Chat with Aron Ra

[AronRa]

Again, I am not interested in spending the rest of my life breaking down the entirety of Otangelo's tirade of copy pasted responses. It's not worth my time really, I will again just point out a few things that caught my eye.


First: The mtDNA haplogroup tree, which I have talked about before on this forum.

Quick background. mtDNA is DNA inside the mitochondria, which is only inherited from the mother. Because of this, we can use this mtDNA to track human history back via the female line (mother to mother to mother, etc) by comparing the single nucleotide polymorphisms (or SNPs) between different individuals that define their "haplotype". From this, we can reconstruct a phylogenetic relationship where at each node a haplogroup is defined by SNPs that are held in common by the daughters of that node.

View attachment 130
[simplified visual explanation of haplogroups)

Now, the claim that Otangelo is making originated from Nathaniel Jeanson's book "Replacing Darwin" or one of his "articles" on answers in genesis. The claim being that the phylogenetic tree constructed from mtDNA haplogroups shows that everyone is descendant from three nodes, L M and N, representing the wives of Noah's sons (the green arrows in the figure shared by Otangelo).

Now, there are several problems with this, but the 3 main problem here are:

1: This is an unrooted tree. An unrooted tree shows that certain nodes have an ancestor/descended relationship of some kind, but you can't tell the direction of ancestry, i.e. you cannot say based on an unrooted three which node(s) is/are the ancestors of everyone else. You have to first determine the ROOT of the tree. This is where Jeanson goes wrong, he just says that the three nodes are the ancestors of every lineage, but he doesn't determine that the root is actually there. He just asserts it is there.

2. The second problem is that, it doesn't matter where you actually put the root on the tree, the tree shows that Jeanson is wrong about his claim about the three nodes that he points at as being "the three wives" are contemporary. His argument relies on the assumption that these nodes are contemporaneous, so they must be cousins of each other, not being an ancestor of another. But this is exactly what happens if you root the tree, and again, it doesn't matter where you put it. No matter what, you will either end up with one of the "wives" being the ancestor of the one or both of the other two, or you have one wive being the grandmother, and one the mother, and last one being the daughter. A very awkward family to say the least.

3. The easiest way to determine the root is by the "mid-point". The unrooted three does show the "distances" in terms of genetic difference between the nodes, so by making the reasonable assumption that all lineages experienced roughly the same number of genetic changes since they diverged from the common ancestor, we can place the root at the point where each descendant lineage is rouglhy the same distance away from the common ancestor.
View attachment 128

If you do that with the mtDNA haplogroup tree, you get the following. (see B)
View attachment 129
Not only is one (haplogroup L) of the so-called "three wives" the ancestor of the other two "wives" M and N (red arrows), note that these three nodes aren't even the ancestor of every lineage (those on the left). So these three nodes don't even represent the ancestors of everyone alive as well. And there are several published papers on this that shows a similar story. What is more, the L M and N nodes represent haplogroups that are distributed largely on different continents: L is more common in Africa while M and N are common in non-african continents. Since L is the ancestor of M and N, this supports the out of Africa scenario.

Jeanson still insists that the actual root lies closes to the "three nodes" denoted by these arrows. The problem here is that you no longer have the mid-point as the root. This makes some lineages extremely long compared to the others, in particularly the L haplogroups of Africa. This is why Jeanson has to assert that African people experienced MORE mutations, claiming that they have a higher mutation reproductive rate. He has no evidence to support this, it is just his way to try to squeeze the data as much as he can into his conclusion. It is nothing but ad hoc excuses.

Lastly, about the claim that this fits into a 6000 time scale, Jeanson uses this tree to calculate when the last common ancestor lived by using a mutation rate that is far too high. He messes this calculation up by measuring the mutation rates by comparing mothers to daughters, instead of using grandmothers, mothers and daughters. The problem here is that he includes somatic mutations in the mtDNA to calculate the mutation rate per generation, since only the mutations in the germline are inherited, so for that you need to compare the mtDNA from at least 3 generations to see how many mutations were actually inherited via the germline.

If you want to see more on this, read up on Ration alMind's review of Jeanson's book or watch Dan's (Creation Myths) video review on youtube.

Brilliant post. I wish I could give it a like or thumbs up.

 

[*SD*]

Umm, you can! I did, so did others!

 

[AronRa]

Umm, you can! I did, so did others!

