The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

The fact that some of these “features” are found singularly in other “birds” does not impact the classification – i.e. the recognized distinction between Psittaciformes and other “birds”. Similarly, maybe every “bird” feature can be found singularly in different creatures under the general label of “dinosaur”. So what? That doesn’t mean “dinosaurs” should be classified as “birds”.

It means birds should be classified as dinosaurs.    But do you think that there are several "kinds" of herons?  

Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

This claim relies on a definition of "information" that has no logical bearing on what is being discussed in this conversation.

Actually, it's the way that information is measured.   Shannon information theory shows how much information there is in a message, such as a genome.    And we know it works, because it allows the internet to work and tells us how to accurately send messages over millions of kilometers if space with very low-powered transmitters.    But I'd be willing to look at your numbers.    Let's say that there are two alleles for a gene, each with a frequency of 0.5 in a population genome.   Suppose a mutation occurs and after a time, each of three alleles has a frequency of 1/3.   How much information was there before and after the mutation?    I used these numbers to make computation easy, but feel free to change them to any feasible numbers if you like.

Show us your way.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Anyways – when I looked at the sequence data, it took three or four times for me to realize what I was looking at – because I was looking for telomeric arrays – and the presented data does not look like telomeres. A telomere fusion site would consist of the DNA motif ‘TTAGGG’ occurring thousands of times, uninterrupted, in a row, followed by thousands of compliment sequences.

So you're surprised that there were mutations that messed up those sequences.   You do realize that once a sequence isn't functional, it will inevitably become changed by mutations, right?    Why is that a surprise?    The key is that these inactivated telomeres and centromere are still precisely where they would be if there was a fusion.   I don't think that's hard to understand.

 

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your understanding of gene diversity is too simplistic. Genes are made up of tens-to-thousands of bases (nucleotide pairs). Chromosomal crossovers (exchanges of genetic material/bases between chromatids) during meiosis can recombine a gene to produce theoretically countless versions of that one gene. No “mutation” required.

You've assumed that a gene changes if it has been moved by a fusion or crossover.  It hasn't.  Still the same gene.   But the only way to get new alleles is by mutation.   As you learned, a single pair of cat "kind" could have at most 4 alleles for each gene locus.  But there are hundreds of them for most loci in cats.   All the rest had to have evolved via mutation.    Remember, moving a gene will not produce a new allele. Mutations on useful sequences will usually be removed by natural selection.   But not for no-longer-functional sequences.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I’d also note that not all translations insinuate multiple “kinds” of “herons”. The NKJV rather says, “the heron after its kind” (Leviticus 11:19).

So "kinds" are just sort of a general thing, which changes from place to place in scripture.    Sounds like building a house on quicksand, doesn't it?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Given today’s sequencing methods, the sequencing method used here is absurdly unreliable. They started with over 1.4 million vector clones. They then probed those clones to find what they were looking for (thereby introducing immediate bias to the results).

And yes, geneticists hypothesized that the remains of those structures would be in specific spots on the chromosome and went to look there to see if the prediction was true.   And it was.    You're apparently unhappy with the scientific method.  

And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain.    For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I mean – just wow!!! One whole molecule that is similar. It’s like they’re twins.

Just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was validated by evidence.  They just keep on coming.   Not too long ago, it was discovered that scutes (found only on archosaurs like birds, dinosaurs and crocodiles) could be induced to form feathers on birds.   Obviously, one can't test it on dinosaurs, but someone wondered if you could get feather structures on crocodiles.   Turns out, you can.   And another prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed.   Would you like to see that?

I get that you don't agree with Dr. Wise on paleontology.  But he is a paleontologist and I'm sure you can see why his call on this is more persuasive than yours.

Another YE paleontologist writes:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. ...

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

[The Barbarian]

On 9/18/2023 at 9:45 AM, Starise said:

My understanding of mutations is they are not advantageous, for instance, a primate that finds safety in trees from predators which develops a "mutation" causing it to loose tree climbing ability on the back legs is not condusive to the advancement of that primate. Furthermore, this would not be seen as a gradual occurrance, but a sudden defect.

When the Earth turned colder and drier, the forests receded, and there were fewer habitats for apes.   Some (as happens today) moved out to the plains.   There are savanna chimps, that have adapted new behaviors including more bipedal movement useful for seeing farther.   Longer legs and feet adapted to bipedal motion would be useful, and we see that in a number of fossil hominds.   But yes, it was gradual, and even primitive members of the genus Homo were structured to climb better than modern humans.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

“What's more impressive than the huge number of transitionals and graduated organic chains of transitionals documented by Dr. Wise, is the fact that there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.”

