onceforgivennowfree

[Mugnuts]

]

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.

This is really going no where. I am at a loss for words at this point. No humour, no analogies, no insight. Nothing useful comes to mind. Although it's the thought process behind all of this that fascinates me, I don't think I will get any answers I asked from you regarding your position. Oh well I tried.

 

[Rumraket]

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.

You see I don't have to mock or get angry or call anybody names because I have evidence on my side so I don't need intimidation, mockery, etc to point out your lack of evidence that life doesn't evolve. 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 religiously funded propaganda in churches, but at the end of the day everyone of you who believes life doesn't evolve believe it by faith and cannot demonstrate life doesn't evolve by scientific demonstration. Until you can actually demonstrate that life truly doesn't evolve and not just start out with a assuming your religious conclusions, then it will simply remain a fact that life evolves because it has been demonstrated countless times with evidence.

 

[Isotelus]

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.

You're mocking us right now. And derailing the thread.

 

[Rumraket]

It really is remarkably easy to just sit back and make claims. I have really learned something here about discourse from abelcainsbrother. I don't have to make any logical arguments or cite any evidence, all I need to do is just make one claim after another.

Evidence? Who gives a fuck about evidence? Logic? Out the window! The facts are what abelcainsbrother says they are, I mean... he's just sitting there and writing them. Could he be wrong? Of course not! That settles the matter. :roll:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Evolutionists have been too focused on trying to prove Young earth creationism wrong and have done a splendid job in making it seem science has buried God and there is no reason to believe in God,you have the media on your side too but what you failed to see and realize is your own problems with your Darwinian evolutionary theory.They were ignored and skimmed over and talking points and excuses were made up to explain away the glaring problems with Darwinian evolution,we see through your talking points and apologetics for evolution,you can try to spin it any way you want to but life adapting is TOTALLY different from live evolving,so don't just make up excuses,demonstrated it by science if lie truly evolves,because so far all you have is adaptation as evidence that life evolves.You may have fooled a lot of people but not me and others who have realized what is going on.Evidence that life evolves is what you need and until then it is going to a glaring problem for your theory and no spin will work.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It really is remarkably easy to just sit back and make claims. I have really learned something here about discourse from abelcainsbrother. I don't have to make any logical arguments or cite any evidence, all I need to do is just make one claim after another.

Evidence? Who gives a fuck about evidence? Logic? Out the window! The facts are what abelcainsbrother says they are, I mean... he's just sitting there and writing them. Could he be wrong? Of course not! That settles the matter. :roll:

If you would have read through these pages you would see I have provided evidence to back up what I say.It is just ignored and skimmed over.Also I also made the point earlier that I can if I want to just present what I believe without evidence and be just as credible as you with your belef that life evolves.I have just as much credibility,you all overlook this.Even a good conspiracy theory could work.

 

[Rumraket]

It really is remarkably easy to just sit back and make claims. I have really learned something here about discourse from abelcainsbrother. I don't have to make any logical arguments or cite any evidence, all I need to do is just make one claim after another.

Evidence? Who gives a fuck about evidence? Logic? Out the window! The facts are what abelcainsbrother says they are, I mean... he's just sitting there and writing them. Could he be wrong? Of course not! That settles the matter. :roll:

If you would have read through these pages you would see I have provided evidence to back up what I say.It is just ignored and skimmed over.Also I also made the point earlier that I can if I want to just present what I believe without evidence and be just as credible as you with your belef that life evolves.I have just as much credibility,you all overlook this.Even a good conspiracy theory could work.

I could write the exact same mindless nonsense. What a total waste of time.

At this stage it reads to me like you're not even trying to have a discussion, you are just reciting to yourself what you already believe, to strengthen your own convinctions. A sort of self-help therapy. If you can just repeat what you believe often enough maybe you'll believe it strongly enough. You don't even need to be on this forum to do that, go stand in front of a mirror and believe really hard, as hard as you can, as you mindlessly repeat it over and over again. It would spare us all the trouble of having to read this sogging stream of blind faith statements.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It really is remarkably easy to just sit back and make claims. I have really learned something here about discourse from abelcainsbrother. I don't have to make any logical arguments or cite any evidence, all I need to do is just make one claim after another.

Evidence? Who gives a fuck about evidence? Logic? Out the window! The facts are what abelcainsbrother says they are, I mean... he's just sitting there and writing them. Could he be wrong? Of course not! That settles the matter. :roll:

If you would have read through these pages you would see I have provided evidence to back up what I say.It is just ignored and skimmed over.Also I also made the point earlier that I can if I want to just present what I believe without evidence and be just as credible as you with your belef that life evolves.I have just as much credibility,you all overlook this.Even a good conspiracy theory could work.

I could write the exact same mindless nonsense. What a total waste of time.

At this stage it reads to me like you're not even trying to have a discussion, you are just reciting to yourself what you already believe, to strengthen your own convinctions. A sort of self-help therapy. If you can just repeat what you believe often enough maybe you'll believe it strongly enough. You don't even need to be on this forum to do that, go stand in front of a mirror and believe really hard, as hard as you can, as you mindlessly repeat it over and over again. It would spare us all the trouble of having to read this sogging stream of blind faith statements

[/quote].