How did I not notice that? :-D

 

[rationalist]

So in answer to my last post, you cut-and-pasted a five THOUSAND word response, which (like all your other cut-and-pasted responses) STILL failed to properly address any point or query put to you. You said you COULD answer the Phylogeny Challenge,

Yep, I started with the issue of prokaryote - eukaryote transition and pointed out the problems. What did you do? You whine that my replies are long-winded but at the same time Bitch that did not respond to your phylogeny project. So another nice example of how you dodge. I think I should start calling you the dodge king. But, hey, fair enough. I completely understand that you have no way to provide counter-arguments because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that this transition could have occurred even in principle. You can take your phylogeny project and bury it. I would have continued, and argued that there is NO EVIDENCE, there are NO NESTED HIERARCHIES for oxygenic photosynthesis. Another strike and checkmate for your pseudo-scientific story telling.

 

[AronRa]

Yep, I started with the issue of prokaryote - eukaryote transition and pointed out the problems. What did you do? You whine that my replies are long-winded but at the same time Bitch that did not respond to your phylogeny project. So another nice example of how you dodge. I think I should start calling you the dodge king. But, hey, fair enough. I completely understand that you have no way to provide counter-arguments because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that this transition could have occurred even in principle. You can take your phylogeny project and bury it. I would have continued, and argued that there is NO EVIDENCE, there are NO NESTED HIERARCHIES for oxygenic photosynthesis. Another strike and checkmate for your pseudo-scientific story telling.

So you STILL don't even know what the Phylogeny Challenge is? Even though I gave you the video explaining it AND I told you that the chart about Canid Phylogeny could be taken as the first step of that? Yet you thought that has something to do with the Prokaryote-Eukaryote transition? How can you be so confident when you have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about?

 

[We are Borg]

Well it’s apparent that he is a troll that does not even read, but only mine quote pieces of what you say and try to turn it against you. He then also include information that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. If he can disprove evolution or can prove God in a scientific way peer reviewed he could claim many prizes that we have. I do not know how many peer reviewed articles there is about evolution at this time but in a video from a few years ago @AronRa said over 7000. So disproving evolution would be a task that you can just forget.

What i find amusing in all this is that a small part of believers are so appalled against evolution that you can’t even see another path. Evolution is the biodiversity of the planet but not how life began. I know Aron will not like this but, you can use abiogenesis to say live started in x way but you can also say an entity know x was the way and planted the right seed because it knew what would happen. You then elevate the entity to an omniscience and all knowing. But you and a few others are so appalled about evolution that you are fighting like Don Quixote against it and do not see any other option. Aron said it best in a video they are worshiping a book not the entity, the entity can fail but the book must be right all the time else there World collapse. Like Don Quixote you are in a delusional state that you think you are doing the good thing/fight but are missing that you are the issue.

 

[rationalist]

So you STILL don't even know what the Phylogeny Challenge is? Even though I gave you the video explaining it AND I told you that the chart about Canid Phylogeny could be taken as the first step of that? Yet you thought that has something to do with the Prokaryote-Eukaryote transition? How can you be so confident when you have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about?

The diversification of dogs is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the issue in question. Adaptation/microevolution is uncontroversial, and I suppose you know this.
What has to be explained, are the BIG transitions that give rise to different organismal complexity and structure. I started with the transition from Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, right at the root of the tree. There is NO relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, which already KILLS, aka, falsifies the hypothesis of common descent.

Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things
The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. It stems from attempting to obtain a grand unified natural system that reflects a recurrent process of species and lineage splittings for all forms of life. Traditionally, the discipline of systematics operates in a similar hierarchy of bifurcating (sometimes multifurcating) categories. The assumption of a universal tree of life hinges upon the process of evolution being tree-like throughout all forms of life and all of biological time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes. In the following we will consider this circumstance from philosophical, scientific, and epistemological perspectives, surmising that phylogeny opted for a single model as a holdover from the Modern Synthesis of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761302/

In eukaryotes, plasma membrane consists of sterols and carbohydrates.In prokaryotes, plasma membrane does not contain carbohydrates or sterols. Prokarotic membranes have only a few types of phospholipids while eukaryotic membranes have can have over 6 different phospholipids as well as other types of lipids. Prokaryotic membranes do not commonly have cholesterol inside the hydrophobic core whereas eukaryotic membranes use chloresterol to regulate their fluidity. Eukaryotic cell membrane is basically trilamellar with double layer of phospholipid. It is asymmetrical. It has intrinsic and extrinsic proteins that also help in transport across membrane. It has other components like cholesterol to maintain fluidity of membrane. Where as prokaryotic or bacterial cell membrane is composed of peptidoglycan that is cross chain of N acetyl glycosamine and muramic acid.

