Human Evolution debunked

 

  1. What separates humans from other organisms, and by how much? Dexterity (opposable thumb), Lifespan, Sociability, Speech, Bipedalism, Hairlessness, Body Size, and Diet, all separate humans from others, but none is more important and more off the chart than our Intelligence. And from these gifts, humans developed even more abilities; some natural like thick fur on demand, flight, excellent sensors, and powerful actuators; while others completely new like handling fire, writing, and life in the outer space.

    Humans dominate by far all other organisms and, unlike them, we continue to improve. While we can live everywhere and can survive where no others can, even our partner species (a select group from the beginning) have not progressed one bit despite our best efforts to bring them closer to our level. The capability gap between us and our companion organisms (human intervention aside) increases all the time as our abilities continue to grow, while theirs are perpetually stationary. This is why we no longer need them for their capabilities (transportation, power, security, food gathering and pest control), instead keeping them only as pets and food products.

  2. Is there a credible developmental path from ape to human? Many triggers have been hypothesized: “bipedalism due to climate change”, “aquatic ape hair loss”, “killer ape”, “increased brain size due to better nutrition or fire or language”, etc. However, none of this stands up to scrutiny. Bipedalism is common in animals including all birds, many lizards, rodents and more, yet none of these shows human-comparable intelligence. Venturing into new habitats due or not to climate change is very common for most animal families, yet despite dramatically different lifestyles, members of the same family are more or less equally endowed. The naturally hairless and the language-rich species are not known for superior intelligence. Finally, better nutrition leads invariably to larger populations and sometimes to larger body sizes (within limits), but never to human-level intelligence. And while larger body size generally comes with increased cranial capacity (used as a proxy for intelligence of the fossilized) the relationship between cranial capacity and actual intelligence is tentative at best, especially when comparing across animal families.
  3. What if humans are just a freak accident of evolution? While the most important, intelligence is not the only feature separating humans from apes. Not one but a series of freak accidents would have had to happen on the transition path to human. These accidents would be independent of each other given that bipedalism, hair loss, language and diet do not lead to human-level intelligence as seen, but also given that superior intelligence as in elephants and dolphins does not lead to bipedalism, dexterity, new diet and so on. In a “blind, unguided and purposeless” universe, this unbelievable series of events would not have happened once and only once. Yet this assumed series of unbelievable freak accidents is just a continuation of an even less plausible series including abiogenesis – also a singularity since abiogenesis is not currently observed and since all organisms show commonality (they would be different if product of different abiogenesis episodes), the Big Bang (another singularity), and the “arising” of everything else. This many “freak accidents” do make a pattern …that indicates pure fantasy.
  4. Can “natural selection” explain the humans? No. Both supposed evolutionary branches survived and developed in the same African environment. Why “struggle for survival” did not eliminate either one of the branches has yet to be plausibly explained. In addition, the supposed “common ancestor” is a regular chimp, so no evolution of any kind on that branch of the “common tree”. Why then would the human branch explode with changes? Felines, canines, bovines, and primates ex humans are all more or less the same on all family branches. There is no feline/canine/bovine/etc. human equivalent. No “evolutionary arms race” can possibly account for human brains being able to make sense of the quantum and the cosmos – notions far removed from everyday survival. As far as we know, no other organism has such a removed capability inexplicable on the account of “natural selection”.
  5. The fossil record lends no support for human evolution for several reasons: it is sketchy at best inviting proponents to make whatever desired of it via artistic license, is static hence one must presume evolution to see evolutionary links (the animation movie), and fossils are not positively linked to one another hence likely part of other animation movies altogether. Along the years, we have seen an inflation of hominid “species” as everyone that found a bone or two claimed they discovered a new species. And even after some cleanup, we’re still left with Neanderthals and Denisovans that successfully mated (fertile off-springs) with Sapiens despite being labeled “separate species”.

