onceforgivennowfree

[he_who_is_nobody]

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.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

OK you reject religious texts...

You reject religious texts, too. Why is that?

Because I have actually taken the time to compare religious texts and have compared evidence also.

...yet still embrace science fiction that is much much harder to believe than the bible.

Which version?

I prefer the King James version but it is mainly because if it wasn't for such Christians who put their life on the line we may not have had a bible in English,they were martyrs so that we could have a bible in English.

There are no naturalistic causes for life and never will be so there is no reason to believe it.

That's the problem with your particular brand of religion. It rules out, a priori, all possibilities that conflict with its particular dogma.

No it doesn't rule it out my point.I have no problem with scientists seeing if it is possible,I have a problem with them implying this is scientific truth,when it isn't.

You cannot remove a creator and think you're doing science when it is impossible

Have you demonstrated that a creator exists? No? Didn't think so.

No but I can give more evidence that God created man in his image than you can to show that nature can produce life. Marriage between a man and a woman proves that the God of the bible created man in his image because marriage between a man and a woman was designed by God to be a blood covenant and so it is a picture of Jesus the bride groom and the church the bride by blood covenant.Marriage was designed to be a blood covenant because it is a picture of salvation for the church by blood covenant.This is true no matter the culture.

Life requires a creator and there is no way you can get around this.

No, it requires a CAUSE. The idea that a creator is necessary is nothing more than circular reasoning.

Yes a creator is a cause but nature cannot create life and so cannot be a cause for life.This is based on evidence right now.

There is no scientific evidence you can point to that would back up your assertions,NONE yet you still believe it.

There is no evidence that you would accept. I think that's become abundantly clear.

There is no reason to think nature can produce life based on reality and science.It is you that have faith.

Even Ken Miller's experiment proves that a creator would be required for life.Science creating life does not prove your world view.

Which Ken Miller experiment would that be? Are you thinking of Stanley Miller, perhaps?

I meant Miller/Urey.

It might not prove our "worldview" if science could create life but it would certainly make god even more unnecessary than it already is.

No it wouldn't and it might would fulfill bible prophecy thus proving God knows the future and revealed it to us through the bible.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

2.Yes I'd actually like to see life evolve as I never have and we don't observe it out around us and would'nt even think about life evolving had Darwin not came along but I don't think it is possible and science seems to think they already have enough evidence,although this might be changing as I detect certain scientists are recognizing this especially with darwinan evolution,but I'm not sure to fully say so right now because there seems to be an allegiance to Darwinian evolution in the scientific community and they want to hang on to it.Like when it was discovered that humans did not descend from Neanderthal based on the DNA like it was suppose to be,scientists had to go back way before Neanderthal and came up with the Eve theory,then we had scientists trying to say humans mated with Neanderthal,but it was mostly explained away by the Eve theory. It is wait n see for me at this point.

http://www.livescience.com/7153-scientist-humans-strange-neanderthals-normal.html

This is what I was talking about. Humans were not assumed to have descended from Neanderthals; they were thought to have shared a common ancestor, namely H. heidelbergensis. The article you linked has nothing to do with this point, and only says humans are more derived than Neanderthals relative to the ancestral condition. Where in this are you getting that certain scientists are doubting evolution? From "Eve theory"? You do realize that it is based on common descent, right?

At one time it was assumed when Neanderthal was found but the DNA didn't match.I think the article backs up my assertion because he explains how people tend to draw a line all the way to humans but this is not the case as Neanderthal are more like the former primates,not man,man is strange because we are unique compared to primates we were supposed to have descended from.No, scientists are not doubting evolution but certain sacientists seem to be acknowledging the lack of evidence for certain aspects of evolution and they are feeling the heat because of critics and wanting to produce evidence,while others seem to think it is unnecessary.So itr is waut n see for me because I go by evidence not what people say is true.Why come up with the Eve theory? When you realize that the DNA does not match between Neanderthal and humans?The Eve theory came after this to keep evolution going,the problem is they had to go back before Neanderthal and think they have a new explanation and new primate that humans descended from,which means slight changes for the tree.

And here's a question. Is it still only adaptation if speciation occurs and the ancestral and descendent populations can't interbreed?

This is not always the case in nature any way which is why I don't understand why evolutionists focus on populations that can't interbreed.The problem is they believe all life evolved and changed/evolved over time to become all of the different species of life,but they cannot demonstrate this can even happen and yet have piled all of these layers of evidence on to a theory they cannot demonstrate. They look at everything from an evolution point of view too,this causes them to overlook the Gap that happened in which a former world existed on this earth with totally different animals,creatures,inhabitants,dinosaurs,etc perishged and went exctinct billions of years ago until this world was created with totally different animals,creatures and man. This is what the fossils confirm to us and I would argue have nothing to do with evolution and their layers of evidence they've piled up that they compare everything to.

Also, Vegavis? It's problematic for your Gap theory, as are all the other organisms that coexisted with dinosaurs but didn't go extinct, the big one being, you know, mammals.

No because mammals existed in the former world that are totally different than the mammals in this world.Like for instance big cats used to have big saber like fang teath in the former world but they don't in this world.Our bigs cats are different and no evolution happened.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You reject religious texts, too. Why is that?

Because I have actually taken the time to compare religious texts and have compared evidence also.

All of them?

If not, which ones? And why not the others?

Which version?

I prefer the King James version but it is mainly because if it wasn't for such Christians who put their life on the line we may not have had a bible in English,they were martyrs so that we could have a bible in English.

