(March 31, 2014 at 7:00 pm)alpha male Wrote: Speaking of cheerleaders...

I stand by my assessment. Another non response from you with no content.

(March 31, 2014 at 6:46 pm)alpha male Wrote: These kinds of findings are common. When someone says something like "fossils and genetics all lead to the same thing," it's a giveaway that they get their info from youtube, and are basically just evolution cheerleaders.

Not like you, eh? Not like you, when you found two people who support- tacitly- the opinion you already had before looking for them. Because those two people, the fact that they have differing opinions invalidates all the evidence and somehow means that the vast scientific consensus in favor of evolution and common ancestry somehow evaporates, right?

Too bad, ninety-seven percent of scientists! Two people disagree with you!

This cherry picking of data is a little sad, don't you think? You'll pull out a couple of sources that support you, while ignoring the context surrounding them. But sorry dude, science isn't just done based on one or two opinions.

The 'article' cited by john, specifically the the Kevin Peterson one, actually isn't an article. It's a non-academic review article that hasn't actually been followed up with a publication (in nature anyway) that I can find, although I only had a brief search through nature's archives.

Funny, too, that Peterson's non article quoted by John seems to be the number 1 article cited by creationism websites as to why evolution is false, despite the fact that Peterson himself actually goes someway to reinforcing it through his other journal articles as can be found through a quick search in scholar. These sites also treat it as a peer reviewed citation, even though it isn't, and as a nature journal article, even though it isn't (it's not even published by Peterson, it's just a journalist piece). I'd love to read his findings, but as of today, there's no findings to read.

Although I understand john agrees somewhat with evolution, not just how it is currently believed to occur.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:36 am)Esquilax Wrote: Not like you, eh? Not like you, when you found two people who support- tacitly- the opinion you already had before looking for them. Because those two people, the fact that they have differing opinions invalidates all the evidence and somehow means that the vast scientific consensus in favor of evolution and common ancestry somehow evaporates, right?

No, those examples invalidate the specific claim made by my opponents.

Quote:This cherry picking of data is a little sad, don't you think? You'll pull out a couple of sources that support you, while ignoring the context surrounding them. But sorry dude, science isn't just done based on one or two opinions.

Fine, give some evidence that supports the position that morphology and genetics give the same results. I asked for it some time ago, and all I got was a drawing from wiki.

---

(April 1, 2014 at 3:32 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: The 'article' cited by john, specifically the the Kevin Peterson one, actually isn't an article. It's a non-academic review article that hasn't actually been followed up with a publication (in nature anyway) that I can find, although I only had a brief search through nature's archives.

What do you think of the support that my opponents have provided?

(April 1, 2014 at 7:18 am)alpha male Wrote: Fine, give some evidence that supports the position that morphology and genetics give the same results. I asked for it some time ago, and all I got was a drawing from wiki.

The same results? No, of course not. But convergent results that point toward a similar conclusion? Yes. I could see you trying to twist the conversation into a black and white statement of absolutes with your "always the same," phrasing, safe in the knowledge that nobody would be able to produce absolutely identical results, and therefore you can cram you god into that uncertainty, but I'm not going to play that game. Instead, I'm going to argue the real position:

Morphology and genetic research provides evidence that points to a certain conclusion, and adding in an extra layer of complexity with "kinds" or what have you, that has no evidence at all, is not really worth discussing.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...ders.shtml

Quote:Biologists take for granted that the limbs and branches of the tree of life - painstakingly constructed since Linnaeus started classifying organisms 270 years ago - are basically correct. New genetic studies, the thinking goes, will only prune the twigs, perhaps shuffling around a few species here and there.

Hence the surprise when a new University of California, Berkeley, study of the largest family of salamanders produced a genetic family tree totally inconsistent with the accepted classification, which is based primarily on physical features...

(March 29, 2014 at 10:26 pm)professor Wrote: To the OP's question, there was sufficient genetic variation left in Noah's sons (from Adam and Eve) and their wives to account for what we call "Races" today.
I might note that after all this time - there is much less variation possible now- unless the races mix back again.

Geez, I can't believe everyone else let you get away with this one!