Except that when you look at the phylogenies and cladograms, they are, self-evidently, not, in any sense, “finely graduated”. Nor are they similar enough to be linked together (in the sense that one might think of, say, a “chain”). Maybe “chain” links held together by long lengths of string where the other expected “chain” links should be (but are not).

But as Dr. Wise shows, they are.   And the point is that we don't see these series of transitionals were there shouldn't be any.   We only see transitionals where they were predicted.   

They are, as Dr. Wise points out, very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.     

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

“PNAS October 15, 1991 88 (20) 9051-9055 Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.”

I’ll put in the link so those who are interested don’t have to go looking for it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/pdf/pnas01070-0197.pdf

This paper was more incredulous than I remembered.

Let's see what they say....

ABSTRACT

We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric
repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,-(CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences fln g this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31
nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of
human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

(my emphasis) Doesn't sound very incredulous to me.

 

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think we are talking about different things.

I'm talking about a mechanism that makes new genes that have never existed before - and adds them to a genome.

The mechanism you are describing does not change the DNA information contained in the genome of the "caterpillar" - it simply utilizes existing genes, but at different stages of "caterpillar" development.

 

Yes I agree the DNA is in the stem cell from the beginning of the caterpillar and is activated later on. Also memories are passed along to the future generations like the Monarch butterfly long migration from Canada to Mexico to a exact spot there and then a return trip.

New DNA isnt really needed since Earth contains around 50 trillion trillion trillion DNA base pairs already, in the past probably much more of 99% extinct.

DNA methylation effects gene expression.

A flat worm holds the information in stem cells throughout it's entire body for a complete new flat worm. A little sliver cut off isn't dead it grows into an adult flat worm. With eyes and a brain, new DNA construction in a flash.

Edited September 23, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

The human immune system will rearrange DNA to create cells to recognize and remove unwanted  intruders.

https://www.sbpdiscovery.org/news/beaker-blog/surprising-science-not-all-our-cells-have-same-dna

Edited September 23, 2023 by BeyondET

[Starise]

On 9/21/2023 at 10:43 AM, The Barbarian said:

What stage, from the beginning to us, do you think is impossible?   We can then check the evidence to see.

That's my point, there aren't any stages to get us from men to apes, but first we need to begin with small organisims, which were supposed to the the only thing here for (pick a number) years.

On 9/21/2023 at 10:43 AM, The Barbarian said:

The Bible doesn't give any details at all.  It merely says that God produced life using existing creation.

Are we talking about the very beginning? After that where does the bible say this? I agree the details are few, but enough for now.

When Jesus picked up dirt to rub on the blind man's eyes, was it simply dirt? I have no reason to believe otherwise. So when Genesis says God used dirt to make Adam, am I to believe otherwise? The bible doesn't give details only .000001 ( I made that number up, seems to be a popular thing) of the people would even begin to comprehend. Probably more accurately that number is zero.

On 9/21/2023 at 10:43 AM, The Barbarian said:

That is a matter of evidence.   As your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the hominid series of transitional fossils is among the "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I see we still have no creationist willing to even tell us if birds are a separate kind from dinosaurs, with evidence to support their opinion. 

 

Well I don't know who Kurt Wise is, and for some reason we have these discussions based on group think. I am not a group thinker so please stop associating me with people who I have no idea what they believe, and I dare say you have no idea what I believe in totality.Let's discuss the science and forget the labels. I don't go around calling you and evolutionist and make judgements on you based on that.

The only " Hominid series of transitional fossils" I am aware of were all hoaxes, unless we want to go back to nea man who isn't really anything different than a modern human who lived in a harsh environment.

I have heard the dinosaurs to birds argument. On the surface of it, I would say what we commonly call  dinosaur types seems to be deserving of many many categories. Instead the classification system is more one kind name based, but not always to a fault.

 

[Starise]

On 9/22/2023 at 9:37 PM, Tristen said:

I would disagree with his assessment. Mutations can be “advantageous”.

Overwhelmingly, they are not – but in some rare cases, they are. So that is not the winning argument.

A better argument is that, regardless of advantage, non-neutral mutations always “break” genes (i.e. destroys the information being communicated by the gene to the molecular machinery that reads the genes). Observed mutations do not make and add new genes to the genome, but rather corrupt old genes (and thereby remove their function). Any advantage is incidental – meaning, it just-so happens that, in certain specific contexts, having a functional gene is less "advantageous" than a non-functioning gene. Therefore, when a gene is broken (no longer functioning due to a mutation), the organism with the broken version of the gene may derive some advantage.