Why do you prefer the KJV over the others?

That's the problem with your particular brand of religion. It rules out, a priori, all possibilities that conflict with its particular dogma.

No it doesn't rule it out my point.I have no problem with scientists seeing if it is possible,I have a problem with them implying this is scientific truth,when it isn't.

You're rejecting it because it conflicts with your interpretation of a specific religious text: that is not basing your decision on evidence - it's basing it on an a priori assumption.

You are also rejecting the science because you've decided that you know more than people who spend their lives studying these branches of science.

You don't.

Have you demonstrated that a creator exists? No? Didn't think so.

No but I can give more evidence that God created man in his image than you can to show that nature can produce life.

No, you can't.

What exactly is "His image"?

Marriage between a man and a woman proves that the God of the bible created man in his image

No, it doesn't.

...because marriage between a man and a woman was designed by God to be a blood covenant and so it is a picture of Jesus the bride groom and the church the bride by blood covenant.Marriage was designed to be a blood covenant because it is a picture of salvation for the church by blood covenant.This is true no matter the culture.

Marriage was a social convention of early cultures to prevent conflicts over mates. This is found in every culture and has nothing to do with any form of Christianity or other older religions.

No, it requires a CAUSE. The idea that a creator is necessary is nothing more than circular reasoning.

Yes a creator is a cause but nature cannot create life and so cannot be a cause for life.This is based on evidence right now.

Again, you make a claim that requires perfect knowledge, which you do not - and cannot - have.

There is already evidence for a possible path to abiogenesis through experiments.

There is no evidence against life arising out of chemical reactions.

There is no evidence that you would accept. I think that's become abundantly clear.

There is no reason to think nature can produce life based on reality and science.It is you that have faith.

As already stated, the origin of life through chemical reactions is a logical inference - thus there is every reason to think that Nature can produce life based on reality and science.

Which Ken Miller experiment would that be? Are you thinking of Stanley Miller, perhaps?

I meant Miller/Urey.

You should have gotten that right if you know what you're talking about.

It might not prove our "worldview" if science could create life but it would certainly make god even more unnecessary than it already is.

No it wouldn't and it might would fulfill bible prophecy thus proving God knows the future and revealed it to us through the bible.

The bible was written by people.

Biblical prophecies are simply not believable, whether on their own or as evidence for God knowing the future.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Isotelus]

At one time it was assumed when Neanderthal was found but the DNA didn't match.I think the article backs up my assertion because he explains how people tend to draw a line all the way to humans but this is not the case as Neanderthal are more like the former primates,not man,man is strange because we are unique compared to primates we were supposed to have descended from.No, scientists are not doubting evolution but certain sacientists seem to be acknowledging the lack of evidence for certain aspects of evolution and they are feeling the heat because of critics and wanting to produce evidence,while others seem to think it is unnecessary.So itr is waut n see for me because I go by evidence not what people say is true.Why come up with the Eve theory? When you realize that the DNA does not match between Neanderthal and humans?The Eve theory came after this to keep evolution going,the problem is they had to go back before Neanderthal and think they have a new explanation and new primate that humans descended from,which means slight changes for the tree.

Incorrect. When the genome was sequenced, human and neanderthal DNA was found to be over 99% identical, and that hasn't changed. And again, the article absolutely does not state that humans are unique from our primate ancestors; it says that we are more derived than Neanderthals, which is what I told you before. I can tell that you're gleaning for statements that initially seem to prove your point but not considering it in the proper context, and therefore misrepresenting what the scientist in the article was stating. You state below that we're looking at everything from an evolution point of you. But what are you doing? You're seeing everything with a Gap theory Bible view, and you're getting it all wrong as a result.

And you're doing that thing again where you make claims, but provide no basis or evidence for your assertions. Eve theory came up after to keep evolution going? Nonsense. The idea of mitochondrial Eve was already being published in the 1980's, way before we could even consider attempting to sequence the neanderthal genome.

This is not always the case in nature any way which is why I don't understand why evolutionists focus on populations that can't interbreed.The problem is they believe all life evolved and changed/evolved over time to become all of the different species of life,but they cannot demonstrate this can even happen and yet have piled all of these layers of evidence on to a theory they cannot demonstrate. They look at everything from an evolution point of view too,this causes them to overlook the Gap that happened in which a former world existed on this earth with totally different animals,creatures,inhabitants,dinosaurs,etc perishged and went exctinct billions of years ago until this world was created with totally different animals,creatures and man. This is what the fossils confirm to us and I would argue have nothing to do with evolution and their layers of evidence they've piled up that they compare everything to.

I'm fully aware that that isn't always the case in nature, and so are scientists. They focus on it because that's the process of speciation; a major component in evolutionary theory. But you didn't answer my question, so answer it please. Is it still only adaptation if speciation occurs and the ancestral and descendant populations can's interbreed?

I'll ask you this again as well: what qualifies you to argue against professionals on what fossils do and do not confirm?

And I provided you with evidence, so address it:

Aside from that and for everyone's sake, here are some phylogenetic, physiological, molecular, and ontogenetic studies demonstrating the relationship between birds and dinosaurs (there are also numerous molecular clock studies, but I haven't found the citation I was thinking of yet):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 12168.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1456
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11146.html

This is what you get when truly know how you look at fossils, abelcainsbrother.