 Summary:

  1. Humans are truly exceptional
  2. There is no plausible developmental path from ape to human
  3. Humans just a “freak accident of evolution” is likely just fantasy
  4. “Natural selection” cannot explain “humans from apes”
  5. The fossil record does not support the “human evolution” story

 Links:

https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2018/02/human-evolution-narrative-crumbles-under-weight-of-six-discoveries/

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5615/1994

http://city-press.news24.com/News/Scientists-question-Homo-naledi-20150919

Pro-Con Notes:

Con: Both chimps & humans had a common hominid ancestor some 5 mill. yrs ago

Pro: Even with the Hollywood artistic license, this 25 mya looks just like a chimp today: https://www.livescience.com/32029-oldest-monkey-fossil-found.html. See? No evolution.

79 thoughts on “Human Evolution debunked

  1. Nonlin.org: That of course is just gibberish from the new astrologers aka Darwinistas.

    Just admit it, you have no idea what the words even mean. 🙂

  2. Kantian Naturalist:
    1. …you seem fine with the idea that evolutionary theory can explain why mammals are more intelligent than other vertebrates, …

    2. …what makes hominids distinct is our ability and willingness to cooperate… By contrast, in all the great apes, basic provisioning is an individual affair — individuals will forage by themselves during the day and then come together later on for social interaction (grooming, fighting, and mating).

    3. It should be pointed out that great apes and especially chimpanzees are highly intelligent animals… By the way, modern humans have brains about 260% larger than modern chimps if you compare total number of cortical neurons — about 86 billion for humans and about 30 billion for chimpanzees. This is smaller than the difference between chimpanzees and macaques.

    4. Also, the fossil record is a lot better than you let on: we have a 40% complete Australopithecus afarensis skeleton and a 52% complete Homo ergaster skeleton, plus lots of cranial and post-cranial material from other species that gives us a pretty good idea of when and where brain size increased.

    1. What are you talking about? The whole “evolution” thing is a retard hoax. Darwin’s nonsense sums up to: “it’s true because I can imagine”.

    2. Another “just so” story without any justification:
    a. Compare to other social animals and learn this is a random “explanation”
    b. There’s no link between “social” and intelligence, dexterity, bipedalism, hairlessness, etc.
    c. When a group of apes “decides” to become social, either they all become social or the less social die out.
    d. If turning social would be feasible, we would see grades of social development among chimps, etc. and then also grades of bipedalism, etc. – see b.

    3. Are you saying “we are to chimps as chimps are to macaques”? Why not compare chimps to bacteria for more drama? What has this to do with anything?

    4. You don’t understand your own circular logic. Nothing links these skeletons to humans or each other except your prior belief that they are linked. There’s a lot of BS artistic license to get from 40% of skeleton (if from the same individual) to a red lipstick cardboard model. 52% is for sure not from the same individual, not that – if true – this would help your circular logic.

    Rumraket: Pro: Not at all. There is absolutely no animal family with so many and extreme differences between one member and all others: Dexterity, Lifespan, Speech, Bipedalism, Hairlessness, Diet, and – most importantly – Superintelligence.

    1. Many of those differences are DUE TO differences in intelligence. And the diets are really not that different and only really differ, again, due to differences in intelligence. And humans grow and then shed a coat of fur in the womb, I wonder why.

    2. None of these things are extreme either in degree or in number. Of course, given how just calling them “extreme” is really just vague and arbitrary, it still doesn’t mean those differences didn’t evolve. The adjective with which you wish to describe the magnitude of the differences between us and our primate cousins is not an argument.

    Con: Humans are just the first species to reach this level. Something has to be the first at something.

    Pro: And who will be second? Dolphins? Are they painting underwater caves already?

    3. They’re using tools. In any case, what relevance does it have who will be second? The statement is true, somebody have to be first and your response isn’t even a response

    Con: Bacteria, fungus and insects all dominate us number wise, biomass wise and habitat wise.

    Pro: Irrelevant. Makes no sense to compare humans and bacteria/fungus/insects number wise.

    4. But it makes sense to compare intelligence and hairlessness? Why? You are just describing arbitrarily picked attributes using lots of rhetoric and grandiose adjectives. The whole thing is subjective, so if you can pick attributes you find “extreme”, so can we.

    Also, insects cannot live in outer space.