I know that is my point.You could just say the same thing to me but it would just come down to who people choose to believe over real evidence.You know it really sticks out when people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham can debate evolutionist to a draw because of the lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution and the ability to debate well has nothing to do with it,because real evidence is all you need to make them look silly without having to attack their faith.You can mock and make fun of them all you want to but they can be just as credinle as any evolutionists you can put up on the stage to debate them.Never ias evolution demonstrated and the evolutionist thinks he wins by trying to prove young earth creationism and the bible wrong.This sticks out to casual observers who are not biased either way.

 

[Rumraket]

Why did you break up my post? How hard is it to just press "quote" and then write below? :roll:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I have already figured out how to win a debate with evolutionists.Pay attention. All you have to do is point out what the school text books teach to our children in schools,then tell the audience to ignore any attacks on the bible,then demand that it be demonstrated scientifically that a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,then just ignore the attacks on the bible and tell the audience,notice that he just attacks the bible but cannot demonstrate what your students are being taught as scientific truth.This is all you have to do to beat any evolutionist in a debate.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Why did you break up my post? How hard is it to just press "quote" and then write below? :roll:

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Rumraket]

I have already figured out how to win a debate with evolutionists.

Debate? A debate requires that both sides present arguments and rebut with counter-arguments. You have done neither, all you have done is assert.

If by "win" you mean "appear totally impervious to logic and evidence", then I agree. You've truly figured out how to do that. Not that I'd call that much of an achievement, but you've really succeeded.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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 draw a distinction between adaptation ("micro-evolution") and evolution ("macro-evolution") where none exists.

You have not provided any scientific evidence to show that there is such a distinction in Nature.

Evolution is simply - what you think of as - adaptation over very long periods of time.

Like any creationist, regardless to which religion they belong, you have been indoctrinated to believe in something - a creator-entity, whether individual or group - for which you have no corroborating evidence other than a text, which has been accorded unreasonable authority without foundation by its believers.

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.

You believe you have truth on your side - you don't: you've simply been indoctrinated to believe that - that doesn't make it true.

Your faith is based on a book without any actual authority other than a claim of such, where you then try to reinterpret it in light of science to make it appear to be true after-the-fact.

Our belief is based on empiric evidence and experimentation and logical inference from those.

The theories follow the evidence - not the other way round, as with creationists, where the evidence is fitted to the preconceived notions based on this or that religious belief.

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.

You make the same error as do all creationists: "If humans are evolved from fish/monkeys/apes, why are there still fish/monkeys/apes?"

There are still fish because there's still water (salt and fresh).

There are still monkeys because there are still trees.

There are still apes because there are still plains, forests and jungles.

There are still flies for the same reason - an environmental niche.

Evolution is a branching process - the branches result in species that stay much the same due to the same environmental niche existing, and branches that result in new species evolving shaped by a new/vacant environmental niche.

Evolutionists have been too focused on trying to prove Young earth creationism wrong and have done a splendid job in making it seem science has buried God and there is no reason to believe in God,you have the media on your side too but what you failed to see and realize is your own problems with your Darwinian evolutionary theory.They were ignored and skimmed over and talking points and excuses were made up to explain away the glaring problems with Darwinian evolution,we see through your talking points and apologetics for evolution,you can try to spin it any way you want to but life adapting is TOTALLY different from live evolving,so don't just make up excuses,demonstrated it by science if lie truly evolves,because so far all you have is adaptation as evidence that life evolves.You may have fooled a lot of people but not me and others who have realized what is going on.Evidence that life evolves is what you need and until then it is going to a glaring problem for your theory and no spin will work.

The point you miss is that creationists, regardless of religion, are just using a book as evidence of a creator-entity, of which they have no other confirmatory evidence, other than a claim.

Science is based on a concordance of empiric evidence and cross-correlating theories involving logical inferences from confirmatory experimentation.

And yet creationists seem to believe that their book, whichever one it is, trumps science.

If you would have read through these pages you would see I have provided evidence to back up what I say.It is just ignored and skimmed over.Also I also made the point earlier that I can if I want to just present what I believe without evidence and be just as credible as you with your belef that life evolves.I have just as much credibility,you all overlook this.Even a good conspiracy theory could work.

Like dandan, OFNF, and creationist, your "evidence" does not say nor mean what you think it says or means - as Isotelus and the rest of us keep having to point out.

In other words: you don't have evidence for what you believe.

Yet you keep telling us that we don't understand what we're talking about - despite the fact that a number of those posting are scientists specialising in the fields being discussed.

You make all sorts of baseless claims - like Cro-Magnons lived in trees or that Cro-Magnons are nothing like Humans, and therefore we couldn't have evolved from them (we are Cro-Magnons - with "adaptations"!). And these are just a few of the invalid scientific claims you make - the others (regarding Cain being a Neanderthal, etc) are simply your idiosyncratic interpretative faith-based nonsense.

As I said here:

You still manage to miss the point.

Belief has no bearing on reality.

