Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#21  Postby MarioNovak » Sep 30, 2014 9:50 am

Sendraks wrote:
MarioNovak wrote:Likewise, we have knowledge based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that reproductive function of any organism cease to exist if we reduce core components of reproductive system.


Did you read any of the posts above or did you just ignore all the content that destroyed your argument?

Actually I did not make an argument, I only presented science observation that reproductive system of all cellular life forms without exception, from archaea, bacteria to eukaryote can't exist in reduced state.
Descriptions of life and living organisms, their structure, function, growth, distribution, and taxonomy....presented in the posts above won't change that. Since evolution presuppose reduced state this theory is in contradiction with observed biological reality and therefore false.
MarioNovak
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: MArio Novak
Posts: 42

Country: Croatia
Croatia (hr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#22  Postby Animavore » Sep 30, 2014 9:52 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
MarioNovak wrote:Likewise, we have knowledge based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that reproductive function of any organism cease to exist if we reduce core components of reproductive system.


Did you read any of the posts above or did you just ignore all the content that destroyed your argument?

Actually I did not make an argument, I only presented science observation that reproductive system of all cellular life forms without exception, from archaea, bacteria to eukaryote can't exist in reduced state.
Descriptions of life and living organisms, their structure, function, growth, distribution, and taxonomy....presented in the posts above won't change that. Since evolution presuppose reduced state this theory is in contradiction with observed biological reality and therefore false.


You keep mentioning this scientific observation. Care to produce papers?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44752
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#23  Postby monkeyboy » Sep 30, 2014 9:55 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
MarioNovak wrote:Likewise, we have knowledge based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that reproductive function of any organism cease to exist if we reduce core components of reproductive system.


Did you read any of the posts above or did you just ignore all the content that destroyed your argument?

Actually I did not make an argument, I only presented science observation that reproductive system of all cellular life forms without exception, from archaea, bacteria to eukaryote can't exist in reduced state.
Descriptions of life and living organisms, their structure, function, growth, distribution, and taxonomy....presented in the posts above won't change that. Since evolution presuppose reduced state this theory is in contradiction with observed biological reality and therefore false.


So, just for me, a simple mechanism that evolved to turn beer into piss, please explain. Are you suggesting that if you remove a part of of body which has over millions of years evolved to be necessary in one fell swoop, rendering the subject of your mutilation, in this case a once intact man to be non intact and incapable of impregnating his good lady, thus demonstrating that testicles are necessary, you have debunked evolution?
Last edited by monkeyboy on Sep 30, 2014 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5475
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#24  Postby monkeyboy » Sep 30, 2014 9:55 am

hang on missed a bit

relevant bit inserted, carry on
Last edited by monkeyboy on Sep 30, 2014 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5475
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#25  Postby Sendraks » Sep 30, 2014 9:56 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Actually I did not make an argument.


Orly? :eh:

MarioNovak wrote:Thank you all for your answers but unfortunately they realy have little or no relevance to what I said in my argument.


So, how about you actually get your own story straight rather than recourse to the usual evasive bullshit and word salad we see from apologists on these forums, eh?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#26  Postby Animavore » Sep 30, 2014 9:57 am

I Googled "evolution of FtsZ", by the way. I got quite a few hits.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evo ... CB4QgQMwAA
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44752
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#27  Postby hackenslash » Sep 30, 2014 10:09 am

Somebody hasn't come across the concept of a spandrel, co-opting of existing structures, or the simple fact that irreducible complexity, far from being a problem for evolution, is a prediction of evolutionary theory.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#28  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Sep 30, 2014 10:11 am

