Login

**coldwx** · July 17, 2014 at 3:21 pm

Alright, I think I have pretty well explained the "without exception" part of the argument and provided why every "exception" has a viable evolutionary explanation but it seems I am being ignored. If you are just looking for the occasional oddity without digging further into the reasons behind it, I have to stop here. This seems pointless.

**Esquilax** · (This post was last modified: July 18, 2014 at 4:18 am by Esquilax.)

(July 17, 2014 at 3:06 pm)alpha male Wrote: Er, consensus tree of life had the nervous system evolving once, after sponges. New DNA study suggests nervous system developed twice, or developed prior to sponges and sponges subsequently lost nerves and muscles. Either way, existing tree of life not confirmed.

Serious question: what is it you think you're proving, here? Because I don't think that anybody is claiming that we're in possession of all of the facts at all times. Nobody is claiming omniscience here; these revisions you're talking about is just learning, simple as that. Do you have a problem with learning?

More importantly, what is it that you want to happen? Would you prefer that we find new evidence in our studies and then don't update the references to reflect that? Wouldn't you then be telling us all about the incorrect models that biology still supports?

At any given time, a scientific theory represents the best current facts at our disposal. That's not a limitation, it's a simple consequence of being temporal beings who want to be accurate: we can't have it reflect facts we don't yet know, and it'd be foolish to reflect past facts that have been superseded. You can't just spin this as though the current tree of life is unconfirmed, because that isn't true: it's confirmed according to all the currently available evidence. This "if you don't know for certain, you don't know at all," nonsense is the "99 percent equals 0 percent" fallacy, and it's the domain of the presuppositionalist knuckleheads too. Let's not go there.

ETA: And yes, John, I agree with you that "without exception" may be overstating the case, but I just took it as simple hyperbole and moved on in the knowledge that by and large, the tree of life is confirmed. It seems to me a silly thing to get caught up on.

~~John V~~ · July 18, 2014 at 8:07 am

(July 18, 2014 at 4:16 am)Esquilax Wrote: Serious question: what is it you think you're proving, here?

That "DNA Sequencing has confirmed the tree of life without exception" is a false statement.

ignoramus · July 18, 2014 at 8:16 am

(July 18, 2014 at 8:07 am)alpha male Wrote:
(July 18, 2014 at 4:16 am)Esquilax Wrote: Serious question: what is it you think you're proving, here?
That "DNA Sequencing has confirmed the tree of life without exception" is a false statement.

we also need to understand that the genes dictate where the species fits, not where we think by looking at features.
Give me one example where it's way out!

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: July 18, 2014 at 9:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)

(July 18, 2014 at 8:07 am)alpha male Wrote: That "DNA Sequencing has confirmed the tree of life without exception" is a false statement.

No, it isn't: unless you need it to be, which you do - desperately.

ignoramus · July 18, 2014 at 9:20 am

(July 18, 2014 at 9:15 am)Rhythm Wrote:
(July 18, 2014 at 8:07 am)alpha male Wrote: That "DNA Sequencing has confirmed the tree of life without exception" is a false statement.
No, it isn't: unless you need it to be, which you do - desperately.

I couldn't care less!
please correct me! (I need to know, really!)
cheers.

~~John V~~ · (This post was last modified: July 18, 2014 at 10:15 am by John V.)

(July 18, 2014 at 8:16 am)ignoramus Wrote: we also need to understand that the genes dictate where the species fits, not where we think by looking at features.
Give me one example where it's way out!

I was wondering when someone was going to make this blatantly circular argument.

(July 18, 2014 at 9:20 am)ignoramus Wrote: I couldn't care less!
please correct me! (I need to know, really!)
cheers.

I have. I've shown some exceptions. It's pretty easy to do.

**Mystical** · (This post was last modified: July 19, 2014 at 4:10 am by Mystical.)

ANYways.. More cool shit.

Wolffish
(Anarhichas lupus)
Antifreeze Production - Type III Antifreeze

Seals'ancient ancestor found!