    5. Insects can live everywhere that we can live. They can’t build space-stations, but they can live in them just as we can.

    Con: Both chimps & humans had a common hominid ancestor some 5 mill. yrs ago

    Pro: Even with the Hollywood artistic license, this 25 mya looks just like a chimp today: https://www.livescience.com/32029-oldest-monkey-fossil-found.html. See? No evolution.

    6. Another completely arbitrary and subjective judgement. “No evolution”. There’s no argument there, just your subjective statement about the magnitude of the effect. It’s also patently obviously wrong as that drawing is still demonstrably different from chimpanzees, so it’s just factually incorrect to claim there’s been “no evolution”.

    1. Intelligence drives bipedalism, dexterity, speech, etc.? And which one was first, the chicken or the egg? Are you trying to be nonsensical or is this just natural to you?
    2. Total nonsense. There are way too many unique human characteristics and they all supposedly appeared in a timeframe in which all other comparable organisms have remained virtually unchanged. Where is the outstandingly handy feline? The biped canine? The talking seal? The superintelligent bear? And where is another family with another member that combined ALL these characteristics and more while its relatives remained ordinary?
    3. There is and never will be a “second”. This is very relevant.
    4. Human intelligence is clearly of the chart by any measure. And all others have been offered as “explanations” by Darwinistas for why we’re so different.
    5. We can live in outer space because we can control the environment to that extreme. Insect cannot do that.
    6. Is that drawing as different from chimps as we are? NO! It looks like a regular chimp-ape.

  3. Once again, no arguments or evidence is supplied by Nonlin, just mere declarations. All you do is state your beliefs, you don’t argue for them or show why they necessarily or even most likely follow from uncontested premises.

    There’s no use having an argument with you if it just reduces to you waiting for another go at re-asserting a still unsubstantiated and yet-to-be-even-argued-for belief you happen to possess.

  4. Nonlin.org: Corneel: In particular I note how you chose one of your criteria to be “survive where no others can”. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you insisted that it was impossible to link any phenotypic trait to survival in the natural selection thread.

    Not the same. We’re not all surviving in the outer space – just a few representatives. And even those don’t make their lifetime habitat over there.

    Missing the point, I see. I doesn’t really matter what you want to link it to. The key word was “phenotypic trait” here. Are dexterity, lifespan, sociability, speech, bipedalism, hairlessness, body size, diet and (yes) intelligence not ALL phenotypic traits? Did you not decide that humans were different based on our phenotype, an “unstable infinite set hence unknowable and theoretical” in your own words?

    Intelligence? Measured when? In what environment? Each individual is different. Hey, you can’t just measure one trait and think it makes all the difference, right?

  5. Rumraket: Once again, no arguments or evidence is supplied by Nonlin, just mere declarations.

    Obviously you won’t recognize evidence when it hits you in the face… which it does… all the time.

    Corneel: Missing the point, I see. I doesn’t really matter what you want to link it to. The key word was “phenotypic trait” here. Are dexterity, lifespan, sociability, speech, bipedalism, hairlessness, body size, diet and (yes) intelligence not ALL phenotypic traits? Did you not decide that humans were different based on our phenotype, an “unstable infinite set hence unknowable and theoretical” in your own words?

    Intelligence? Measured when? In what environment? Each individual is different. Hey, you can’t just measure one trait and think it makes all the difference, right?

    What’s your point? Again, debunking the “human evolution” myth has nothing to do with “natural selection” and survival. Bacteria and bugs of all kinds survive just fine.

  6. Nonlin.org: What’s your point? Again, debunking the “human evolution” myth has nothing to do with “natural selection” and survival.

    No, but setting humans apart based on our intelligence has everything to do with the phenotype. In the “natural selection” thread you played the “phenotype is infinite, theoretical and unknowable” game to prevent us from inferring any sensible relationship between a phenotypic trait and survival. In this thread you were quick to drop that line of reasoning, because you desperately need intelligence as proof that humans are distinct from the rest of creation. But guess what? Intelligence is a phenotypic trait as well. It depends on genetic and environmental factors and changes throughout a human life. That clearly demonstrates that you have a double standard and you seem to be oblivious to it, even after I have pointed it out to you several times.