Now, if you like, either you admit that, and we can move forward to the next step, or you can try to refute my point and provide evidence that this transition is possible. Up to you.

 

[rationalist]

Well it’s apparent that he is a troll that does not even read, but only mine quote pieces of what you say and try to turn it against you. He then also include information that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. If he can disprove evolution or can prove God in a scientific way peer reviewed he could claim many prizes that we have. I do not know how many peer reviewed articles there is about evolution at this time but in a video from a few years ago @AronRa said over 7000. So disproving evolution would be a task that you can just forget.

What i find amusing in all this is that a small part of believers are so appalled against evolution that you can’t even see another path. Evolution is the biodiversity of the planet but not how life began. I know Aron will not like this but, you can use abiogenesis to say live started in x way but you can also say an entity know x was the way and planted the right seed because it knew what would happen. You then elevate the entity to an omniscience and all knowing. But you and a few others are so appalled about evolution that you are fighting like Don Quixote against it and do not see any other option. Aron said it best in a video they are worshiping a book not the entity, the entity can fail but the book must be right all the time else there World collapse. Like Don Quixote you are in a delusional state that you think you are doing the good thing/fight but are missing that you are the issue.

There are probably MILLIONS of science papers about evolution. Does that make it true, that no guiding/creative intelligence was required to explain biodiversity ? Heck NO !!!

Epigenetic Principles of Evolution, 2011, page 19:
The basic tenet of the neo-Darwinian paradigm that changes in genes are responsible for morphological evolution, on which this edifice rises, is not substantiated, hence the empirical foundation of the structure is questionable at best.

NEVER, in over 150 years, since Darwin's book " On the origin of species " was published, has even ONE, amongst hundreds or thousands, if not millions of science papers, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and empirical verifiable replicable evidence, that any of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed, could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition zone of speciation and population differentiation.

Based on evidence seen in biochemistry on a molecular level, we can now say affirmatively and conclusively, that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in regards of primary speciation & macroevolutionary level has been falsified.

The selection of random changes of nucleotides being the source of all biological engineering: that claim is nonsense.

 

[We are Borg]

It’s like where talking to Kent Hovind that does not want to learn or does not understand what is being said. First off you are demonstrating the Dunning Krugger effect by your ridiculous claims you pretend to know more then people working in the field.

There are probably MILLIONS of science papers about evolution. Does that make it true, that no guiding/creative intelligence was required to explain biodiversity ? Heck NO !!!

Like i said an entity could have used abiogenesis to start life, but evolution would still be true. You do not read or listen what is being said and by doing so you’re saying that your God is not powerful enough or smart enough to use nature it self (that He created by your belief). The best part of this all is that you are downplaying God what He can’t or can do.

NEVER, in over 150 years, since Darwin's book " On the origin of species " was published, has even ONE, amongst hundreds or thousands, if not millions of science papers, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and empirical verifiable replicable evidence, that any of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed, could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition zone of speciation and population differentiation.

Going to play this to @AronRa he knows more about this then me and should be able to provide studies/prove.

Based on evidence seen in biochemistry on a molecular level, we can now say affirmatively and conclusively, that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in regards of primary speciation & macroevolutionary level has been falsified.

So now you are saying that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been disproven, well i would like to meet that person and do a first time interview because that person is becoming famous. While science does not like embellishments news and magazines do and yet still nothing in them like it never happend.

Can i ask why worship a book instead of God?

 

[AronRa]

The diversification of dogs is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the issue in question. Adaptation/microevolution is uncontroversial, and I suppose you know this.

But we're not talking about microevolution. Microevolution is only variation within a single species. This, and the rest of the Phylogeny Challenge are demonstrations of mAcroevolution. You still don't know what that is. Macroevolution is variation between species, the emergence of new taxa at or above the species level. You have the mistaken impression that it's something else, like maybe phylum-level changes. But there is no such thing, because different phyla, classes or orders begin with speciation, and the new species continue to diverge into different genera. Eventually, humans may categorize those genera as a higher taxonomic classifications based on how long ago they happened and how far their daughters have since diverged. But that doesn't mean that it was a different kind of change, nor that anything ever evolved from a different kind of thing.