I realize you may not have access to these papers, so I am willing to summarize them, but I don't want to waste my time doing this until you can answer all of my questions and concede your errors.

No because mammals existed in the former world that are totally different than the mammals in this world.Like for instance big cats used to have big saber like fang teath in the former world but they don't in this world.Our bigs cats are different and no evolution happened.

This.This is the one of the most bizarre claims you have made thus far, and I can sympathize with Gnug's sentiments wondering if you're a troll. I mean, this is really out there, abelcainsbrother. Not all mammals in the "former world" were totally different than they are today, and it's those in particular that don't jive with your Gap theory. There were Cretaceous platypus-like monotremes, for one, and definitive oppossums as well. Some groups like rabbits, aardvarks, insectivores, have remained fairly static over time. And then the sabre cats. I'm going to assume you're thinking mainly of Smilodon, which is the most well-known of the many species of sabre-toothed cats. One, it was part of a separate lineage to modern cats that is now extinct. Two, it went extinct only ~10,000 years ago, meaning people actually saw these things. My question is, when exactly did this second creation occur? You were talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs before (and still no acknowledgement of Vegavis), and now you're going on about recent megafaunal extinctions? What?! And how do you account for both major and minor extinction events that occurred through time and are more than evident in the fossil record, and then shoehorn it into a theory of two separate creations?

 

[Isotelus]

Thank you for posting that He_who_is_nobody! It definitely saves me the trouble.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

At one time it was assumed when Neanderthal was found but the DNA didn't match.I think the article backs up my assertion because he explains how people tend to draw a line all the way to humans but this is not the case as Neanderthal are more like the former primates,not man,man is strange because we are unique compared to primates we were supposed to have descended from.No, scientists are not doubting evolution but certain sacientists seem to be acknowledging the lack of evidence for certain aspects of evolution and they are feeling the heat because of critics and wanting to produce evidence,while others seem to think it is unnecessary.So itr is waut n see for me because I go by evidence not what people say is true.Why come up with the Eve theory? When you realize that the DNA does not match between Neanderthal and humans?The Eve theory came after this to keep evolution going,the problem is they had to go back before Neanderthal and think they have a new explanation and new primate that humans descended from,which means slight changes for the tree.

Incorrect. When the genome was sequenced, human and neanderthal DNA was found to be over 99% identical, and that hasn't changed. And again, the article absolutely does not state that humans are unique from our primate ancestors; it says that we are more derived than Neanderthals, which is what I told you before. I can tell that you're gleaning for statements that initially seem to prove your point but not considering it in the proper context, and therefore misrepresenting what the scientist in the article was stating. You state below that we're looking at everything from an evolution point of you. But what are you doing? You're seeing everything with a Gap theory Bible view, and you're getting it all wrong as a result.

And you're doing that thing again where you make claims, but provide no basis or evidence for your assertions. Eve theory came up after to keep evolution going? Nonsense. The idea of mitochondrial Eve was already being published in the 1980's, way before we could even consider attempting to sequence the neanderthal genome.

This is not always the case in nature any way which is why I don't understand why evolutionists focus on populations that can't interbreed.The problem is they believe all life evolved and changed/evolved over time to become all of the different species of life,but they cannot demonstrate this can even happen and yet have piled all of these layers of evidence on to a theory they cannot demonstrate. They look at everything from an evolution point of view too,this causes them to overlook the Gap that happened in which a former world existed on this earth with totally different animals,creatures,inhabitants,dinosaurs,etc perishged and went exctinct billions of years ago until this world was created with totally different animals,creatures and man. This is what the fossils confirm to us and I would argue have nothing to do with evolution and their layers of evidence they've piled up that they compare everything to.

I'm fully aware that that isn't always the case in nature, and so are scientists. They focus on it because that's the process of speciation; a major component in evolutionary theory. But you didn't answer my question, so answer it please. Is it still only adaptation if speciation occurs and the ancestral and descendant populations can's interbreed?

I'll ask you this again as well: what qualifies you to argue against professionals on what fossils do and do not confirm?

And I provided you with evidence, so address it:

Aside from that and for everyone's sake, here are some phylogenetic, physiological, molecular, and ontogenetic studies demonstrating the relationship between birds and dinosaurs (there are also numerous molecular clock studies, but I haven't found the citation I was thinking of yet):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 12168.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1456
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11146.html

This is what you get when truly know how you look at fossils, abelcainsbrother.

I realize you may not have access to these papers, so I am willing to summarize them, but I don't want to waste my time doing this until you can answer all of my questions and concede your errors.

No because mammals existed in the former world that are totally different than the mammals in this world.Like for instance big cats used to have big saber like fang teath in the former world but they don't in this world.Our bigs cats are different and no evolution happened.

This.This is the one of the most bizarre claims you have made thus far, and I can sympathize with Gnug's sentiments wondering if you're a troll. I mean, this is really out there, abelcainsbrother. Not all mammals in the "former world" were totally different than they are today, and it's those in particular that don't jive with your Gap theory. There were Cretaceous platypus-like monotremes, for one, and definitive oppossums as well. Some groups like rabbits, aardvarks, insectivores, have remained fairly static over time. And then the sabre cats. I'm going to assume you're thinking mainly of Smilodon, which is the most well-known of the many species of sabre-toothed cats. One, it was part of a separate lineage to modern cats that is now extinct. Two, it went extinct only ~10,000 years ago, meaning people actually saw these things. My question is, when exactly did this second creation occur? You were talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs before (and still no acknowledgement of Vegavis), and now you're going on about recent megafaunal extinctions? What?! And how do you account for both major and minor extinction events that occurred through time and are more than evident in the fossil record, and then shoehorn it into a theory of two separate creations?