I've come across this argument before, that pretends that "genetic variation" is something that one can accumulate and spend like a currency, but that's not the case. Do you know how many people it'd take today to maintain a stable population? Here's a hint: it's more than ten.

Just handwaving all this as "from Adam and Eve," doesn't actually account for the practical effects of that, not that I think you actually know anything about what you're talking about. It's pretty obvious that "genetic variation" is just a magic word you're invoking to be vague and avoid the fact that such a thing just isn't possible.

(April 1, 2014 at 7:52 am)alpha male Wrote: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...ders.shtml

Quote:Biologists take for granted that the limbs and branches of the tree of life - painstakingly constructed since Linnaeus started classifying organisms 270 years ago - are basically correct. New genetic studies, the thinking goes, will only prune the twigs, perhaps shuffling around a few species here and there.

Hence the surprise when a new University of California, Berkeley, study of the largest family of salamanders produced a genetic family tree totally inconsistent with the accepted classification, which is based primarily on physical features...

So what?

For one, this is a decade old discovery, so it's surprising that it's taking so long for your pet "kinds" theory to popularize in mainstream science!

More importantly, you found a refinement of a tree based on genetic evidence that superceded the morphological observations; yes, that seems about right. Like I said, they don't produce precisely the same results, and the advent of genetic typing will refine our views of the tree of life, as it should do, but at best all you've presented here is an example of convergent evolution that adds to our understanding.

Sorry, but "uncertain," is not the same as "incorrect," and showing an example of science learning something new is not evidence for the claim you put forward. Poking holes in current science doesn't make your pet theory (colloquial definition) any more true.

(April 1, 2014 at 8:08 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 7:52 am)alpha male Wrote: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...ders.shtml

So what?

So, my opponent thinks that morphological and genetic analyses lead to the same evolutionary relationships, and this is further evidence that he's wrong.

Quote:More importantly, you found a refinement of a tree based on genetic evidence that superceded the morphological observations; yes, that seems about right. Like I said, they don't produce precisely the same results, and the advent of genetic typing will refine our views of the tree of life, as it should do, but at best all you've presented here is an example of convergent evolution that adds to our understanding.

No, I did not find refinement, or results that aren't precisely the same. I found results which are totally inconsistent with the accepted classification. You think it seems about right, but the researcher said the results were stunningly different than what we anticipated.

I'm presenting evidence, and you're denying it. Ironically that's what I'm being accused of.

Quote:Sorry, but "uncertain," is not the same as "incorrect," and showing an example of science learning something new is not evidence for the claim you put forward.

Yes, this certainly is evidence supporting my claim that morphologic and genetic analyses indicate different evolutionary relationships, so different that they're called "totally inconsistent" and "stunningly different."

(April 1, 2014 at 8:58 am)alpha male Wrote: So, my opponent thinks that morphological and genetic analyses lead to the same evolutionary relationships, and this is further evidence that he's wrong.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what you accused your opponent of thinking, and he just didn't pick you up on your wording. Of course, he can speak for himself and, given that I disagree with the point you're attempting to disprove too, I don't see much point in bringing that up to me.

Quote:No, I did not find refinement, or results that aren't precisely the same. I found results which are totally inconsistent with the accepted classification. You think it seems about right, but the researcher said the results were stunningly different than what we anticipated.

As I said, genetic discoveries can and should supersede the earlier morphological ones where applicable; that's just a process of learning new things using all of our methods for doing so, rather than one at a time. Morphology is a good start, but as we've known for quite a while, the evolutionary lineages of various species aren't as clear as just what looks like what.

Quote:I'm presenting evidence, and you're denying it. Ironically that's what I'm being accused of.

Oh, not at all: I accept that the evidence is there, I just disagree the extent to which it reflects upon the rest of evolutionary biology. What you linked to is called learning, not some kind of invalidation of the fact that morphology and genetics show evidence consistent with current evolutionary theory.

Quote:Yes, this certainly is evidence supporting my claim that morphologic and genetic analyses indicate different evolutionary relationships, so different that they're called "totally inconsistent" and "stunningly different."

I know that cherry picking comes easily to you, but I did actually read the entire link, and not just the few words you want me to focus on. You're not going to convince anyone that morphology and genetics show completely different things just because some species of salamanders had to be redistributed along the branches of their corner of taxonomy.