If there isn't a creator-entity, then no matter what you believe about the existence of such, it doesn't exist.

You cannot base your belief in such on this or that religious text.

Your attempt to tell others that they are wrong based on such texts actually is "intellectually dishonest" - unlike those who don't accept religious texts as evidence for a creator-entity.

What those who reject religious texts do have is empiric evidence of Nature and naturalistic causes/effects - from which to infer rational explanations for observed phenomena.

The simplest solution is that Nature has always existed in some shape or form and that there is no need for "creator God(s)", as you would think of the concept.

This is the default position.

I know that is my point.You could just say the same thing to me but it would just come down to who people choose to believe over real evidence.You know it really sticks out when people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham can debate evolutionist to a draw because of the lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution and the ability to debate well has nothing to do with it,because real evidence is all you need to make them look silly without having to attack their faith.You can mock and make fun of them all you want to but they can be just as credinle as any evolutionists you can put up on the stage to debate them.Never ias evolution demonstrated and the evolutionist thinks he wins by trying to prove young earth creationism and the bible wrong.This sticks out to casual observers who are not biased either way.

"To a draw"? Like Bill Nye did with Ken Ham? You're aware, are you not, that Ham's own supporters - who made up the majority of the live audience - said that Nye had won the debate?

Hovind, Comfort, et al, are salesmen - they're quick-witted on their feet: nothing more. They come across well because they're able to come back quickly with a clever, well-practised response to the average person, who doesn't necessarily know the subject well enough or how these charlatans work.

It is for this reason that they appear credible to the uninformed.

However, when these sophists come up against someone who does know their subject - like scientists - and/or someone who knows their subject and who's just as good a communicator - like Nye or de Grasse Tyson - they fall down.

I have already figured out how to win a debate with evolutionists.Pay attention. All you have to do is point out what the school text books teach to our children in schools,then tell the audience to ignore any attacks on the bible,then demand that it be demonstrated scientifically that a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,then just ignore the attacks on the bible and tell the audience,notice that he just attacks the bible but cannot demonstrate what your students are being taught as scientific truth.This is all you have to do to beat any evolutionist in a debate.

This is basically what the above salesmen do, and in doing so they trust/hope that the uninformed listener will fall for the inherent fallacy of a false dichotomy (a false choice) in their spiel.

They try to find any "flaw" in the other's argument and use this as a excuse to dismiss everything the other person says in favour of their own claims.

Just because you "disprove" a part of another's argument, doesn't mean that what you're saying is true.

And, the fact is, they haven't disproven anything.

*****************

Also, I note you haven't responded to my earlier posts: here, and here.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dave B.]

...notice that he just attacks the bible but cannot demonstrate what your students are being taught as scientific truth

If it was a fact it wouldn't be a theory.

You still cannot demonstrate that your creation myth is fact. That's not attacking the bible; it's pointing out your double standard.

I have already figured out how to win a debate with evolutionists.

Ignore everything they say and then claim you won? You didn't figure that out on your own. Creationists have been doing the same thing for decades.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

"Dragan Glas"]Greetings,

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 draw a distinction between adaptation ("micro-evolution") and evolution ("macro-evolution") where none exists.

You have not provided any scientific evidence to show that there is such a distinction in Nature.

Evolution is simply - what you think of as - adaptation over very long periods of time.

Yes I do because that is what the evidence shows and I go by evidence.You start out with a fly and still have a fly,you start out with bacteria and at the end still have bacteria.This is a common thing with all of the evidence that is supposed to be evidence that life evolves.They are only observing life adapting,not life evolving,you assume life will evolve eventually but have no way to demonstrate it.You are having to backtrack and change up what you have been teaching for years that life evolves and having to deny what evolution has taught for years because you don't have the evidence.So you make it up that adaptation is a mechanism of evolution.It is to trick people into buying into adapting as evidence for evolving,but in order to do this one must assume and stretch the evidence that life adapts to be equivalent with life evolving when they are totally different and you know it.How come none of your evidence demonstrates life evolving? Whether it is finches,salamanders,viruses,bacteria,etc the only thing we are seeing is life adapting.Life adapts to survive but the evidence shows it does not evolve,it always remains the same kind of life.

Like any creationist, regardless to which religion they belong, you have been indoctrinated to believe in something - a creator-entity - for which you have no corroborating evidence other than a text, which has been accorded unreasonable authority without foundation by its believers.

I have no reason to feel indoctrinated by Christianity when it comes down to faith either way. I cannot see God but you cannot see life evolve.I'll choose God and his word and the many examples of evidence that confirms our bible true that you reject.

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.

You believe you have truth on your side - you don't: you've simply been indoctrinated to believe that - that doesn't make it true.

Your faith is based on a book without any actual authority other than a claim of such, where you then try to reinterpret it in light of science to make it appear to be true after-the-fact.

Our belief is based on empiric evidence and experimentation and logical inference from those.

The theories follow the evidence - not the other way round, as with creationists, where the evidence is fitted to the preconceived notions based on this or that religious belief.

