Evolutionary Tree

[RobertE]

The fact that the phylogenetic tree is not as predicted and has problems matching the data to the theory means there is still much to learn and still much to prove to get 'common ancestry' to the point where we know how it works. If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact? If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory, then the big picture of evolution (defined as end-to-end explanation of the diversity of life, common ancestry, decent with modifications) is also not a fact, but only a theory. Is that a fair assessment?

If you want a link:

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

That is what I ask theists all the time. If I ask how the world came into being, they come back with a relatively simple, "God created it." Ask them for facts, and they will seldom bring anything to the table apart from the usual lines spouted by everyone else who is linked with any religion in this world. So, if "God created the earth", and you cannot bring facts to the table, this in itself is a "theory", and in this "theory", the definition is "hunch", a "notion", a "prescience", or why not "funny feeling", instead. You'll be surprised to find the antonyms of this:

"Knowledge", "Trust", "Reason", "Proof", "Truth", etc etc.

So, you have a "funny feeling", that God created the earth and all beings too. You are not certain of this. 

I have a link just for you and perhaps other theists (I don't know if you are a theist or not so, apologies in advance if you are not)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you really objecting yourself out of and away from a conclusion that was almost miraculously accurate, for a change....regarding evolution?  

Jesus fucking christ man...I don't know what to say.......

If you think that something which calls into question common ancestry (no point in quibbling, even if I could) calls into question -evolution-...then you've just lost your shit is all.  Common descent, and evolution...are not the same thing.  We can imagine, if we like, that all forms of life had separate origins.  They have still and demonstrably -do- evolve, regardless.

Are you suggesting that Common Ancestry theory is not a component (from the beginning with Darwin) of the overall Theory of Evolution? And hypothetically if Common Ancestry is found to be incorrect, it would not call into question the larger theory? You seem to be intentionally mixing definitions of evolution to preserve 'fact' status.

-I'm- intentionally mixing definitions?  Dude, just stop this, put down your fucking bible, stop trawling your creatard websites...... and pick up a textbook.  

There is the observation of evolution..a fact.  Then, there is the Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis)...which as others have tried to beat into the brick wall you call your skull...is a vast and well attested constellation of facts leveraged as an explanation for the initial observation, the singular fact of evolution - that organisms have and continue to change over the course of time.  There's no need for me to argue anything to preserve that "fact status".  Neither you nor I deny that life has and continues to change...do we?  So you, too, even if you weren't aware of it, accept the fact of evolution...regardless of whether or not you accept the Theory of Evolution.

Neither the fact nor the theory -require- that you and I and a chimp share a common ancestry....that;s just an observation borne out by genetic evidence, yet more facts...which are explicable in the context -of- the theory. Some people do and have proposed separate origins for different types of life....which have since evolved.

[RobertE]

Are you suggesting that Common Ancestry theory is not a component (from the beginning with Darwin) of the overall Theory of Evolution? And hypothetically if Common Ancestry is found to be incorrect, it would not call into question the larger theory? You seem to be intentionally mixing definitions of evolution to preserve 'fact' status.

-I'm- intentionally mixing definitions?  Dude, just stop this, put down your fucking bible, stop trawling your creatard websites...... and pick up a textbook.  

There is the observation of evolution..a fact.  Then, there is the Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis)...which as others have tried to beat into the brick wall you call your skull...is a vast and well attested constellation of facts leveraged as an explanation for the initial observation, the singular fact of evolution - that organisms have and continue to change over the course of time.  There's no need for me to argue anything to preserve that "fact status".   Neither you nor I deny that life has and continues to change...do we?  So you, too, even if you weren't aware of it, accept the fact of evolution...regardless of whether or not you accept the Theory of Evolution.

Neither the fact nor the theory -require- that you and I and a chimp share a common ancestry....that;s just an observation borne out by genetic evidence, yet more facts...which are explicable in the context -of- the theory.  Some people do and have proposed separate origins for different types of life....which have since evolved.

You only have to show him three animals; the elephant, the dugong and the manatee to show how animals evolved. Shout out to Steve II, why are elephants the only land mammal not to have what scientists call a pleural cavity. Don't forget that your God created this species the same i.e. all birds are alike, all beasts and all other land mammals are alike, so how come elephants are different? 

Note to Ryth, sorry for hijacking your post. My apologies.

[Esquilax]

Except that evolutionary theory has not predicted things dead on the money (the fossil record and the tree of life are examples that come to mind).

