onceforgivennowfree

[abelcainsbrother]

Nope! You all can bash me all you want to but there is a reason why you cannot demonstrate life evolves like you believe.I am talking about demonstrating darwinian evolution.You are looking at everything from an evolution point of view and unfortunately have a flawed view of the evidence you look at to try to provew evolutionl. If you would've read your bible in Genesis about Cain's(my brothers descendents LOL) you would realize that he was Neandethal.You can assume all you want to that adaptation leads to the kind of evolution you believe happened but you are just assuming it,you have no proof.Cain and his descendents were Neanderthal and God gave him a mark,now go look at Neanderthal's brow,Neanderthal was a brute and it was because God gave him that demeaner for protection after he got jealous and rage filled in his heart and he rose up and slew me(LOL! my blood still screams out to God and I still speak out Hebrews 11:3)Abel.You are ignoring the bible and looking at everything like it evolved when you can only give examples of adaptation,which is clearly observable.We did not need scientists in a lab to demonstrate life can adapt. We needed them to show and demonstrate life evolves and they failed.

You're kidding right? This has got to be one of funniest interpretations of the bible I've read from someone trying to disprove evolution. I wonder what Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort et. al. would have to say about this. :lol:

They reject the Gap theory and think we can't trust science today and must believe in a 6000 year old universe and earth.They have some good teaching,it is not all wrong and I accept the good info and reject the bad info,the same thing I do for evolution or anyhing. True faith is not blind Hebrews 11:1. They have invested a lot of time into proving a young earth and I think they mean well,but are just unnecessarily wrong when it comes to the bible and true science.Although Ray comfort mostly just preaches the gospel which is important.It is awesome to me that slowly secular science is confirming things the bible had already told us without them even realizing it.I know that certain things in the bible are revealed over time and it never stops,there is always something new to discover to add to all of the other scientific stuff science confirmed that the bible had said like to quaranatine or remove the sick outside the camp that are contagious,this biblical law helped stop the plague in Europe when at the time doctors and science could do nothing.Alot less people would have died had they followed this biblical law when it first started.Quarantining. Read Isaiah 48 and start with verse 3.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Yeah, that sounds like blind faith to me. This is further proof that you do not actually read anything you post here.

 

[Dave B.]

I have asked over and over for a demonstration and scientific confirmation that life evolves and yet none of you have and the only evidence you can show only shows adaptation. You start out with a fly and you end up with a fly and somehow think it evolved.They are tricking you and I'm trying to help you,they might mean well but they are looking at the evidence all wrong trying to prove evolution.But until you can demonstrate Darwinian evolution,not just adaptation,but Darwinian evolution you are unfortunately being taught wrong.

This is usually where these "discussions" end.

You're asking for evidence of one organism changing into another "kind" of organism. This isn't what evolution predicts.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I have asked over and over for a demonstration and scientific confirmation that life evolves and yet none of you have and the only evidence you can show only shows adaptation. You start out with a fly and you end up with a fly and somehow think it evolved.They are tricking you and I'm trying to help you,they might mean well but they are looking at the evidence all wrong trying to prove evolution.But until you can demonstrate Darwinian evolution,not just adaptation,but Darwinian evolution you are unfortunately being taught wrong.

This is usually where these "discussions" end.

You're asking for evidence of one organism changing into another "kind" of organism. This isn't what evolution predicts.

Actually I am not asking that because that is not what evolution teaches.I am not saying a dinosaur gave birth to a bird,etc.But for evolution to be true life must evolve over time to be different species.That evolution tree confuses you though because you'll just turn around look at it and claim birds are dinosaurs according to the tree looked at from an evolution point of view.Evolution teaches that over time all life evolved to the different species we have today.You teach Dinosaurs evolved over time to be birds.Don't you want to see it demonstrated?Or do you just believe it because life adapts?

 

[Prolescum]

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Yeah, that sounds like blind faith to me. This is further proof that you do not actually read anything you post here.

Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for,the EVIDENCE of things not seen. I like to use gravity as an example, you cannot see gravity but eventhough you cannot see it you can pick up a rock(substance) and drop it and see it in action,it pulls everything down to the ground(evidence)

 

[Darkprophet232]

My faith in gravity is not evidence that things fall to the earth when dropped. If I stopped having faith in gravity, I won't suddenly begin to fly. Otherwise, holy shit, I would be doing that right now.