The purpose of the Phylogeny Challenge is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a "kind" since that word lacks any taxonomic definition. Remember that the Bible says that if cows see striped sticks when mating, they would bare striped calves. So whoever wrote that particular fable obviously had no idea how genes work. The way the Bible puts it, even in the original Hebrew, if two individuals can reproduce with viable offspring, then they are the same "kind". That is exactly what the biological species concept is. Except that we now know that speciation happens too, as you have already admitted.

So let's look at the definitions of micro and macroevolution again, since you have an obvious learning disorder and need a little reminder.

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko. It was an evolutionary biologist who invented these words, so science is the authority on what they mean. According to universities actually teaching this subject, microevolution is variation within species, and macroevolution is variation between species. That means the emergence of new breeds or subspecies is microevolution, but the emergence of new species is macroevolution. Creationists refuse to admit that’s what it means. But if you don’t believe me, look it up.

“Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.”
—Wikipedia

“[M]ajor evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.”
—Dictionary.com

“[E]volution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)”
—Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Even though each of the above is reasonably accurate, you can’t always trust common dictionaries for laypeople when they’re trying to talk science. So sticking with scientific sources, let’s start with the University of California–Berkeley’s online primer called “Evolution 101”: “Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.”

We get the same definition from Duke University: “Evolutionary patterns and processes at and above the species level”

And from University of South Carolina–Beaufort: “Macroevolutionists study the processes that cause the origination and extinction of species”

And from Stanford University: “Microevolution is defined as changes within a species that aren’t drastic enough to create an entirely new species. Changes that result in a new species are part of macroevolution.”

Now let’s look at the reference website Biology Online: “Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species.”

So macroevolution is properly defined as the emergence of new taxa at or above the species level, and you already said that you accept even secondary speciation. Thus you accept macroevolution, you just don't know what it is.
You said there were mechanisms that only worked at the macro level, but you failed to list any, because you don't know any, because there aren't any.

The only difference is that the larger the breeding population, the more the communal gene pool may inhibit the emergence of new traits. So smaller, more isolated groups will evolve faster. Once speciation happens, the old gene pool no longer restricts variance the way it used to, allowing evolution to accelerate to secondary speciation and into different genus classifications.



What this chart shows is a phylogenetic relationship between not only domestic breeds of dogs that were brought about by artificial selection, but different species of dogs that were bought about by natural selection. All the exact same mechanisms are employed in either case. Now, dogs are unlike most other mammals in that they are notorious for mating outside of their species, humping stuffed animals or even your leg. But once speciation occurs, and there are now two separate but closely-related species, if they are kept apart long enough, like one group in Kenya and the other in Tanzania, then unique mutations continue to accrue in each group that are no longer shared by the common gene pool. So that it becomes harder for members from each group to meet again and produce fertile hybrids. Then they can't produce even viable hybrids, and eventually they can't produce anything at all. That's when we get to not just different species of dogs, but a different genus of dogs as well. For example, the African wild dog or painted dog (Lycaon pictus) cannot interbreed with wolves and domestic dogs nor with most of the other dogs in this group, and most of them can't interbreed with most of the others either.



It's like a ring species, say salamanders living in the mountains surrounding a valley. As they slowly make their way around the mountains, they generate new species. Species A can breed with species B, and B can breed C, and C with D, but by the time they circle all the way around the valley, D cannot breed with A. We have something similar with dogs too. It just depends on how genetically close each of these species are. Yet all these dogs are inarguably definitely dogs, and we have their genome to prove it. Remember that DNA is the only evidence that can secure a death sentence criminal conviction all on it's own. In this case, it's like getting a genetic paternity test and just as reliable, but stretching much further back in time.

At this point, even if you could provide a verifiably accurate and testable definition of kinds, beyond the biological species concept, (which no one has ever been able to do) you would still have to show reason to deny the process that you already know produced every genus and species on that chart, and you'd have to deny the most reliable form of evidence to confirm that as well. If you do that, then you're not just a science denier, you're a reality denier too. Is it worth it, just to pretend that Noah put that many pairs of dogs in his mythic floating zoo? Especially since we know the flood never really happened?

So do you understand and accept both the morphological and genetic evidence that all of these dogs are biologically related? If not, you'll have to explain how you or we can tell.

What has to be explained, are the BIG transitions that give rise to different organismal complexity and structure. I started with the transition from Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, right at the root of the tree. There is NO relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, which already KILLS, aka, falsifies the hypothesis of common descent.