@ MarioNovak wrote:
If you had bothered to read my post above, you would know I have already addressed your major objection. Major evolutionary transitions [which is part of what you are bitching about] have intermediate stages. Note that I mentioned the bdelloid rotifer grade of eukaryote, which uses both eusexual means and HGT to maintain genetic diversity, and hence evolvability. Your rejection is rubbish.
If a eukaryotic species sexual system broke down, then it would become extinct. In fact this happens often, because eukaryotic sex, where the interests of male ans females can diverge, can [and does] lead to sexual conflict in many cases. Sperm competition among males can lead to toxic sperm which harms the females [in some drosophilia species]. Another problem is genetic parasitism, where other organisms, or their DNA, can cause meiotic drive.
Prokaryotic species are less likely to go extinct because their fecundity and sheer speed of replication ensures quick recovery after hard selection. Bacteria don't have to "re-invent the wheel, because the solution to most environmental problems is out there somewhere in HGT land. Bacteria can live in nuclear reactors because natural nuclear reactors existed on Earth long before humans were even human.
I could go on and on, but basically the onus is on you to prove the science community wrong, and if your pathetic and ignorant efforts so far are any indication, do not expect to make much progress. Learn, and understand FIRST, then criticize. :doh:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#29  Postby Rumraket » Sep 30, 2014 10:42 am

MarioNovak wrote:Thank you all for your answers but unfortunately they realy have little or no relevance to what I said in my argument.

Respectfully I have to question whether you made any effort to understand what was written to you. You claimed several key components of extant sexual reproductive systems were strictly needed or reproduction would be, in your words, impossible.

Several posters including myself have now pointed out with multiple examples that there are species in existence, now, today, that lack many of the key components you listed.

I myself also explained to you, that you are not properly appreciating the evolutionary history of contemporary sexually reproducing species. That what might seem to be an absolute requirement for the function and reproduction of some extant organism, like human beings, was lacking or altered in distant ancestors. Case in point: Fish that lay their eggs on the bottom instead of retaining them inside.

All our ancestors in the mammalian clade gave live birth, meaning they retained the eggs. But there was a time when our ancestors weren't even mammals, they were reptiles. They laid eggs on the ground. No uterus needed. Even further back, before they were reptiles, they were amphibians. They laid egg in shallow waters. It was at this stage we see our kind of "internal insemination", at least in our direct lineage, for the first time. Back then, there were no strict requirements on the cervix to produce sperm transport-enhancing mucus, because the sperm was simply released over the eggs into the environment.

Before amphibians, there were fish. Some species of fish simply eject their gametes into the ocean and let them mix and fuse right there.

The point with all this is that you are not properly appreciating that alterations to the extant reproductive systems were accompanied by compensating alterations to the fundamental behavior and physiology of the whole organism. When we go back far enough in evolution to a time when we start to see components missing from extant human and mammalian reproductive systems, we are so far back in time there were no mammals at all, much less humans or primates. The whole damn organism was different, it lived in a totally different environment with a whole host of different opportunities and constraints.

What might be strictly required for human reproduction is emphatically not required for sexual reproduction in general.

MarioNovak wrote:First, asexual reproduction that does not involve the mixing of two different genomes, also needs some core components to function. For examle, most bacteria rely on binary fission for propagation. Before binary fission occurs, the cell must copy its genetic material and segregate these copies to opposite ends of the cell. Then the many types of proteins that comprise the cell division machinery assemble at the future division site. A key component of this machinery is the protein FtsZ. Protein monomers of FtsZ assemble into a ring-like structure at the center of a cell. Other components of the division apparatus then assemble at the FtsZ ring. This machinery is positioned so that division splits the cytoplasm and does not damage DNA in the process. As division occurs, the cytoplasm is cleaved in two, and in many bacteria, new cell wall is synthesized. The systems for order and timing of these processes are also needed.

I have to note here that you have now moved away from the specific examples you provided in your opening post, and now erected the same type of argument, but wit other structures instead. This argument now attempts to make the same case for the fundamentals of cell division, that there can be no such thing as cell division without a host of extantly found cellular processes and structures. You are now attempting to argue that instead of large, multicellular structures and mechanisms, that even the mechanisms found inside single cells when they divide, are absolutely required for fundamental cell division to function.

Well actually, no they aren't. To appreciate how cell division originated, we have to understand that lacking many of these key mechanisms go back to some of the earliest stages of life. At those stages, their lack was again compensated for by alterations in the fundamental functions of the organism.

The Szostak lab has successfully demonstrated that primitive cell membranes can make copies of themselves without the aid of advanced protein enzymes and structures. Go here for their publications: http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html

MarioNovak wrote:So, if we reduce core components of the systems that allows the execution of these processes - DNA replication, DNA segregation, division site selection, invagination of the cell envelope and synthesis of new cell wall... - the biological process by which new offspring is produced will be stopped, just like with sexual reproduction.

