RSR: Spiders & Termites & Magnets

[Stripe]

Stripe's Blacklist:
IoverE.

The end.

:think:

:mock: IoverE

 

[DavisBJ]

I didn't allude to some "indefinite sediment map or nucleotide data". I asked for your definite data on sediment maps and nucleotide data. It was very specific.

Here is what was specific that you are dodging. What is the evidence that you said: “The evolutionists found it for us.” Is that hard to understand?

I already said I am not a geologist, and not a microbiologist. But you said some unnamed “evolutionists” came up with some evidence. What is it? Empty assertion?

 

[Yorzhik]

How about you reply to the essay I linked? It's not that long or hard to understand. Or are you so dishonest that you think me making guesses as to "how many nucleotides are different" has any utility to anyone?

If you don't know the exact number, can you give us a reasonable range? That would have great utility.

The article only touched on the topic indirectly. But it may be of use. How many nucleotides does it take to make that switch? If you don't have the exact answer, do you have an estimated range?

 

[Yorzhik]

Here is what was specific that you are dodging. What is the evidence that you said: “The evolutionists found it for us.” Is that hard to understand?

I already said I am not a geologist, and not a microbiologist. But you said some unnamed “evolutionists” came up with some evidence. What is it? Empty assertion?

You still aren't getting it. Does the specific information I asked for exist? If it does, then I'm not dodging.

 

[Yorzhik]

I admit a fairly good understanding of specifically how changes in DNA would result in morphological changes would be valuable. But I think we are probably decades from being able to look at a specific DNA and accurately know what many of those instructions will result in biologically. So you seem to have found safe haven on that “god of the gaps” island, as least until we do figure out how to decode what a DNA will make.

For millennia morphology has been taken as an indicator of biological relatedness. I am aware that morphology is not a perfect yardstick. But I suspect it is more reliable than you seem to admit.

For example, life has long been categorized into the “kingdom – phylum – class – order - family – genus – species” classifications (or derivatives thereof). Alate, correct me if I am wrong, but this is primarily a morphologically derived system, and it has done a pretty good job for a long time. Certainly DNA analysis had no part in setting it up initially.

I saw a discussion ( I think it was here at TOL) from some months ago where a biologist said that so far, comparing the DNA of animals with their classification based on the old morphological system had pretty well confirmed that careful morphological classification and DNA relatedness correlated very well.

It would be a "god of the gaps" argument if there were no reason to be skeptical of evolution's ability to change DNA code successfully from one phyla into another.

But since we know about DNA, it is now incumbent on evolutionists to show how their theory works in light of that information.

So far, it isn't going well. The more we learn of DNA the more we realize random mutation can't do it.

 

[alwight]

You still aren't getting it. Does the specific information I asked for exist? If it does, then I'm not dodging.

Even if it does exist then without your actually knowing of it rather makes it a bald assertion and a dodge anyway.
Or are you keeping it secret perhaps?

 

[Jukia]

The more we learn of DNA the more we realize random mutation can't do it.

Who is we kimo sabe? The we who understand science and do not rely on the 2000+ year old religious anthology have no problem with it.

 

[DavisBJ]

You still aren't getting it. Does the specific information I asked for exist? If it does, then I'm not dodging.

You win, I give up. You made the assertion that “The evolutionists found it for us”, but you aren’t just about to back your claim. Claim is now filed under “hyperbole”.

 

[DavisBJ]

So far, it isn't going well. The more we learn of DNA the more we realize random mutation can't do it.

Your disbelief, sans any supporting evidence, is noted.

 

[Yorzhik]

Even if it does exist then without your actually knowing of it rather makes it a bald assertion and a dodge anyway.
Or are you keeping it secret perhaps?

You win, I give up. You made the assertion that “The evolutionists found it for us”, but you aren’t just about to back your claim. Claim is now filed under “hyperbole”.

Both of you are answering quite well. It's your only defense to plead ignorance and stay out of the conversation. But anyone who has any sense will realize I've already provided what the information is.

I'll go even further, though, and be blunt: The sediment data, whatever it is will provide information for creation (the flood, at least). The nucleotide data, whatever it is, will provide evidence for creation.

 

[Yorzhik]

Your disbelief, sans any supporting evidence, is noted.

No supporting evidence? Sediment maps and nucleotide data. It all supports my view.

 

[DavisBJ]

I'll go even further, though, and be blunt: The sediment data, whatever it is will provide information for creation (the flood, at least). The nucleotide data, whatever it is, will provide evidence for creation.

I’m not much interested in pie-in-the-sky predictions made to buttress a theology. I prefer science.

 

[Yorzhik]

I’m not much interested in pie-in-the-sky predictions made to buttress a theology. I prefer science.