We know that's false because of the genetic similarity of archaea to eukarya and of bacteria to proteins. But let's pretend for a moment that you're right. In which case, we would have volumes of solid proof that all eukaryotes evolved from a single common ancestor at the base of the eukaryote tree. But we wouldn't be able to explain their relationship to bacteria. So what?

Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things
The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. It stems from attempting to obtain a grand unified natural system that reflects a recurrent process of species and lineage splittings for all forms of life. Traditionally, the discipline of systematics operates in a similar hierarchy of bifurcating (sometimes multifurcating) categories. The assumption of a universal tree of life hinges upon the process of evolution being tree-like throughout all forms of life and all of biological time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes. In the following we will consider this circumstance from philosophical, scientific, and epistemological perspectives, surmising that phylogeny opted for a single model as a holdover from the Modern Synthesis of evolution.

You got this wrong too. Carolus Linnaeus, who first classified life-forms in his book, Systeme Naturae in 1735 was a pre-Darwinian creationist, albeit not like the new lot we have today. His classification system wasn't based on evolution being tree-like as you said. He didn't even know what evolution was! believed that new species could not come about except as an act of special creation by God. Yet he noticed patterns throughout all organisms that allowed them to be categorized in a branching tree pattern, where each parent clade holds at least two daughters, who are in turn the parents of at least two more daughter sets, and so it continued in a familial hierarchy. This was inconsistent with created "kinds", and he challenged the scientific community of his day to explain that. A century later, Darwin finally solved that mystery by explaining the origin of species by means of natural selection. So now the creationists have to move the goal posts, to pretend that they always accepted speciation, when we know they didn't, as if it doesn't even matter when it absolutely does.

In eukaryotes, plasma membrane consists of sterols and carbohydrates.In prokaryotes, plasma membrane does not contain carbohydrates or sterols. Prokarotic membranes have only a few types of phospholipids while eukaryotic membranes have can have over 6 different phospholipids as well as other types of lipids. Prokaryotic membranes do not commonly have cholesterol inside the hydrophobic core whereas eukaryotic membranes use chloresterol to regulate their fluidity. Eukaryotic cell membrane is basically trilamellar with double layer of phospholipid. It is asymmetrical. It has intrinsic and extrinsic proteins that also help in transport across membrane. It has other components like cholesterol to maintain fluidity of membrane. Where as prokaryotic or bacterial cell membrane is composed of peptidoglycan that is cross chain of N acetyl glycosamine and muramic acid.

Now, if you like, either you admit that, and we can move forward to the next step, or you can try to refute my point and provide evidence that this transition is possible. Up to you.

Both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells have a plasma membrane, a double layer of lipids that separates the cell interior from the outside environment. Both prokaryotes and eukaryotes have cytoplasm too, which is only slightly different between both groups. They diverged over two BILLION years ago with vast diversification since then, so we should expect some trivial difference to have arisen between them. And in fact, we generally see more variance within groups than between them.

There are probably MILLIONS of science papers about evolution. Does that make it true, that no guiding/creative intelligence was required to explain biodiversity ? Heck NO !!!

What it definitely does mean is that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, has NOT been falsified!

"Evolution is essential to school curricula if students—the public of the future—are to understand biology.​

In fact, a clear understanding of evolutionary biology is essential for professionals in all biological fields if they are to push ahead the frontiers of their disciplines. Current research initiatives to deepen knowledge of the genetic basis of complex characters, recent advances in developmental morphology, and attempts to generate a comprehensive phylogenetic tree of life all draw heavily on evolutionary insights. Evolutionary biology is also contributing to ongoing advances in the study of human origins and behavior. Finally, there has been a long-term interplay between evolutionary theory and nonbiological fields such as statistics, economics, and computation.​

In addition to its centrality in biology and its contributions to basic science, evolutionary biology addresses a wide array of current and emerging societal needs, ranging from biomedical applications to conservation efforts. For example, it provides a solid scientific framework for understanding the emergence of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria and for analyzing the emergence and epidemiology of novel diseases, such as HIV. Evolutionary biology also provides a scientific basis for policy decisions concerning the conservation of rare and endangered species, the adaptive implications of invasive species or new genetic varieties (including genetically engineered organisms), and the genetic responses to human perturbation of the environment."​

—Oxford BioScience: Evolution and Today's Society ​

NEVER, in over 150 years, since Darwin's book " On the origin of species " was published, has even ONE, amongst hundreds or thousands, if not millions of science papers, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and empirical verifiable replicable evidence, that any of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed, could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition zone of speciation and population differentiation.

