The neo Darwinian synthesis of TOE. It is a broad theory that uses TOE to postualte the origin of the species through common ancestry. It includes the evolutionary tree/bush, and the evolution of natural history.
This is really the theory in contention with creationists. Now please be advised.....I agree with TOE. Populations change over time. We see this. I agree. So please don't confuse the two in your arguments with me.
However, we cannot observe long periods of time except for the contentious fossil record. We cannot observe the dino/bird trasition that NDTOE theorizes. etc etc. It is the NDTOE that can be falsified, and that is what us creos are working towards.
As I said, the process has begun, and there is evidence. Dr. John Sanford has already published a few things on this subject, and more is coming. You can find his information here:
http://logosresearchassociates.org/...john-sanford/#more-136
His paper here claims falsification: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...Mendels-Accountant.pdf
This is not peer reviewed material, but Dr. Sanford has approximately 5 papers that will be peer reviewed and published in the science community by June of next year. Dr. Sanford is an extremely accomplished Biologist/ Genetisist and has a long track record of getting his papers published in the scientific community.
Dr. Sandford's work, when published and peer reviewed will not immediately falsify NDTOE. The claims will be made, but the process will take years, but I believe that the process has already begun, and population genetics will lead to the demise of NDTOE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Larni, posted 10-24-2010 7:40 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2010 10:12 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 84 by nwr, posted 11-02-2010 10:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 11-02-2010 10:47 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 11-02-2010 11:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 8:30 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 132 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2010 3:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 90 of 968 (589430)
11-02-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
11-02-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
According to Sanford's simulation, rabbits should have gone extinct a long time ago given their short generation time.
Interesting claim, please support this with some evidence. I know of no such claim.
They haven't. Reality demonstrates that Sanford's simulation is not representative of reality.
Well, your claim is false. There are extinct species of rabbits. And there are some extremely close to extinction right now. Do you recognize reality, or is it something you just believe in?
There was a thread over at theologyweb and one over at infidel's that dealt with these calculations. I can dig them up if you want.
Why not bring forth your ideas and facts and arguments and let theirs stay where they are.
To put it another way . . .
A few years back there were some scientists who programmed a simulation dealing with aerodynamics. When they applied this program to bees the program told them that bees should not be able to fly. So who is right? The reality that bees are capable of flying or the simulation that says they can't?
Well if the simulation says rabbits are going extinct, and rabbits are indeed going extinct then I would say it is a pretty good model. Again, what is this reality you keep referring to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 11-02-2010 11:34 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Larni, posted 11-02-2010 1:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 96 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2010 2:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 11-02-2010 4:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 92 of 968 (589433)
11-02-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Larni
11-02-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Just to echo what Crash and nwr have stated.
Mendel's Accountant is not an accurate model of reality.
GIGO at work here, I think.
Echos are empty vibrations. Why don't you support your claim that MA doesn't not model reality.
When you read as many substandard peices of research as I have to you understand that a lot of what gets published is awful research (sometimes I feel like I'm reading about a strange land where error bars are an extinct species!).
I'm sorry you are forced to read awful research. Us creos have been reading the circles for years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 11-02-2010 10:47 AM Larni has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 94 of 968 (589435)
11-02-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
11-02-2010 10:12 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Quite the contrary - all available evidence in population genetics supports the common descent of organisms.
No one is trying to falsify "the common descent of organisms".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2010 10:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 11-02-2010 1:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2010 4:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 102 by Larni, posted 11-03-2010 5:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 106 of 968 (589539)
11-03-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
11-02-2010 4:09 PM


Common Descent explained
Creos and naturalists both believe in common descent. NDTOE however posits common descent for one common ancestor while a creationist explanation would be common descent form many common ancestors created during the creation week.
Common descent is just one small part of NDTOE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2010 4:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Granny Magda, posted 11-03-2010 10:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 10:31 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


