Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Prove it.

I don't really care to convince you. For that matter, I don't think anybody else but you doubts it, and I don't think you're genuine in the first place.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I don't really care to convince you. For that matter, I don't think anybody else but you doubts it, and I don't think you're genuine in the first place.

Doubts what? What is "it"?

I could respond if I had some clue of what you were talking about.

 

[Jeff7]

Doubts what? What is "it"?

I could respond if I had some clue of what you were talking about.

Sparta.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Sparta.

What does a city-state in ancient Greece have to do with anything?

 

[DanDaManJC]

How does homology proves that all living creatures developed from a common ancestor? I view "homologous" structures as proof that that they were designed by the same creator.

Take a look at some of the other replies to this thread of conversation (only a page back, pg 16 if you're running default settings on the forum)-- basically, you're right, this one piece of evidence doesn't prove evolution to the "fact level" that gravity has.

It's when you take in all the other evidences that it all adds up.

 

[Jeff7]

What does a city-state in ancient Greece have to do with anything?

Well evidently it's good at helping people deal with madness.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Doubts what? What is "it"?

Please try to keep up. What was it that you just asked me to prove?

I could respond if I had some clue of what you were talking about.

Undoubtedly, you do not have a clue about a great many things.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Take a look at some of the other replies to this thread of conversation (only a page back, pg 16 if you're running default settings on the forum)-- basically, you're right, this one piece of evidence doesn't prove evolution to the "fact level" that gravity has.

It's when you take in all the other evidences that it all adds up.

Homology is at best ambiguous in its support of evolution and does not exclude creation.

Next.

 

[Gibsons]

Homology is at best ambiguous in its support of evolution and does not exclude creation.

Next.

Nothing excludes or can exclude creation. Remember that "unfalsifiable" word?

There are many other things beside simple homology in genetic information that indicate a long term process of descent from a common ancestor.

 

[Jeff7]

Homology is at best ambiguous in its support of evolution and does not exclude creation.

Next.

And the deluded writings of ancient nomads tripping on drugs doesn't validate Creationism.


What do you mean by "next"?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Nothing excludes or can exclude creation. Remember that "unfalsifiable" word?

There are many other things beside simple homology in genetic information that indicate a long term process of descent from a common ancestor.

Okay, we've discounted homology, which is good because it has been discredited.

How does genetics prove common ancestory?

 

[Gibsons]

Okay, we've discounted homology, which is good because it has been discredited.

How does genetics prove common ancestory?

We haven't discounted it, it hasn't been discredited. There's just more than that.

 

[Born2bwire]

Well evidently it's good at helping people deal with madness.

What about abject stupidity?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

We haven't discounted it, it hasn't been discredited. There's just more than that.

If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct, homologous structures should be produced by homologius genes and follow homologus patterns of embryological development. That's not the case.

What is your next "evidence"?

 

[Jeff7]

What about abject stupidity?

Alas, I don't know what the ideal solution is for that problem.

 

[Gibsons]

If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct, homologous structures should be produced by homologius genes and follow homologus patterns of embryological development. That's not the case.

Straw man.

 

[Born2bwire]

Alas, I don't know what the ideal solution is for that problem.

Dammit! If Jeff7 can't figure out then no one can!

 

[Squisher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4#t=1m25s

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Straw man.

Is this your counter argument?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct, homologous structures should be produced by homologius genes and follow homologus patterns of embryological development. That's not the case.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.html

It was 1971 when de Beer made his argument. That was before technology for manipulating DNA made it possible to examine genes directly, so de Beer's conclusions (and those of Hardy 1965, making essentially the same argument) were based on indirect evidence. Since then, many similar genes have been found to participate in the development of homologous structures (see, e.g., Carroll 2005).

Granted, some of the examples raised by de Beer have not yet been explained in detail. For example, some organs considered homologous arise from different layers of embryological tissues. But although such cases are not explained, that does not mean they are unexplainable. We now know that organs can be stimulated to grow in many parts of the body (such as eyes growing on a fly's wings) simply by ensuring that the proper signaling chemicals are present. Thus homologous organs arising from different areas may result simply from mutations in where signaling proteins are expressed

Any more canards you'd like to parrot from your favorite creationist website?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

It was 1971 when de Beer made his argument. That was before technology for manipulating DNA made it possible to examine genes directly, so de Beer's conclusions (and those of Hardy 1965, making essentially the same argument) were based on indirect evidence. Since then, many similar genes have been found to participate in the development of homologous structures (see, e.g., Carroll 2005).

Granted, some of the examples raised by de Beer have not yet been explained in detail. For example, some organs considered homologous arise from different layers of embryological tissues. But although such cases are not explained, that does not mean they are unexplainable. We now know that organs can be stimulated to grow in many parts of the body (such as eyes growing on a fly's wings) simply by ensuring that the proper signaling chemicals are present. Thus homologous organs arising from different areas may result simply from mutations in where signaling proteins are expressed

This is your best argument regarding the use of homolgy as evidence for macroevolution?

When "have not been explained" and "may" has been replaced with "has been explained" and the word "may" has been erased, get back to me.

What's you your next argument for common ancestry/macroevolution?

 

[Zebo]

Take a microbiology class. You'll see evolution in 16 weeks on Petri plates.

 

[GoSharks]

Take a microbiology class. You'll see evolution in 16 weeks on Petri plates.

Not really.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/abs/nature08480.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

 

[zinfamous]

Okay, we've discounted homology, which is good because it has been discredited.

How does genetics prove common ancestory?

no we haven't, and no it doesn't.

again, you aren't a scientist. This is why no one discusses shit with you, because you refuse to listen.

you make a simple unfounded statement with no argument.

fuck off.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

no we haven't, and no it doesn't.

again, you aren't a scientist. This is why no one discusses shit with you, because you refuse to listen.

you make a simple unfounded statement with no argument.

fuck off.

I made an argument against homology. Rather than trying to refute it you are resorting to name calling.

In fact, I've been employed as a scientiest for nearly 30 yrs. What are your scientific credentials.