 

[Prolescum]

It's about time this conversation had its own thread. Someone go here and start one.

 

[ldmitruk]

They reject the Gap theory and think we can't trust science today and must believe in a 6000 year old universe and earth.They have some good teaching,it is not all wrong and I accept the good info and reject the bad info,the same thing I do for evolution or anyhing. True faith is not blind Hebrews 11:1. They have invested a lot of time into proving a young earth and I think they mean well,but are just unnecessarily wrong when it comes to the bible and true science.Although Ray comfort mostly just preaches the gospel which is important.It is awesome to me that slowly secular science is confirming things the bible had already told us without them even realizing it.I know that certain things in the bible are revealed over time and it never stops,there is always something new to discover to add to all of the other scientific stuff science confirmed that the bible had said like to quaranatine or remove the sick outside the camp that are contagious,this biblical law helped stop the plague in Europe when at the time doctors and science could do nothing.Alot less people would have died had they followed this biblical law when it first started.Quarantining. Read Isaiah 48 and start with verse 3.

I think science has revealed the bible is a bunch of myth's, has predicted absolutely nothing, and has contributed nothing towards the understanding of physics, medicine, geology, chemistry, cosmology etc.

 

[Dave B.]

It is awesome to me that slowly secular science is confirming things the bible had already told us without them even realizing it.

Can you give an example?

I know that certain things in the bible are revealed over time and it never stops,there is always something new to discover to add to all of the other scientific stuff science confirmed that the bible had said like to quaranatine or remove the sick outside the camp that are contagious,this biblical law helped stop the plague in Europe when at the time doctors and science could do nothing.Alot less people would have died had they followed this biblical law when it first started.Quarantining.

:facepalm:

How people dealt with the plague: the use of religion

With no accurate knowledge about the disease and the way it was spread, what could be done in the face of such horror? While many followed Hippocratic advice and fled, others waited. Indeed, under Islamic doctrine, plague - being the will of God - was to be endured and fleeing was forbidden. Others, turning to religion for protection, formed themselves into wandering groups of penitents. They traveled from town to town, ritually flagellating themselves in public acts of repentance to a God who was clearly very angry. But violence could also be directed outwards. In mainland Europe outsiders and religious minorities - especially Jews - were subject to violent and vicious abuse.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/publichealth/blackdeath.aspx

 

[Rumraket]

I have asked over and over for a demonstration and scientific confirmation that life evolves and yet none of you have and the only evidence you can show only shows adaptation. You start out with a fly and you end up with a fly and somehow think it evolved.They are tricking you and I'm trying to help you,they might mean well but they are looking at the evidence all wrong trying to prove evolution.But until you can demonstrate Darwinian evolution,not just adaptation,but Darwinian evolution you are unfortunately being taught wrong.

We have demonstrated over and over through scientific confirmation that life evolves, and yet you still insist on calling it "adaptation" as if adaptation isn't evolution. You think a fly showing adaptations through the evolutionary process isn't evolution for some strange reason. You are being tricked by your religious upbringing and your emotional need, probably combined with having too much personal pride invested in your world-view and this discussion, to allow you to rationally and openly consider the evidence and the arguments. We are trying to help you by explaining to you how evolution happens and how the evidence shows this, but you just keep denying it with these ridiculous blind assertions over and over again.

Until you can demonstrate that you actually understand the evidence and the arguments put forward, your blind, irrational insistence that "adaptation" isn't evolution is unfortunately some wrongheaded shit you've been taught by people with the same emotional and religious faith you have.

 

[Isotelus]

I have asked over and over for a demonstration and scientific confirmation that life evolves and yet none of you have and the only evidence you can show only shows adaptation. You start out with a fly and you end up with a fly and somehow think it evolved.They are tricking you and I'm trying to help you,they might mean well but they are looking at the evidence all wrong trying to prove evolution.But until you can demonstrate Darwinian evolution,not just adaptation,but Darwinian evolution you are unfortunately being taught wrong.

You defined mtDNA by describing nuclear DNA. I repeat, you defined mtDNA. By describing nuclear DNA.