Based on evidence seen in biochemistry on a molecular level, we can now say affirmatively and conclusively, that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in regards of primary speciation & macroevolutionary level has been falsified.

The selection of random changes of nucleotides being the source of all biological engineering: that claim is nonsense.

How do you manage to get everything wrong all the time? The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis has identified a few more mechanisms than the old Mendelo-Darwinian synthesis did. They started with the old Darwinian mechanisms from the 19th century, natural and sexual selection. Then in the 20th century, they added the Mendelian contributions of genetic drift and gene flow with the efficacy of mutations. Now in the 21st century, they've added endosymbiosis and epigenetics. Despite your whining to the contrary, all of these have been confirmed through observation and experimentation. Doubtless there are at least a few more mechanisms yet to be discovered, but your contention that science may not know all of them yet does not in any way constitute evidence against the theory.

Now getting back to the Phylogeny Challenge: Creationists usually accept that taxonomy is superficially accurate, but they’ll only concede that to a degree, because they insist that their god miraculously conjured a series of definitely different kinds of animals, which were each specially created separate from one another. Creationists allow that each of these kinds have since diversified—but only within mysterious limits that they refuse to rigidly define—and they say that no lineage can be traced beyond their alleged original archetypes. However, they’re unable to identify what those kinds are, how many there are, or how they could be recognized.

If evolution from common ancestry is not true and some flavor of special creation of as-yet unidentified kinds is true, then there would be some surface levels in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, but there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same kind and wouldn’t be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate kinds, and distinctly unique from those listed around it as well as those apparently ancestral to it. Those who promote creationism’s bewildering inanity should be able to show exactly where and why uniquely created kinds could not be grouped together with any parent clades that would otherwise only imply an evolutionary ancestry. Throw away any other argument you might be thinking about; none of them compare to this! If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms (if not the entire eukaryote collective), or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there must be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart—where what we thought was related to everything is really unrelated to anything else; and unless you’re a scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves.

So look at that dog chart again and tell me, which of these are related? Which of these are created? And if you already except that all of them came about by macroevolution, then we'll move on the next step so that we can see how far it goes. Can you show me what these mysterious "kinds" are or admit they don't exist?

 

[*SD*]

How do you manage to get everything wrong all the time?

I know this one!!!!! It's because he's a pointless troll who nobody should EVER take seriously, or allow to consume their time, as I've pointed out about 5 times between this thread and his other one.

 

[rationalist]

But we're not talking about microevolution. Microevolution is only variation within a single species. This, and the rest of the Phylogeny Challenge are demonstrations of mAcroevolution. You still don't know what that is. Macroevolution is variation between species, the emergence of new taxa at or above the species level. You have the mistaken impression that it's something else, like maybe phylum-level changes.

I made the distinction between primary and secondary speciation. As said previously, secondary speciation is a non-issue and is observed in nature. Primary speciation has NEVER been observed. And THAT is the issue in question.

Primary, and secondary speciation

https://******************************/t2360-evolution-speciation-primary-and-secondary-speciation

There are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria.

primary speciation
The splitting of one species into two, usually resulting from natural selection favoring different gene complexes in geographically isolated populations.

secondary speciation
the fusion through hybridization of two species that were formerly geographically isolated, followed by the establishment of a new adaptive norm ...

Secondary speciation in the genus level is possible, but at the family level and beyond is not. Organisms can evolve only up to different genera, but not different families.

 

[AronRa]

I made the distinction between primary and secondary speciation. As said previously, secondary speciation is a non-issue and is observed in nature. Primary speciation has NEVER been observed. And THAT is the issue in question.

Primary, and secondary speciation

https://******************************/t2360-evolution-speciation-primary-and-secondary-speciation

There are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria.

primary speciation
The splitting of one species into two, usually resulting from natural selection favoring different gene complexes in geographically isolated populations.

secondary speciation
the fusion through hybridization of two species that were formerly geographically isolated, followed by the establishment of a new adaptive norm ...

Secondary speciation in the genus level is possible, but at the family level and beyond is not. Organisms can evolve only up to different genera, but not different families.

Then read my question in the previous post a little more carefully this time. Do you accept the morphological and genetic evidence that all of those dogs are biologically related, even though many of those are now distinct species?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I made the distinction between primary and secondary speciation. As said previously, secondary speciation is a non-issue and is observed in nature. Primary speciation has NEVER been observed. And THAT is the issue in question.

