Is evolution a fact?

[Mr_Wilford]

I know I have been told... That's why I asked for a direct ancestor transistional. The line is there.. The evidence is not. You agree there is no evidence for that... Therefore you agree it's faith based... You can deny.. But until you have said fossil... It's faith

Whatever you say. I'd contest that we can prove evolutionary relationships with DNA analysis, but at this point I'll just agree to disagree.

Well the fact that you agree is a breakhrough

Agree to disagree means I realize you have a different opinion than I. Not that I agree with your opinion.

I realize that itsdemtitans... What I mean is the evidence I asked for is not strawmanning evolution... That is what you agreed with. That is significant..l therefore a breakthrough.

It's on page 37 if you wish to check yourself.

I'm waiting for that apology.

Oh, and before you use the excuse "Thats not what I was refering too" Not once did I ever agree with you that your argument wasn't a strawman (which it was). Not once. I was basically rolling my eyes at you. I never agreed.

Let me stress that one more time

I never agreed the "evidence" you asked for was not a strawman

So if by "well you agree" you meant my "whatever you say" then it's a misunderstanding on both our parts. If so, I apologize, but other than the agree to disagree I fail to see anywhere I even said I agreed with you, which you asserted

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Okay, thanks for the lists of insults buddy.

You are an idiot because of your assertion evolution is a forensic science has no presuppositions

I never claimed evolution IS a forensic science, I've only claimed some aspects of it are learned about via methods similar to forensic science. My whole point about forensic science was to explain how an event does not need to be seen to know it happened.
The fact you don't get this is telling you don't really care what I'm saying. Which is fine, I could care less what you're saying too.

You are a petulant child because of your whining I am being insulting

Yeah, and this justifies your comment, sure.

You are ignorant because you can't even accept evolution is a belief when clearly every evolutionary fossil is half or over half imagination

Most fossils are incomplete. Your ignorance of paleontology is not my issue. And if you're referring to Lucy, your claims were debunked in the peanut gallery.

You are arrogant because you assert things without evidence and claiming in various ways that is the truth

Wrong, especially with regards to Chromosome 2. If you contest this, tell me where I did this.

This one awfully reeks of projection.

You are blind because you see a picture of a whale with appendages and simply claim legs when in fact they deny the very definition of leg.

Uh, no. First of all, if you read Rumrakets paper, it had a bone structure identical to that of a leg. Second, the author of the paper adressed your teratogen claim, which I found hilarious.

And you never addressed the leg dna in whales other than "you didn't see it", which is what got me started on the whole forensic science anyways.

Let me make this clear Bernhard. First, I could care less what you think of me. I was only irritated by your Muslim comment because it seemed like you were equating all Muslims as being terrorists with the allahu akbar stuff. But you analogy was nonsensical. Why you think presupposition = evidence is beyond me.

Second, I have a lot of confidence in my position. You've just proven yourself, over and over, without fail, to be beyond reason. This whole thread testifies to that. All of your responses to the evidence presented to you have been incredibly weak, and when called out you sit on your high horse, like you've done now, and assert you've won. It's not that you've presented some shaking evidence against my position, it's just that I don't care anymore Bernhard. Arguing with you is tiring and gets nowhere.

 

[Prolescum]

This is a reminder and a warning​

Please review your comments before posting them, and remove any direct personal attacks towards other members.

A comment or a view can be accurately described as idiotic, calling a person an idiot is against the rules of this forum. As I understand it, English isn't a difficult language to express yourself effectively in.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

This will be my final reply to you Bernhard, and it's only to explain this one last time.

I never said evolution IS forensic science. I said some pieces of evidence for evolution are learned about through methodology similar to forensic science.

This was specifically meant to explain how we know which regulatory genes stop hind limb development in whale embryos and how we can tell it was these genes that were deactivated over the course of whale evolution. You said we didn't see it ergo not science, I brought up forensic science to explain certain events leave particular clues, so if you find those clues, you've got a solid case. It was to explain we don't need to see something to know it happened.

That's it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Hey Bernhard, there are several posts in this thread demolishing your claims about evolutionary presuppositions. Please respond to one of those before continuing to use that word.