But speaking of flies, and in accordance with the topic of this thread, I figure I may as well bring this up again: http://labs.biology.ucsd.edu/mcginnis/Hoxmacroevoweb.pdf
I don't think I posted an open-access link to the paper before. Compared to other papers, I would say this is very readable and it has excellent figures. As I explained many pagers prior, it demonstrates that mutations in Hox proteins can account for macroevolutionary changes over time, represented in the paper by the fruit fly and brine shrimp.

 

[Mugnuts]

Time stop feeding the troll.

 

[Isotelus]

DANDAN, still waiting on a reply. I also provided extra information on CoalHMM below.

Ok so what did you mean

I explained that succinctly in my last post. I said they don't use them in the same way, and then I explained the morphological differences between the auditory and vocal systems in bats and cetaceans, as well as terrestrial mammals. MGK did the same thing.

I have an evem more basic question WHAT METHOD? why can´t you present the statistical model, the gorilla article shows no such model

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed it, or maybe you didn't read the entire paper, but it truly boggles my mind that you can boldly assert something that is so massively incorrect. CoalHMM is mentioned 13 times in the main paper. 13. Here is just one example:

The genealogy relating human (H), chimpanzee (C) and gorilla (G) varies between loci across the genome. CoalHMM explicitly models this and infers the genealogy at each position: either the standard ((H,C),G) relationship or the alternatives ((H,G),C) or ((C,G),H), which are the consequences of incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) in the ancestral human–chimpanzee population.

I linked some basic equations of coalescence theory (which is what CoalHMM software is based on) to you, as well as the entire mathematical model that was formulated in the 1980's. You won't find the whole model spelled out for you in the gorilla paper, because a computer is required to process the massive amounts of data they're inputting, and that's where CoalHMM came in. So now you're asking for the methods. It's the last paragraph before the acknowledgements, and the very last sentence states this:

Further details and other methods are described in Supplementary Information.

Clicking on the "Supplementary Information" will bring you to a list of links including the PDF that explains in detail by painful detail of what they did and how. Page 11 has a heading called "CoalHMM Analysis", so that would be a good place to start, and it even has some equations explaining how they were used. Do not ask me to copy and paste, because if you want a comprehensive explanation, I would have to post several pages, and I will not and cannot do that. I read all 79 pages (yes, I read the references too). Go to it.

And if that isn't enough to convince you of how wrong you are, then you really need to think about explaining in detail why you don't accept it and what you are actually expecting, instead of declaring that no one has been able to provide you with anything.

So what would happen if I show to you that the sonar in whales and bats are similar at a genetic level? Would that disprove evolution, or are you going to find an excuse anyway?

I already read the paper you're referring to over a year ago. For the third? Fourth? time now, the paper doesn't prove your point, and I'm not the one making excuses. For one, it's important to note that all mammals, and all tetrapods for that matter, have gene sequences that code for hundreds of different types of Prestin genes, so the fact that two unrelated echolocating groups have similar sequences is not surprising, and wouldn't disprove evolution on its own. The authors didn't assume convergence either, because there were other possible causes for the similarities found, so they had to test for it and if they found this is indeed what occurred, they had to both demonstrate this and find the amino acid sites responsible--which is what they did, and with statistical significance no less:

We found that support for the convergent tree was distributed along the entire coding sequence (Figure 1B) and, therefore, was not caused by gene conversion. To assess the statistical support for our results, we generated a null distribution of 100,000 simulated sites that were allowed to evolve randomly on the constrained tree under the best-fitting model of evolution. These results confirmed that the total support for the convergent tree was significantly greater (p < 0.001) than expected under this model.

That is completely arbitrarily, you call them “terrestrial ear bones” but the reality is that both terrestrial and aquatic mammals need those bones.

No, it isn't, and you have no basis to make that assumption. And you also missed my point entirely; mammals "needing" bones is irrelevant. All research supports the fact that cetaceans are descendants of terrestrial mammals (artiodactyls, more specifically. Perhaps you missed the part where the prestin gene paper you linked noted that the correct tree showed dolphins grouping with cows). I explained that the cetacean auditory system is an ad-hoc modification based on and constrained by a terrestrial mammal system (and same is true of the limbs), which is well explained and understood from a descent standpoint. Why did your designer work off a terrestrial body plan rather than create something different?