The bible is backed up by science,history,archeology,astronomy,bible prophecy,etc you just reject it while failing to realize you have no evidence that life evolves yet choose to believe it with no evidence.I have way more evidence eventhough you reject it for a myth.You have empiric evidence but none of it demonstrates that life evolves.Why would you think biblical evidence should be peer reviewed? Is that really an argument?I don't see how.I know it isn't and it couldn't be.But just because your evidence is peer reviewed,you still have no peer reviewed science that demonstrates life evolving.

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.

You make the same error as do all creationists: "If humans are evolved from fish/monkeys/apes, why are there still fish/monkeys/apes?"

There are still fish because there's still water (salt and fresh).

There are still monkeys because there are still trees.

There are still apes because there are still plains, forests and jungles.

There are still flies for the same reason - an environmental niche.

Evolution is a branching process - the branches result in species that stay much the same due to the same environmental niche existing, and branches that result in new species evolving shaped by a new/vacant environmental niche.

You are putting words in my mouth as I don't ask questions like that because that wouldn't hurt evolution at all and I know it.

Evolutionists have been too focused on trying to prove Young earth creationism wrong and have done a splendid job in making it seem science has buried God and there is no reason to believe in God,you have the media on your side too but what you failed to see and realize is your own problems with your Darwinian evolutionary theory.They were ignored and skimmed over and talking points and excuses were made up to explain away the glaring problems with Darwinian evolution,we see through your talking points and apologetics for evolution,you can try to spin it any way you want to but life adapting is TOTALLY different from live evolving,so don't just make up excuses,demonstrated it by science if lie truly evolves,because so far all you have is adaptation as evidence that life evolves.You may have fooled a lot of people but not me and others who have realized what is going on.Evidence that life evolves is what you need and until then it is going to a glaring problem for your theory and no spin will work.

The point you miss is that creationists, regardless of religion, are just using a book as evidence of a creator-entity, of which they have no other confirmatory evidence, other than a claim.

Science is based on a concordance of empiric evidence and cross-correlating theories involving logical inferences from confirmatory experimentation.

And yet creationists seem to believe that their book, whichever one it is, trumps science.

Only when it comes to evolution.There is a lot of good science out there much more demonstrated and proven by science than evolution is,despite how high evolution is propped up.

If you would have read through these pages you would see I have provided evidence to back up what I say.It is just ignored and skimmed over.Also I also made the point earlier that I can if I want to just present what I believe without evidence and be just as credible as you with your belef that life evolves.I have just as much credibility,you all overlook this.Even a good conspiracy theory could work.

Like dandan, OFNF, and creationist, your "evidence" does not say nor mean what you think it says or means - as Isotelus and the rest of us keep having to point out.

In other words: you don't have evidence for what you believe.

Yet you keep telling us that we don't understand what we're talking about - despite the fact that a number of those posting are scientists specialising in the fields being discussed.

You make all sorts of baseless claims - like Cro-Magnons lived in trees or that Cro-Magnons are nothing like Humans, and therefore we couldn't have evolved from them (we are Cro-Magnons - with "adaptations"!). And these are just a few of the invalid scientific claims you make - the others (regarding Cain being a Neanderthal, etc) are simply your idiosyncratic interpretative faith-based nonsense.

As I said here:

Everything I say I have reasons I believe it and I have provided evidence to back up why I believe what I do.You are just saying believe us because they are scientists when I understand they are looking at everything from a biased evolution point of view and so they are going to look at it like that.They mean well but are wrong about life evolving,they are only going on what they were taught and have bought into.

You still manage to miss the point.

Belief has no bearing on reality.

If there isn't a creator-entity, then no matter what you believe about the existence of such, it doesn't exist.

You cannot base your belief in such on this or that religious text.

Your attempt to tell others that they are wrong based on such texts actually is "intellectually dishonest" - unlike those who don't accept religious texts as evidence for a creator-entity.

What those who reject religious texts do have is empiric evidence of Nature and naturalistic causes/effects - from which to infer rational explanations for observed phenomena.

The simplest solution is that Nature has always existed in some shape or form and that there is no need for "creator God(s)", as you would think of the concept.

This is the default position.

Sorry but I don't have the faith of an atheist you believe nature can produce this universe and life with no proof and belief life evolves with no proof. What I believe requires a lot less faith to believe.

I know that is my point.You could just say the same thing to me but it would just come down to who people choose to believe over real evidence.You know it really sticks out when people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham can debate evolutionist to a draw because of the lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution and the ability to debate well has nothing to do with it,because real evidence is all you need to make them look silly without having to attack their faith.You can mock and make fun of them all you want to but they can be just as credinle as any evolutionists you can put up on the stage to debate them.Never ias evolution demonstrated and the evolutionist thinks he wins by trying to prove young earth creationism and the bible wrong.This sticks out to casual observers who are not biased either way.

"To a draw"? Like Bill Nye did with Ken Ham? You're aware, are you not, that Ham's own supporters - who made up the majority of the live audience - said that Nye had won the debate?

Hovind, Comfort, et al, are salesmen - they're quick-witted on their feet: nothing more. They come across well because they're able to come back quickly with a clever, well-practised response to the average person, who doesn't necessarily know the subject well enough or how these charlatans work.

