Question for the theist

[xr34p3rx]

i never asked for an alternative nor a possibility, my post was:

however you said:

Things that are designed and have similar appearance and functions will have similar blueprints.

No, I responded to that post by saying:

Yes. Most creationist models include some evolution.

It's in this post. Why are you misrepresenting the conversation?

later on you said that. when you said designed, what were you referring to then?

you claimed that design took place, you havent mentioned anything regarding your claim after countless times i have asked you to do so. Along with not providing any argument other than wanting our evidence and you just sit back and deny all of it without making a constructive argument. And as i told you before, it seems like you dont have any argument, you are just another smug believer who thinks you have it right and your opinion is more important and more reliable than real evidence on the subject. You deny because our evidence doesnt match with what you think is evidence? When... WHEN did you ever explained what you find as evidence? you never defined what you believe is evidence. Youre just like ray comfort.

Show me design. until you do so, i wont bother replying...

In this post I specifically said that I don't accept creationism:

I don't think origins is a study that lends itself well to scientific study, i.e. I don't buy either side. They take the same observable facts and try to hammer them into their existing framework. Sometimes it's a good fit, sometimes not so much.

now you are contradicting youself, you first said that you agree with things that scientists say and what creationists say, which one is it? you were cherry picking.

You're trying to force this into a discussion on creationism because you've failed miserably at supporting your evolution claims, but I've said straight out that I don't consider creationism to be provable.

---

Let me use another post just to make this clear: I do not consider ID or any other flavor of creationism to be provable. If I mention design it's as an opinion, not a scientifically provable fact. Got it?

i gave you evidence, i gave you all that, and i say yet again, you have not done any of that, you dont accept real evidence because of your ignorance. its unbelievable! and yet again, you dont provide anything, shifting the argument like i have not shown anything, you dont agree with it, because you are ignorant

[John V]

i gave you evidence, i gave you all that, and i say yet again, you have not done any of that, you dont accept real evidence because of your ignorance. its unbelievable! and yet again, you dont provide anything, shifting the argument like i have not shown anything, you dont agree with it, because you are ignorant

What real evidence have you given?

---

http://www.anoleannals.org/2012/12/14/mo...phylogeny/

Morphology And Molecules Give Fundamentally Conflicting Results For Lizard Phylogeny

This is a little far afield for anole aficionados, but recent years have seen a revolution in our picture of lizard (including snake) phylogeny. Traditionally, based on morphological analysis, lizards were thought to split into two groups, the iguanians (including anoles, other iguanids, agamids, and chameleons) and scleroglossans (everything else, including snakes). However, starting with a paper by Townsend et al. in 2004, a different picture emerged in which iguanians were nested high in lizard phylogeny, closely related to anguimorphs (such as alligator lizards, gila monsters, and monitors) and snakes. A series of subsequent studies came to essentially the same conclusion, most recently the output of the “Deep Scaly” NSF Tree of Life project which sequenced DNA from 44 genes.

I think that most of the field had come to accept that the molecular tree was correct. But along comes a paper by the morphology team of Deep Scaly, a remarkable analysis in which 194 species were all micro-CT scanned and examined in others ways, leading to a data set of more than 600 morphological characters, 247 never previously used in phylogenetic studies. Analyzed with state-of-the-art methods, the results resoundingly support the original morphological tree and give absolutely no morphological support for the new molecular tree. The authors do an excellent job in not being strident in insisting that the morphological tree is correct, but just highlighting how very unusual morphological evolution must have been if the molecular tree is correct. Moreover, the authors note that based on analyses including the molecular data, the “Archaeopteryx” of squamates, Huehuecuetzpalli mixtecus, is placed high in the phylogeny, rather than in the basal position where morphology has long placed it. If, indeed, the molecules are right, what does that say about our ability to ever reliably place fossil species in a phylogeny?

xr34p3rx, if you click on the link the article has a picture that will help you understand the problem.

[xr34p3rx]

i gave you evidence, i gave you all that, and i say yet again, you have not done any of that, you dont accept real evidence because of your ignorance. its unbelievable! and yet again, you dont provide anything, shifting the argument like i have not shown anything, you dont agree with it, because you are ignorant

What real evidence have you given?

---

http://www.anoleannals.org/2012/12/14/mo...phylogeny/

Morphology And Molecules Give Fundamentally Conflicting Results For Lizard Phylogeny

This is a little far afield for anole aficionados, but recent years have seen a revolution in our picture of lizard (including snake) phylogeny. Traditionally, based on morphological analysis, lizards were thought to split into two groups, the iguanians (including anoles, other iguanids, agamids, and chameleons) and scleroglossans (everything else, including snakes). However, starting with a paper by Townsend et al. in 2004, a different picture emerged in which iguanians were nested high in lizard phylogeny, closely related to anguimorphs (such as alligator lizards, gila monsters, and monitors) and snakes. A series of subsequent studies came to essentially the same conclusion, most recently the output of the “Deep Scaly” NSF Tree of Life project which sequenced DNA from 44 genes.