As I said that is completely arbitrary, you call them “theropod traits” A designer created chickens with what you call theropod traits because they need them to survive, that is like asking, why did a designer created a knife with “spatula traits”
My problem is the leap of faith that you are making, chickens and theorpods have some similarities, therefore chickens evolved from theropods…
Why won´t you use the logic with the marsupial wolf? The marsupial wolf and dogs have similar traits, therefore dogs evolved from marsupial wolves?

As I said that is completely false, and you missed my point yet again. I explicitly stated that those theropod traits are not expressed in adults. They absolutely do not need them to survive. When have you ever observed an adult bird with teeth, five unfused digits (rather than 3 fused), and a long tail comprising of several unfused vertebrae? I would assume never, and yet embryos have the genes to form these characters and some of actually begin to develop before being turned off prior to hatching. Why?

Your comments on the thylacine and dogs demonstrates that you are unfamiliar with how phylogeny and taxonomy works. I've said multiple times that hundreds to thousands of characters are tested together. Massive computer programs run the traits and compare them, recording both the similarities and differences. They can also determine statistically the value of certain traits shared by a particular group of species (which, by the way, won't work for man-made objects, for which traits actually are chosen subjectively--contrary to your claims). The nonsense logic you're suggesting is applied to organisms in general and thylacines and dogs specifically is a ridiculous comment to make, given that such a thing has never and will never be done in an actual scientific setting, and it's not even remotely similar to how phylogenetics actually works. Give more credit to the scientists running these sorts of test and pay better attention to Rumraket's explanation on how convergence is predictable and testable.

Referring back to CoalHMM and the gorilla paper, they refer to this (once again, open access): http://www.genetics.org/content/183/1/259.full.pdf
"Ancestral Population Genomics: The Coalescent Hidden Markov Model Approach", by Dutheil et al., 2009.

Coalescent Hidden Markov Model Approach: CoalHMM. The software used by the gorilla paper. Just one of many equations from Dutheil et al.:

PrΘ (D I H) = n Ⲡ I = 1 PrΘ (Di I Hi)
The probability of the data thus depends on two major components, namely PrΘ (Di I Hi = Aj) and PrΘ (Hi I Hi1 ). The first probability is called the emission probability and the second the transition probability, and they are the core ingredients in a hidden Markov model.

Note that Θ is uppercase theta, an ordinal number, and Ⲡ is uppercase pi, meaning "product of".

Use of transition probability from the supplementary data gorilla paper:

The input data for CoalHMM is an alignment of genome sequences for each of the four great apes. For any species pair, e.g. human and chimpanzee, at any given position x in the alignment, some component of the total sequence divergence (substitutions per bp) will correspond to mutations occurring on the separate lineages since HC speciation, and the remainder will correspond to ancestral polymorphism, i.e. mutations occurring within the ancestral HC population. We express this as

dHC(x) = dHCs(x) + θHC(x)

where dHCs(x) and θHC(x) are the components of sequence divergence associated with speciation and ancestral polymorphism respectively.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You people can't handle the truth and deep down know I am right but you refuse to change your mind eventhough I have clearly demonstrated that adaptation is not Darwinian evolution and this is why you cannot give a scientific demonstration to demonstrate life evolves.You believe it by faith which means you are no different than a religious person believing in a God he cannot see. I will let up now but know intellectually honest people that Darwinian evolution cannot be demonstrated no matter how much they believe it and convince themselves life evolves.I cannot change your mind you can believe anything you choose to but I am glad that I was not indoctrinated to believe in a scientific theory that still after 150 years cannot be demonstrated.This is why you want me to shut up and be quite about it and think I'm a troll.

 

[Inferno]

You people can't handle the truth

 

[Rumraket]

You people can't handle the truth and deep down know I am right but you refuse to change your mind eventhough I have clearly demonstrated that adaptation is not Darwinian evolution and this is why you cannot give a scientific demonstration to demonstrate life evolves.You believe it by faith which means you are no different than a religious person believing in a God he cannot see. I will let up now but know intellectually honest people that Darwinian evolution cannot be demonstrated no matter how much they believe it and convince themselves life evolves.I cannot change your mind you can believe anything you choose to but I am glad that I was not indoctrinated to believe in a scientific theory that still after 150 years cannot be demonstrated.This is why you want me to shut up and be quite about it and think I'm a troll.