Also, you asked for evidence that archaeopteryx was relayed to modern birds and non-avian dinosaurs. I will happily talk about that if you agree that this evidence would also demonstrate the existence of transitional species directly ancestral to modern birds.

Or you could continue the conversation about genetic information increasing via mutation that you seem to want to run away from.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Ok then forensic science has presuppositions... Example the uniqueness of DNA. Based on that one can claim without being there it was in fact that suspect.

To compare it is like forensic science, to know without being there, must also have a presupposition. Hence I ask you : what is the evolutionary presupposition to know without being there with absolute certainty what happened?

You can't just assert... It's is like forensic science when you can't even reveal the presupposition of why in this case it is like forensic science,

You simply assert it is, believe it, then claim it is like forensic science being able to know without being there.

All the while having no presupposition to base such an assertion. For if you had one wouldn't you at least know it?

I've already explained this is an analogy I came up with after reading the literature. You're just using semantics trying to change a demonstrable fact (uniqueness of DNA) into a presupposition.

I'll use an example.

We've seen head to head chromosomal fusion in laboratories. They always leave two centromeres, the dna in the fused chromosome will line up with two seperate ones in other populations, and half the time around 120 base pairs (give or take) telomeric dna will be left at the fusion site.

So, if you wish to call these demonstrable facts presuppositions, so be it. I hold they're not, they're simply facts, and once you can demonstrate something to be true it is no longer a presupposition, it's simply a fact, and facts by definition are true, so there's no need to presuppose the truth of that which is true by its very nature. Like with telomeres, you're playing around with semantics trying to make words mean whatever you want them too. But I'll humor you.

In chromosome 2, we see two centromeres, telomeric dna remnants at the fusion site, and there is a pseuodogene parked right next to the fusion site that, in all other chromosomes, is only found near a telomere. To top it off, Chromosome 2 has identical sequences on two chimpanzee chromosomes (For them its 12 and 13).

Ergo, it is safe to say Chromosome 2 is a fused chromosome. Why is this evidence for evolution? Because evolutionary theory predicted we would find a fused chromosome before we had ever scanned the genome for it. The ID crowd will just claim common design, or it doesn't prove anything, or what have you. But the fact is, the model of evolutionary theory is able to predict evidence before it is found. A model that can do that is as close to true as one can get in science.

Notice not once in determining if chromosome 2 is a fusion was evolution presupposed. This piece of evidence was, however, predicted by evolutionary theory. That's why it's strong evidence for evolution. If a theory can predict evidence before you find it, then it's a strong theory.

So, like forensic science, the "presupposition" was chromosome fusion will leave certain patterns. Thats how we know it happened in this instance.

Do you see my point here? That evolution isn't a presupposition with this data, but a conclusion based on the data?

 

[keeper541]

Thank you for admitting it was not racist. I appreciate.

The point behind saying forensic science observes everything it makes conclusion on. Again I will provide example.

1) uniqueness of DNA is observed.
2) DNA collection and identification is observed.
3) DNA is matched by observing the DNA of suspect.

Therefore because of the uniqueness of DNA the suspect is convicted. That presupposition of the uniqueness of DNA, which has been scientifically proven is ultimately what convicts the suspect.

Now let's look at evolution

1) evolution tree is not observed. It's interpreted.
2) jump between kinds is not observed it's interpreted,
3) that mutations or any other claimed evolutionary method can evolve one kind into another is not observed...it's interpreted.

What is observed:
1) variation within kind, e.g..variation within dogs... But what is also observed it's always a dog.
2) mutations, deletions, insertions, et al, never does this then produce a new kind.
3) in short micro evolution = change in Allele frequency = genetic variation.

You do understand that DNA evidence can be used in more than just that one way? By the same principle we can track the lineage of suspect to narrow the pool of possible suspects we can trace evolutionary lineage. What do I mean, the accumulations of neutral mutations and the fixation of them within populations. Without even an eye witness testimony we can narrow down the suspects. We do this by how certain traits and neutral mutations are fixed within geographical populations. This allows for detectives to narrow their searches to people who possess traits of that population. If fixation and neutral mutations didn't occur this would be impossible.