It is for this reason that they appear credible to the uninformed.

However, when these sophists come up against someone who does know their subject - like scientists - and/or someone who knows their subject and who's just as good a communicator - like Nye or de Grasse Tyson - they fall down.

It has been happening for years young earth creationists debating evolutionists to a draw while Intelligent design beats darwinian evolution in debates.

I have already figured out how to win a debate with evolutionists.Pay attention. All you have to do is point out what the school text books teach to our children in schools,then tell the audience to ignore any attacks on the bible,then demand that it be demonstrated scientifically that a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,then just ignore the attacks on the bible and tell the audience,notice that he just attacks the bible but cannot demonstrate what your students are being taught as scientific truth.This is all you have to do to beat any evolutionist in a debate.

This is basically what the above salesmen do, and in doing so they trust/hope that the uninformed listener will fall for the inherent fallacy of a false dichotomy (a false choice) in their spiel.

They try to find any "flaw" in the other's argument and use this as a excuse to dismiss everything the other person says in favour of their own claims.

Just because you "disprove" a part of another's argument, doesn't mean that what you're saying is true.

And, the fact is, they haven't disproven anything.

*****************

Also, I note you haven't responded to my earlier posts: here, and here.

Kindest regards,

It is what I have noticed after watching a lot of debates evolutionists attack God and the bible in order to win in debates and avoid evidence for evolution,everytime.

James[/quote]

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

You draw a distinction between adaptation ("micro-evolution") and evolution ("macro-evolution") where none exists.

You have not provided any scientific evidence to show that there is such a distinction in Nature.

Evolution is simply - what you think of as - adaptation over very long periods of time.

Yes I do because that is what the evidence shows and I go by evidence.You start out with a fly and still have a fly,you start out with bacteria and at the end still have bacteria.This is a common thing with all of the evidence that is supposed to be evidence that life evolves.They are only observing life adapting,not life evolving,you assume life will evolve eventually but have no way to demonstrate it.You are having to backtrack and change up what you have been teaching for years that life evolves and having to deny what evolution has taught for years because you don't have the evidence.So you make it up that adaptation is a mechanism of evolution.It is to trick people into buying into adapting as evidence for evolving,but in order to do this one must assume and stretch the evidence that life adapts to be equivalent with life evolving when they are totally different and you know it.How come none of your evidence demonstrates life evolving? Whether it is finches,salamanders,viruses,bacteria,etc the only thing we are seeing is life adapting.Life adapts to survive but the evidence shows it does not evolve,it always remains the same kind of life.

Evolution is adaptation over very long periods of time - it is a logical inference from all the observations of empiric evidence and experimentation across multiple fields in science, like the long-term experiment which Rumraket has provided for you several times, to name but one.

There is nothing in Nature which leads us to think that this does not occur: "It's all just chemistry", as Feynman once said.

Again, you still have not provided any scientific evidence to show that there is such a distinction in Nature.

Like any creationist, regardless to which religion they belong, you have been indoctrinated to believe in something - a creator-entity - for which you have no corroborating evidence other than a text, which has been accorded unreasonable authority without foundation by its believers.

I have no reason to feel indoctrinated by Christianity when it comes down to faith either way. I cannot see God but you cannot see life evolve.I'll choose God and his word and the many examples of evidence that confirms our bible true that you reject.

You claim it is "his word" without any evidence - other than the bible.

Creationists of any religion will make the same claim for their religious texts - that it is their god's or gods' "word" because their text says so.

This is an example of indoctrination.

There is nothing in Nature that provides evidence for any creator-entity of any religion - to believe that such a entity exists over empiric evidence of naturalistic causes/effects is misguided.

You believe you have truth on your side - you don't: you've simply been indoctrinated to believe that - that doesn't make it true.

Your faith is based on a book without any actual authority other than a claim of such, where you then try to reinterpret it in light of science to make it appear to be true after-the-fact.

Our belief is based on empiric evidence and experimentation and logical inference from those.

The theories follow the evidence - not the other way round, as with creationists, where the evidence is fitted to the preconceived notions based on this or that religious belief.

The bible is backed up by science,history,archeology,astronomy,bible prophecy,etc you just reject it while failing to realize you have no evidence that life evolves yet choose to believe it with no evidence.I have way more evidence eventhough you reject it for a myth.You have empiric evidence but none of it demonstrates that life evolves.Why would you think biblical evidence should be peer reviewed? Is that really an argument?I don't see how.I know it isn't and it couldn't be.But just because your evidence is peer reviewed,you still have no peer reviewed science that demonstrates life evolving.

The bible is not backed up by these in the way you believe and/or claim - you're simply retro-fitting them to the bible to bolster your beliefs.

In another post I linked to two articles on the so-called prophecies in the bible, which showed them to be untrue - you haven't addressed that point either.

In certain respects, archaeology may identify a place - but this does not mean that the people mentioned in the bible existed. In many cases archaeology has disproven the claims in the bible - as Finkelstein, amongst many, has shown.

Equally, historical research has not confirmed anything in the bible regarding people.