(1)
Message 109 of 968 (589559)
11-03-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Percy
11-03-2010 8:30 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Can you explain for us how "deleterious mutations too subtle to be detected" can have an impact? Once they've accumulated to the point where they can can have an impact they're no longer "too subtle to be detected." Natural selection will operate to deselect those in a population who have accumulated too many of these "deleterious mutations too subtle to be detected."
Thanks for the well thought of question. I will try my best to explain it for you. Slightly deleterious mutations were recognized first by Kimura in his neutral theory of molecular evolution, and then later refined by Ohta in the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. This theory is now well excepted in population genetics as it is used in the molecular clock.
Now natural selection works at the phenotype with individual organisms. As phenotypes gain these slightly deleterious mutations, there is a selective pressure against these mutations, but basically all of the organisms have them, so they cant' be differentiated at the organism level. They are like noise in the population. Therefore, they don't get selected out on average. So the next generation has more mutations which many more are nearly neutral. The worst offenders are selected out, but on average the population carries the mutations. Also don't forget that many mutations are recessive, so they don't show up in the phenotye. The population will also carry the recessive negative alleles, because NS can't see them.
Now, natural selection can remove these mutations from the population if the population can afford the cost of section. In organisms with large genomes, low fecundity, and long generation times (most large mammals), they cannot afford the cost of selction without severe inbreeding depression. So the population continues to exist under reduced selective pressures and the mutations just add up over time. The adding up problem is what "genetic entropy" is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 8:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 11:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 11:48 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 11:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 131 by nwr, posted 11-03-2010 3:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 3:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 1:50 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 110 of 968 (589560)
11-03-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
11-03-2010 10:31 AM


Re: Common Descent explained
Regardless, I'll repeat my point now that the axis of misunderstanding has been clarified - all available evidence from population genetics upholds the notion that organisms share common descent from a single most recent ancestor (the "Last Common Universal Ancestor", or LUCA.) Indeed population genetics is among the most powerful evidence for the above. Within population genetics alone there is more evidence for universal common descent than there is medical evidence for any medical diagnosis that has ever been made, physical evidence for any discovery of physics, or courtroom evidence for any finding by any court. That is the extent of the evidentiary basis for evolution from population genetics alone.
Well, with all due respect, I understand this quite well. "All of the available evidence" that you refer to equally supports a common designer and multiple ancestors as well. Keep in mind there is no genetic evidence from all of those extinct species that leads you to LUCA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 10:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 11:45 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 11:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 118 of 968 (589578)
11-03-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Coyote
11-03-2010 12:19 PM


Re: NDTOE and other nonsense
Sanford himself is on the record as believing the Earth is between 5 and 10 thousand years old.
Yes, I know.
I am trying to see whether AlphaOmegakid does also.
Sandford was an atheistic evolutionist. He then became a a theistic evolutionist. And when he really understood the limits on natural selection , he became a young earth creationist.
I was an old earth creationist, and am now a YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 12:19 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 1:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


(1)
Message 119 of 968 (589586)
11-03-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
11-03-2010 11:51 AM


Common Descent explained
With all due respect you don't seem to understand anything about biology.
Empty claims without evidence may be dismissed with the same.
You're completely wrong. There is no support whatsoever in population genetics for the notion of "created kinds" or multiple ancestors.
LOL. Recent genetic studies conclude that all dogs descended from the ranks of wolves. That is clear evidence of a dog grouping or "kind" genetically. The evolutionary tree or bush shows multiple branches coming from missing common ancestors. This is clear evidence that the missing common ancestor may not exist. So it appears, you are wrong and don't seem to understand anything about biology.
There is no support in any field of science for any form of biological design except for the biological designs human beings have succeeded in creating.
Ummmmm....there is no support in any field of science for anything without the involvement of human intelligence. Your argument is self refuting. Even you realized it by the time you finished writing it. Well, maybe you didn't....
Infrequently, we're actually able to collect genetic evidence from a small number of extinct species, and without fail that genetic evidence supports their common ancestry alongside all living species. The notion that common ancestry is shared by all living species and all extinct species we've been able to sample but not all the extinct species we've coincidentally not been able to sample is one hell of a coincidence. That's an ad-hoc explanation for your enormous scientific blunders, not a position that any thinking person could take seriously.
Well, many thinking people do take it seriously. But of course those thinking people don't refute their own arguments.
Further, if that pattern were true - and it obviously is not - then it would indicate that not sharing common ancestry with all other species is one hell of a survival disadvantage, since all species that don't share common ancestry with living species are extinct, apparently. That's not much of a recommendation for the robustness of divine design of organisms.
Does any of this make any sense?
Still, though, you've succeeded in one thing, at least - your position is the best comedy I've seen all week.
Glad your laughing, you can step away from the mirror now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 11:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 4:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 122 of 968 (589605)
11-03-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Taq
11-03-2010 11:52 AM