Again, the real argument is about the information status of the gene. A mutation alone cannot generate novel, additive, functional, beneficial, adaptive, heritable genes. Rather, the gene (and therefore gene function) has been inactivated; the information telling our cells how to build a beneficial, functional protein has been lost.

I see you mostly agreeing with my statement. The additional caveats are very helpful.

I was mainly referring to hyper breeding of fruit flies. The results were normal fruit flys and some abnormal fruit flys. Never "better" fruit flies, which bears out your statements. Frut flies existed before the flood and made it on the ark, unless the eggs could sustain being submerged. In any case, I don't think we see improved fruit flies. If we found one preserved in pine sap, it's still a fruit fly.

In order to prove the claims of those saying everything came from one small organism, there would have been many progressions. We do not see this.

In addition, such unpredictable sporadic occurances have the potential for multiple occurrances. Why only one?

[Tristen]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:35 PM, Starise said:

I was mainly referring to hyper breeding of fruit flies. The results were normal fruit flys and some abnormal fruit flys. Never "better" fruit flies, which bears out your statements. Frut flies existed before the flood and made it on the ark, unless the eggs could sustain being submerged. In any case, I don't think we see improved fruit flies. If we found one preserved in pine sap, it's still a fruit fly.

It is difficult to avoid using subjective language in these conversations. Your use of "improved" is interesting.

If, for example, the gene for eyes was inactivated (by mutation) in a lineage of fish - those fish unable to make eyes would be at a strident disadvantage to the fish with eyes (generally speaking).

However, if that mutation happened in a group of fish that lived in caves, where there is no light, and where eye infections are rampant (due to contact with the cave walls), those fish (who lost the information required to make eyes) would have a competitive advantage over fish with eyes - i.e. only in that specific environment.

It could be argued that the cave fish loosing the capacity to make eyes represents a situational improvement.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the information to make eyes has been lost. No new information has been generated - as would be required many, many, many etc. times over to 'evolve' a complex multicellular creature from a 'simple', single-celled, primitive organism.

 

On 9/27/2023 at 7:35 PM, Starise said:

In order to prove the claims of those saying everything came from one small organism, there would have been many progressions. We do not see this.

Agreed - no mechanism has ever been observed that could make the types of genetic changes needed to give credibility to the Common Ancestry paradigm.

 

On 9/27/2023 at 7:35 PM, Starise said:

In addition, such unpredictable sporadic occurances have the potential for multiple occurrances. Why only one?

I wasn't sure what you meant by this.

 

[Tristen]

On 9/23/2023 at 1:27 PM, The Barbarian said:

It means birds should be classified as dinosaurs.    But do you think that there are several "kinds" of herons?  

Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?

Actually, it's the way that information is measured.   Shannon information theory shows how much information there is in a message, such as a genome.    And we know it works, because it allows the internet to work and tells us how to accurately send messages over millions of kilometers if space with very low-powered transmitters.    But I'd be willing to look at your numbers.    Let's say that there are two alleles for a gene, each with a frequency of 0.5 in a population genome.   Suppose a mutation occurs and after a time, each of three alleles has a frequency of 1/3.   How much information was there before and after the mutation?    I used these numbers to make computation easy, but feel free to change them to any feasible numbers if you like.

Show us your way.

So you're surprised that there were mutations that messed up those sequences.   You do realize that once a sequence isn't functional, it will inevitably become changed by mutations, right?    Why is that a surprise?    The key is that these inactivated telomeres and centromere are still precisely where they would be if there was a fusion.   I don't think that's hard to understand.

 

You've assumed that a gene changes if it has been moved by a fusion or crossover.  It hasn't.  Still the same gene.   But the only way to get new alleles is by mutation.   As you learned, a single pair of cat "kind" could have at most 4 alleles for each gene locus.  But there are hundreds of them for most loci in cats.   All the rest had to have evolved via mutation.    Remember, moving a gene will not produce a new allele. Mutations on useful sequences will usually be removed by natural selection.   But not for no-longer-functional sequences.

So "kinds" are just sort of a general thing, which changes from place to place in scripture.    Sounds like building a house on quicksand, doesn't it?

And yes, geneticists hypothesized that the remains of those structures would be in specific spots on the chromosome and went to look there to see if the prediction was true.   And it was.    You're apparently unhappy with the scientific method.  

And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain.    For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles

Just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was validated by evidence.  They just keep on coming.   Not too long ago, it was discovered that scutes (found only on archosaurs like birds, dinosaurs and crocodiles) could be induced to form feathers on birds.   Obviously, one can't test it on dinosaurs, but someone wondered if you could get feather structures on crocodiles.   Turns out, you can.   And another prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed.   Would you like to see that?