You can add astronomy to this, as there's nothing to link heavenly bodies to people or historical events in the bible.

You make the same error as do all creationists: "If humans are evolved from fish/monkeys/apes, why are there still fish/monkeys/apes?"

There are still fish because there's still water (salt and fresh).

There are still monkeys because there are still trees.

There are still apes because there are still plains, forests and jungles.

There are still flies for the same reason - an environmental niche.

Evolution is a branching process - the branches result in species that stay much the same due to the same environmental niche existing, and branches that result in new species evolving shaped by a new/vacant environmental niche.

You are putting words in my mouth as I don't ask questions like that because that wouldn't hurt evolution at all and I know it.

I'm not putting words in your mouth - this is ultimately to what your argument devolves.

"Flies are still flies" is the same as "Fish/monkeys/apes are still fish/monkeys/apes".

A recent discovery has provided evidence for an idea that's been around for a century.

Two species of related wasps can't interbreed with a third due to their off-spring tending to die. Researchers found that if they treated the parents with antibacterial agents, they could breed a viable hybrid species.

This has major implications for definitions of "species" and adds another pathway of how they evolve.

Another recent study has shown that evolution through natural selection of stick insects is predictable.

You may wave the "kinds" card - this won't work, as creationists use this term in a arbitrary manner so as to explain away any problematic results in breeding experiments.

The point you miss is that creationists, regardless of religion, are just using a book as evidence of a creator-entity, of which they have no other confirmatory evidence, other than a claim.

Science is based on a concordance of empiric evidence and cross-correlating theories involving logical inferences from confirmatory experimentation.

And yet creationists seem to believe that their book, whichever one it is, trumps science.

Only when it comes to evolution.There is a lot of good science out there much more demonstrated and proven by science than evolution is,despite how high evolution is propped up.

That isn't the case - as creationists argue the toss about cosmology as well as anything that questions a belief in a creator-entity.

Evolution is one of the most evidentiary-supported theories in science - as Dobzhansky noted: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". (By the way, he's a Russian Orthodox Christian.)

Like dandan, OFNF, and creationist, your "evidence" does not say nor mean what you think it says or means - as Isotelus and the rest of us keep having to point out.

In other words: you don't have evidence for what you believe.

Yet you keep telling us that we don't understand what we're talking about - despite the fact that a number of those posting are scientists specialising in the fields being discussed.

You make all sorts of baseless claims - like Cro-Magnons lived in trees or that Cro-Magnons are nothing like Humans, and therefore we couldn't have evolved from them (we are Cro-Magnons - with "adaptations"!). And these are just a few of the invalid scientific claims you make - the others (regarding Cain being a Neanderthal, etc) are simply your idiosyncratic interpretative faith-based nonsense.

As I said here:

Everything I say I have reasons I believe it and I have provided evidence to back up why I believe what I do.You are just saying believe us because they are scientists when I understand they are looking at everything from a biased evolution point of view and so they are going to look at it like that.They mean well but are wrong about life evolving,they are only going on what they were taught and have bought into.

Tu quoque.

However, unlike you, they've spent years studying their subjects and defending their ideas and research through peer-review throughout the scientific community.

You still manage to miss the point.

Belief has no bearing on reality.

If there isn't a creator-entity, then no matter what you believe about the existence of such, it doesn't exist.

You cannot base your belief in such on this or that religious text.

Your attempt to tell others that they are wrong based on such texts actually is "intellectually dishonest" - unlike those who don't accept religious texts as evidence for a creator-entity.

What those who reject religious texts do have is empiric evidence of Nature and naturalistic causes/effects - from which to infer rational explanations for observed phenomena.

The simplest solution is that Nature has always existed in some shape or form and that there is no need for "creator God(s)", as you would think of the concept.

This is the default position.

Sorry but I don't have the faith of an atheist you believe nature can produce this universe and life with no proof and belief life evolves with no proof. What I believe requires a lot less faith to believe.

This universe is part of Nature.

There is no need for any other explanation for everything than Nature itself.

Creationists are simple adding an unnecessary extra layer.

"To a draw"? Like Bill Nye did with Ken Ham? You're aware, are you not, that Ham's own supporters - who made up the majority of the live audience - said that Nye had won the debate?

Hovind, Comfort, et al, are salesmen - they're quick-witted on their feet: nothing more. They come across well because they're able to come back quickly with a clever, well-practised response to the average person, who doesn't necessarily know the subject well enough or how these charlatans work.

It is for this reason that they appear credible to the uninformed.

However, when these sophists come up against someone who does know their subject - like scientists - and/or someone who knows their subject and who's just as good a communicator - like Nye or de Grasse Tyson - they fall down.

It has been happening for years young earth creationists debating evolutionists to a draw while Intelligent design beats darwinian evolution in debates.

That is simply not the case - as you'd realise if you watched any of the debates.

This is basically what the above salesmen do, and in doing so they trust/hope that the uninformed listener will fall for the inherent fallacy of a false dichotomy (a false choice) in their spiel.

They try to find any "flaw" in the other's argument and use this as a excuse to dismiss everything the other person says in favour of their own claims.