If there is selective pressure against these mutations then they would not become fixed in the population to begin with. If they are not deleterious enough to lower the fitness of the organism so as to bypass natural selection then they will not cause the species to go extinct.
Perhaps the analogy to use here is the "straw that broke the camel's back". Each piece of straw is very light, but the camel can only carry so much. That last piece of straw that overloads the camel is the threshold, the mutation that will be strongly selected against.
Ahhhh. You have provided a good example. Can I use it?. Let's say the straws are the mutation rate, and each of the straws weighs very little. Gen 1 has no straws. Gen 2, each camel in the population gets 100 straws. (100 mutations per generation) That's no problem for all the camels. Gen 100 all the camels are still standing fine with 100000 staws each. At Gen 200 some of the weak camels start dropping because of the weight of the straws, and they are selected against. Only the strongest camels survive (now remember, the strongest camels are still carrying their straws). At Gen 5000 there is no camel that can withstand the load. The population goes extinct.
You see, the problem is that the strongest camels surviving each generation are still carrying and passing on their load of mutations. Individually, none of these straws are a problem. But eventually, they do add up.
They are seen by NS in homozygotes. This is why there is a strong correlation between the frequency of the sickle cell allele and geographic areas with endemic malaria. If what you claimed is true then the frequency of the sickle cell allele should be the same in Europeans as it is in Africans. It isn't.
I think you are assuming that I am arguing against NS. I am not. NS works very well. It just is limited in what it can do in a population. Sickle cell example is a good example of NS. It happens. Agreed.
Now evos theorize that we all came out of Africa. But we don't all look like Africans, do we? We have mutated. They have mutated. The majority of indiginous African people have mutations for kinky hair, larger lips, and flatter noses. (this is not racist, it is a fact). There appears to be no selection against these traits. There appears to be no selection for these traits either. But those traits have spread through the population. So either they drifted or were selected. There are two ways mutations can spread through a population. One is drift, the other is selection.
Now please understand, that I realize a bottleneck can cause the traits to spread. However, that is random and not NS, so it is drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 11:52 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 2:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 128 by frako, posted 11-03-2010 3:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 123 of 968 (589607)
11-03-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Coyote
11-03-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Genetic entropy and other nonsense
I suspect that Sanford became a young earth creationist before he came up with the nonsense of genetic entropy.
I suspect Darwin became an old earther before he came up with the nonsense of OOS.
His ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of a fall, and he has invented genetic entropy to explain it.
Darwin's ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of Lyell's uniformitarianism, and he invented evolution to explain OOS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 1:19 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 2:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 2:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 139 of 968 (589687)
11-03-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
11-03-2010 3:39 PM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
So you believe that a collection of slightly deleterious mutations for which there is negative selection pressure would spread throughout the entire population so that "basically all of the organisms have them"? Really? Just how do you envision this happening?
through genetic drift. It is well documented. You may want to learn about it.
The reality is that populations of non-trivial size have a great deal of variation, and the extent to which individuals possess these slightly deleterious mutations will vary widely. Natural selection will prevent deleterious combinations of mutations from spreading throughout the population, and it simply will not happen that "basically all of the organisms have them."
Yes, agreed. But you are confused. We are not talking about "deleterious combinations of mutations". I am talking about nearly neutral mutations. Mutations that are barely deleterious or barely advantageous. They do become fixed in the population all the time.
There are non-genetic scenarios where this could happen. For example, creatures with little or no fur might have a survival advantage in dry desert climes, but if the climate changed and became very cold then the alleles for little or no fur would suddenly become deleterious, even though "basically all of the organisms have them." But that's a climatic event having nothing to do with mutation and selection.
So climate has no impact on selection? LOL Look, you are focusing on selection. Selection workks well for delterious and advantageous mutations. It does not work well for nearly neutral mutations.
In organisms with large genomes, low fecundity, and long generation times (most large mammals),...
So you believe that large genomes and large creatures go hand in hand? Really? Did you know the record for genome size goes to an amoeba?
This is rather a red herring isn't it? When talking about the cost of selection, there are three factors that determine an organisms ability withstand higher costs of selection. This should be abundantly clear to you in a moment with your polar bear example.
...they cannot afford the cost of selction without severe inbreeding depression.
You believe that selection doesn't operate on large mammals? Really? Did you know that half of all polar bear cubs don't make it to adulthood (this is aside from the additional habitat problems caused by global warming)? Doesn't that sound like selection to you?
What a strawman! I said nothing about selection not operating on any animals. Selection clearly operates on all animals. now look at your beloved polar bear example. A clear example of genetic entropy. You chose a species that is endangered. Close to going extint. So selection takes out half the cubs. What if it took out 90% of the cubs? Can they afford that cost? Of course not. The answer is obvious. So strong selection which would weed out the many nearly neutral deleterious mutations that all the bears carry. So half the bears survive under reduced selection as I said. Those cubs have more mutations than their parents. It is a fact. Most of those mutations are deleterious. And those cubs will pass them on to the next generation.
You believe that populations of large mammals are subjected to reduced selective pressures just because if they weren't they'd go extinct? Really? My, isn't mother nature kind!
Well what do you think protection of endangered species is? It is a reduction of selection. And no that reduction is not caused by mother nature. She is an idiot. That reduction comes from the will and intelligence of man.
You sure believe a lot of weird things. Did you think them all up yourself, or is some website feeding you this nonsense?
Dittos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 3:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 8:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 141 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2010 8:35 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 11:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 11-04-2010 9:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 144 of 968 (589738)
11-04-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Granny Magda
11-03-2010 10:16 AM