99% matched between Neanderthal and humans? Then how do you explain this?Also How can you deny what that article says I posted above?We humans are strange for a reason.Also I have already explained why speciation does not prove life evolves.Bacteria remains bacteria,it never evolves even after it adapts,it still remains bacteria.Yet you acknowledge that it isn't always the case about interbreeding,therefore I've answred your question about interbreeding,it is not always the case in nature but they try to throw speciation in there,like it makes up for it when it does not demonstrate life evolves.If it did I would accept evolution.

http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html

I have already told you that everything is looked at from an evolution point of view.I've said it is possible that certain animals existed in the former world too but you are looking at it from an evolution point of view going back millions of years keeping life alive so that it can evolve.Yes the Gap theory probably does seem bizarre because you probably have never heard about it before.I am not trolling just because the Gap theory is new to you.

You know you people use intimidation to get people to buy into evolution,instead of real evidence and if we don't accept it and we give reasons why,then you say we are ignoring you.I am not ignoring anybody I look at links that get posted and I learn things too from it.We Gap theorists look into science because we believe it is slowly confirming the bible true without people realizing it so if we don't look into science we might overlook something.No we are not ignoring you or anybody we just want evidence that life evolves.

 

[Dave B.]

Because I have actually taken the time to compare religious texts and have compared evidence also.

What evidence? You keep insisting that you have more evidence for creation than we have for evolution but I have yet to see ANY of it.

I prefer the King James version but it is mainly because if it wasn't for such Christians who put their life on the line we may not have had a bible in English,they were martyrs so that we could have a bible in English.

Infighting amongst the religious about what the bible should say? The irony is overwhelming.

No it doesn't rule it out my point.I have no problem with scientists seeing if it is possible,I have a problem with them implying this is scientific truth,when it isn't.

Truth is tentative in science. It is always contingent upon future evidence. We don't deal with absolute truths in science. We provide the best explanation available that is supported by the facts. If you don't understand this by now then you're not worth responding to.

No but I can give more evidence that God created man in his image than you can to show that nature can produce life. Marriage between a man and a woman proves that the God of the bible created man in his image because marriage between a man and a woman was designed by God to be a blood covenant and so it is a picture of Jesus the bride groom and the church the bride by blood covenant.Marriage was designed to be a blood covenant because it is a picture of salvation for the church by blood covenant.This is true no matter the culture.

I'm not sure what this means but it isn't evidence of anything other than your ability to make shit up.

Do you have evidence that god created man? Is this observable, repeatable and falsifiable? Or do you not hold your beliefs to the same standards with which you expect us to hold ours to?

Yes a creator is a cause but nature cannot create life and so cannot be a cause for life.This is based on evidence right now.

So in order for you to accept that nature could create life we would have to demonstrate life arising naturally from organic matter? Why don't you require this same level of rigor for your belief that god created life?

There is no reason to think nature can produce life based on reality and science.It is you that have faith.

No, we have evidence that life could have come about organically. Your creation model has absolutely ZERO scientific evidence, therefore, it is believed on faith.

I meant Miller/Urey.

As Dragan pointed out I think this is a pretty good indication that you have no idea what you're talking about.

No it wouldn't and it might would fulfill bible prophecy thus proving God knows the future and revealed it to us through the bible.

If god knows the future then doesn't this mean that he knew what would happen when he created Adam and Eve and then tempted them with the fruit of the tree of knowledge? So what was that all about? Is god just a complete fucking dick or what?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It comes down to faith no matter which side you are on.So stop acting like it does'nt. I acknoweledge that I cannot demonstrate God creating but this is true because the bible tells us that God's years cannot be searched out,so it in noway condemns christianity when we already know based on the bible that science cannot detect God,it is impossible but this is where faith and evidencecomes in and true faith is not blind.You cannot demonstrate life evolving,therefore we must go on evidence to see who has the most convincing evidence.Now I know you think that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and there is,I know about it,however the question is can you demonstrate that life evolves?

Because if you can't then why pile all of this evidence on to a theory you cannot demonstrate?Don't get angry just because I point this out. I am not anti-science there is a lot of good science backed up by evidence but evolution has problems and so I have problems with it,but not all of science.Evolution gets propped up above other areas of science that have evidence to back them up and even some of the evidence used to be evidence for evolution is true and I accept it.We are biased also,you believe in evolution and look at everything through evolution eyes,while I look at everything from Gap theory eyes.

 

[ldmitruk]

It comes down to faith no matter which side you are on.So stop acting like it does'nt. I acknoweledge that I cannot demonstrate God creating but this is true because the bible tells us that God's years cannot be searched out,so it in noway condemns christianity when we already know based on the bible that science cannot detect God,it is impossible but this is where faith and evidencecomes in and true faith is not blind.You cannot demonstrate life evolving,therefore we must go on evidence to see who has the most convincing evidence.Now I know you think that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and there is,I know about it,however the question is can you demonstrate that life evolves?

Because if you can't then why pile all of this evidence on to a theory you cannot demonstrate?Don't get angry just because I point this out. I am not anti-science there is a lot of good science backed up by evidence but evolution has problems and so I have problems with it,but not all of science.Evolution gets propped up above other areas of science that have evidence to back them up and even some of the evidence used to be evidence for evolution is true and I accept it.We are biased also,you believe in evolution and look at everything through evolution eyes,while I look at everything from Gap theory eyes.