Just because you "disprove" a part of another's argument, doesn't mean that what you're saying is true.

And, the fact is, they haven't disproven anything.

*****************

Also, I note you haven't responded to my earlier posts: here, and here.

Kindest regards,

It is what I have noticed after watching a lot of debates evolutionists attack God and the bible in order to win in debates and avoid evidence for evolution,everytime.

James

What? No response to this part? Or an attempt to address the other linked posts?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[scalyblue]

The collection of testable facts that models evolution is not faith based, because if something were discovered that contraindicated those facts, then the model would be altered or discarded altogether in lieu of a model that accurately describes reality, and any facts would be incorporated in the new model.

SEE:
Phlogiston Theory - Obsoleted by discovery of oxidation
Alchemy - Replaced with Chemistry after observations
Astrology - Replaced with Astronomy after observations
Newtonian Physics - Incorporated into Relativity Theory

The bible is not a collection of testable facts. It is faith based. If something were discovered that contraindicated the bible, it would be because satan is trying to fool us.
Satan's doing a real good job fooling us from believing the bible, by the way.

He has eliminated all four legged insects without trace...he's actually obliterated ANYTHING with four legs that flies ( lev 11:23 )

He got rabbits to stop chewing their cud ( lev 11:6 )

He changed bats from birds into mammals ( lev 11:18, Deu 14:11-18 )

He made the earth round, with no corners or ends. ( rev 7:1, Isiah 11:12, Zachariah 9:10 )

He also removed the mountains that can be seen from anywhere on earth ( Isiah 18:3, Luke 4:5 )

He also made the earth orbit ( psalms 104:5 )

and he took the wind out of the storehouses ( Psalms 135:7 )

Now tell us again, how the bible is an inerrant scientific source when satan seems to have fucked around with so much stuff that the world we live in now is completely inconsistent with the world described in the bible.

Or is it possible that the entire bible was written by a bunch of idiots who didn't know what they were talking about?

 

[dandan]

of the outer hair cells in the inner hear.
And that is your argument that echolocation in bats and in dolphins is genetically identical?
You got to be shitting me. Did the fact that the echo location in both dolphins and bats have origins in 2 completely different organs and that they are collected from the environment trough 2 completely different mediums doesn't matter to you? Or did that point gone entirely unnoticed?
This is why I have said that you haven't read what I said, because echolocation combines multiple structures, which are different and cannot be genetically identical, even if some punctual details are.

My point is that it doesn´t matter if two distant relatives have humongous portions of DNA that closer relatives have, you will always find a way to make it fit with evolution.

Ok so if this type of discordances don´t disprove evolution then what type of discordances are needed? Please provide a statistical model that would allow me to test if a given discordance is statistically significant or not.

It seems as if evolutionists are simply waiting for the data and then find a way to shuffle their theory so that it can fit the data, rather than making actual predictions about phalogentics and family trees.

[ Evolution won´t be falsified.
Exactly, because that would have as a consequence that humans would be birds. However if humans were birds and still had oposable thumbs, nipples and a monkey like skull, then Evolution would be falsified.

No, if humans would have had feathers and ape-like skull you would ether invoke convergent evolution, as you did with the marsupial wolf, who has a dog-like skull but is not supposed to be closely related to dogs.

Or you would simply say that ape-like skulls, nipples, etc evolved before “birds” and “apes” diverged. You would simply change you evolutionary tree, as you did with the sloth.

Or you would say that is just a strage case, like you did with the platypus.

This is why there is nothing special about the “tree pattern” if something doesn´t match evolutionary predictions you can always find an excuse.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Have you found that mammal with compound eyes yet?

 

[Isotelus]

of the outer hair cells in the inner hear.
And that is your argument that echolocation in bats and in dolphins is genetically identical?
You got to be shitting me. Did the fact that the echo location in both dolphins and bats have origins in 2 completely different organs and that they are collected from the environment trough 2 completely different mediums doesn't matter to you? Or did that point gone entirely unnoticed?
This is why I have said that you haven't read what I said, because echolocation combines multiple structures, which are different and cannot be genetically identical, even if some punctual details are.

My point is that it doesn´t matter if two distant relatives have humongous portions of DNA that closer relatives have, you will always find a way to make it fit with evolution.

Ok so if this type of discordances don´t disprove evolution then what type of discordances are needed? Please provide a statistical model that would allow me to test if a given discordance is statistically significant or not.

It seems as if evolutionists are simply waiting for the data and then find a way to shuffle their theory so that it can fit the data, rather than making actual predictions about phalogentics and family trees.