Re: Common Descent explained
Hi AOk, welcome back!
Thanks, It's nice to be remebered.
Well, yes and no... You can't act as though all creationists agree on their mutual position here, that's just not the case. Some will accept that there is some common ancestry, others will not accept any form of common ancestry at all.
OK, I accept your argument. I wasn't intending to generalize. So to clarify.....YEC's believe in descent from the original created kinds of animal and plants. Let's not get sidetracked on "kinds" for now. I recognized that it is not defined in a scientific way.
But of course, there is no agreement amongst creationists upon what these "kinds" might have been. The only case where almost all creo's agree is the alleged lack of common ancestry between humans and other primates. In other groupings, there is little agreement, save for a sort of "I know it when I see it" approach.
Well there is "lack of agreement" in all kinds of the sciences. YEC's do agree that the creation account is predominantly historical and that groups of plants and animals were created on certain days of creation.
Common descent is just one small part of NDTOE.
Yes, but one that is so well evidenced that it is rather essential to the whole.
I agree that there is alot of evidence. However, there is more evidence for biogenesis which TOE needs, yet scientists still hope and pray for abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Granny Magda, posted 11-03-2010 10:16 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 8:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 146 by Granny Magda, posted 11-04-2010 8:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 147 of 968 (589746)
11-04-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Blue Jay
11-03-2010 3:28 PM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Good to see you back.
Thanks, I'm a masochist looking for some punishment.
I know you've defined your terms for the discussion and want the clarity from doing so, but you've made such a mess of it that I can’t refrain from commenting on it.
I made no mess, but you have....
I was trying to prevent equivocation which evidently you want to promote.
Modern evolutionary biology contains a large number of different parts and components, that, for some reason I can’t figure out, creationists and IDists are fond of lumping into amalgamated theories that bear the name of Darwin. Usually, as is the case here, y’all get it completely wrong.
Nope. I did no such lumping as you accuse. I separated definitions and did so accurately.
The neo-Darwinian synthesis is the synthesis of Darwin’s descent with modification with Mendel’s genetics that occurred in the 1930’s and 1940’s. It includes Mendelian inheritance, mutations, natural selection, and the fusion of microevolution and macroevolution into the same thing. So, what you labeled ToE above is actually the neo-Darwinian ToE.
Nope. What I labeled TOE was the part that Darwin was wrong about. Darwin had no clue of genes and alleles. The TOE came many years after Darwin.
Now Darwin proposed NS as a mechanism of evolution. That part he got right. But Darwins' main theory and the title of his book was the Origin of the Species (or OOS). The NDTOE is a reconciliation of TOE and OOS. The NDTOE is an extrapolation of TOE into all of life's history. It is really that simple.
The TOE is a falsifiable theory on it's own. The NDTOE is a falsifiable theory on it's own. I believe that TOE is correct. I am not arguing that gene frequencies in populations don't change. They do. It is central to my argument that TOE is correct. However, I also believe that NDTOE is incorrect. Gene frequencies in populations can change and lead the future populations to higher levels of relative fitness, or they can change and lead to lower levels of relative fitness. I believe the evidence is showing the latter. And that is what I am defending.
By defining these terms acurately at the beginning, it prevents equivocation. Now you wouldn't want to equivocate by equating these two terms as you did above now would you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2010 3:28 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 9:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 216 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2010 4:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 150 of 968 (589961)
11-05-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by crashfrog
11-03-2010 4:09 PM