Primary, and secondary speciation

[snipped]

There are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria.

primary speciation
The splitting of one species into two, usually resulting from natural selection favoring different gene complexes in geographically isolated populations.

This is rich. Rationalist states that "primary speciation" has never been observed. Then goes on to define "primary speciation" exactly as one would define allopatric speciation. Allopatric speciation is the most common form of speciation observed!

AronRa, you have attracted some clueless creationists here before. This one is gunning for that top spot.

 

[AronRa]

This is rich. Rationalist states that "primary speciation" has never been observed. Then goes on to define "primary speciation" exactly as one would define allopatric speciation. Allopatric speciation is the most common form of speciation observed!

AronRa, you have attracted some clueless creationists here before. This one is gunning for that top spot.

My apologies. ;-)

 

[rationalist]

This is rich. Rationalist states that "primary speciation" has never been observed. Then goes on to define "primary speciation" exactly as one would define allopatric speciation. Allopatric speciation is the most common form of speciation observed!

AronRa, you have attracted some clueless creationists here before. This one is gunning for that top spot.

Secondary speciation does not solve Darwin’s problem. Only primary speciation — the splitting of one species into two by natural selection — would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution’s smoking gun has never been found. there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d/#footnote49

 

[AronRa]

Secondary speciation does not solve Darwin’s problem. Only primary speciation — the splitting of one species into two by natural selection — would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution’s smoking gun has never been found. there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d/#footnote49

Darwin had three problems, (1) understanding how heritable units of information were passed down from both parents and subsequently combined in the young, (2) learning the source of novel traits, and (3) identifying transitional species in the fossil record. Now that each of his predicted transitions have been discovered, along with hundreds more, and now that we understand genes and mutations too, all of Darwin's problems have been solved. But yours have just begun.

It is amusing that you admit that secondary speciation has been observed, since the very definition of that requires primary speciation to have happened first. That implies that you accept primary speciation too. Logically you would have to. But you are not logical. You are obviously quite confused. I'm sure others have already explained to you about the different categories of primary speciation that have been observed, (allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric) but that's not even immediately relevant here. The question put to you--which you have repeatedly ignored--was whether you accept the morphological and molecular evidence I presented proving that different species of canids are biologically related?

Lindblad-Toh, K., Wade, C., Mikkelsen, T. et al.
Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog.
Nature 438, 803–819 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04338

I told you, if you repeatedly ignore direct questions, as you keep doing, I will be under no obligation to continue trying to reason with you.

 

[rationalist]

The question put to you--which you have repeatedly ignored--was whether you accept the morphological and molecular evidence I presented proving that different species of canids are biologically related?
you.

Yes, of course. I don't think you will find a creationist who has any problem admitting that.

The human body is a system performing its basic functions including a set of seven well-matched interdependent systems, besides requiring five major components, 1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition; (4) repair; and (5) reproduction. mutually interacting, where each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

In order for a new limb to evolve, let's say arms, not only would have there to be new information of where to locate the new limb in the body to be functional, ( hox genes ) and develop in the right sequence and order but also, at the same time, each of the seven mentioned items below would have to develop together :

1. Muscular system - essential for the movement of the body, maintains posture and circulates blood throughout the body.
2. Skeletal system - is the internal framework of the body.
3. Nervous system - is the part that coordinates its actions by transmitting signals to and from different parts of its body.
4. Endocrine System- hormones are signaling molecules that target distant organs to regulate physiology and behavior.
5. Circulatory system - is an organ system that permits blood to circulate and transport nutrients (such as amino acids and electrolytes), oxygen, carbon dioxide, hormones, and blood cells to and from the cells in the body.
6. Integumentary system - comprises the skin and its appendages acting to protect the body from various kinds of damage, such as loss of water or damages from outside
7. Lymphatic System It is part of the vascular system and an important part of the immune system, comprising a large network of lymphatic vessels that carry a clear fluid called lymph directionally towards the heart.

Do you agree with that ? If not, which you do you think is dispensable, and why ?

 

[rationalist]

Life on earth is the product of information recorded inside the cell. When this information is translated by cellular machinery, it organizes inanimate matter (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc) into all the living things on earth. The mystery of life’s origin is therefore equal to the mystery of information. Where did the information come from that organized the very first living cell on earth? Did this information come together as an incredible chance event in chemical history, or was it the result of a deliberate act of design? To organize the first living cell, one set of objects must encode the information in a series of representations, and the other set of objects must specify what is being represented. This is how a "recipe" for the cell can exist in a universe where no object inherently means (represents or specifies) any other object. It requires both a representation and the means to interpret it.