So I'm guessing you don't have problems with chemistry and physics for example? What about all the other branches of biology such as biochemistry or molecular biology? It seems to me they are all interrelated. I find the statement "look at everything through evolution eyes" right up there with "look through our biblical glasses"[/color

Opps hit submit instead of preview. Further ramblings posted below :roll: ]

 

[Mugnuts]

It comes down to faith no matter which side you are on.So stop acting like it does'nt. I acknoweledge that I cannot demonstrate God creating but this is true because the bible tells us that God's years cannot be searched out,so it in noway condemns christianity when we already know based on the bible that science cannot detect God,it is impossible but this is where faith and evidencecomes in and true faith is not blind.You cannot demonstrate life evolving,therefore we must go on evidence to see who has the most convincing evidence.Now I know you think that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and there is,I know about it,however the question is can you demonstrate that life evolves?

Because if you can't then why pile all of this evidence on to a theory you cannot demonstrate?Don't get angry just because I point this out. I am not anti-science there is a lot of good science backed up by evidence but evolution has problems and so I have problems with it,but not all of science.Evolution gets propped up above other areas of science that have evidence to back them up and even some of the evidence used to be evidence for evolution is true and I accept it.We are biased also,you believe in evolution and look at everything through evolution eyes,while I look at everything from Gap theory eyes.

That is absolutely ridiculous. :facepalm:

Then that would mean that every verdict carried out in court was based on a faith position rather than a preponderance of verifiable and accurate evidence. Where do you get this sort of reasoning from? How do you deduce such and utterly ignorant conclusion? Is it faith when I expect a traffic light to turn green after red? You know what I am having the most trouble with? I am trying to figure out how and why you say and claim what you claim.

Really, it is so...I don't even know the word to properly describe it. I'm new to voicing out on talks like this, and if someone who has done this for a while can give me a little insight on how to protect myself from a facepalm induced coma, I would appreciate it.

Like I have said before, the closest I have come to something like this is during an interrogation of a suspect/accused, and they tell their side of the story. I come back to each point and deconstruct it piece by piece by making acknowledgements and clarification of facts to the falsity of certain details given by this person. Then a new story comes with altered details to try and make their truth fit, yet again the facts contradict fiction once again. Sometimes they break, and sometimes I will have to show them video of them doing exactly what they are accused of and they still deny it. "That's not me! That's a fake!" You're setting me up!" Those people don't surprise me because it is out of self preservation that they must deny facts and evidence. This seems very familiar. Honestly, do you feel the need to preserve yourself at a whole to deny evolution? Do you believe that you will lose something?

 

[Isotelus]

[99% matched between Neanderthal and humans? Then how do you explain this?Also How can you deny what that article says I posted above?We humans are strange for a reason.Also I have already explained why speciation does not prove life evolves.Bacteria remains bacteria,it never evolves even after it adapts,it still remains bacteria.Yet you acknowledge that it isn't always the case about interbreeding,therefore I've answred your question about interbreeding,it is not always the case in nature but they try to throw speciation in there,like it makes up for it when it does not demonstrate life evolves.If it did I would accept evolution.

http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html

Did you read the entire article? You missed the part where they clearly state that the 20% is made of different portions of the genome and spread variably throughout the entirety of the non-African human populace.

About 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone outside Africa is Neanderthal in origin. However, scientists reasoned that the Neanderthal DNA found in one person might not be the same Neanderthal DNA of someone else.

You also have to realize that the roughly 99.5% similarity between Neanderthals and humans and the 20% and 2% of Neanderthal DNA in humans overall and individuals are separate values; they don't actually contradict each other, which is what you seem to be suggesting. The 99.5% similarity derives from the sharing of similar sequences overall, while the Neanderthal DNA being reported in the human genome are unique Neanderthal alleles.

Consider as well that the genes that are different between us are in fact what make humans that much more derived relative to the ancestral condition. From your article:

The researchers discovered that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome could be found in modern humans. Although the majority of genes inherited from Neanderthals apparently do not do anything remarkably different from their modern-human counterparts, "some of the genes are beneficial," said Vernot, who, along with Akey, detailed these findings online Jan. 29 in the journal Science.

And this from here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710. They also found 42 base pair substitutions and 3 indels in regulatory sequences unique to humans:

Features that occur in all present-day humans (i.e., have been fixed), although they were absent or variable in Neandertals, are of special interest. We found 78 nucleotide substitutions that change the protein-coding capacity of genes where modern humans are fixed for a derived state and where Neandertals carry the ancestral (chimpanzee-like) state

I also provided 4 papers that demonstrates how birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs using methods that go well beyond simply "looking at fossils". I stated I was willing to summarize them, yet you continue to claim no one has demonstrated life has evolved. Why have you not addressed this?

I have already told you that everything is looked at from an evolution point of view.I've said it is possible that certain animals existed in the former world too but you are looking at it from an evolution point of view going back millions of years keeping life alive so that it can evolve.Yes the Gap theory probably does seem bizarre because you probably have never heard about it before.I am not trolling just because the Gap theory is new to you.