I think that most of the field had come to accept that the molecular tree was correct. But along comes a paper by the morphology team of Deep Scaly, a remarkable analysis in which 194 species were all micro-CT scanned and examined in others ways, leading to a data set of more than 600 morphological characters, 247 never previously used in phylogenetic studies. Analyzed with state-of-the-art methods, the results resoundingly support the original morphological tree and give absolutely no morphological support for the new molecular tree. The authors do an excellent job in not being strident in insisting that the morphological tree is correct, but just highlighting how very unusual morphological evolution must have been if the molecular tree is correct. Moreover, the authors note that based on analyses including the molecular data, the “Archaeopteryx” of squamates, Huehuecuetzpalli mixtecus, is placed high in the phylogeny, rather than in the basal position where morphology has long placed it. If, indeed, the molecules are right, what does that say about our ability to ever reliably place fossil species in a phylogeny?

xr34p3rx, if you click on the link the article has a picture that will help you understand the problem.

seriously john, you really need to point out what you havent. Answer the following questions one by one okay? if you keep denying evidence but dont define what evidence is to you, then we cant understand each other and its just a big cat fight.

1) What is evidence to you? Define evidence.
2) Do you accept or deny evolution and or creationism as a whole, or cherry pick what you like about the theory and the belief (creationism, since it isnt a theory).
3) Do you believe in intelligent design? Hence you made it seem like you did in a previous post and since you said you accept certain things from both sides.
4) What do you accept about evolution?
5) What do you accept about creationism?
6) How do you interpret evolution and evidence based on what you agree about it?
7) How do you interpret creationism since you also cherry pick it?

until you answer these straight forward, there is going to be mass confusion between us as it already seems, dont you agree?

and to reply to your previous post, i in fact did provide evidence (Here), but we will get back to that later after you answer my questions. And i also never said anything about morphing, i have no idea where you got that from.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Prepare for argument from Crocoduck in 5,4,3,2...

[xr34p3rx]

Prepare for argument from Crocoduck in 5,4,3,2...

[Rampant.A.I.]

Many creationsts believe in mega fast evolution that allowed the variety of life we see now from those animal "kinds" that were on the Ark.

And yet none of them have a set definition for what "kinds" means in this context, allowing plenty of flexibility to interpret it however it suits them.

The same with "mega fast evolution" which is just a special pleading argument allowing for Ark ridiculousness.

Just to clarify, cherry-picking undeniable parts of scientific theories, throwing them in a blender with scripture and dumping it in a jar labeled "Intelligent Design" does not make a competing scientific theory.

ID is Cargo Cult science. It's supported by people who don't understand the theories they reject or science on the whole, so they dress up in lab coats, pretend to be scientists and researchers, and conduct "studies" that consist of little more than looking for loopholes in scripture, and presenting their results to believers who swallow it down whole.

But it's no more a competing scientific theory than a cargo cultist can summon a "magical sky beast" by wearing a coconut helmet and waving sticks like they saw an air traffic controller do. All they're doing is imitating what little they do understand, based on completely false premises and a lack of overall awareness.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

[xr34p3rx]

Many creationsts believe in mega fast evolution that allowed the variety of life we see now from those animal "kinds" that were on the Ark.

And yet none of them have a set definition for what "kinds" means in this context, allowing plenty of flexibility to interpret it however it suits them.

The same with "mega fast evolution" which is just a special pleading argument allowing for Ark ridiculousness.

my reaction to those claims

[John V]

seriously john, you really need to point out what you havent. Answer the following questions one by one okay? if you keep denying evidence but dont define what evidence is to you, then we cant understand each other and its just a big cat fight.

I shouldn't need to define evidence for you to understand that the drawing you posted ain't it.

1) What is evidence to you? Define evidence.

Fulfilled, objectively measureable, risky, falsifiable predictions.

2) Do you accept or deny evolution and or creationism as a whole, or cherry pick what you like about the theory and the belief (creationism, since it isnt a theory).

I've already stated that I don't think either is provable.

3) Do you believe in intelligent design? Hence you made it seem like you did in a previous post and since you said you accept certain things from both sides.

Specify what you mean by "believe in." How is this question different from #3?

4) What do you accept about evolution?
5) What do you accept about creationism?
6) How do you interpret evolution and evidence based on what you agree about it?
7) How do you interpret creationism since you also cherry pick it?

Please, it would take hours or days to answer these.

until you answer these straight forward, there is going to be mass confusion between us as it already seems, dont you agree?

Not really. It doesn't seem very confusing to me. You made a claim which was demonstrably false and you want to switch the topic to my beliefs because you can't support your own. Not confusing at all - actually pretty standard.

and to reply to your previous post, i in fact did provide evidence (Here), but we will get back to that later after you answer my questions.