I didn't say it predicted everything correctly, but here we come back to your own ridiculous double standard and lack of understanding of science: probabilities are what science deals in, not certainties, and you'd be falling back into the "99%= 0%" fallacy if you kept to this specific argument. Science learns and improves itself over time- what corrected the tree of life and so on, for example, was more evolutionary science, not religion- and I'd like to point out two things: the first is that the reason you know about those things that evolutionary theory got wrong at all is because that same field advanced and corrected itself. Being wrong was a stepping stone on the way to being more correct, and yet for some strange reason you're happy to focus in on the incorrect prediction, while somehow ignoring the correction that follows.

The second thing is that the predictions and knowledge that evolution makes and provides have stood up to over a century of inquiry and investigation, including by means of technologies that literally did not exist at the time that the theory was invented. Over that time period, the basis of the theory has remained a cornerstone principle of all biological sciences, and has been confirmed by the data pulled from every single new technology we've invented, every one of which had the potential to challenge it.

Think about why that might be. And no, "they're just biased!" is not an acceptable answer.

Additionally, as we understand more about the cell factory and complex biological systems, it begins to strain the idea of the mechanism of evolutionary change. The larger Theory of Evolution is a network of other theories and facts that all must tell the same story. They don't as of yet. 

So you're relying on a hypocritical position on evolutionary predictions, and an argument from ignorance here (straining your credulity is not an argument). Nothing I particularly need to respond to further.

You are making a category mistake (and introducing a different subject). We are talking about a scientific theory on one hand that can very much be examined in great detail with repeated testing and observations. On the other hand when talking about religion, we are discussing supernatural entities, limited interaction in the natural world (one time events), metaphysical concepts, and questions of the mind--none of which are subject to any scientific method. It is therefore entirely appropriate to consider the two categories differently--as long as you keep the distinction in mind. 

And if you want to define the supernatural as something that resists scientific inquiry, then not only is any complaint about biases against the supernatural in science completely invalid, but you've also set up a scenario in which your supernatural claims cannot be demonstrated, and hence cannot be taken seriously.

My point, though, is that you're observing a phenomenon in gravity, inferring a cause for it, and then somehow placing that inference into a higher category over evolution when in reality it's on the same level. How can you rule out the invisible pixies hypothesis with regards to gravity, and if you can't, then doesn't your same line of argument apply to it too?

I am not opposed to methodological naturalism. Just pointing out that the Theory of Evolution is somewhat unique in that it has to be true for those who's philosophical position is naturalism and therefore the confidence in the whole theory is higher than if just methodological naturalism is employed. 

No, you're wrong. Evolution doesn't have to be true at all; please don't bring your preconceived notions of some war between evolution and religion into this. Evolution could be proved false tomorrow and it wouldn't alter my position regarding the supernatural one bit; it wouldn't do that to anyone who won't be taken in by arguments from ignorance. Evolution not being true doesn't lend an iota more credence to supernatural explanations.

Regarding the list, I only wanted to make the observation that these sub-theories are not on par with other parts of the theory which are observable--like basic decent with modification due to mutations and natural selection. But before I can discuss at a productive level, I will research. I will get back to this.

Maybe you should have researched before you brought up the ID talking points? I mean, it's not like I just pulled all that out of my ass, I made sure what I was saying was true before I said it.

[Fake Messiah]

Except that evolutionary theory has not predicted things dead on the money (the fossil record and the tree of life are examples that come to mind).

Evolutionary theory didn't predict fossil record?!!! What unlike the fucking Bible that predicted.... what exactly?! Well that's what you get when your education comes from christian web sites and catholic schools. In first place a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable and make verifiable predictions. Theory of evolution can't predict how things will evolve in the future. Rather, it predicts what we should find in living or ancient species when we study them.
If we see that birds and reptiles group together based on their features and DNA sequences, we can predict that we should find common ancestors of birds and reptiles in the fossil record. Such predictions have been fulfilled, giving some of the strongest evidence for evolution.
It also predicts as we dig deeper layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger. If on the other hand there was a creation we would find human bones with trilobites mixed together.

Or imagine this: marsupial evolved around 80 million years old in North America. But how could they come to Australia 10 million years ago? At the time of the marsupial invasion, South America and Australia were joined as part of the southern supercontinent of Gondwana. So scientists predict this: there should be fossil marsupials on Antarctica dating somewhere between 30 and 40 million years ago. Which made them go to Antarctica and find marsupial fossils aged 35 million years old.