And I told you that you misinterpreting the articles you posted. Gap theory doesn't seem bizarre because it's new to me. There are plenty of things that have been new to me in the past and made perfect sense. Gap theory is ludicrous, and I will continue to view it as such unless you can actually provide evidence that demonstrates the theory is valid. And you still haven't addressed my statements showing why it isn't.

You know you people use intimidation to get people to buy into evolution,instead of real evidence and if we don't accept it and we give reasons why,then you say we are ignoring you.I am not ignoring anybody I look at links that get posted and I learn things too from it.We Gap theorists look into science because we believe it is slowly confirming the bible true without people realizing it so if we don't look into science we might overlook something.No we are not ignoring you or anybody we just want evidence that life evolves.

A lot of people here have been very patient, polite, and willing to carry on a conversation with you, in spite of the fact that you haven't provided any valid evidence, argued against a type of evolution that is not put forth by scientists, misinterpreted articles, and continue to accuse of only seeing things from an evolution point of view. That last part in particular I find a tad rude and condescending. People here have been very generous with their time in trying to explain our position and actually provide you with information and evidence, but you have in fact not properly addressed many portions of my responses at least, Vegavis being only one example. What we want is a little more credit given to our intelligence and more effort on your part.

And I'm not angry or intimidating. You haven't been reading those articles above correctly, so I'm concerned about your ability to judge our emotions through a computer. But even if I were angry, perhaps you should try and empathize. How do you think it feels to put time and effort into a response (finding the citations of 4 relevant papers, provide multiple lines of evidence against Gap theory, for example), only to have it go unacknowledged? How do you think it feels to have someone tell you over and over that you've been thinking of and viewing things incorrectly and that they value evidence more than you?

 

[scalyblue]

I don't have much more to add to this, because it's gotten past the point where I can accept that he is not being intentionally obtuse.

 

[ldmitruk]

It comes down to faith no matter which side you are on.So stop acting like it does'nt. I acknoweledge that I cannot demonstrate God creating but this is true because the bible tells us that God's years cannot be searched out,so it in noway condemns christianity when we already know based on the bible that science cannot detect God,it is impossible but this is where faith and evidencecomes in and true faith is not blind.You cannot demonstrate life evolving,therefore we must go on evidence to see who has the most convincing evidence.Now I know you think that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and there is,I know about it,however the question is can you demonstrate that life evolves?

Because if you can't then why pile all of this evidence on to a theory you cannot demonstrate?Don't get angry just because I point this out. I am not anti-science there is a lot of good science backed up by evidence but evolution has problems and so I have problems with it,but not all of science.Evolution gets propped up above other areas of science that have evidence to back them up and even some of the evidence used to be evidence for evolution is true and I accept it.We are biased also,you believe in evolution and look at everything through evolution eyes,while I look at everything from Gap theory eyes.

So I'm guessing you don't have problems with chemistry and physics for example? What about all the other branches of biology such as biochemistry or molecular biology? It seems to me they are all interrelated. I find the statement "look at everything through evolution eyes" right up there with "look through our biblical glasses". Nonsensical at best and probably some sort of logical fallacy. You're doing the same by with the gap theory, everything you see is evidence for the gap theory. We're not looking through evolution glasses, we're using science, all of it, not just the bits and pieces we think support evolution, faith has nothing to do with science. The sciences eventually tie together and interrelated with one another on various levels. For example if a palaeontologist found a fossilized modern animal in the Pre-Cambrian, preferably several specimens, evolution, geology, biology, and life sciences in general would under go a major shift. (old worn out example but the best I could think of)

To me science is not a matter of looking through a particular set of eyes/glasses, it's taking the blinders off and looking at the universe, or at least the part of it you're interested in and figuring out what is going on and explaining it. Other people your explanation to the test and if it passes you've helped explain. If your explanation doesn't work you have to go back to the drawing board and try again. Scientists have been refining their explanations of how evolution works just as they have with physics and chemistry, building on the work of others over the years. Is it perfect? No, science isn't but every research paper and project contributes to our knowledge base. Every once in while a major breakthrough occurs, and it may even fundamentally challenge how we understand something. However these changes don't mean we throw out everything we've learned. These changes provide better explanatory power for instance Relativity build on Newtonian Mechanics. If gap theory is a scientific theory what has it contributed to our knowledge base? How has it increased our explanatory power in biology?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It comes down to faith no matter which side you are on.So stop acting like it does'nt. I acknoweledge that I cannot demonstrate God creating but this is true because the bible tells us that God's years cannot be searched out,so it in noway condemns christianity when we already know based on the bible that science cannot detect God,it is impossible but this is where faith and evidencecomes in and true faith is not blind.You cannot demonstrate life evolving,therefore we must go on evidence to see who has the most convincing evidence.Now I know you think that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and there is,I know about it,however the question is can you demonstrate that life evolves?

Because if you can't then why pile all of this evidence on to a theory you cannot demonstrate?Don't get angry just because I point this out. I am not anti-science there is a lot of good science backed up by evidence but evolution has problems and so I have problems with it,but not all of science.Evolution gets propped up above other areas of science that have evidence to back them up and even some of the evidence used to be evidence for evolution is true and I accept it.We are biased also,you believe in evolution and look at everything through evolution eyes,while I look at everything from Gap theory eyes.

That is absolutely ridiculous. :facepalm:

Then that would mean that every verdict carried out in court was based on a faith position rather than a preponderance of verifiable and accurate evidence. Where do you get this sort of reasoning from? How do you deduce such and utterly ignorant conclusion? Is it faith when I expect a traffic light to turn green after red? You know what I am having the most trouble with? I am trying to figure out how and why you say and claim what you claim.