You creationists can't handle the truth and deep down known we are right but you refuse to change your mind even though we have clearly demonstrated that adaptation is Darwinian evolution and this is why you cannot give a scientific demonstration to demonstrate that life doesn't evolve. You belive it by faith which means you are just another fundamentalist religious person believing in a god he cannot see. I will let up now but know intellectually honest people that Darwinian evolution has been demonstrated now matter how much they don't believe it and convince themselves life doesn't evolve. I cannot change your mind you can believe anything you choose to but I am glad that I was not indoctrinated in a fundamentalist faith that still after 3000 years cannot be demonstrated. This is why you want me to shut up and be quiet about it and think I'm a troll.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You people can't handle the truth and deep down know I am right but you refuse to change your mind eventhough I have clearly demonstrated that adaptation is not Darwinian evolution and this is why you cannot give a scientific demonstration to demonstrate life evolves.You believe it by faith which means you are no different than a religious person believing in a God he cannot see. I will let up now but know intellectually honest people that Darwinian evolution cannot be demonstrated no matter how much they believe it and convince themselves life evolves.I cannot change your mind you can believe anything you choose to but I am glad that I was not indoctrinated to believe in a scientific theory that still after 150 years cannot be demonstrated.This is why you want me to shut up and be quite about it and think I'm a troll.

You creationists can't handle the truth and deep down known we are right but you refuse to change your mind even though we have clearly demonstrated that adaptation is Darwinian evolution and this is why you cannot give a scientific demonstration to demonstrate that life doesn't evolve. You belive it by faith which means you are just another fundamentalist religious person believing in a god he cannot see. I will let up now but know intellectually honest people that Darwinian evolution has been demonstrated now matter how much they don't believe it and convince themselves life doesn't evolve. I cannot change your mind you can believe anything you choose to but I am glad that I was not indoctrinated in a fundamentalist faith that still after 3000 years cannot be demonstrated. This is why you want me to shut up and be quiet about it and think I'm a troll.

Check Mate! We both believe what we do by faith.Also you cannot prove adaptation is Darwinian evolution,you are just saying it and believe it by faith because you start out with a fly and still have a fly at the end,which PROVES life does not evolve according to your own evidence but you stretch it and assume,with no proof.You believe life evolves despite the evidence.And the fact is you know it cannot be demonstrated because it happened over millions of years and so it would be impossible to observe but yet you ignore this and keep assuming by faith your belief that life evolves,by faith.Welcome to the world of faith.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You see I don't have to mock or get angry or call anybody names because I have truth on my side so I don't need intimidation,mockery,etc to point out your lack of evidence that life evolves.The truth hurts you and I know it does,it is not easy to admit you are wrong because you have pride,it is not easy to realize you were indoctrinated by state funded propaganda but at the end of the day everyone of you who believes life evolves believe it by faith and cannot demonstrate life evolves by scientific demonstration.Until you can actually demonstrate that life truly evolves and not just start out with a virus and at the end you still have a virus then I will gladly believe in God over your theory you cannot prove.

 

[Rumraket]

Check Mate! We both believe what we do by faith.Also you cannot prove adaptation is Darwinian evolution,you are just saying it and believe it by faith because you start out with a fly and still have a fly at the end,which PROVES life does not evolve according to your own evidence but you stretch it and assume,with no proof.You believe life evolves despite the evidence.And the fact is you know it cannot be demonstrated because it happened over millions of years and so it would be impossible to observe but yet you ignore this and keep assuming by faith your belief that life evolves,by faith.Welcome to the world of faith.

Check Mate! We only you believe what you do by faith. Also you cannot prove adaptation is not Darwinian evolution, you are just saying it and reject it by faith because you start out with a fly and still have a fly at the end, which PROVES nothing about whether life does not evolve according to our own evidence but you stretch it and assume, with no proof. You don't believe life evolves despite the evidence. And the fact is you know it has beeen demonstrated because it happened over millions of years and so it would be impossible to observe but yet you ignore this and keep assuming by faith your belief that life doesn't evolve ,by faith. Welcome to your world of faith.