Fallacies of Evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Jan 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ........
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017
  2. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ............
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017
  3. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Blind religious belief cannot be refuted and it will take no objection among peers.
     
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for admitting to being a creationist.

    Have a nice day!
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  5. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You honestly can't accept the truth. Yes, he's asking a question. The question is
    "where are the gradually transitioning species."
    I have no idea what Creationists believe. Why do you keep bringing religion into
    a discussion about science?
    He is not! He GUESSES as to why they aren't there.

    Please read before commenting.

    Oh, and please provide some gradually transitioning species. You've yet to do that. You're
    good at dodging but not very good at knowing what you're talking about.

    Use science for your answers.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  6. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They are leftovers of diseases and attack a specific area. They aren't necessarily evidence of
    common ancestors. They are closer to evidence that there was a disease that effected many
    creatures not related.

    They were once called junk DNA.
     
  7. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TE="Prunepicker, post: 1067261135, member: 66214"]They are leftovers of diseases and attack a specific area. They aren't necessarily evidence of
    common ancestors. They are closer to evidence that there was a disease that effected many
    creatures not related.

    They were once called junk DNA.[/QUOTE]
    Your scientific source/s that support those comments?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  8. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your scientific source/s that support those comments?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just how far do you intend to stretch imagination to support your disdain for agreed upon data?

    Trying to pretend you know genetics better than the scientists that spend their lives studying it is really very sad.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ad Hominen, (damn how do you spell it?) Anyways, Usfan always points these out.

    In so far as ToE, while it is riddled with questions, due to a lack of hard evidence, as one would see in physics, it is the only game in town, and until someone comes up with something more credible, it will stand. There would have to be a new theory, with evidence, to take on the macro evolution part of it, for the micro is solid, mutation, adaptation, a species seeing minor changes over time. What bothers me more is the idea put forth on how life arose in the first place. The current ideas on it, seem impossible. But that is another topic...
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  11. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Correction. You're the one who hasn't read the book.
    What part of "they don't know" do you not understand?
     
  12. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
  13. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm stretching nothing nor am I using disdain. I'm using their data.
    I'm pretending nothing. I'm using their data.
     
  14. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assumes factoids NOT in evidence!
    Onus is entirely on you to PROVE that the scientific knowledge does not exist when it actually does. No amount of creationist science denial on your part refutes scientific knowledge.
    Really?

    Which post did you do that in?

    :roflol:
     
    Cosmo and Mr_Truth like this.
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The issue here in not so much that you "Use" scientific data...it is the WAY you try to do so. A quick copy/paste becomes ineffective if not counter productive when it is not understood and context is removed. Basically you take helpful and competent information and corrupt it so badly it no longer fulfills the initial intent, usually making a fool of yourself in the eyes of those who actually understand it.
    Even worse is the use of this tactic to promote a larger ineptitude of the general concept or fundamental field of study.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No amount of denial is going to provide gradually transitioning fossils of species.
    If you could then you would. Deal with it. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever
    of gradually transitioning species.

    :roflol:
     
  17. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I use it in total context of what's available. There's no need to manipulate the data as
    evolutionists do to create something that doesn't exists, such as tranitional species.
    Then don't do that. I certainly don't. Why should you? Good grief, just show some solid evidence
    of gradually transitioning species. All you can find is this complete species and that complete
    species and only guess work to tie them together. How can you honestly and intellectually accept
    that as solid evidence? How?
    Not true by any stretch. I use it in context. Please provide a single post I made that's out of
    context (don't make a blanket statement, provide evidence) I believe you're irked by the fact
    that evidence for evolution is very weak and you can't, or won't, accept it for reasons other than
    science. If someone rationally asks questions that questions evolution you and others become
    fearful and/or emotional because you know that you can't refute it.

    All I want is solid undisputed evidence and not manipulated data or thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  18. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The significance of ERVs is that they're remnants of viruses that infected organisms many millions of (even a billion+) years ago. Organisms descended from a common ancestor share the ERVs that were present in that ancestor. The amount of common ERVs across different species allows us to create a tree of descendancy that lines up with similar trees created through analysis of other features. For instance, we share more ERVs with chimps than gorillas, which lines up with our understanding that we are more closely related to chimps than gorillas. This pattern holds for all genome-mapped organisms so far. It's an example of a prediction made by evolutionary theory that was confirmed, which strengthens the theory.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  19. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Correction, they don't have to come from a common ancestor. ERV's show that a body was infected.
    Since viruses attack the same area their remains are going to be in the same place which someone
    may want to believe is common ancestory. It's still a guess, albeit somewhat scientific.
    It really doesn't. The descendancy is still manufactured with extrapolation.
    With all the so-called ancestors living around us, one can't help but wonder where the gradually
    tranistioning species fossils are. We should be stumbling over them in every single dig.
     
  20. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The transition exist and have been shown, explained, and handed to you....however your mind does not grasp what they are which makes further explanation a futile gesture. It would seem you expect us to present you with a live video of something that existed millions of years ago, and even if we could you would probably claim it was fake and speculation.
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  21. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first link at alzforum.com deals with ALS; so what?.
    The New Yorker link - Darwin's surprise?
    The real surprise is that you posted a link to an article that supports universal common descent
    Thank you
    "If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes," Weiss wrote.
    Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in "The Descent of Man" (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the "theory" of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.
    Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.
    From; http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/03/darwins-surprise
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  22. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not quite correct. In sexually reproducing organisms, an endogenous retrovirus occurs when a germ cell is infected and then results in offspring. If that offspring survives and the virus becomes inactivated, the retroviral DNA will be part of its genome and potentially propagate throughout the population over time. This is an incredibly rare event. Also, viruses have limited ranges of species that they're capable of infecting. So a virus that can infect a cat, for instance, is very unlikely to be able to infect a species that isn't closely related. Viruses that are able to infect a wide range of hosts are very rare, and even still there is no known virus that is capable of, say, infecting all mammals. Yet there are ERVs that are shared by all mammals. Furthermore, while there are some viruses that will only insert at the same point in a genome, the majority of retroviruses insert at random sites. The only criteria is that a particular sequence exists and be available for insertion. The shorter that sequence, the more of those sites that are likely to exist in the genome.

    So the idea that all of these ERVs, shared across organisms in such a way that it appears to correlate with proposed relatedness, are the product of all organisms being infected by the same viruses just doesn't make sense. The math doesn't bear out, either. If we take the most conservative estimate of the amount of our DNA that is made up of ERVs (1%), that's 30 million bases. The average provirus is 8 to 10 thousand bases long. So, lowest estimate, that's ~3000 retroviral insertions. And we share all but a few dozen ERVs with chimpanzees. The idea that every human and chimpanzee has been infected by the same 3000 retroviruses, at the exact same sites, is beyond unbelievable.

    You're disputing that a phylogenetic tree created by ERV analysis does not line up with a phylogenetic tree based on other genetic analysis and morphology?

    That's a non sequitur.
     
    William Rea and sdelsolray like this.
  23. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you still can't provide your post to substantiate this inane allegation of yours?

    What "scientific methods" did you use exactly?

    What was your hypothesis?

    What tests did you run and what were the results?

    Which credible scientific journal published your results?

    Did the peer reviews substantiate your results?
     
    Cosmo, Guno and tecoyah like this.
  24. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post regarding Darwin and fossils.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  25. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Haven't you read my posts? You've yet to provide any evidence to support
    evolution.
    Everything I use is from evolutionists. I simply show the error of their thinking.

    You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence of a gradually transitioning
    species.

    It's your turn to put up or shut up, as they say.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page