Really, it is so...I don't even know the word to properly describe it. I'm new to voicing out on talks like this, and if someone who has done this for a while can give me a little insight on how to protect myself from a facepalm induced coma, I would appreciate it.

Like I have said before, the closest I have come to something like this is during an interrogation of a suspect/accused, and they tell their side of the story. I come back to each point and deconstruct it piece by piece by making acknowledgements and clarification of facts to the falsity of certain details given by this person. Then a new story comes with altered details to try and make their truth fit, yet again the facts contradict fiction once again. Sometimes they break, and sometimes I will have to show them video of them doing exactly what they are accused of and they still deny it. "That's not me! That's a fake!" You're setting me up!" Those people don't surprise me because it is out of self preservation that they must deny facts and evidence. This seems very familiar. Honestly, do you feel the need to preserve yourself at a whole to deny evolution? Do you believe that you will lose something?

No a verdict is carried out based on evidence.I get my reasoning based on evidence.You are just acknowledging the evidence used for evolution and accepting it without checking to verify if life can evolve.If you believe life evolves and you look at the fossils from that point of view then you will try to fit them into your theory. But even forensic science proves certain aspects of evolution false, for example let's see a somebody comes up missing and they search and search for the body,eventually they discover a buried body,but the only thing that remains is the bones,all of the flesh has decayed away and only bones remain,this proves that the animal,creature,etc fossils must be buried deep under tremendous pressure I order to fossilize.

Like the fossils in the Cambrian for example scientists look at this and say this is a life explosion again they are looking at it from an evolution point of view,but it in noway shows a life explosion,what it tells us is these creatures died and were buried alive under tremendous pressure in a catastrophic event that caused them to go extinct.Dead Animals,etc cannot lay out in the elements or even be buried while layers of strata are being laid down,but because they look at everything from an evolution perspective their vision is flawed and it has never been demonstrated that life evolves too and yet they still look at these fossils from an evolution point of view.These creatures existed in the former world and were buried alive quickly under tremendous weight and pressure to fossilize so well that you can see in detail what they looked like.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

[99% matched between Neanderthal and humans? Then how do you explain this?Also How can you deny what that article says I posted above?We humans are strange for a reason.Also I have already explained why speciation does not prove life evolves.Bacteria remains bacteria,it never evolves even after it adapts,it still remains bacteria.Yet you acknowledge that it isn't always the case about interbreeding,therefore I've answred your question about interbreeding,it is not always the case in nature but they try to throw speciation in there,like it makes up for it when it does not demonstrate life evolves.If it did I would accept evolution.

http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html

Did you read the entire article? You missed the part where they clearly state that the 20% is made of different portions of the genome and spread variably throughout the entirety of the non-African human populace.

About 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone outside Africa is Neanderthal in origin. However, scientists reasoned that the Neanderthal DNA found in one person might not be the same Neanderthal DNA of someone else.

You also have to realize that the roughly 99.5% similarity between Neanderthals and humans and the 20% and 2% of Neanderthal DNA in humans overall and individuals are separate values; they don't actually contradict each other, which is what you seem to be suggesting. The 99.5% similarity derives from the sharing of similar sequences overall, while the Neanderthal DNA being reported in the human genome are unique Neanderthal alleles.

Consider as well that the genes that are different between us are in fact what make humans that much more derived relative to the ancestral condition. From your article:

The researchers discovered that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome could be found in modern humans. Although the majority of genes inherited from Neanderthals apparently do not do anything remarkably different from their modern-human counterparts, "some of the genes are beneficial," said Vernot, who, along with Akey, detailed these findings online Jan. 29 in the journal Science.

And this from here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710. They also found 42 base pair substitutions and 3 indels in regulatory sequences unique to humans:

Features that occur in all present-day humans (i.e., have been fixed), although they were absent or variable in Neandertals, are of special interest. We found 78 nucleotide substitutions that change the protein-coding capacity of genes where modern humans are fixed for a derived state and where Neandertals carry the ancestral (chimpanzee-like) state

I also provided 4 papers that demonstrates how birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs using methods that go well beyond simply "looking at fossils". I stated I was willing to summarize them, yet you continue to claim no one has demonstrated life has evolved. Why have you not addressed this?

I have already told you that everything is looked at from an evolution point of view.I've said it is possible that certain animals existed in the former world too but you are looking at it from an evolution point of view going back millions of years keeping life alive so that it can evolve.Yes the Gap theory probably does seem bizarre because you probably have never heard about it before.I am not trolling just because the Gap theory is new to you.

And I told you that you misinterpreting the articles you posted. Gap theory doesn't seem bizarre because it's new to me. There are plenty of things that have been new to me in the past and made perfect sense. Gap theory is ludicrous, and I will continue to view it as such unless you can actually provide evidence that demonstrates the theory is valid. And you still haven't addressed my statements showing why it isn't.

You know you people use intimidation to get people to buy into evolution,instead of real evidence and if we don't accept it and we give reasons why,then you say we are ignoring you.I am not ignoring anybody I look at links that get posted and I learn things too from it.We Gap theorists look into science because we believe it is slowly confirming the bible true without people realizing it so if we don't look into science we might overlook something.No we are not ignoring you or anybody we just want evidence that life evolves.

