Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Do you really expect to get that level of detailed presentation given to you in a 1 min soundbite in an internet forum?The details are available to you, creationist. But you have to go to school to learn them in the detail you are disingenuously and arrogantly demanding here.Double down on my Message 264. You really are ...

quote:

---

Where does the extrapolation cease to be valid? Good question, and it will remain a good question so long as the ancestry in question is/was not available for proper measurement and observation.
​

---

That is not really an answer. All you tell me is that you reject the extrapolation for no good reason.

quote:

---

I accept that Evolutionary biologists read common ancestry into the genetics evidence; however, all genetic evidence points to a Creator.

---

And what exactly qualifies you to pronounce on what the evidence points to when you haven’t even looked at it or learned enough to understand it?

quote:

---

Also, the fact that you have drawn a conclusion from a set of evidence does not make that conclusion fact.

---

Indeed it is the strength of the evidence that determines it. And that is why we can confidently say that - with minor caveats concerning the very earliest life - common ancestry is a fact.

quote:

---

The concept of common ancestry - maybe this is better described as something else, perhaps? - is the part of evolutionary biology that put its supporters at such stark, sometimes virulent odds with the Creationists.

---

You imply that creationists have the right to determine the conclusions that scientists have a right to reach. That scientists are somehow in the wrong for reaching conclusions creationists object to.It would be better to say that common ancestry is the concept that puts the supporters of creationism at “such stark, sometimes virulent odds with” science.

yeah, but fuck those guys.seriously no one is wasting their time considering what might upset creationists.

Hi wise1 Why would He have to be a woman?He had no genes from a man or a woman. Had He had just one gene from either He would not been the perfect sacrifice. According to that Mary became the first surrogate mother as the Holy Ghost placed Emmanuel in her womb.God Bless,

quote:

---

Throughout this string I have requested empirical testing that demonstrates common ancestry for all life forms.

---

And you’ve been referred to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and complained that you couldn’t understand it.If your complaint is that you won’t look for the evidence and don’t know enough to evaluate it then the problem would seem to be with you. It’s hardly a basis for alleging that “a large-scale misrepresentation is being foisted on the public’.

quote:

---

It is supposition, that's why it is prefaced with "It appears".

---

Except that you haven’t presented any basis for it at all. Something must underlay the alleged appearance, but there doesn’t seem to be anything.

quote:

---

See Message 247 for an example of why it appears this way, a.k.a, Fact as Established by the Concurrence of the Credentialed.

---

But Message 247 - even if it were entirely true - only suggests laymen deferring to expert opinion - and to a consensus of expert opinion at that. The majority of participants here - myself included - are laymen. Only one participant in this thread claims to be a scientist.If all you can point to is the behaviour of non-scientists - and if you can’t even get that right - then there is no actual appearance.So it appears that this is just another example of creationist’s love of making false accusations.

Hi Tangle, I am not K.Rose but it is a lot older than K.Rose said it is.I will say it is a lot older than you think it is.The universe has been here since the beginning of existence.Einstein was correct to start with, the universe is eternal in the past .God Bless,

Percy:

---

Because there is much we still don't know of DNA and genetics it is therefore arrogant of you to perform analyses of what we do know.

---

Wrong again. It's about the assuptions of parts of DNA not having any function, so it should be random if there is no common ancestor.

quote:

---

Did I guess right about the point I think you're trying to make

---

No, not even close, as I already pointed out and explained.

Percy:

---

In Message 228 sensei said my guess was wrong and that I should add myself to the ranks of the idiots.

---

Percy:

---

So finally we know what he's asking: Since the probability of ten consecutive tails is 1/1024 given a fair coin, is that the same as the probability that we have a fair coin. The question seems meaningless to me. He'll have to clarify further.

---

So you don't see any usefulness in a question like what is the probability that the common we have a common ancestor with all primates, given the observations shown by Taq?I mean, in the end, that is always the key question, as the main claim of Taq is that we share a common ancestor.If you think it's meaningless, then yeah, tell me what ranks you count yourself in?

So presumably you also believe that God put all the living organisms on this planet 7,000 years ago as we see them now, and that they are immutable?I would guess that you also believe that all the biblical stories of Adam being made by God from dust from the ground and Eve from Adam's rib? Noah's Ark and the rest are simply factual?If so, it seems that you have set an infinity low standard of evidence for your side of the argument and an impossibly high one for ours. Why do you not hold yourself to the same standard that you wish to hold us?

Percy:

---

The question seems meaningless to me.

---

This is like a huge problem for you evolutionists. You just don't get what the main point of discussion is. And you don't know how to correctly interpret the p-value in scientific testing. Which is at the core of the scientific method.You should rather refrain from making any scientific claims if you don't even understand these basics.

Alternatively you should just explain the point you think you are making to us as clearly as you can. If you're getting the same reaction from several intelligent and qualified people it's likely that either you haven't explained yourself properly or that you are wrong.So why not have another go at explaining your argument?

quote:

---

This is like a huge problem for you evolutionists. You just don't get what the main point of discussion is. And you don't know how to correctly interpret the p-value in scientific testing. Which is at the core of the scientific method.

---

The issue is how does your supposed example relate to the actual claim by Taq? Message 153Wouldn’t a fair coin produce a “random set of data”? Isn’t the point of what Taq is saying is that there is a significant deviation from chance? How then, can your example be relevant?Perhaps you should take your own advice: Although I will note that you have a history of ignoring it.

quote:

---

Wouldn’t a fair coin produce a “random set of data”? Isn’t the point of what Taq is saying is that there is a significant deviation from chance? How then, can your example be relevant?

---

Another evolutionist totally missing the point and talking nonsense. It's about the miíinterpretation of the p-value by Taq. Not about what model produces what data.