Absolutely hysterical:

The degree of discordances required to falsify evolution would be those that outweigh the concordances, i.e. consistent incongruence between independent morphological and molecular trees to a high degree of significance. The last part is key, as statistical methods function to determine quantitatively at what point inconsistencies become problematic. The very papers you cited earlier provide examples of the statistical models in question. This study actually addresses your questions by way of what I mentioned above, though I’m assuming you don’t have access to it, which is unfortunate (not that this stopped you from citing it): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307040. The gorilla paper you cited also provided an example of a more relevant model you’re asking for, and that one is open access. It’s abbreviated CoalHMM and referred to as coalescence theory (mathematical model: http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/756/ ... ealogy.pdf), which samples genes from a population to assess the probabilities of matching topologies in gene and species trees. In this case it identified the occurrence of ILS. Recall also in my first response to you that coalescence can also estimate values for population size and divergence time, among other things, as was done here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044849/. The authors used CoalHMM to predict that roughly 0.9% of orangutan alleles would be more similar to humans. Following the analysis, a value of 0.8% was retrieved.
Returning to the first paper, they note that multispecies coalescence (sampling from multiple populations) can predict the particular frequencies of gene trees in relation to a species tree, i.e., how much discordance and where. In the case of a three-species tree, the instance where the gene tree matches the species tree is the probably the correct one, with the occurrence of other topologies being roughly equal (this was seen in the Gorilla paper as well). They used three species of Australian grass finches and sampling 28 gene trees predicted that particular gene topologies would occur 16.0002 times for ((acuticauda,hecki),cincta), and 5.999 times for ((acuticauda,cincta),hecki) and (hecki, cincta),acuticauda). The actual results found by an independent paper were 16, 7, and 5 times, respectively, with the (a,h),c) concordant tree being the correct one. The above examples demonstrate that despite your objections to the contrary, the discordance present is explainable, quantifiable, and outweighed by congruent trees.

And I see, you actually want to use the statistical model from the paper. Then here: http://gna.org/projects/coalhmm/
Download the software (which I already provided several pages back), then download the genomes. Here's the gorilla genome used by the gorilla paper: http://uswest.ensembl.org/Gorilla_gorilla/Info/Index. I'd imagine you can find human and chimpanzee genomes on it too.

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.

Note that I underlined incomplete lineage sorting for you, which I explained at the very beginning of this thread and you never provided any valid argument against (recall it's a very well-understood means by which discordance may arise). Maybe if someone else explains it for you: http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-basics-species-trees-gene-trees-and-incomplete-lineage-sorting

And if you still can't figure out how to use CoalHMM as per the gorilla paper, then I suggest reading the paper that shows each and every of the roughly 60 equations required for the statistical model you claim no one has provided you with, and you want to work out for yourself (I included only one aspect of the model below, to demonstrate that I'm not just pulling it out of thin air):

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 Π 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 Π 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.

Now, can someone here kindly tell me whether or not I've provided the statistical model as requested? Aside from copying and pasting the entirety of Dutheil et al. that goes over every aspect of the model in painful detail, which would be a major copyright violation I'm sure, what else can I possibly do to get my point across (assuming for a moment that it is completely within my power to do so)?

No, if humans would have had feathers and ape-like skull you would ether invoke convergent evolution, as you did with the marsupial wolf, who has a dog-like skull but is not supposed to be closely related to dogs.

Or you would simply say that ape-like skulls, nipples, etc evolved before “birds” and “apes” diverged. You would simply change you evolutionary tree, as you did with the sloth.

Or you would say that is just a strage case, like you did with the platypus.

This is why there is nothing special about the “tree pattern” if something doesn´t match evolutionary predictions you can always find an excuse.

Quoting Hwin's response to this:

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.

ProcInc[/url]"]

As I pointed out before, the anatomical similarities were known about the Twolf and the American wolf for a long time

No they weren't Ben. From the time of Cuvier and even before the difference between superficial similarity and anatomatical similarity was well established. I already demonstrated to you this difference and demonsntrated to you how the Tasmanian Tiger has all of the traits indicative of a marsupial and none linking it to a wolf.

Unlike creationist argumentation, comparative biology is a rigorous science. Rather than just "eyeballing" similarity as creationists do, biologists systematically identify specific characters. Padian shows five of the standard skull features that dogs and wolves share. For example, tooth formulas are a standard feature used for classifying mammals. Dogs and wolves both have two molars in the upper jaw

Now the Tasmanian "wolf" is compared to a kangaroo -- according to modern biology a much closer evolutionary relative. Pandas claims that "the determination of homologies [is] a matter of subjective judgment" (p. 122) and therefore "the determination of relationship rests upon a subjective judgment" (p. 124). If this is true, the comparative biologist should have difficulty finding the homologies that unite the Tasmanian "wolf" with the kangaroo. Padian shows that these two marsupials share the exact characters that were different between the placental wolf and marsupial "wolf." For example, both have four molars in the upper jaw instead of two...The same characters are found to be shared between the Tasmanian "wolf" and the common Virginia opossum.

A habit of "eyeballing similarity" while simoultaneously insisting the determination of homologies is a matter of "subjective judgement" pretty much sums up your own argumentation here Ben. In fact you described your 'authority' on the matter best:

The argument is that they are anatomically similar to wolves, and look homologous. Homology is based on superficial appearance and is used all the time. I saw a bigger difference between Twolf and Kanagaroo than I did between Twolf and Awolf. Take a look again. You dont have to be an expert to spot out the difference."

(emphasis mine)

Well, at least you certainly proved you are no expert.

Also in regards to convergent evolution:

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.