Common Descent rebutted
The evidence are the abundant scientific blunders you make in each post.
Well so far, you haven't pointed out any, but to the contrary, I have pointed out a bunch of yours.
It's evidence of a grouping, but not of a "kind",
LOL. Except that's exactly what a "kind" is ...a grouping.
Blunder # 1 Failure to logically recognize synonymous language.
because the common ancestor of dogs and wolves had itself a common ancestor with the creodonts
Oh? Really? Then you should have no trouble producing fossil evidence of these common ancestors. And population genetic evidence of these common ancestors. So I specifically ask for you to bring it forth.
and that common ancestor had as an ancestor the common ancestor of all the placental mammals, and so on.
Wow! Sounds like there are alot of these common ancestors. Well then I know now, that you are extremely confident that you can produce the fossil and population genetics evidence of these commoners. I will anxiously await your reply!
This is the conclusion of the evidence from population genetics, and it directly contradicts the notion that dogs do not share a common ancestor with other mammals. The evidence is abundant that they do.
Great! I love science. I learn from it all the time. My job is in the "science" world. So, show me. I would say that I am from Missouri, but I'm not. Show me the population genetics evidence that you claim to have delineating these lineages of critters.
Oh? What's that? You mean these common ancestors are theoretical critters? You don't have any fossils of them? And you really only have population genetic info from extant organisms? Well that's a little disappointing isn't it.
Are these common ancestors like angels? You've read about them. Someone who penned the books told you about them. Therefore, you believe they exist, but you really don't have any evidence for them? Especially population genetic information?
Any way, for now, I will assume that you have an abundance of evidence about these commoners. But I am anxiously waiting to see it! But just in case you don't provide any fossil evidence or genetic evidence of these common ancestors, then unfortunately, I will have to let you know that will count as ....
Blunder # 2: Failure to support main premise of argument.
I never said that there was not. What I said, if you'll read more closely, is that with the exception of the species that humans have designed there is no evidence of design in nature.
Oh mercy! I agree! (sarcasm) That's like saying...".Except for the evidence that we can see the sun, feel its heat, measure its EMR etc., etc., etc., there is no evidence that the sun exists!"
Blunder #3: Failure the second time thru to recognize self refutation and contradiction.
Now, even excluding humans there is evidence of design in nature. I challenge you to logically argue that a beaver's dam is not intelligently designed.
Blunder #4: False premise. Failure to recognize design in nature.
Keep in mind there is no genetic evidence from all of those extinct species that leads you to LUCA.
To assert that only extant species are descended from LUCA and, coincidentally, all extinct species are not is not only downright stupid and clearly false...
No one has asserted that "only extant species are descended from LUCA". Only you have made this statement/ argument.
Blunder #5: Failure to recognize a strawman argument, which leads to .....
Blunder #6: Failure to recognize that in a strawman argument, you are arguing with one's self. There are hospitals for that activity.
but if it were true that would be a powerful pattern of evidence against the efficacy of divine design.
How can such a blundering rationality make any meaningful argument about any design? Let alone a divine one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 4:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Granny Magda, posted 11-05-2010 11:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2010 11:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024