[Image: 090422-seal-evolution-missing-link_big.jpg]

A newfound, flipperless prehistoric seal (at top in an artist's conception) is the first concrete link between the land ancestors of pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses) and modern ocean-going, flippered pinnipeds, such as the California sea lion (bottom), an April 2009 study says.
Many marine mammals, such as whales and manatees, are believed to have roots on land—an idea that originated with Charles Darwin 150 years ago.

But hard evidence for land-to-water evolution in seals and other pinnipeds was lacking until the new discovery—aptly named Puijila darwini ("Darwin's young marine mammal" in an amalgamation of an Inuit language and Latin).

"We know that some sort of land-dwelling ancestor existed, but how did we get to the fully marine form?" asked Rybczynski, a vertebrate paleontologist with the Canadian Museum of Nature.

More..

New genetic research says that without a doubt: Whales, cattle, deer, hippos, dolphins all related.

[Image: _40756543_whale_bbc_203.jpg]

Whale and hippo 'close cousins'

[Image: _40756421_hip_ap_203ap.jpg]

A water-loving mammal that lived 50 to 60 million years ago was probably the "missing link" between whales and hippos, according to a new analysis.

Biologists have argued over the relationship between hippos and whales for a period of almost 200 years.

The findings come from an analysis of features in different animal groups carried [out by a US-French team.

Their report is published in the science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

alexwenzel · July 22, 2014 at 10:01 pm

(July 16, 2014 at 2:00 am)Esquilax Wrote:
(July 15, 2014 at 10:59 pm)alexwenzel Wrote: I have seen and read it all. I use to be an atheist. Surprised?

Right, so if you know all this then you should have no problem going back to page five, reading my posts there where I respond to you and post sources that show that all of your claims are demonstrably wrong to such a degree that you've mislabelled basic concepts and said things don't exist when we have evidence that they do, and admit that you were wrong.

Or was the reason you stopped being an atheist that you decided honesty wasn't for you?

I refuse. I could be putting other posts and links and then you will put another one and will go on forever. Proof of a intelligent designer is out there, just have to look for and use your common sense. Its called evolution theory for a reason. Its only a theory and what they claim to be proof are full of holes and lies.

**The Valkyrie** · July 22, 2014 at 10:06 pm

(July 22, 2014 at 10:01 pm)alexwenzel Wrote:
(July 16, 2014 at 2:00 am)Esquilax Wrote: Right, so if you know all this then you should have no problem going back to page five, reading my posts there where I respond to you and post sources that show that all of your claims are demonstrably wrong to such a degree that you've mislabelled basic concepts and said things don't exist when we have evidence that they do, and admit that you were wrong.

Or was the reason you stopped being an atheist that you decided honesty wasn't for you?

I refuse. I could be putting other posts and links and then you will put another one and will go on forever. Proof of a intelligent designer is out there, just have to look for and use your common sense. Its called evolution theory for a reason. Its only a theory and what they claim to be proof are full of holes and lies.

The "it's just a theory" argument from ignorance.

Once again a creationist either doesn't know what theory means in a scientific setting, or just refuses to acknowledge the difference between a scientific theory and use of the word in common usage. Or, just as likely as I've encountered with many creationists, just too dishonest to accept it.

And refuses to put forth the requested evidence and just responds with more claims.

*Yawn*.

Can we move on now?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?	I believe in Harry Potter	27	3701	November 15, 2019 at 12:35 pm Last Post: Alex K
	More Facts For Creatards to Choke On	Minimalist	11	4320	January 17, 2015 at 8:37 pm Last Post: vorlon13
	Facts about Darwin: psychological and mental illnesses	king krish	48	8353	January 13, 2015 at 6:41 pm Last Post: Cyberman
	Global warming, facts pls	Natachan	31	5328	August 13, 2014 at 1:06 am Last Post: KichigaiNeko
	Science Facts Thread	Rayaan	2	1301	July 15, 2013 at 9:27 pm Last Post: Tea Earl Grey Hot
	I need facts for evolution.	manno	26	6546	October 4, 2012 at 10:17 pm Last Post: Whateverist
	CREATARDS BEWARE - THIS THREAD CONTAINS FACTS	Minimalist	3	3702	July 16, 2012 at 11:13 pm Last Post: Angrboda