Now how does this methodology relate to evolution? Basically because it's the same one to determine relatedness among different organisms. Since neutral mutations fix within a population, the inheritance of these neutral traits would generate a family tree. If this principle didn't work, the random nature of mutations would result in disjointed trees, branches being randomly related on a grand scale. Also many different disjointed trees, with a high statistical preference to randomness would be produced, based on what conserved gene you are observing. We don't have this, we can pick different genes and have statistically similar trees.

So it's not hard to agree because of variation in genetics we have micro evolution, or change within kind, driven by factors such as natural selection. I agree.

But what happens is the observations classified under micro evolution are then extrapolated to also mean macro evolution.

Than please demonstrate a mechanism that prevents macroevolution. Yes, this is your burden of proof because you are making the claim that the observation of variation and inheritance isn't enough to extrapolate macroevolution. You are claiming that I can't walk 1km even though I can walk 1m; the only way this can be true is if I'm in some sort of well defined and contained environment that is <1km. Until you can demonstrate that such an environment exists than the extrapolation isn't a huge leap.

Now please avoid trying to claim a "kind" only produces after its own "kind". First off we need a rigid definition of kind that we can test against; secondly that still isn't a demonstration, only an assertion.

This is complete non sequitur.

Yes your whole position is but people have been humoring you and trying to teach you why you are wrong. You are just ignoring them.

Think about this for a second ... I already know your mind is full of ad Homs and how can I be so stupid...

While true, they aren't the fallacy because people have actually engaged you and demonstrated the claims which you usually just off handily reject.

But relax and think. When you watch videos.. Watch what they say e.g.

Here we have a partial fossil... We believe that it looked like (insert some evolutionary theory)...

Well yes, scientists don't talk in absolute so they are going to say we believe it looks this way. That is actually being honest because we don't have the live organism to actually view, but what we have are the bones that can lead us to a series of inferences about what the organism looked like.

... then they add to skull, or saws all (Lucy) and make the fossil work. Then It ends up looking like they claimed it would look like. No surprise it's called confirmation bias.

I guess you reject this part of forensics too. They get incomplete skeletons and can extrapolate what a person looks like, what age they were, gender, how tall they were, etc. This is all done under our knowledge of anatomy. Simply put, every bone carries indications of the person they came from. If we apply this knowledge to other fields than we can draw conclusions in much the same way. Now limitations exist, with a femur we won't be able to tell you how big the head cavity was; but we will be able to tell you how tall the individual was, (depending on preservation) the degree of musculature, etc. Depending on how much of the skull, and which parts we can tell you aspects of the head and face. The list goes on for what bones we have and what information we can draw from it. None of this requires a complete fossil skeleton to determine.

But at the end of the day if you observe just what is found... You do not have evolution.

No, if you looked at just what we have found you might not be able to; but if you applied the studies of other fields of biology you can draw a picture of traits based on different bone findings. Again, this is done all the time in forensic science to generate a rough idea of what a victim looked like based on skeletal remains in different states of completeness.

Think every single evolutionary fossil... Every single one... Again an argument from absolute.... Every single evolutionary fossil is incomplete. Why? Because it takes an incomplete fossil to insert evolution.

Actually I'm sure paleontologists would love complete fossils, it would help make their life easier to reconstruct the organisms, but it's not needed for the reasons I gave above. You are basically arguing from your own ignorance of how these reconstructions with incomplete fossils are done.

Seriously try to find a fossil that is used as evidence for evolution that is complete, or unbroken. Generally it's both.. In complete and broken. I am not trying to troll you... This is the truth. Look it up.

No, we know you aren't lying on the fact the fossils are incomplete. You are just being overly confident of your own abilities to claim we can't determine anything from these fossils.

What you end up with because of the incompleteness of evolutionary fossils, is evolution of the gaps. I will explain in various ways this is done

Don't try to conflate ToE with your piss poor apologetics. None of what anyone argues based on fossil evidence is an argument from ignorance, so it's not an argument of the gaps. It's based off of the observations of biomechanics and anatomy. If you want to disprove the observations you are going to have to disprove these well established fields.

1) incomplete fossil found... Other half added... Presto evolution. They gapped the ore half. Sure they give reasons but the fact remains the other half is not observed.. That is where there is a leap of faith. You believe the other half is indeed like that therefore evolution is observed.

