Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 288 (795850)
12-18-2016 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 12:12 PM


Re: Introduction
vaporwave Really apt user name writes:
Again, the whole phylogenetic practice boils down to: IF evolution is true, this is likely how it happened. But it doesn't reveal more than that.
Not at all. That is simply nonsense and not at all what any honest scientist would say.
Rather what is said is that all of the evidence shows that evolution is a fact, that living things have changed over time and the the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation that has ever be presented that actually does explain what is seen.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 12:12 PM vaporwave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by caffeine, posted 12-19-2016 4:20 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 288 (795857)
12-18-2016 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tangle
12-18-2016 12:39 PM


Re: Introduction
Tangle writes:
If you can find a mammal in the fossil record alongside dinosaurs, you win.
Not too sure about that. I can think of no reason a mammal fossil should not be found alongside dinosaurs and a bunch of reasons to expect that we should see mammal fossils concurrent with dinosaurs. After all we find mammals filling many of the niches once filled by dinosaurs not all that long after the dinos exited stage left.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2016 12:39 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2016 1:06 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 58 of 288 (795891)
12-18-2016 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 4:46 PM


More nonsense.
waving vapor writes:
It doesn't matter how much the various OoL theories may struggle, the general academic community knows with complete certainty that it happened completely naturally somehow.
Again, utter and complete nonsense; that is not anything but a creationist might say.
What is actually said is that so far no examples of non-natural causes have ever been found. Until someone actually presents a non-natural cause for examination and can explain how such non-natural causes work there is no reason to suggest non-natural causes.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:46 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 6:15 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 288 (795897)
12-18-2016 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 6:15 PM


and yet even MORE nonsense.
vaporwave writes:
No matter how weak naturalistic origin of life theories may become, no matter how much that claim may appear to be false, the academic community will never consider the central idea of a naturalistic origin of life to be disproved. Perhaps rethought entirely but never dismissed or replaced... (indeed the alternative is not even to be considered)
Again, more utter bullshit from vaporwave.
Sorry but again you simply show you are totally clueless about even the most basic facts.
If you can present an example of a non-natural cause and explain how it works then of course science would have to take non-natural causes into consideration.
It really is that simple.
Present an example of a non-natural cause and an explanation of how it works.
The facts are we have the fossils so we win and we have the natural causes so we win.
Creationism has been DOA for well over a hundred years and it smells like it's been dead far longer.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 6:15 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 74 of 288 (795920)
12-19-2016 11:23 AM


It really is simple...we got the Natural Causes so we win
It's really simple, there is ample evidence of natural causes but no one has ever presented any evidence of any un-natural causes.
Until someone can present one example of some un-natural cause for ANYTHING there is simply no reason to even consider un-natural causes.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2016 1:06 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 106 of 288 (795964)
12-20-2016 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 9:08 AM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
vaporwave writes:
Can you give an example of what you're talking about....
Consider hippopotamus and whale.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 9:08 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 109 of 288 (795968)
12-20-2016 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 9:12 AM


how to converse, the 101 level course
You really don't understand even the very basics of communication do you?
vaporwave writes:
Darn... Tangle, you were just teasing I see.
You refuse to back up this claim... just like Dr. Adequate...
Tangle writes:
But without common descent there's no reason for DNA and form based taxonomy to agree on their classification
If someone makes a statement that you think might be incorrect your job is to present an example that you believe might refute the position not simple play the three year old at the playground tactic of telling the other kid to prove it and then sticking out your tongue.
If you have some reason to expect DNA and form taxonomy to agree then you should present your reason.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 9:12 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 122 of 288 (795985)
12-20-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Taq
12-20-2016 11:19 AM