I get that you don't agree with Dr. Wise on paleontology.  But he is a paleontologist and I'm sure you can see why his call on this is more persuasive than yours.

Another YE paleontologist writes:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. ...

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

“It means birds should be classified as dinosaurs”

I’d firstly ask the question, ‘What do I care how you choose to classify things?’ Where in our conversation did I question the classification of "birds" or "dinosaurs"? If you’d like to broaden the definition of “dinosaurs” to include “birds” – ok then??? I think that’s ultimately counterproductive – since we’d now need to come up with other terms to classify the self-evident differences between the two groups. But I otherwise don’t see any consequence of this claim to anything I’ve said. That is, I don’t know why we are discussing this.

Secondly, define for me what you mean by “birds” and define what you mean by “dinosaurs”.

If those definitions are the same, then they can be “classified” the same.

If the definitions are different, then they can be “classified” into different categories based on the differences. A few shared features between the groups are entirely irrelevant. I demonstrated this to be the case for all classifications. Classifications are based on shared sets of features within groups, not shared singular features between groups.  I’d suggest there might be a broader classification that could incorporate both all “birds” and all “dinosaurs” – maybe a couple of steps up the Linnaean ladder towards ‘Kingdom’.

Furthermore, maybe some “dinosaurs” can be legitimate classified as “birds”. But I don’t think a brontosaurus would fit any reasonable, sensible definition of a “bird”.

But again, did I ever claim that some “dinosaurs” can’t be classified under the general classification of “birds”? I see no relevance of this topic to the conversation of this thread.

 

“But do you think that there are several "kinds" of herons?”

I answered this already.

 

“Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?”

I have clearly defined how I am using the term “information”. If a mutation corrupts a gene so that it no longer performs its function, then the “information” blueprint, describing how to make that functional gene, has been lost.

If you are so eager to posture, based on a different (and therefore irrelevant) definition of “information”, then no, I have no interest in hearing (or seeing) that. It has no logical bearing on anything I’ve claimed.

 

“So you're surprised that there were mutations that messed up those sequences.”

No.

I am, however, “surprised” that one can conclude the site to be telomeres; given the sequences that were generated and reported.

 

“You do realize that once a sequence isn't functional, it will inevitably become changed by mutations, right?    Why is that a surprise?”

This is an oversimplistic view of what can happen to genes.

But telomeres are not genes. The function of telomeres is based on the sequence itself – and not the products of transcription/translation. The sequence is designed to form protective structures at the ends of chromosomes. That is, the sequence is specifically purposed to be resistant to corruption. Telomeres should therefore be less mutated than other sequences (even if they are in the wrong location on the chromosome).

 

“The key is that these inactivated telomeres and centromere are still precisely where they would be if there was a fusion.   I don't think that's hard to understand.”

The “key” is to “understand” that these sequences do not come close to resembling “telomeres”.

It may have once been fair to hypothesize that these might be telomere fusion sights based on the chromosome staining data, but now that we have had a look at the actual sequence, that hypothesis should have been put to bed long ago.

The “centromere” data is even weaker – and based on evidence that is common in portions of chromosomes that are unrelated to centromeres (which is why the focus is usually on telomeres).

 

“You've assumed that a gene changes if it has been moved by a fusion or crossover.  It hasn't.  Still the same gene”

In a chromosomal crossover, the resulting "gene" performs the "same" general function, but in a different way – because the combination of information used to build the "gene" is different to that used by either parent.

 

“But the only way to get new alleles is by mutation”

This is not true – it’s not even controversial.

Chromosomal crossovers recombine information from both parents to generate a gene that is different to the one provided by either parent. If one was to assign that gene to an “allele”, there would now be three “alleles”; the paternal and maternal “alleles”, and the new “allele” which is a combination of both.

 

“As you learned … ”

You are posturing again, even though you are wrong. Anyone, including yourself, can readily check that chromosomal crossovers recombine the information from the parental genes to make a new variant of that gene.

 

“On 9/23/2023 at 10:45 AM, Tristen said:

I’d also note that not all translations insinuate multiple “kinds” of “herons”. The NKJV rather says, “the heron after its kind” (Leviticus 11:19).

So "kinds" are just sort of a general thing, which changes from place to place in scripture.    Sounds like building a house on quicksand, doesn't it?”

It sounds to me like you have decided to be intentionally obtuse – given that your conclusions are unrelated to the comment you are quoting.

Is the concept that God created groups of creatures separately really so difficult for you to understand?

 

“geneticists hypothesized that the remains of those structures would be in specific spots on the chromosome and went to look there to see if the prediction was true.   And it was.”

Firstly, where was the exact site of the putative telomere fusion predicted before it was supposedly found.