Not a leap of faith because the fossils are peer reviewed after the scientists making the discover use established methodologies to determine appearance of the organism. Also on bilateral organisms, we can infer that the other half of a body looks the same way (unless the indivdual in question was deformed).

2) genetic variation is observed.... Since genes can vary/ change therefore it can change completely to new kind... Sounds possible I agree. Given enough time and mutations the question becomes why not? The answer is simple not observed. It's been gapped... You believe without observing.

No gap. We actually observe inheritance patterns in conserved genes that result in phylogenic trees that are similar if not identical to other methodologies; not to mention if you do it for different conserved genes making unique phyologies each time you end up with very similar trees. Rumraket has discussed this in other threads about how the variations are statistically insignificant.

Then this is how it's presented to the unlearned:

Evolution.
Here is a transistional see for reason a and reason b this fossil is indeed transistional
Since transistionals prove evolution, macro evolution is proved.

No wrong. Why? Because the claimed transitional is for the most part not observed. Again find me a complete transistional fossil.

You can move the goalpost as much as you want. As I've explained, and I hope well for anyone who's actually going to listen, the incomplete fossils can give us loads of information and is the same methodology used in other fields.

Evolution
Look we observe variation between dogs
Therefore with maximal variation through observed processes like mutation, deletion, et al, we arrive at a new kind.


No wrong, why? Because of forced genetic variation (selective breeding) through thousands of years (horses, cows) it always remains a cow... Therefore there are limiting factors that do not allow for maximal variation across kinds.

Then I hope you can define "kind" in a rigorous way so that we can prevent you from shifting your goalposts. I also hope you can demonstrate this limiting factor. This is your claim that such a factor exists so it's your burden to show this factor. Again, just claiming well "kinds"... isn't going to cut it. I want a demonstration of something actually limiting the accumulation of mutations that we can observe in genetics and can produce such similar phylogenies.

The rebuttal? But it's millions of years. Well then you prove my point not observed and placing it as unfalsifiable.

While this rebuttal maybe weak, it doesn't mean that the phylogenies are unfalsifiable. Your hippo/human would falsify evolution. Finding fossils that have unique traits that developed within two separate clades long after the last common ancestor would falsify ToE. Disproving anatomy would cause all sorts of issues, but be enough to disprove ToE. Defining "kinds" in a rigid way that we can't find examples that cross this barrier would disprove ToE. Finding a barrier that prevents the accumulations of mutations until novel traits occur and results in daughter clades would falsify ToE.

There's plenty of ways to disprove ToE, you just can't provide that evidence. Instead you work on dishonest rhetoric.

Now I'm not even going to worry about dishonesty part. Really. It's useless. You don't understand dishonesty means I purposefully lied. I don't lie.

Well I don't know about the lying part, people have noted that you can say wrong things and believe yourself to be telling the truth. The dishonest part though can be shown without you having to lie. You can dishonestly move your goalposts; we've observed that from you with your calls for complete fossils, direct transitionals, telomeres that fused aren't telomeres anymore, etc.; you could claim someone is saying something they didn't say, like claiming someone saying (s)he are first going to teach you the right definitions before (s)he bother with wasting his/her breath on what the evidence means is that (s)he are claiming they don't have the evidence; asking for evidence, and when someone provides you with it you dismiss it out of hand because they linked a peer reviewed article; not reading the articles provided for you; etc.

So when somebody calls me dishonest on this thread it is fundamentally impossible because I don't lie about God/ evolution/atheism/Islam..

No, it's not fundamentally impossible. You don't need to lie to be dishonest.

In short I don't lie about subjects I debate on.

Well this is true because you don't actually debate. You assert yourself as some sort of superior and that your ideas are right. No matter how many times you are proven wrong you still claim that same thing. I am not even talking here, proves you wrong. What the actual experts in the fields are you are disagreeing with proves you wrong (even so far as the papers you do claim to cite not saying what you claim).

That is not the same as saying I wrote things that are untrue. That is another reason why I do this to weed out personal untruths. If you were to say: Bernhard your saying stuff that is untrue..hey I would say ok very possible. Please show me where so I can understand.

I thought you didn't lie? This is whole statement is a lie. People have repeatedly shown you to be wrong, and you reject them off handedly. You use rhetoric devices to try and hide how wrong your position is.

