(December 25, 2019 at 1:36 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: It means that Phylogeny is a fundamental concept...

An evolutionary tree is known as a phylogeny; phylogenies are understood to be hypotheses. What they are hypothesizing, I agree, are the branching events that result from drift, selection, etc., etc.

(December 24, 2019 at 9:58 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Still waiting on evidence that macro evolution was observed in a lab; or did I miss it

ALL evolution is micro, one critter at a time, or a few in rare instances. If you're waiting to see all elephant suddenly produce identical paisley offspring you're just showing your ignorance of the process.

a...specific...phylogeny...is...a...hypothesis. The category of "phylogeny", is not.

Do you understand?

Lets say we wanted to order cars into makes and models. We would use all sort of information to determine this - but all the while, we would know that every internal combustion engine powered vehicle was a member of that set - with a shared technological heritage. Does that help? We could order our cats or our dogs into family trees...but all the while, we would know that every cat..is a cat...every dog, a dog. We might want to order people into groups of "sons" and "fathers", but all the while, we would know that sons and fathers were both members of the same tree.

Do you accept that paternity tests work, or do you not? Conceptually, it's fine if you don't. You would be wrong, but you will at least, then, have a position on the matter. What's not fine, conceptually, is when you decide to accept a certain set of evidence for a conclusion, and then reject that same evidence, for the same conclusion, in any other situation that it may arise. Then, you do not have a position.

I appreciate that your cretinist religion has taught you to assert otherwise, and that there is more than this, to this - but there is not. Here again, a position would be dandy - you either accept biology - or you do not. It's fine, conceptually, if you don't. You would be wrong - but at least you would have a position. This, ultimately, is why cretinism fails. As witnesses in it's defense conceded when they folloishly drove it to trial, it is not a position on anything at all. It fails basic standards of formulation and scrutiny.

It's up to you whether you want to saddle your personal christian religion with failed cretinist dogma.

(December 24, 2019 at 5:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 4. That one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness.

I read your excerpt from Campbell.

My excerpts claim otherwise.

(December 25, 2019 at 3:10 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: My excerpts claim otherwise.

Keep in mind I extracted those 4 points from your statement:

"For instance you deny Phylogenie saying that it is just a hypotheses and you say it is not testable. You also seem to claim that relatedness is always an assumption without the absence of known ancestry, which you seem to say that one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness."

I wanted to clarify what you were saying. I personally agree that the first 3 points represent my position. The 4th one however, I don't recall having made, at least not in such a manner. I never talk about "proof" in a scientific context for starters.

If you can show me where I made that comment, or something close to it, I'll gladly withdraw that claim. Until then Im treating it as a straw man.

(December 24, 2019 at 4:26 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 4:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Ah so you seem here to admit that evolution exists. But are trying to be able to believe in creationism by using macro evolution/micro evolution false distinction.
There is no micro/macro just evolution, what you call macro evolution is what you'd call micro evolution + time.

Ah. That is a question that the god-botherers avoid.

Exactly how many "micro-evolutionary" changes add up to a "macro-evolutionary" change?

What Richard Lenski proved was that macro evolution is impossible. After how many thousands of fruit fly generations, those flies are ???
Guess what....wait for it........

Still fruit flies. Sorry but you probably should not have mentioned them, (the other poster above)

Yes, all animals that create a lower order will still be whatever they were. We didn't cease to be primates when we became human.

Cladogenesis is a whole different beast, where higher order are created - and we've observed that in the lab and in the field as well.

You're relying on the information of people who have declared what can be shown to happen...impossible. Is this a requirement of your christianity, perhaps? That a christian must utterly reject observable phenomena?

(December 25, 2019 at 2:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: a...specific...phylogeny...is...a...hypothesis.  The category of "phylogeny", is not.

Do you understand?

The "category" of phylogeny or evolutionary tress, if such a phrase exists, would be just that—a lexical category under which specific hypothesis are grouped. I would agree it is not a hypothesis in much the same way that the category for fruits, is not itself a fruit, but a category.

(December 25, 2019 at 6:24 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Yes, all animals that create a lower order will still be whatever they were.  We didn't cease to be primates when we became human.

Cladogenesis is a whole different beast, where higher order are created - and we've observed that in the lab and in the field as well.

You're relying on the information of people who have declared what can be shown to happen...impossible.  Is this a requirement of your christianity, perhaps?  That a christian must utterly reject observable phenomena?

Guy thinks Richard Lenski was trying to make fruit flies not fruit flies missing the point of the fruit fly  experiment 

Even funnier when one considers Richard Lenski fully accepts the mainstream view of evolution. And is a critic of ID and Creationism.

---

Quote:The category of phylogeny or evolutionary tress, if such a phrase exists, would be just that—a lexical category under which specific hypothesis are grouped. I agree it is not a hypothesis in much the same way that the category for fruits, is not itself a fruit, its just a category.

Nope not even close

No matter how the data is explained, presented, or varified, the puny 3-watt bulb that is the religitard's mind will distort, misinterpret, and pervert the information to fit into the safety of their exaggerated delusion.