Evolution answers

[aggle-rithm]

I said 65% of the studied papers were found fraudulent not 99%.

Here is a link to aquatic ape theory.
Evolution: a new boost for ‘aquatic ape’ theory
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ew-boost-for-aquatic-ape-theory/#.UtmUs7ROncs

Humans and fish once shared a common ancestor....no kidding!!!!


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613133032.htm

I liked it better when you used sophistry to make a point rather than these clumsy arguments from personal incredulity.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I said 65% of the studied papers were found fraudulent not 99%.

So? 99% of the Babble is ********.

 

[justintime]

I don't think you've read the article.

But hey, you want to play, that's fine.

http://www.amazon.com/Processes-Vertebrate-Evolution-Cambridge-Paleobiology/dp/052147809X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987331&sr=8-1&keywords=Patterns+and+Processes+in+Vertebrate+Evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Fossils-Life-Introduction-Paleobiology/dp/0073661708/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987367&sr=8-1&keywords=Bringing+Fossils+to+Life

http://www.amazon.com/On-Origin-Phyla-James-Valentine/dp/0226845486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987382&sr=8-1&keywords=the+origin+of+the+phyla

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Evolution-Mammals-Oxford-Biology/dp/0198507615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987418&sr=8-1&keywords=mammal+evolution

It's a good start. Read through those references, focused on the evolution of the mammalian ear. Then get back to us. I'll give you more advanced reading once you've demonstrated an understanding of these basics.

That is a new twist in natural selection where `

an organ glimpsed partway along its evolutionary path, at a point when its function was very different from that of its final form evolving from fish gill to human ear.

Now combine that with an explanation by evolutionist about the recurrent laryngeal nerve pathway altered by natural selection, but in this case to a less efficient route.

These examples violate the basic concepts of natural selection that of fitness (a less than optimal path evolved for the recurrent laryngeal never) and the changing functions of an organ from fish gill to human ear. Not only are these hypotheses absurd, they are evolving absurdities in an 150 year old theory of evolution.

 

[Lakia]

Hey, now! You folks studying the squishy stuff predict it, we rock-jocks find it.

Obviously the genetic evidence for evolution is the best, totally not just saying that because I'm a geneticist .

Here is a link to aquatic ape theory.
Evolution: a new boost for ‘aquatic ape’ theory

As others have said, the aquatic ape theory is a 'theory' only supported by a few kooky scientists and a bunch of non-scientists who have let their imagination get away from them. There is no real evidence for it and it has no mainstream scientific support.

 

[justintime]

Obviously the genetic evidence for evolution is the best, totally not just saying that because I'm a geneticist .



As others have said, the aquatic ape theory is a 'theory' only supported by a few kooky scientists and a bunch of non-scientists who have let their imagination get away from them. There is no real evidence for it and it has no mainstream scientific support.

Now we have a new classification of scientists(kooky scientists). We started with scientists who admit to fraud some 2%, then we found 14% admit they know someone guilty of fraud and now we have kooky scientists to contend with.

How does a geneticist compare with a paleontologist?

 

[Dinwar]

Now we have a new classification of scientists(kooky scientists).

No, fringe scientists have been around as long as science has. Degrees do not ensure accuracy of interpretations.

We started with scientists who admit to fraud some 2%, then we found 14% admit they know someone guilty of fraud and now we have kooky scientists to contend with.

None of this is relevant to this conversation, and your interpretation has been soundly refuted.

How does a geneticist compare with a paleontologist?

Geneticists study genetics--DNA, gene expression, RNA, etc. Paleontologists study fossils, ichnofossils, that sort of thing. The fact that you don't know that and can't figure it out does not speak well of your understanding of the field.

 

[John Jones]

I said 65% of the studied papers were found fraudulent not 99%.

[...]

And you were lying every time you said it.

 

[dafydd]

How does a geneticist compare with a paleontologist?

It depends upon their height. How does a fisherman compare with a chartered accountant?

 

[Slowvehicle]

It depends upon their height. How does a fisherman compare with a chartered accountant?

"Pee over this line..."

 

[jimbob]

Quoting myself quoting myself on another thread, but I think there are different signatures one would expect between either evolved or "intelligently designed" systems:

I have posted similar before, but there is very strong evidence for intelligent design in some living organisms:

Alba the rabbit for example has some evidence. Namely the inserted DNA from another phylum, the DNA equivalent of "Rabbits in the Precambrian".

I also say that intelligently and competently designed systems have certain signatures that completely evolved systems lack.

as Detee has said, there are ways to determine whether something was competently designed.

Unlike Behe I can think of several features that are highly indicative of either an evolved system or one that has been competently designed.

1) Designers can correct their mistakes
Given that Behe accepts common descent of humans and chimps, why would the designer not fix the appendix so it didn't burst, once this " obviously not-so omniscient" designer noticed the first hominid case of appendicitis?

2) Designers can reuse aspects of their designs
There are several animals that have additional eyes (e.g Notostraca). Their "third-eye" is different to their two compound-eyes, which is perfectly consistent with an evolved system, where there is no "defined function" the system just does what it does. However most competent designers, particularly those competent enough to desing one type of eye, would simply reuse that eye design for any additional ones.