Again, your repeated goalposts movement. Requiring things that are not part of the definition just so you can avoid the facts. The whole fact you off hand dismiss all the work done in evolution without knowing it is the same methodology used in forensics.

Rumraket showed you a whale with the atavism of a leg, which you asked for. You did back flips trying to claim they weren't legs. When istdemitians joined in and explained how these are genetically legs you didn't correct your position, you broke your back trying to claim these aren't legs. End of the day, you weren't interested in the evidence or correcting your position.

Itsdemitians informed you of how Chromosome #2 in humans is an observed instance of chromosome fusion. You claimed no it is not, he showed you how telomeres can be found in the middle, you asserted that since telomeres usually don't fuse without causing issue than this can't be a site of a fusion. Telomeres can fuse, the lack of a detrimental outcome on this fusion doesn't disprove the nature of the site. Heck you focusing the discussion onto that dishonest claim still don't disprove the phylogenic tree you can produce based on the banding patterns and the presence of two centromeres (one deactivated but still showing signs of its origin).

And again umpteenth time... Can I please have evidence for evolution?

It's been provided, you've ignored it or dishonestly dismissed it.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

You described the DNA evidence and how it relates to forensics better than I could have hoped too. Thanks.

 

[keeper541]

You described the DNA evidence and how it relates to forensics better than I could have hoped too. Thanks.

No problem. I just wonder how he'll dishonestly try to weasel out of this. Not that I think I left any room for him to do so.

 

[SpecialFrog]

So while I, in yr mind, am running away can you at least explain what evidence, under the category "evolution is a fact" I am running away from? That would be appreciated.

After you admitted that horizontal gene transfer could increase genetic information. This admission initially seemed to trouble you because it disproved one of your claims of why evolution can't happen.

Then you came up with some flimsy claim that the horizontally-inserted genes must have been designed (though you provided no evidence for this) and therefore you were justified in shifting the goalposts (which you also admitted you were doing).

At that point you insisted that mutation still could not increase genetic information but you couldn't talk about that further until I admitted that evolution required your inane presuppositions.

Since that point, you have avoided talking about that point every time I have raised it, often replying to other parts of my messages but ignoring that topic.

So, do you want to talk about evidence that mutation and selection can increase genetic information in the same way that horizontal gene transfer can?

Or would you rather accept that your demand for direct ancestral transitionals is irrelevant and talk about evidence for relatedness in the avian tree?

 

[red]

So while I, in yr mind, am running away can you at least explain what evidence, under the category "evolution is a fact" I am running away from? That would be appreciated.

If you were to examine your very being you would realise there was no other option to your existence than the principles which underpin evolution, which make it and you FACTS.
If you have a family and their children have families, every principle of evolutionary biology will follow through and their characteristics will have well understood heritage.
For there not to be evolution as fact it is incumbent on you show there is no potential for you to be different from your ancestors, and similarly for your progeny.
With regard to ancestry, you need to go back to a point where you are confident your ancestors millions of years ago looked the same as you do now.
If you cannot do that, it is incumbent on you to explain in biological terms where your ancestors heralded from, because we are not aware that abiogenesis occurred separately for every living species (indeed we know it was only once necessary) and Biblical explanations for your "kind" are implausible.
So would you like to tell us how far back in time you are comfortable with in terms of terms of explaining your presence today?

 

[red]

I am comfortable going to the limits of what can be proven.

We can prove what is in your DNA, ie, we can show you what it looks like and even convert it to comprehensible information.
We can prove that what is your DNA was inherited.
Do you agree with the above?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Itsdemtitans

No it's not fusion.

A) no satDNA
B)it is a highly expressed gene

A) I read the AiG article in question. First of all, there is satellite DNA, but it's specific to humans. Which is what we'd expect. They've constructed a strawman argument where Chromosome 2 should look identical to two chimp chromosomes stacked atop each other with no changes. Which is nonsense, as the lineages would diverge over time.

B) No, it's not. It's a pseuodogene, and in all but a few variants (most likely due to variation in RNA termination) it isn't even located in the fusion site. The gene in question is also only ever found near telomeres, except in this one instance. So this only supports a fusion.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Well itsdemtitans it is an highly expressed gene... Are you claiming it is not?