  7. Rumraket: Then explain the consilience of independent phylogenies.

    Do you do realize that to build a “phylogenetic tree” one has to PRESUPPOSE “evolution”? If not, ask your dog about circular logic. Furthermore, do you realize that anatomy is not independent of biochemistry? Your source replies to this with the nonsense: “Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different.” Which is obviously stupid as:
    a) We’re likely not dealing with multiple designers
    b) “Binary code” is for sure not the equivalent of DNA because (and you won’t understand this): http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/

  8. Corneel: No, but setting humans apart based on our intelligence has everything to do with the phenotype. In the “natural selection” thread you played the “phenotype is infinite, theoretical and unknowable” game to prevent us from inferring any sensible relationship between a phenotypic trait and survival. In this thread you were quick to drop that line of reasoning, because you desperately need intelligence as proof that humans are distinct from the rest of creation. But guess what? Intelligence is a phenotypic trait as well. It depends on genetic and environmental factors and changes throughout a human life. That clearly demonstrates that you have a double standard and you seem to be oblivious to it, even after I have pointed it out to you several times.

    I simply don’t see what shorts your brain:
    a. Survival is independent of “phenotype”
    b. Human “evolution” is baseless
    c. a. is different than b.
    d. QED

    Present your arguments if your claim is that “setting humans apart” is wrong or if you think that “camels are different than dolphins” should tell you something about their relative survival rate.

  9. Nonlin.org to Corneel:

    I simply don’t see what shorts your brain:

    That’s because the short circuit is in your own brain.

  10. Nonlin.org: Do you do realize that to build a “phylogenetic tree” one has to PRESUPPOSE “evolution”?

    Yes, but you’re not being asked to explain merely the construction of a phylogenetic tree. You’re being asked to explain why phylogenetic trees derived from independent data still yield highly similar branching topologies.

    Do you understand the difference?

    If not, ask your dog about circular logic. Furthermore, do you realize that anatomy is not independent of biochemistry?

    This reveals your ignorance. Genetic sequences completely independent of anatomy can be chosen and compared. For example, a simple enzyme in some metabolic pathway that breaks down sugars does not cause you to have a spine, does not cause you your spine to have a certain shape, does not cause you to have four limbs, does not cause you to have a jaw and a cranium, etc. etc. So that enzyme is independent of morphology, it just has to break down sugars.

    So when the phylogenetic tree derived from the metabolic enzyme yields a tree that is highly similar to a tree drawn morphology, or from another enzyme unrelated to it (from another and separate metabolic pathway), that is a remarkable result that requires an explanation.

    Common descent explains that. The branching patterns yielded the data when analyzed by phylogenetic algorithms would have been constrained by the time of divergence of the species in question and the rate of molecular and morphological evolution independently in each lineage after they split.

    Your source replies to this with the nonsense: “Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different.” Which is obviously stupid as:
    a) We’re likely not dealing with multiple designers
    b) “Binary code” is for sure not the equivalent of DNA because (and you won’t understand this): http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/

    You have just revealed that you are just completely ignorant about biochemistry and phylogenetics.

    There was nothing in that that constitutes a valid response to the article I linked or the particular argument. What Theobald writes is true, there are many different functional ways to yield a similar result. That means there is no necessary requirement that the genetic (or digital sequences in computer code) be identical or even similar, in order to get similar results.

    Theobald even gives a good example with the cytochrome c sequence. The DNA sequences for this enzyme is different between all species, but it’s function is pretty much identical. In the primates the human and chimpanzee cytochrome c amino acid sequences are identical, but the DNA sequence that codes for the protein has a few (silent) mutations in it. The DNA sequences from cytochrome c yields the same phylogenetic tree as morphology does.

    Why would it do that? There’s no functional reason to change the cytochrome c sequence for primates, whether at the DNA level or the amino acid level of the actual protein.

    What is your explanation for that fact?