More Fun With evidence
The big challenge for Creationists really comes down to evidence and explanation.
The reality is that humans look at whales and noticed they breathed air unlike fish that breathed water so we decided they were mammals.
The Creationist explanation for whales is God did it.
The reality is that humans look at whales' anatomy and noticed they seemed to show vestigial legs so we decided they were mammals that once lived on land.
The Creationist explanation for whales' anatomy is God did it.
The reality is that humans look at whales' anatomy and noticed they seemed to show vestigial legs so we decided they were mammals that once lived on land and so there should be some land animals that are closely related to whales.
The Creationist explanation for whales is God did it.
The reality is that humans look at whales' anatomy and noticed they seemed to show vestigial legs so we decided they were mammals that once lived on land and so there should be some land animals that are closely related to whales and once DNA analysis became possible found that whales and hippos were closely related.
The Creationist explanation for whales is God did it.
The reality is that humans look at whales' anatomy and noticed they seemed to show vestigial legs so we decided they were mammals that once lived on land and so there should be some land animals that are closely related to whales and once DNA analysis became possible found that whales and hippos were closely related and so there must have been a common ancestor to both whales and hippos.
The Creationist explanation for whales is God did it.
The fact and reality is that Creationism explains absolutely nothing and so has absolutely no value.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 11:19 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 12:15 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 143 of 288 (796009)
12-20-2016 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 6:04 PM


You really need to learn how to read or maybe try being honest.
vaporwave writes:
taq writes:
Variation in cytB is higher than cytC, making cytC the choice for comparing more distantly related organisms.
So in other words.... cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead.
Makes sense I guess from a marketing standpoint.
No, to imply that in other words taq was saying "cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead." is simply more utter dishonesty from you bujt that is to be expected from Creationists.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 6:04 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 148 of 288 (796023)
12-21-2016 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 7:25 AM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
vaporwave writes:
This is essentially an admission that cytochrome B data does not reinforce the preferred evolutionary relationships very well, or at least would not look as convincing when making a case to the public.
This is why evolutionists, when trying to make their case, always focus on cytochrome C instead.
No, once again you are simply making shit up.
This is why evolutionists do not use a hammer as the tool to tighten bolts.
When trying to explain basics to those ignorant of a subject it is advisable to use the examples that are easiest for them to understand. Once they understand the basics it is then time to move on to the more complex.
Instead of posting inane and incorrect assertions about what YOU think evolution says or what Scientists say, why not provide some support for your position.
Why in the last 150 years have NO Creationists actually been able to present any evidence or theory that explains what is seen and supports special creation?
Edited by jar, : capitalize no

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:25 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 153 of 288 (796029)
12-21-2016 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 7:56 AM


the silence from the lambs
vaporwave writes:
I haven't said anything about creationist models, but it sounds like you're suggesting that one cannot group objects by shared traits (cladistics) unless those objects are related via common ancestry.
We have noticed that neither you or any other Creationist have ever said anything about creationist models.
Is there some reason no Creationist has ever been able to present a model, mechanism, plan, procedure, method or theory that explains the reality that is seen?
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:56 AM vaporwave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2016 9:59 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 155 of 288 (796031)
12-21-2016 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Coyote
12-21-2016 9:59 AM


Re: the silence from the lambs
Or make mud critters and then cough on them.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2016 9:59 AM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 184 of 288 (796066)
12-21-2016 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dr Adequate
12-21-2016 5:16 PM


Re: The purpose of science
DrA writes:
No ... just ... no. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but it can't be familiarity with the actual business of producing software.
I know where he's getting it, from his desire to introduce a designer.
But while we have the fossils, and we have the natural causes and we have the human designers, he ain't got nothing but fantasy.
We got the fossils, we got the natural causes, we got the software designers; WE WIN!

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 5:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:28 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 198 of 288 (796085)
12-21-2016 9:41 PM


The facts remain. We win.
We have the fossils and the fossils refute the Biblical Creation myths. We win.
We have the natural causes. We win.
We have the designers. We win.
Creationism has absolutely nothing, not even a single creation myth. Even the Bible has two mutually exclusive creation myths. If one were true the other must be false. We win.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 221 of 288 (796124)
12-22-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by vaporwave
12-22-2016 5:41 PM


Does vaporwave even have a position to offer?
vapor writes:
You should probably think your comments through a little more instead of just kicking up dust and making noise every time I post.
Maybe you might think about actually presenting something, anything, that might support your position if in fact you actually have a position and are not just kicking up dust and making noise.
As it stands we have the fossils. We win.
We have the natural causes. We win.
We have the designers. We win.
And we have the Theory. We win.
It really is that simple.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by vaporwave, posted 12-22-2016 5:41 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024