Secondly, It’s not “there”. The sequences at the supposed fusion site do not resemble telomeres.

 

“You're apparently unhappy with the scientific method”

I would be unhappy with any version of the “Scientific Method” that prohibited me from thinking for myself, and/or prohibits me from disagreeing with how one party interprets the facts.

If that’s what you think constitutes the “Scientific Method”, then definitely count me out.

Whereas the actual “Scientific Method” is skeptical; admonishing critical reasoning – which is the opposite of what you are proposing.

 

“And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain.    For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles”

“Certain” about what? What does “T-rex heme” have to do with a proposed telomere fusion in humans?

You are loosing track of the conversation.

And ‘so what’ if a T-rex molecule is more similar to that found in birds, than reptiles? Did I ever argue that “modern reptiles” are more closely related to T-rex than to birds? Because, if you think about for just a second - that really doesn’t sound like something I would argue.

This point therefore amounts to an argument with yourself – or some voice in your head.

 

“On 9/23/2023 at 10:45 AM, Tristen said:

I mean – just wow!!! One whole molecule that is similar. It’s like they’re twins.

Just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was validated by evidence.  They just keep on coming”

Lol – Where exactly did anyone “predict” to that “T-rex heme” would be more similar to the heme of Birds than the heme found in “modern reptiles”?

 

“Not too long ago, it was discovered that scutes (found only on archosaurs like birds, dinosaurs and crocodiles) could be induced to form feathers on birds.”

All they figured out was the molecular pathway by which some scale-like structures (“scutes”) were already differentiating into feathers on some birds. There is nothing in this research that is of any logical significance or relevance to our discussion.

 

“Obviously, one can't test it on dinosaurs, but someone wondered if you could get feather structures on crocodiles.   Turns out, you can.   And another prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed.   Would you like to see that?”

I would like to “see” the research giving feathers to “crocodiles”. But I still don’t know who you are arguing with?

 

“I get that you don't agree with Dr. Wise on paleontology”

That is not an honest implication of what I’ve said.

It seems that I might disagree with the good doctor regarding how to interpret Darwin’s lamentation over a lack of what he called “finely graded organic chains” of fossils.

The real “Scientific Method” admonishes me to question scientific claims and to assess their arguments – regardless of the expertise of those making the claim.

 

“But he is a paleontologist and I'm sure you can see why his call on this is more persuasive than yours”

And I only respect the opinions of those who can see through the technically irrational Expertise fallacy, and prefer to consider arguments.

It’s also Special Pleading (fallacy) since you only demand wholesale acceptance of a creationist’s Expertise when they agree with you.

 

NEXT POST

“Except that when you look at the phylogenies and cladograms, they are, self-evidently, not, in any sense, “finely graduated”. Nor are they similar enough to be linked together (in the sense that one might think of, say, a “chain”). Maybe “chain” links held together by long lengths of string where the other expected “chain” links should be (but are not).

But as Dr. Wise shows, they are”

But when we look at the facts for ourselves, we can see that "they are" not.

 

“And the point is that we don't see these series of transitionals were there shouldn't be any”

Wait – what??? When did that become “the point”? Who determined where they “shouldn’t be” – and by what criteria was this determined? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant, meaningless, exaggerated bluster.

 

“We only see transitionals where they were predicted.”

This is yet more empty bluster. When examined, the examples we discussed in another thread were actually outside of the "predicted" range – even though the “predictions” were absurdly generous.

You then have to apply some mental gymnastics to argue a case for 'close enough'. But that is not how predictions work.

 

“They are, as Dr. Wise points out, very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory”

“Very good evidence” is a subjective analysis – and therefore more useless bluster.

 

 

NEXT POST

“Let's see what they say....

ABSTRACT

We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric

repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,-(CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences fln g this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31

nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of

human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

(my emphasis) Doesn't sound very incredulous to me.”

Yes – Lol. That is what they concluded. That is to say – what you quoted is indeed how they ultimately interpreted their data.

So tell me - in your version of the Scientific Method, am I now obligated to agree with them, because they said it - or am I permitted to scrutinize their provided methods, data and rationale?

Perhaps I’m being too harsh – viewing their work through the lens of modern methods. But (as previously discussed), I found their methods to be heavily biased, presumptive and unreliable; their data to be ambiguous (at-best); and their rationale to be absurdly generous towards the desired (presupposed) conclusion.

Simply parroting their conclusion fails to address my criticisms in any relevant sense. No one is questioning that they concluded the site to be a “telomere-telomere fusion”. I’m contesting whether confidence in that particular conclusion is logically justified, given the quality of the provided methods and data.