    Common descent immediately explains why: The cytochrome c gene has been diverging under neutral drift, and species that share more recent common descent have had less time to diverge by independent accumulation of nearly neutral or silent mutations, than older divergences.

    There are literally thousands upon thousands of genes we share across the primates and the vast majority of them can be used to construct phylogenetic trees that consistently look extremely similar. So similar that it requires an explanation.

    And no, there is no functional reason for it, as it is trivial to pick genes that are independent of anatomy where the genetic sequence from any primate would do just as well in any of the others (like an enzyme that breaks down sugars, to pick an example, it’s job is to just break down sugars). So there is no functional design-reason to even have the gene-sequence of that sugar-metabolizing enzyme changed between species if they were all created by the same designer. A 100% identical version would have worked just fine for all of them. So when it is different for all of them, and when those differences when analyzed by a phylogenetic algorithm yields a tree with a similar branching topology to another such gene also independent from it, or to morphology, then we have bona fide evidence of common descent. And you don’t have a rational design-explanation for it.

  11. Nonlin.org: a. Survival is independent of “phenotype”

    ROFL.

    This isn’t just wrong, it’s a conclusion that can only be entertained by an insane person.

    Why are so many animals camouflaged if survival is independent of phenotype? Are people who work out and stay in shape better able to handle life in the wild? I rest my case.

    You don’t even have to believe that phenotypes are due to evolution, or that life evoled, to understand that OF COURSE phenotypes are not independent of survival. That is utterly, utterly fatuous.

    No, I’m sorry. The connection between phenotype and survival is non-negotiable. If you insist it isn’t so, then we have left the arena of rational discourse and I must accept that I am talking to a mentally ill person and withdraw from the conversation.

    Goodbye.

  12. Nonlin.org: I simply don’t see what shorts your brain:
    a. Survival is independent of “phenotype”
    b. Human “evolution” is baseless
    c. a. is different than b.
    d. QED

    a is different from b is not what needed to be demonstrated. And after having tried to explain to you three times in different ways what was bothering me about your argument, I think I am going to give it a rest.

    Please note that Rumraket in the immediately preceding comment rejected your argument (yes, the one I am attacking). I am pretty sure you’ll find no one accepting your bizarre view of the phenotype, not just among “darwinistas” but not outside it either. Perhaps that could give you some pause considering who is having a short circuit in his brain.

  13. Corneel,

    Nonlin thinks that she/he can redefine evolution, or anything he doesn’t like, out of existence. Even worse, Nonlin doesn’t care if his redefinitional “strategies” contradict each other. I doubt that she/he can even notice those contradictions, or the problem with imagining that by redefining al gusto things stop being what they are.

    This is why I stoped trying. Nonlin is unreachable and, thus, unteachable.

  14. Rumraket:
    1. So when the phylogenetic tree derived from the metabolic enzyme yields a tree that is highly similar to a tree drawn morphology, or from another enzyme unrelated to it (from another and separate metabolic pathway), that is a remarkable result that requires an explanation. Common descent explains that.

    2. Theobald even gives a good example with the cytochrome c sequence. The DNA sequences for this enzyme is different between all species, but it’s function is pretty much identical. In the primates the human and chimpanzee cytochrome c amino acid sequences are identical, but the DNA sequence that codes for the protein has a few (silent) mutations in it. The DNA sequences from cytochrome c yields the same phylogenetic tree as morphology does.

    3. So there is no functional design-reason to even have the gene-sequence of that sugar-metabolizing enzyme changed between species if they were all created by the same designer. A 100% identical version would have worked just fine for all of them.

    1. Total nonsense from you as usual. How the heck do you build a “phylogenetic tree derived from the metabolic enzyme”? And who does that, the Martians? As far as I can tell, it’s all done by the same Darwinistas interested in the same outcome using the same favorable assumptions. Zero credibility and of course the “results” are fudged to match. How often does the “tree of life” change? Why would it change so often if it were anything other than an artificial human construct that needs fudging all the time?

    What common descent nonsense? This OP just demonstrates “human evolution” is a stupid myth. And since you don’t have any counterarguments to what was written, you chose to bring up this other nonsense.