Yes, in extant life.

Back in the ancient past, before 3.5 billion years ago when these mechanisms first originated, before the last universal common ancestor, cellular entities were much simpler. Segregation of replicated genetic polymers were through nothing but diffusion, a simple physical process. As primitive cells grew larger because over-expression of genetic products (lipids, genetic polymers) they would eventually become unstable because of their large size and split in two. The contents of these so-called protocells would diffuse out and equilibrate within the confines of the primitive cell membrane, that means the multiple copies of their genomes would not be required to be anchored to the membrane by sophisticated protein machinery, they would simply diffuse all by themselves through simple physics. When the cell then broke apart by splitting in two, the contents would be randomly distributed between the two daughter cells.

MarioNovak wrote:Next, labeling some scientific observation "irreducible complexity" does not negate the observation. If we reduce core components of system that enables man to pass semen out of his body and as a consequence reproductive function cease to exist in that organism it is completely irrelevant how we label this consequence because reproduction is not dependable on human linguistics and language, but on the presence of the core components of the reproductive system.

Who has made this about language? I don't care what you call it, the fundamental flaw in the argument remains the same. It just so happens others have attempted versions of this argument before you, chief among them ID-creationist Michael Behe, who called such arguments, arguments from "irreducible complexity". He or you could call it whatever you wish, I and many others have exposed the central flaw in all these kinds of arguments before:

It does not matter that you can eliminate components of extant systems and then break the function of the extant system, because back when these components were actually missing, the remaining components of the system also functioned differently. The whole system remained functional, because of compensating changes to the then-extant components.

MarioNovak wrote:Also, if reproductive system of some organism is structured so that component X(eg testicles) is neccesary for its function than assertion... "You're neglecting to consider that ancestral species who lacked some of these components weren't using the same kind of sexual reproduction we do." ... is like saying "my PC can compute without microprocesor becouse Babbage's Difference engine lacked microprocesor and was able to compute.

Yes, yes it is, and that would be correct to say. You can have computation without a microprocessor. You can have sexual reproduction without a human ballsack.

MarioNovak wrote:So this assertion is complete non sequitur that ignores structural and configurational constraints of the system in question. Simply put, you can't accumulate genes for testicles and reproduce if reproductive system is structured so that testicles are needed.

But back before testicles, the testicles weren't needed, because the system in-place back then was functioning in a different way, functioning perfectly well by the way, because the whole organism was was totally different.

MarioNovak wrote:From the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation we know that all cellular life forms without exception, from archaea, bacteria to eukaryote will go extinct if we reduce core components of their reproductive systems.

Yes, core components that have become necessary for how they function today. The ancestral components have changed through evolution in ways that make them fit together in new ways today. So if you suddenly remove one component, the EXTANT system will break down. But back in time, when that component didn't exist, the ancestors of all the other components were different, which allowed the system to function perfectly well but in a different way.

MarioNovak wrote:But, reduced/less complex state of the system is conditio sine qua non for the idea of evolution. Hence, we can conclude that human mental constructs in the form of ideas, ad hoc hypotheses or theories postulating that reproductive system is result of the accumulation of small heritable changes within populations over time are in contradiction with science, and therefore false.

Straightforwardly false at both an empirical and conceptual level. We can directly observe extant organisms at various levels of complexity with many of the key components we require for sexual reproduction, lacking in the pertinent species. Many examples have been given already in this thread. These putative observed "stages" in the evolution of sexual reproduction correlate well with the genetic and morphologically derived phylogenetic history of life (meaning we have very strong evidence that they are the result of an evolutionary process). Furthermore, we have strong conceptual reasons for rejecting your argument, in that your foundational portrayal of evolutionary history and the process itself is erroneous, because you have not considered that changes to the extant reproductive systems and strategies were back then accompanied by fundamental changes to organismal physiology and behavior.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#30  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 30, 2014 12:44 pm

What part of the words "simpler antecedents" didn't this individual understand?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#31  Postby Shrunk » Sep 30, 2014 3:48 pm

Calilasseia wrote:What part of the words "simpler antecedents" didn't this individual understand?