A lot of people here have been very patient, polite, and willing to carry on a conversation with you, in spite of the fact that you haven't provided any valid evidence, argued against a type of evolution that is not put forth by scientists, misinterpreted articles, and continue to accuse of only seeing things from an evolution point of view. That last part in particular I find a tad rude and condescending. People here have been very generous with their time in trying to explain our position and actually provide you with information and evidence, but you have in fact not properly addressed many portions of my responses at least, Vegavis being only one example. What we want is a little more credit given to our intelligence and more effort on your part.

And I'm not angry or intimidating. You haven't been reading those articles above correctly, so I'm concerned about your ability to judge our emotions through a computer. But even if I were angry, perhaps you should try and empathize. How do you think it feels to put time and effort into a response (finding the citations of 4 relevant papers, provide multiple lines of evidence against Gap theory, for example), only to have it go unacknowledged? How do you think it feels to have someone tell you over and over that you've been thinking of and viewing things incorrectly and that they value evidence more than you?

Read this article then.You keep denying what I'm saying about Humans strange because they are unique compared to primates and even Neanderthal. I do not make up stuff.
There are reasons why I believe what I do.This might be kinda old but it still proves I'm not just making up stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3023685.stm

 

[Mugnuts]

No a verdict is carried out based on evidence.I get my reasoning based on evidence.You are just acknowledging the evidence used for evolution and accepting it without checking to verify if life can evolve.If you believe life evolves and you look at the fossils from that point of view then you will try to fit them into your theory. But even forensic science proves certain aspects of evolution false, for example let's see a somebody comes up missing and they search and search for the body,eventually they discover a buried body,but the only thing that remains is the bones,all of the flesh has decayed away and only bones remain,this proves that the animal,creature,etc fossils must be buried deep under tremendous pressure I order to fossilize.

Verdict via evidence. Yes. You understood the analogy but missed the point by disagreeing with me on what it meant. :facepalm: #1

If your 'somebody' that came up missing was an Australopithecus, then yes, there might be a fossil. Animals don't just fossilize in a few weeks or years for that matter, and I have no idea what point you are trying to convey. This sounds like a Saber-cat worthy smack. :facepalm: :facepalm: #2

Like the fossils in the Cambrian for example scientists look at this and say this is a life explosion again they are looking at it from an evolution point of view,but it in noway shows a life explosion,what it tells us is these creatures died and were buried alive under tremendous pressure in a catastrophic event that caused them to go extinct.Dead Animals,etc cannot lay out in the elements or even be buried while layers of strata are being laid down,but because they look at everything from an evolution perspective their vision is flawed and it has never been demonstrated that life evolves too and yet they still look at these fossils from an evolution point of view.These creatures existed in the former world and were buried alive quickly under tremendous weight and pressure to fossilize so well that you can see in detail what they looked like.

.

Think, and think really hard...What types of animals were alive/existed in the Cambrian period?
I'm gonna warm up my hand just in case for the inevitable.

 

[Mugnuts]

Read this article then.You keep denying what I'm saying about Humans strange because they are unique compared to primates and even Neanderthal. I do not make up stuff.
There are reasons why I believe what I do.This might be kinda old but it still proves I'm not just making up stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3023685.stm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
Then read this...

 

[Isotelus]

[Read this article then.You keep denying what I'm saying about Humans strange because they are unique compared to primates and even Neanderthal. I do not make up stuff.
There are reasons why I believe what I do.This might be kinda old but it still proves I'm not just making up stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3023685.stm

I don't care whether you make stuff up or not, the fact is that you're wrong. That article was referring to mitochondrial DNA; not nuclear DNA as we were discussing earlier, and it's the nuclear DNA that Neanderthals are supposed to share with humans. MtDNA behaves very differently from nuclear DNA, and this effects how it is understood and tested. As such, it should not be used to attempt to prove your point. Cro-Magnon people are H. sapiens sapiens; they are human. Neanderthals are a separate lineage; that's why the mtDNA is different. I also gave you a brief explanation and two quotes explaining why you were incorrect about humans being unique compared to other primates, but you are not addressing those. I'm also suspicious of this article because there are text errors and it's incredibly short, so I suggest tracking down the original paper instead. And you also missed the part where they said the findings support human evolution beginning in Africa and over time displacing Neanderthals. The fact that this states we did not interbreed is beside the point.

Abelcainsbrother, I am almost done with you. It is incredibly disrespectful of you to reply with a couple of sentences to a post that took me an hour to plan out, find and read the original papers, locate the quotes I was looking for, and write it down. If you continue to do this, I will no longer reply, because I find your conduct offensive and repetitive, whether you intend it to be so or not.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Read this article then.You keep denying what I'm saying about Humans strange because they are unique compared to primates and even Neanderthal. I do not make up stuff.
There are reasons why I believe what I do.This might be kinda old but it still proves I'm not just making up stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3023685.stm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
Then read this...

If we trust wikipedia that anybody can change.This is not settled yet what you posted is just a preliminary more testing will have to be done plus there are other ideas competing out there still too..Some theorize that Neanderthals and humans were not even on the earth at the same time,some think humans and Neanderthal mated,etc. And yet you still cannot demonstrate that life evolves,still.Also why would some scientists discover that humans and Neanderthal DNA does'nt match as the link I posted stated,but yet now it does?But one thing that sticks out to me is that the more science discovers the more humans move closer to more modern origin a lot more sooner than evolutionists have thought. I still need more info to come to a conclusion.

http://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html