    Also, even if your “phylogeny tree” were honest work (huge if), “Common Design” explains whatever similarities just as well. Of course more closely related models will be more similar than dissimilar ones.

    2. “a) We’re likely not dealing with multiple designers“ is a perfect reply to your “there are many different functional ways to yield a similar result” if you like it or not. Obviously you know nothing about how engineering works. Why would a designer reinvent the wheel? Just to satisfy your baseless belief?

    3. So what? Just because you don’t know the reason for a certain design you don’t understand, doesn’t mean there is no reason. Even the AI of today has some level of built in autonomy. Every time I see some moron talking about this or that failure of the human body I want to ask him: why don’t you change your design, stupid?

    Look, you’re too much of a zealot to understand that anything built on the pre-supposition of “evolution” stinks. Zero credibility. Now, do you, or don’t you have any valid counterarguments to the arguments in this particular OP? I see none from you or your partners.

  15. Corneel: I am pretty sure you’ll find no one accepting your bizarre view of the phenotype, not just among “darwinistas” but not outside it either.

    Rumraket: You don’t even have to believe that phenotypes are due to evolution, or that life evoled, to understand that OF COURSE phenotypes are not independent of survival. That is utterly, utterly fatuous.

    This is a very simple example that you either ignore, or don’t understand, or like fishes keep forgetting:

    “In a small farm, only organisms closely related to their wild cousins survive, but agribusinesses select for chickens with oversize breasts and research labs select for populations with specific genetic mutations requiring tight environments to survive. As shown, all these different organisms may or may not survive regardless of their phenotype. ”

    Make a mental effort and reply to this simple example… if you can.

  16. OMagain: Where do I go to dig up a fossil that will prove the truth of your claims?

    Fossils have nothing to do with these particular arguments. But feel free to read the OP paragraph 5. and reply (with solid arguments!) if you disagree.

  17. Nonlin.org: “In a small farm, only organisms closely related to their wild cousins survive, but agribusinesses select for chickens with oversize breasts and research labs select for populations with specific genetic mutations requiring tight environments to survive. As shown, all these different organisms may or may not survive regardless of their phenotype. ”

    Make a mental effort and reply to this simple example… if you can.

    So let me see. In a small farm organisms closely resembling their wild cousins survive, and at large agribusinesses the chickens with oversize breasts survive, and at research labs individuals expressing specific genetic mutations survive.

    I would say that makes three examples where organisms with specific phenotypes have a survival advantage in their respective environments, don’t you?

  18. And if you’ll excuse me, I need to lie down from the enormous mental effort involved in replying to this example.

  19. Nonlin.org: Also, even if your “phylogeny tree” were honest work (huge if), “Common Design” explains whatever similarities just as well.

    What is “Common Design”? I’ve heard the term used many times but still haven’t figured out what it means.

  20. Corneel: And if you’ll excuse me, I need to lie down from the enormous mental effort involved in replying to this example.

    Should give you some time to evolve and come back more perfect than ever. 🙂

  21. Nonlin.org: 1. Total nonsense from you as usual. How the heck do you build a “phylogenetic tree derived from the metabolic enzyme”?

    You sequence variants of the gene from multiple species, then you make an alighment of the different sequences you get from the different species, then you use a phylogenetic algorithm to derive a tree according to some basic set of rules. The phylogenetic algorithm basically assumes a particular hypothesis about how evolution proceeds and finds the arrangement of branches that best fits the hypothesis. This is now your phylogenetic tree.

    And who does that, the Martians?

    Human beings with computers.

    As far as I can tell, it’s all done by the same Darwinistas interested in the same outcome using the same favorable assumptions.

    What are those favorable assumptions and what outcome is that? Are you saying that scientists are FORCING consilience of independent phylogenies? How? Where?

    Zero credibility and of course the “results” are fudged to match.

    Prove it.

    How often does the “tree of life” change?

    What relevance does that have to what we are discussing? Regardless of what hypothesis you assume (what algorithm to use to construct trees), independent genes drawn from multiple species still overwhelmingly converge on similar branching orders.