But there is a third requirement. The organization of the system must also preserve the natural discontinuity that exists between the representations and their effects. By doing so, a group of arbitrary relationships are established that otherwise wouldn't exist. That set of relationships is what we now call The Genetic Code. The unique physical conditions described here are the universal requirements of translation. They were proposed in theory, confirmed by experiment, and are not even controversial. They are also something that the living cell shares with every other instance of translated information ever known to exist. The genetic translation system provides objective physical evidence of the first irreducible organic system on earth, and from it, all other organic systems follow. Moreover, this system is not the product of Darwinian evolution. Instead, it is the source of evolution (i.e. the physical conditions that enable life's capacity to change and adapt over time) and as the first instance of specification on earth, it marks the rise of the genome and the starting point of heredity.

And as a final indication of just how profound the appearance of this system was, an almost impossible observation remains – not only must these objects arise from a non-information (inanimate) environment, but the details of their construction must also be simultaneously encoded in the very information that they make possible. Without these things, life on earth would simply not exist.

There are two distinct categories of semiotic systems. One category uses representations where the arrangement of the medium (like a pheromone) is reducible to the physical properties of the medium itself; the other uses representations that have a spatial (dimensional) orientation and are not reducible to their physical make-up (like the words on this page). The first type is found throughout the living kingdom. The second type is found nowhere but in recorded language and mathematics (and in the genetic code).

This leads to an undeniable observation of physical reality; the singularly-unique material conditions required for dimensional semiosis, which would ostensibly not exist on Earth until the rise of human intelligence, were entirely evident at the very origin of life. They are the physical means by which the living cell became organized.

The Information Tetrahedron
The Information Tetrahedron is a visual aid for understanding translation. It is a model of the material conditions required to translate any form of recorded information, including the information recorded in DNA. The translation of an informational medium enables the production of effects that are not determined by the material properties of the medium being translated.Instead, those effects are determined elsewhere within the system of translation.

My comment: Why not by an intelligent designer ?

This relational architecture – with one arrangement of matter evoking an effect, while another arrangement of matter determines what the effect will be – establishes a physical discontinuity in the system. This discontinuity enables prescriptive control of effects that are not limited by local dynamics. Such effects can only be derived from the contingent organization of the individual systems that translate information.

My comment: The system of translation ITSELF and its origin is which origin has to be explained. The prescribing source must therefore be OUTSIDE of the system. We only know intelligence to be a capable informer and prescriber os a complex system with specific purposes.

To organize the first living cell implies the capacity to specify objects among alternatives. In short, the capacity to construct a cellular object made of x, y and z, requires the capacity to specify x, y, and z among other objects. Given that no physical object inherently specifies any other object, the act of specification is accomplished by the use of a representational medium (i.e. memory).

Nature demonstrates unambiguously how a representation is established in the natural world. An object is established as a representation when a second object physically determines what is being represented (i.e. its referent) and the natural discontinuity between the representation and its referent is preserved by the organization of the system.

This discontinuous association is a semiotic mechanism. It establishes the local independence (non-determinism) required to specify referents that are not derived from the properties of the representation.

My comment: In other words, it is not dependent on physical necessity.

A system that is capable of discontinuous association is limited only (in principle) by what is physically possible. This open set of potential outcomes is the physicochemical basis of both the origin and diversity of form in the living kingdom.

My comment: An open set of outcomes means, the set up of the genetic code is arbitrary. (based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system, aka physical necessity)

Because the effects of translation are not determined by local dynamics, they are subject to error, change, and noise. A rational distinction is therefore made between the functional and non-functional output of semiotic systems. Functional products are described as being the result of information; non-functional products are generally described as being the result of error and noise.

My comment: Mind is a set of Cognitive faculties including consciousness , perception, thinking , judgment, and memory .

The products of these systems include communication, sensory perception, replication, homeostasis, evolution, and culture. These examples reflect the entirety of the living kingdom, and are completely absent in the remaining inanimate world.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170715000000*/http://biosemiosis.org

 

[We are Borg]

You are still misrepresenting evolution, evolution has absolutely nothing to do where life came from. Evolution is biodiversity of the planet. Life started somewhere and somehow and evolution was the means to get where are we now, different species evolved from one point.

Now it comes to this is your God smart enough to seed (to start from one point) this world and knew what would happen when he seeded this world or is evolution an arbitrary mechanism just as we explained?