And i also never said anything about morphing, i have no idea where you got that from.

Not morphing, morphology - I got it from the stuff I read about evolution. It's a common term in evolution and in simple terms refers to body structure. When you speak of trees based on fossils, you're speaking of morphology, or phenotype.

[xr34p3rx]

seriously john, you really need to point out what you havent. Answer the following questions one by one okay? if you keep denying evidence but dont define what evidence is to you, then we cant understand each other and its just a big cat fight.

I shouldn't need to define evidence for you to understand that the drawing you posted ain't it.

yes you do, in order for me to know what god you believe in, you must define him/her/it.

1) What is evidence to you? Define evidence.

Fulfilled risky falsifiable predictions.

predictions? does science not predict things? need to look that up buddy

2) Do you accept or deny evolution and or creationism as a whole, or cherry pick what you like about the theory and the belief (creationism, since it isnt a theory).

I've already stated that I don't think either is provable.

despite the evidence that science has given, just proves your ignorance...

3) Do you believe in intelligent design? Hence you made it seem like you did in a previous post and since you said you accept certain things from both sides.

Specify what you mean by "believe in." How is this question different from #3?

its not semantics dude, believe = accept something as true.

4) What do you accept about evolution?
5) What do you accept about creationism?
6) How do you interpret evolution and evidence based on what you agree about it?
7) How do you interpret creationism since you also cherry pick it?

Please, it would take hours or days to answer these.

then give me a brief overview, that would help

until you answer these straight forward, there is going to be mass confusion between us as it already seems, dont you agree?

Not really. It doesn't seem very confusing to me. You made a claim which was demonstrably false and you want to switch the topic to my beliefs because you can't support your own. Not confusing at all - actually pretty standard.

demonstrably false? ok then... prove it wrong yourself. science already proved it probable, you are ignorant, prove it wrong then.... go on... do it

And i also never said anything about morphing, i have no idea where you got that from.

Not morphing, morphology - I got it from the stuff I read about evolution. It's a common term in evolution and in simple terms refers to body structure. When you speak of trees based on fossils, you're speaking of morphology, or phenotype.

i emphasized that, fossils are on the animal side, and genetics are on both sides of the evidence, and someone else also rephrased it better to, both sides lead to the same conclusion.

[Chas]

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.

You have a bizarre misunderstanding of genetics. Go read a science book and quit embarrassing yourself.

---

How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?

saying god made it that way doesnt count, that is an assertion and you have to back it up anyway.

Ideas like 'race' and 'species' are a mirage. Any decent Darwinist knows that all species are afloat on a genetic tide. Subtle and imperceptible, the impermanence of the genetic drift is the machinery of evolution.

The notion of species is a convenience, an anchor that approximates the real world into our rigid conceptual constructs.

When you can determine the exact nature of 'species' you can have your cake and eat it.

Same argument for the god-botherers too.

MM

For sexually reproducing organisms, 'species' has a clear definition.

That definition only works when comparing populations that exist at the same time.

---

such as?

Such as that we share a common ancestor with apes.

Then you do not understand the evidence.

---

---

Case in point john. I've gone back through this thread and read every single post you've made. Not once, when challenged about why you disagree with the inferences drawn from things like (for example) fossil records or common ancestors do you give an answer.

This is an argument from ignorance. My opponents don't get to make bare assertions and claim that they stand unless I refute them. I've politely asked for them to support certain claims, and they haven't been able to. I know that they can't, for example, support the claim that fossils and genetics all point to the same tree. I can support my position, but I shouldn't have to - they're making the claim, they should support it.

Since I've now made a claim, here's some support:
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rew...on-1.10885

Kevin Peterson grabs a pen and starts to scribble an evolutionary tree on the paper tablecloth of a bar in Hanover, New Hampshire. Drawing upside down to make it easier for me to see, he maps out the standard phylogenetic tale for placental mammals. First, Peterson scratches a line leading to elephants, which branched away from the rest of the placentals around 90 million years ago. Then came dogs, followed by primates (including humans) and finally rodents — all within a frenetic 20 million years. This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong.

A molecular palaeobiologist at nearby Dartmouth College, Peterson has been reshaping phylogenetic trees for the past few years, ever since he pioneered a technique that uses short molecules called microRNAs to work out evolutionary branchings. He has now sketched out a radically different diagram for mammals: one that aligns humans more closely with elephants than with rodents.

“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...141117.htm

"With this study, we learned two major things," said Sushma Reddy, another lead author and Bucksbaum Postdoctoral Fellow at The Field Museum. "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."

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.

---

How does that support your argument? Also, that is not a scientific paper.

The details of the order of speciation in no way denies speciation. And the microRNA thesis is not yet widely accepted.