Similarly, convergent evolution, where many organisms in similar environments demonstrate similar traits, is further evidence against a designer acting like this. Why are there so many different plants that produce fruit? Why are there so many different parts of the flower that turn into fruit (either true-fruit, or false fruit)? This is easy to explain if they evolved separately, but hard if you posit a designer attempting different solutions, to the same problem.

3) Competent designers don't get something right, then get it wrong later without correcting it
The octopus-retina lacks many of the drawbacks of the mammalian retina, which came later (or the same time if you are a YEC, which Behe isn't). Any human with the intelligence to design an eye would also spot the flaw in the mammalian "design".

4)Evolved systems can only get "information" from their ancestors
If a traits evolved separately in different organisms, the genes that express these traits should have different sequences, whilst if they were designed, they could be quite likely to have the same genetic sequence. Should anyone find this, when there hasn't been lateral gene transfer, then this would require some explanation. But (as the world's entire news media hasn't trumpeted this discovery) this hasn't been found.

5) Evolved systems are quite likely to "throw away" traits that are no longer advantageous
Why are vestigial organs vestigial, and neither fully working nor non-existent, which would look more elegant. For example either Basilosaurus, or modern whales have the more aesthetic rear leg "solution". Why did Basilosaurus have vestigial legs?

I am sure there are more but that should show why I disagree with Behe's admission...ETA that one couldn't test for ID.

 

[Shalamar]

Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor.

Yes

And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans.

Incorrect.

And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well.

Incorrect.

No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.

Which comes out to 0.0005% of total papers are fraudulent. A TINY amount.

 

[bruto]

Schönheit!

Cocoperro. I use that name on other forums. One bite is enough.

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/013/b/a/crocodogs_by_c_nacarat-d5rdgp4.jpg

 

[Slowvehicle]

Cocoperro. I use that name on other forums. One bite is enough.

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/013/b/a/crocodogs_by_c_nacarat-d5rdgp4.jpg

...nice...

 

[Brian-M]

You need to find better examples for your theories just as much as scientists have to find better ways to earn a living beside engaging in fraudulent research papers.

Most scientists do not produce fraudulent research papers. In the extremely rare cases where they do, they tend to be found out and discredited, and the validity of everything they produce is brought into question.

Over a million research papers are published per year, only a tiny number of them are ever found to be fraudulent.

Looking up some information on this...
"In 1976, there were fewer than 10 fraud retractions for every one million studies published; by 2007, fraud retractions had grown to 96 per one million, the study found."

So even if we assume that only one in ten fraudulent research papers are ever retracted, then more than 99.9% of scientific research papers are not fraudulent.

 

[Brian-M]

Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor.

Not just now, but for more than a century.

No wonder 65% of studied retracted scientific papers are found fraudulent.

Fixed that for you. Less than 0.01% of scientific papers are found to be fraudulent.

It's a little dishonest to claim that 65% of "studied" scientific papers are found to be fraudulent without mentioning that only retracted papers were subjected to study. A fraudulent paper is far, far, far more likely to be retracted than a non-fraudulent paper.

 

[John Jones]

How does a geneticist compare with a paleontologist?

Far better than someone who has been repeatedly caught in outright fabrications.

What you do for a living, anyway?

 

[Retrograde]

Originally Posted by justintime
Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.

It gets even better: humans and snails share a common ancestor. So do humans and oranges (and apples and oranges, for that matter). (Should we all chip in and get justintime a copy of The Ancestor's Tale for his birthday?)

I remember the aquatic ape hypothesis: IIRC, one problem was that the arguments for it were based on traits only found in females. I think a race of merpeople would be cool, but by the time they evolved the ability to remain in water for long periods of time, dive, and outswim predators they'd look pretty much like seals or dolphins. Or maybe manatees.

Dinwar, you mentioned that the fossil record is more extensive than most people realize: can you point to a summary of monotreme evolution for the sort-of-educated-but-willing-to-do-some-work layperson?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Should we all chip in and get justintime a copy of The Ancestor's Tale for his birthday?)

Fabulous book, which I think I mentioned in this thread once already.

But we must accept that some are simply unreachable. If there's any benefit to this debate it's simply to hone our skills. We will never reach justintime or his ilk.

Which is frustrating, I know. But it is what it is.

 

[John Jones]

It gets even better: humans and snails share a common ancestor. So do humans and oranges (and apples and oranges, for that matter). (Should we all chip in and get justintime a copy of The Ancestor's Tale for his birthday?)

I remember the aquatic ape hypothesis: IIRC, one problem was that the arguments for it were based on traits only found in females. /QUOTE]

Even worse: It was supported mostly by amateurs in the field, and those with political aims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

 

[jaydeehess]

. Scientists are protected from public ridicule, they belong to fraternities that protect them by limiting their speculation, conjectures and misrepresentation of data to peer review. But as some point they have to deal with reality and the general public. This is one such occasion.

You don't watch FOX News much then.