He couldn't understand how it could be said without making Baby Jesus cry.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#32  Postby Shrunk » Sep 30, 2014 3:55 pm

Animavore wrote:
MarioNovak wrote:Simply put, you can't accumulate genes for testicles and reproduce if reproductive system is structured so that testicles are needed.


Obviously testicles werent needed to reproduce before testicles evolved.
You're really muddled on what evolution entails. Your argument reminds me of Ray Comfort's when he couldn't understand how creatures walked around for years before eyes evolved.


Was that Ray? Or that guy who had a brief YouTube exchange with AronRa, which culminated in the quote hackenslash used to use in his sig: "I'd love to explain that to you, but first I'd have to remove all the fetid excrement you've got in your head and replace it with a clue"? No matter. The argument is no less stupid no matter who makes it.

The one that I know Comfort makes is: How did a male elephant manage to reproduce before any female elephants evolved for it to reproduce with?

True story.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#33  Postby Animavore » Sep 30, 2014 4:03 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Animavore wrote:
MarioNovak wrote:Simply put, you can't accumulate genes for testicles and reproduce if reproductive system is structured so that testicles are needed.


Obviously testicles werent needed to reproduce before testicles evolved.
You're really muddled on what evolution entails. Your argument reminds me of Ray Comfort's when he couldn't understand how creatures walked around for years before eyes evolved.


Was that Ray? Or that guy who had a brief YouTube exchange with AronRa, which culminated in the quote hackenslash used to use in his sig: "I'd love to explain that to you, but first I'd have to remove all the fetid excrement you've got in your head and replace it with a clue"? No matter. The argument is no less stupid no matter who makes it.

The one that I know Comfort makes is: How did a male elephant manage to reproduce before any female elephants evolved for it to reproduce with?

True story.


Comfort has made the argument too. In fact it's possible that guy on AaronRa's video got it from Comfort.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44752
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#34  Postby Shrunk » Sep 30, 2014 4:13 pm

Animavore wrote:Comfort has made the argument too. In fact it's possible that guy on AaronRa's video got it from Comfort.


Quite. Scary as it is to realize, some people actually consider him an authority. I wonder where our new friend ciribbed his argument from? Sometimes creationists can stumble over the simplest concepts. I remember we had one here a few years ago who couldn't believe that the first terrestrial tetrapods could have emerged from the water, because they would have been easy prey for animals that were already out on land. We simply could not convey to him that, if these were the first tetrapods to come out onto land, there wouldn't be any others waiting out there to eat them. This childishly simple concept escaped him.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#35  Postby patient zero » Sep 30, 2014 5:16 pm

I can see this thread being moved to 'creationism' pretty soon. ^_^
Calilasseia wrote:...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
patient zero
 
Posts: 493
Age: 49
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#36  Postby hackenslash » Oct 01, 2014 6:00 am

Shrunk wrote:Was that Ray? Or that guy who had a brief YouTube exchange with AronRa, which culminated in the quote hackenslash used to use in his sig: "I'd love to explain that to you, but first I'd have to remove all the fetid excrement you've got in your head and replace it with a clue"?


I had this lying around...
Attachments
Andy.jpg
Andy.jpg (28.48 KiB) Viewed 2222 times
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#37  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 01, 2014 6:09 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
MarioNovak wrote:Likewise, we have knowledge based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that reproductive function of any organism cease to exist if we reduce core components of reproductive system.


Did you read any of the posts above or did you just ignore all the content that destroyed your argument?

Actually I did not make an argument, I only presented science observation that reproductive system of all cellular life forms without exception, from archaea, bacteria to eukaryote can't exist in reduced state.


No, you asserted this in the absence of evidence, then ignored the evidence showing why this is a confused claim to make.


MarioNovak wrote:Descriptions of life and living organisms, their structure, function, growth, distribution, and taxonomy....presented in the posts above won't change that. Since evolution presuppose reduced state this theory is in contradiction with observed biological reality and therefore false.


Sadly for you, there is ample evidence showing the evolution of reproduction. You've already ignored quite a bit of it here, so I presume you're capable of ignoring all the rest too.

