Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[PixyMisa]

The ones I caught were probably the Brown Antechinus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Antechinus

They're carnivores.

Not surprisingly given that, they bite. I don't actually recommend catching them with your bare hands. Had to get a tetanus shot. After that I used an empty ice cream container.

 

[randman]

Pixy, also I never said genes were never deleted. You made that up and no you haven't been correcting me at all. Even now, it's not clear if you have ever gotten the point on what a genome is and how it would evolve and develop under Darwinian methods and specifically, what we should expect as a general pattern. It's like a maze there in your mind.

Why would the last common ancestor (LCA) have all the genes basically for all animals today?

is that really what you think people expected based on NeoDarwinism?

 

[PixyMisa]

Why would the last common ancestor (LCA) have all the genes basically for all animals today?

It doesn't. It just has more than were expected, indicating a higher than predicted rate of gene deletion.

is that really what you think people expected based on NeoDarwinism?

Evolutionary theory.

The actual facts are perfectly in accordance with evolutionary theory.

 

[randman]

Are you guys that dense? You think I said every creature or any creature is exactly the same as another?

Unbelievable. It's like talking with children or something.

The idea is not that there are exactly the same as they can't be since they have different reproductive organs. The idea is why are the same designs repeated in the pairs when there is really no environmental reason for that to be so.

Moreover, the point you guys are really missing is that either way, my original point stands. You cannot have a theory that predicts all possible outcomes and it still be good science. You cannot say, well, if there are similarities are theory is it must be common ancestry, but if not, then our theory says it's convergent evolution. That's not a proper use of data.

You could say maybe it's like this but you need to admit you are undercutting your theory in the process.

Besides you 2 didn't even get the ad hoc comment directed towards another when he was bringing up gene regulation. It's a whole different issue and debate, and one I doubt you are familiar with.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, why would a random process of mutation lead to the same imperfect design over and over again?

The two animals you are citing don't have the same design. Unless you think their shape is the entirety of their design.

 

[randman]

It doesn't. It just has more than were expected, indicating a higher than predicted rate of gene deletion.


Evolutionary theory.

The actual facts are perfectly in accordance with evolutionary theory.

It doesn't, eh? care to prove that?

On the "actual facts" but of course they do. All facts are in accordance with evolutionary theory by definition.....

 

[Halfcentaur]

I think it's just a matter of dinosaurs going extinct and that evolution doesn't really have much an answer for that. Things that go extinct is not evidence or a strong argument that they evolved into something else.

The fact that the things which went extinct did not share a world with the things that are here today however pokes a big gaping hole in that position however. Why aren't people and dogs found among them?

Creationists will tell you this is due to an error in dating, dinosaurs did share the Earth with people and dogs, and the fossil dating record and age of the Earth's crust and consistent distribution of specific species across the Earth in the same layers we would expect to find them isn't true. But it is, if you actually look at the evidence.

But this leaves an opening for those who do not share the literal view of Creationism. Perhaps the intelligent designer just designed them later, or the intelligent designer intended for the great majority of all things to die out so that one day the tiniest percentile could be selected for. When one looks at the vast majority of time and species which preceded the current day's, this Designer seems absurdly wasteful, or apathetic in favor of some aesthetic need which escapes our simple minds.

 

[Halfcentaur]

The ones I caught were probably the Brown Antechinus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Antechinus

They're carnivores.

Not surprisingly given that, they bite. I don't actually recommend catching them with your bare hands. Had to get a tetanus shot. After that I used an empty ice cream container.

The snout is very similar to the shape I see in the possums here in Oklahoma. Fascinating.

 

[randman]

Okay, I checked that, and while there are clear common ancestors, it's not so clear which evolved first or whether one evolved from the other. So I'll withdraw that statment.

Please check some of your other statements of "facts."

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You cannot have a theory that predicts all possible outcomes and it still be good science. You cannot say, well, if there are similarities are theory is it must be common ancestry, but if not, then our theory says it's convergent evolution.

But that's an extreme misrepresentation of the theory. When two creatures converge on the same trait we can call it convergent evolution. But if they converge on the same sequence of DNA, especially in the non coding regions, and we call it convergent then you can complain we're not using the data properly.

Why does the designer plant most of his changes in to the non-functional DNA regions?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Thank you. I find the Socratic method boring as well but needed some evolutionist here to acknowledge this which we all know is true. It's a basic prediction of evolution (NeoDarwinism). If it's not true, NeoDarwinism is not true.

Some years back a guy I don't necessarily agree with predicted publicly and insisted molecular studies would show the exact opposite and indicate the earliest organisms, at least those that gave rise to plants and animals, would have the most complex genomes.

Well, he was correct. Darwinism was wrong. Doesn't make strict creationism right, but it does show NeoDarwinism or what many just refer to as "evolution" is wrong.

Boy, that would have been such a letdown if it wasn't obvious a mile off. My experience has been that the Socratic method, in the hands of anyone but Socrates, is a particularly prolonged and tortuous form of asshattery.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Are you guys that dense? You think I said every creature or any creature is exactly the same as another?

Unbelievable. It's like talking with children or something.

The idea is not that there are exactly the same as they can't be since they have different reproductive organs. The idea is why are the same designs repeated in the pairs when there is really no environmental reason for that to be so.