Tompkins was talking about transcription binding in his paper in order to call it "highly expressed". But simple binding says nothing about the specificity of binding or its biological importance.

So no, I don't accept it's "highly expressed" in the way he's trying to make people think. It's a pseudogene. And in almost all genome databanks its around 1300 base pairs to the side of the fusion site. Not in it. So his claim is nonsensical.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, the new model of the "free of life" was established years before this conversation started. By claiming I moved the goal posts you are pretending that I was as ignorant on the subject as you and made claims that I had to amend.

People are not moving goal posts when they point out that the caricature of evolution you are criticizing is wrong or out of date.

Anyway, do you still claim that genetic information cannot increase by mutation and selection? You seem reluctant to commit to that position.

 

[red]

If you accept the tree of life fundamentally changed... I accept I changed my position on information added... Perhaps we tackle again. But if you can't admit that, it's pointless.

The tree of life is merely a representation, a way of conveying information about events.
If more information is available and it leads to changes in how something is subsequently represented, then it just means we have a better or different way of conveying a message.
You seem to not understand that even if there were no tree of life, the fundamental information available to create one does not change.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Well that's fine. I am saying based on what I have read it is highly expressed. Therefore not fusion.
To consider there is one AiG article is simply untrue. To extrapolate I only looked at that is poor, I looked at like 10 articles. The internet is full of how the gene is expressed and not fusion.

You haven't covered the no satDNA... Simply say it disappeared with time is an after the fact observation.

I've read every article on chromosome 2 I can get my hands on. And based on all I have read, the gene in question isn't even in the fusion site, but to the side. So to claim it debunks chromosomal 2 fusion is nonsense, especially when said gene is only ever found near a telomere, except on chromosome 2, where it's right near the fusion site.

And again, there is satellite DNA, but it's specific to humans. But, even if there weren't not only would divergence be expected but he's looking doing the equivalent of looking at two cars involved in a head on collision, saying the headlights and front license plates are missing in the debris, and concluding that this isn't a head to head car wreck based on that while ignoring the rest of the car bodies.

Given though that his "gene" only supports a fusion I'm taking Tompkin's word on satdna with a pinch of salt. I'm going to read the relevant real scientific paper cited by AiG that discussed this further.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Using your car anolgy does a head on collision seem like you end up with an eight wheel fully functional piece of equipment? If your answer is yes... Then you can believe this fusion.

Fully functional? What, a pseudogene that isn't even in the fusion site? Yeah, that sounds fully functional.

But nevermind the gene is only ever found near a telomere, except in chromosome 2, parked right next to the fusion site. That only supports a fusion event.

As does the banding patterns, a second centromere, etc.

But if you want to keep asserting a functional gene, be my guest.

 

[red]

No shit for the first part
The second part the fundamental information available changed ... Hgt... So creating a new jungle.. Not a single trunk.

What prevents you from understanding that the fundamental information does not change?
If there is gene transfer, then where that occurs becomes "new" information and can be added to any representation of the totality of information.
A simple analogy is your family tree. Before you appeared on the family tree there was no information about you which allowed you to appear - seemingly obvious, but apparently difficult for you. An act of gene transfer from sexual reproduction of your parents led to you appearing on the family tree - as new information!
Do you understand it now?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Right claim pseudo gene... Thank you

Like vestigial appendix... That fell as well ... Do you remember?

But I need evidence right?

Fusion site location inside the DDX11L2 gene. .... That's the name of the gene. A highly expressed gene.. With the fusion site inside.

Chromosome 2 bites the dust. Simply fact.

Like vestigial appendix when function was found.

Want me to predict the shift of evolution goalposts?

" because of evolution it used to be a telomere but now, because of the fusion it has a different function... it's a pseudo gene because original function has been lost"

That's how it will change.

Ah, still think vestigial=useless. How shocking.

Again, it isn't even in the fusion site in almost all the transcripts we have on file.

Secondly, the gene family the DDX!!L2 belongs too, in every other chromosome, in all great apes including humans, is always found parked right next to a telomere. The exception is chromosome 2, and it's parked right next to the fusion site. If that isn't evidence for a fusion, I don't know what is.

So your claims this would at all debunk chromosome 2 fusion bites the dust. Simply fact