Yes this was all predicted by science and not the Bible. In fact for creationists to explain stuff like that it would have to propose that there were an endless number of successive extinctions and creations all over the world, and that each set of newly created species were made to resemble older ones that lived in the same place.

When it comes to comparing human and chimp DNA one of the common ways are if you gradually heat DNA, there comes a point - somewhere around 85°C - when the bonding between the two strands of the double helix breaks, and the two helices separate. When you lower the temperature fragments of DNA will find other fragments with which they can pair, and they will usually not be exactly their original partners. And indeed, if you add separated fragments of DNA from another species, fragments of the single strands are quite capable of joining up with fragments of single strands from the wrong species. Then you test the strength of the bond by how lower under 85°C hybrid DNA will break. So human strand has bonded with a chimpanzee strand will break just below 85°C, unlike human and toad. Each decrease by 1°C is approximately equivalent to a drop of 1 per cent in the number of DNA letters matched
Of course there is  newer method of measuring the similarity between a pair of matching genes from different species is the most direct, and the most expensive: actually read the sequence of letters in the genes themselves, using the same methods as were used for the Human Genome Project.

So you have stuff like GLO enzyme (for making vitamin C) which is defunct in humans because a single nucleotide in the gene’s DNA sequence is missing. And it’s exactly the same nucleotide that is missing in other primates. The sequences of human and chimp GLO, for example, resemble each other closely, but differ more from the GLO of orangutans, which are more distant relatives.

Or own DNA contains thousands of viruses that inserted their genome that are the remnants of ancient infections. Some of these remnants sit in exactly the same location on the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees. These were viruses that infected our common ancestor. Since there is almost no chance of viruses inserting themselves independently at exactly the same spot in two species, this points strongly to common ancestry.

[LadyForCamus]

So, since Steve didn't do very well trying persuade us that his 2,000 year old book of hearsay is "irrefutable proof" of God, he's now over here arguing the "you can't prove evolution" ignorance fallacy?

...Which has been shot down ad nauseam, and has nothing to do with building a positive case for Christianity....

What a complete waste of everyone's time. Thanks, man.

[Crossless2.0]

So, since Steve didn't do very well trying persuade us that his 2,000 year old book of hearsay is "irrefutable proof" of God, he's now over here arguing the "you can't prove evolution" ignorance fallacy?  

...Which has been shot down ad nauseam, and has nothing to do with building a positive case for Christianity....

What a complete waste of everyone's time.  Thanks, man.  

They always seem like they will be different coming out of the gate, don't they? Then their true colors show. It's exasperating, but I try to remind myself that it's probably inevitable given the shitty position from which they have to argue. But any time I see Protestants referencing WLC with straight faces, they automatically go into my mental dust bin.

I suppose that's why I esteem Wooters most highly among our Christians. He at least has the good sense to restrict himself to philosophical arguments so as not to get hogtied to the holy book and its ridiculous claims (yes, he accepts it as true -- though not always literally -- but I can't recall seeing him put on the exegetical dunce cap and doing the Fundie dance). And he understands science and the philosophy of science too well to go down the evolution-isn't-demonstrated path.

[The Grand Nudger]

You haven't been paying attention to his posts, then, lol.  The ones we get here are -all- cut from the same cloth. Even the "nice" ones...even the smart ones, even the ones who don;t say the silliest shit you can imagine. They don't have a choice, they're all arguing for the same silly thing - avenues are necessarily limited.

[Esquilax]

You haven't been paying attention to his posts, then, lol.  The ones we get here are -all- cut from the same cloth.  Even the "nice" ones...even the smart ones, even the ones who don;t say the silliest shit you can imagine.  They don't have a choice, they're all arguing for the same silly thing - avenues are necessarily limited.

It's not just that the position is silly, it's that they're arguing for something at all, instead of just letting the evidence inform their positions. If you have to shape the data to fit what you want to be true, all you're going to end up with is lumpy, misshapen data.

[LastPoet]

You haven't been paying attention to his posts, then, lol.  The ones we get here are -all- cut from the same cloth.  Even the "nice" ones...even the smart ones, even the ones who don;t say the silliest shit you can imagine.  They don't have a choice, they're all arguing for the same silly thing - avenues are necessarily limited.

It's not just that the position is silly, it's that they're arguing for something at all, instead of just letting the evidence inform their positions. If you have to shape the data to fit what you want to be true, all you're going to end up with is lumpy, misshapen data.

Their Faith is weak. They know it is all they need yet...