This isn't the first time you seem to have read too quickly before you answered. You should have stuck with claiming ignorance because switching to showing you can't read is not as good an argument.

I see I missed a comma. Perhaps that is why you misread what I wrote. Here, I'll let you try again with the added comma and redundant verbage: The sediment data, whatever it is you provide whenever you provide it, will provide information for creation (the flood, at least). The nucleotide data, whatever it is you provide whenever you provide it, will be evidence for creation.

 

[DavisBJ]

This isn't the first time you seem to have read too quickly before you answered. You should have stuck with claiming ignorance because switching to showing you can't read is not as good an argument.

I see I missed a comma. Perhaps that is why you misread what I wrote. Here, I'll let you try again with the added comma and redundant verbage: The sediment data, whatever it is you provide whenever you provide it, will provide information for creation (the flood, at least). The nucleotide data, whatever it is you provide whenever you provide it, will be evidence for creation.

Didn’t help. At its core, you are still just making assertions, which may be a acceptable approach for theology, but carries no weight in science.

 

[The Barbarian]

It would be a "god of the gaps" argument if there were no reason to be skeptical of evolution's ability to change DNA code successfully from one phyla into another.

So then, since you can't show any reason why it can't happen, it's a "god of the gaps" argument.

But since we know about DNA, it is now incumbent on evolutionists to show how their theory works in light of that information.

It turns out it works the way Mendel demonstrated that it does. That is part of evolutionary theory. What specific mechanism, required for evolution of new phyla, is ruled out by DNA?

So far, it isn't going well.

You've been badly misled on that. Evolutionary development has demonstrated in considerable detail how phylogeny works. You might want to read Sean Carroll's Endless Forms, Most Beautiful to learn about it.

The more we learn of DNA the more we realize random mutation can't do it.

Your condition is curable. Go find out for yourself.

Here's one hint:

Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies

Antonis Rokas , Barry L. Williams , Nicole King1 & Sean B. Carroll

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, R. M. Bock Laboratories, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1525 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA

Abstract

One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes. To systematically investigate the degree of incongruence, and potential methods for resolving it, we screened the genome sequences of eight yeast species and selected 106 widely distributed orthologous genes for phylogenetic analyses, singly and by concatenation. Our results suggest that data sets consisting of single or a small number of concatenated genes have a significant probability of supporting conflicting topologies. By contrast, analyses of the entire data set of concatenated genes yielded a single, fully resolved species tree with maximum support. Comparable results were obtained with a concatenation of a minimum of 20 genes; substantially more genes than commonly used but a small fraction of any genome. These results have important implications for resolving branches of the tree of life.

 

[Alate_One]

No supporting evidence? Sediment maps and nucleotide data. It all supports my view.

No it doesn't. And if you think it does you'll need to be specific about exactly what pieces of data support a young earth and de-novo creation 6000 years ago.

 

[Yorzhik]

Didn’t help. At its core, you are still just making assertions, which may be a acceptable approach for theology, but carries no weight in science.

Here's the problem; If I provide data, you will dismiss the data. If you provide the data, one would hope you would believe it.

 

[Yorzhik]

No it doesn't. And if you think it does you'll need to be specific about exactly what pieces of data support a young earth and de-novo creation 6000 years ago.

I've told you specifically which data; the nucleotide differences between the hearts you displayed and sediment maps.

 

[Jukia]

I've told you specifically which data; the nucleotide differences between the hearts you displayed and sediment maps.

So you have the nucleotide data? Great, please provide a citation to the literature.
And please provide a citation to the literature with respect to the sediment maps.
Thanks so much.

 

[Yorzhik]

It turns out it works the way Mendel demonstrated that it does. That is part of evolutionary theory. What specific mechanism, required for evolution of new phyla, is ruled out by DNA?

Natural selection.

Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies

Antonis Rokas , Barry L. Williams , Nicole King1 & Sean B. Carroll

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, R. M. Bock Laboratories, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1525 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA

Abstract

One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes. To systematically investigate the degree of incongruence, and potential methods for resolving it, we screened the genome sequences of eight yeast species and selected 106 widely distributed orthologous genes for phylogenetic analyses, singly and by concatenation. Our results suggest that data sets consisting of single or a small number of concatenated genes have a significant probability of supporting conflicting topologies. By contrast, analyses of the entire data set of concatenated genes yielded a single, fully resolved species tree with maximum support. Comparable results were obtained with a concatenation of a minimum of 20 genes; substantially more genes than commonly used but a small fraction of any genome. These results have important implications for resolving branches of the tree of life.

I guess as long as you can avoid the topic at hand, you've achieved your best argument for the topic at hand.