    You are not being asked to account for the fact that the data can be used to construct a tree with an algorithm, you are being asked to explain why independent genetic loci from multiple species converge on a similar branching structure. Those are two different questions.

    Why would it change so often if it were anything other than an artificial human construct that needs fudging all the time?

    You get more data you didn’t have before?

    What common descent nonsense?

    The common descent implied by the fact that independent genetic loci from multiple species used to construct phylogenetic trees, converge on a similar branching topology. THAT common descent.

    This OP just demonstrates “human evolution” is a stupid myth.

    You are confusing demonstration with assertion. The OP merely declares your opinion, the truth of that opinion is not demonstrated anywhere in the OP.

    And since you don’t have any counterarguments to what was written, you chose to bring up this other nonsense.

    Yadda yadda. Nobody is under any obligation to argue against mere assertions.

    Also, even if your “phylogeny tree” were honest work (huge if), “Common Design” explains whatever similarities just as well.

    You’re not being asked to explain merely the fact that aspects of the physiology or genetic sequences of organisms are similar, you are being asked to explain why independent genetic loci exhibit similar branching topologies when analyzed by a phylogenetic algorithm when there is no functional reason to constrain the sequence for such a result.

    I get that you don’t even understand what this means, so instead of bluster and bravado you should stop arguing and start learning instead.

    Of course more closely related models will be more similar than dissimilar ones.

    Related? Doesn’t that imply common descent is the explanation for the degree of similarity? LOL, hoisted by your own petard.

    2. “a) We’re likely not dealing with multiple designers“ is a perfect reply to your “there are many different functional ways to yield a similar result” if you like it or not. Obviously you know nothing about how engineering works. Why would a designer reinvent the wheel? Just to satisfy your baseless belief?

    Nobody says it has to be reinvented, in fact I’m saying the opposite. There’s no reason to introduce any changes to it when it is performing the same job in each species. There’s no reason for there to be any mutations in the DNA between human and chimpanzee cytochrome c genes. They are exactly identical at the amino acid level. They might aswell be exactly identical at the DNA level, but they aren’t. That doesn’t make sense if you believe they were independently created by a designer that is re-using the same design in new creations.

    But the nucleotide sequence of cytochrome c diverges increasingly with divergence times. As we get to gorillas, there starts to be amino acid sequence differences in addition to the DNA nucleotide differences between human, chimp, and gorilla. But why? There’s no functional reason for it, it still performs the same function in the electron transport chain. Again, the exact same gene would do, but that’s it not what we see, we see it diverging and it yields the same tree as thousands of other genes and morphology.

    So we are not saying the wheel needs to be re-invented, we are saying there’s no reason to even change it when the changes don’t affect the function. That implies the changes are due to nearly neutral mutations accumulating over time.

    3. So what? Just because you don’t know the reason for a certain design you don’t understand, doesn’t mean there is no reason.

    But I do understand how cytochrome c works, and there’s no reason for there to be silent nucleotide mutations between the human and chimp version.

    Even the AI of today has some level of built in autonomy. Every time I see some moron talking about this or that failure of the human body I want to ask him: why don’t you change your design, stupid?

    This is idiotic. It’s like if you buy a piece of software and it keeps making errors, you call the seller who tells you that you just haven’t yet figured out how these errors actually make it a really good program, then when you say that’s terrible service the seller replies “oh yeah, then how about you make a better one?”.

    Fantastic logic there buddy.

    Look, you’re too much of a zealot to understand that anything built on the pre-supposition of “evolution” stinks. Zero credibility.

    How nice, you totally showed me there. This deep and penetrating analysis is sure to change a reasonable person’s mind.

    Now, do you, or don’t you have any valid counterarguments to the arguments in this particular OP? I see none from you or your partners.

    I think that’s because you don’t understand how any of this works. You understand very little of the philosophy of science, even less how things like hypothesis testing by comparing predictions to observation can be used to test the predictions of common descent.

  22. Corneel: I would say that makes three examples where organisms with specific phenotypes have a survival advantage in their respective environments, don’t you?