Moreover, the point you guys are really missing is that either way, my original point stands. You cannot have a theory that predicts all possible outcomes and it still be good science. You cannot say, well, if there are similarities are theory is it must be common ancestry, but if not, then our theory says it's convergent evolution. That's not a proper use of data.

You could say maybe it's like this but you need to admit you are undercutting your theory in the process.

Besides you 2 didn't even get the ad hoc comment directed towards another when he was bringing up gene regulation. It's a whole different issue and debate, and one I doubt you are familiar with.

Yes, it seems the subtly was indeed lost. Utterly lost.

 

[bokonon]

"Evolution" which I am calling Darwinism predicts a greater level of genetic complexity over time. That's a specific prediction of the theory.

No, it isn't.

Evolution predicts that genomes will change over time. Those changes may result in more, less, or the same amount of complexity in daughter organisms.

The summed complexity of all the variations in all the genomes may also increase, decrease, or stay the same.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you guys that dense? You think I said every creature or any creature is exactly the same as another?

Unbelievable. It's like talking with children or something.

The idea is not that there are exactly the same as they can't be since they have different reproductive organs. The idea is why are the same designs repeated in the pairs when there is really no environmental reason for that to be so.

Common descent, limited variability, natural selection.

Moreover, the point you guys are really missing is that either way, my original point stands. You cannot have a theory that predicts all possible outcomes and it still be good science.

Sure. It doesn't, of course, so that's not a problem.

You cannot say, well, if there are similarities are theory is it must be common ancestry, but if not, then our theory says it's convergent evolution. That's not a proper use of data.

Of course it wouldn't be, if anyone did that.

But if you examine the precise morphology and map out the similarities and differences, then that's science. And if you confirm that with genetic studies, even better.

And, of course, that's exactly what we've done.

 

[randman]

The fact that the things which went extinct did not share a world with the things that are here today however pokes a big gaping hole in that position however. Why aren't people and dogs found among them?

Creationists will tell you this is due to an error in dating, dinosaurs did share the Earth with people and dogs, and the fossil dating record and age of the Earth's crust and consistent distribution of specific species across the Earth in the same layers we would expect to find them isn't true. But it is, if you actually look at the evidence.

But this leaves an opening for those who do not share the literal view of Creationism. Perhaps the intelligent designer just designed them later, or the intelligent designer intended for the great majority of all things to die out so that one day the tiniest percentile could be selected for. When one looks at the vast majority of time and species which preceded the current day's, this Designer seems absurdly wasteful, or apathetic in favor of some aesthetic need which escapes our simple minds.

You know I used to believe dinosaurs were very old. I am not a young earth creationist. But they've been cutting into their bones and finding red blood cells and soft tissue. Biochemistry tells you that at least for those dinosaurs, they are not more than 10,000 years old.

You can cling to your theories or look at the facts. When a dino-bone is cut open and isn't too much different than cutting an ostrich bone, something is wrong with your theory, bigtime, maybe with your whole view of reality in fact.

Doesn't mean the earth is 6000 years old but it does mean those specific dinosaur bones are NOT 65 million years old.

 

[Cavemonster]

Moreover, the point you guys are really missing is that either way, my original point stands. You cannot have a theory that predicts all possible outcomes and it still be good science. You cannot say, well, if there are similarities are theory is it must be common ancestry, but if not, then our theory says it's convergent evolution. That's not a proper use of data.

The idea you're looking for is falsifiability. And yes, evolution is falsifiable. If we found, for instance, a modern rabbit from the Cambrian, that would falsify evolution.

You can find some more here.

 

[Halfcentaur]

My experience has been that the Socratic method, in the hands of anyone but Socrates, is a particularly prolonged and tortuous form of asshattery.

It was clearly a manipulative form of demonstrating a point, more concerned with strategy than a flow of ideas. And the agenda is now known.

 

[Cavemonster]

You know I used to believe dinosaurs were very old. I am not a young earth creationist. But they've been cutting into their bones and finding red blood cells and soft tissue. Biochemistry tells you that at least for those dinosaurs, they are not more than 10,000 years old.

You can cling to your theories or look at the facts. When a dino-bone is cut open and isn't too much different than cutting an ostrich bone, something is wrong with your theory, bigtime, maybe with your whole view of reality in fact.

Doesn't mean the earth is 6000 years old but it does mean those specific dinosaur bones are NOT 65 million years old.

Source?

 

[PixyMisa]

It doesn't, eh? care to prove that?

It's right there in the article you cited.

On the "actual facts" but of course they do. All facts are in accordance with evolutionary theory by definition.....

Not by definition, no. But relevant facts are, so far, all in accordance with evolutionary theory by observation. That doesn't mean there won't be discrepancies between new observations and some specific models of evolutionary history built using the theory; indeed, that happens all the time. But the core theory itself has an immense amount of supporting evidence and, so far, zero contrary evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

You know I used to believe dinosaurs were very old. I am not a young earth creationist. But they've been cutting into their bones and finding red blood cells and soft tissue. Biochemistry tells you that at least for those dinosaurs, they are not more than 10,000 years old.

No.

You can cling to your theories or look at the facts. When a dino-bone is cut open and isn't too much different than cutting an ostrich bone, something is wrong with your theory, bigtime, maybe with your whole view of reality in fact.

Well, when that happens, let us know.