    And it contradicts the claim you supported: “OF COURSE phenotypes are not independent of survival“

    Mung: What is “Common Design”? I’ve heard the term used many times but still haven’t figured out what it means.

    Don’t know about others, but I use it as “created by the same designer”.

    Rumraket:
    1. The phylogenetic algorithm basically assumes a particular hypothesis about how evolution proceeds and finds the arrangement of branches that best fits the hypothesis. This is now your phylogenetic tree.

    2. You are not being asked to account for the fact that the data can be used to construct a tree with an algorithm, you are being asked to explain why independent genetic loci from multiple species converge on a similar branching structure. Those are two different questions.

    3. You are confusing demonstration with assertion. The OP merely declares your opinion, the truth of that opinion is not demonstrated anywhere in the OP.

    4. You’re not being asked to explain merely the fact that aspects of the physiology or genetic sequences of organisms are similar, you are being asked to explain why independent genetic loci exhibit similar branching topologies when analyzed by a phylogenetic algorithm when there is no functional reason to constrain the sequence for such a result.

    5. Related? Doesn’t that imply common descent is the explanation for the degree of similarity? LOL, hoisted by your own petard.

    6. Nobody says it has to be reinvented, in fact I’m saying the opposite. There’s no reason to introduce any changes to it when it is performing the same job in each species. There’s no reason for there to be any mutations in the DNA between human and chimpanzee cytochrome c genes. They are exactly identical at the amino acid level. They might aswell be exactly identical at the DNA level, but they aren’t. That doesn’t make sense if you believe they were independently created by a designer that is re-using the same design in new creations.

    7. But the nucleotide sequence of cytochrome c diverges increasingly with divergence times. As we get to gorillas, there starts to be amino acid sequence differences in addition to the DNA nucleotide differences between human, chimp, and gorilla. But why? There’s no functional reason for it, it still performs the same function in the electron transport chain. Again, the exact same gene would do, but that’s it not what we see, we see it diverging and it yields the same tree as thousands of other genes and morphology.

    So we are not saying the wheel needs to be re-invented, we are saying there’s no reason to even change it when the changes don’t affect the function. That implies the changes are due to nearly neutral mutations accumulating over time.

    But I do understand how cytochrome c works, and there’s no reason for there to be silent nucleotide mutations between the human and chimp version.

    8. This is idiotic. It’s like if you buy a piece of software and it keeps making errors, you call the seller who tells you that you just haven’t yet figured out how these errors actually make it a really good program, then when you say that’s terrible service the seller replies “oh yeah, then how about you make a better one?”.

    9. I think that’s because you don’t understand how any of this works. You understand very little of the philosophy of science, even less how things like hypothesis testing by comparing predictions to observation can be used to test the predictions of common descent.

    1. What part of “circular logic” don’t you understand? Your dog is obviously not smart enough to explain it to you. Get one of those that chases its own tail. Your “common descent” conclusion is based on “common descent” presupposition.

    2. It is a property of modelling that you will build a model no matter how crappy the data is, if building a model to “prove” your prejudice is what you desperately want.

    3. It demonstrates with arguments you were not able to dispute. You’re in denial or incapable of logical arguments.

    4. You don’t know “no functional reason”. I see many “functional reasons”: http://nonlin.org/five-questions-for-id/

    5. No. See 2.

    6. I explained: “Just because you don’t know the reason for a certain design you don’t understand, doesn’t mean there is no reason” and “Even the AI of today has some level of built in autonomy”

    7. See 4. And 6.

    8. Going in circles again. It’s idiotic to think you’re the judge of a design you don’t understand – see link above for some answers.

    9. For sure one of us doesn’t understand how things work. I am offering logical analyses and conclusions that you don’t like. But neither are you able to dispute anything with logical arguments. Keep trying.

  23. Nonlin.org: Corneel: I would say that makes three examples where organisms with specific phenotypes have a survival advantage in their respective environments, don’t you?

    And it contradicts the claim you supported: “OF COURSE phenotypes are not independent of survival“

    I’m curious whether it is “not,” “independent,” or “OF COURSE” that you don’t understand.

Leave a Reply