So let's summarize for you:

If you ignore all the evidence, and operate using a methodology entirely unrelated to science where you confirm your presuppositions by repetition in the absence of evidence, then you can maintain the position that evolution is false.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27972
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#38  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Oct 01, 2014 9:26 am

A rare moment when we might disagree, Mr Spearthrower:-
If you ignore all the evidence, and operate using a methodology entirely unrelated to science where you confirm your presuppositions by repetition in the absence of evidence, then you can maintain the position that evolution is false.


MarioNovak does not even have that refuge. Folks like Phil Senter have used creationist "science" to debunk creationist "science" . Teh creationist fairy-tales are not even self-consistant. :thumbup: :lol: :lol:

Senter, P. (2010). "Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs." Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23(8): 1732-1743.
It is important to demonstrate evolutionary principles in such a way that they cannot be countered by creation science. One such way is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles. Some creation scientists use classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to quantify and visualize morphological gaps or continuity between taxa, accepting gaps as evidence of independent creation and accepting continuity as evidence of genetic relatedness. Here, I apply CMDS to a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and show that it reveals morphological continuity between Archaeopteryx, other early birds, and a wide range of nonavian coelurosaurs. Creation scientists who use CMDS must therefore accept that these animals are genetically related. Other uses of CMDS for evolutionary biologists include the identification of taxa with much missing evolutionary history and the tracing of the progressive filling of morphological gaps in the fossil record through successive years of discovery.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x

See also
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... view/44/36
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... load/44/36

Senter, P. (2012). "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology: The ironic demonstration that there is no trace of the Genesis Flood in the geologic record." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31(5).
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... File/40/33
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#39  Postby Zadocfish2 » Oct 01, 2014 9:28 am

The easiest way to debunk this is the same way to debunk all irreducible complexity junk:

That's not how evolution works. I can remove a computerized component from a jet airliner, and it wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that Orville and Wilber Wright's first creation needed that component to run. Theirs was simpler, it didn't need it. Air vehicles only started needing computerized parts once they had been used and developed for a while and grew in complexity.

Aircraft development and evolution are kind of similar, in some ways. Small innovation builds on small innovation until models and models later, the end result looks nothing like its predecessor and needs radically different parts to operate. In the meantime, many models are thrown by the wayside as newer ones serve their purpose more efficiently.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#40  Postby Shrunk » Oct 01, 2014 11:54 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:A rare moment when we might disagree, Mr Spearthrower:-
If you ignore all the evidence, and operate using a methodology entirely unrelated to science where you confirm your presuppositions by repetition in the absence of evidence, then you can maintain the position that evolution is false.


MarioNovak does not even have that refuge. Folks like Phil Senter have used creationist "science" to debunk creationist "science" . Teh creationist fairy-tales are not even self-consistant. :thumbup: :lol: :lol:

Senter, P. (2010). "Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs." Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23(8): 1732-1743.
It is important to demonstrate evolutionary principles in such a way that they cannot be countered by creation science. One such way is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles. Some creation scientists use classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to quantify and visualize morphological gaps or continuity between taxa, accepting gaps as evidence of independent creation and accepting continuity as evidence of genetic relatedness. Here, I apply CMDS to a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and show that it reveals morphological continuity between Archaeopteryx, other early birds, and a wide range of nonavian coelurosaurs. Creation scientists who use CMDS must therefore accept that these animals are genetically related. Other uses of CMDS for evolutionary biologists include the identification of taxa with much missing evolutionary history and the tracing of the progressive filling of morphological gaps in the fossil record through successive years of discovery.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x

See also
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... view/44/36
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... load/44/36

Senter, P. (2012). "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology: The ironic demonstration that there is no trace of the Genesis Flood in the geologic record." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31(5).
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... File/40/33


And there was also this "study", that was done by an actual creatonist (emphasis mine):

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
by Todd Wood on May 5, 2010


Abstract

The baraminic status of fossil hominids was tested using statistical baraminology techniques. Eight previously published cladistic studies of fossil and extant hominids were reexamined with baraminic distance correlation (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). Results indicate that hominins may be divided into as many as four different holobaramins: (1) the genus Homo (including Australopithecus sediba), (2) the genus Paranthropus, (3) Australopithecus africanus, and (4) Gorilla, Pan, Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus garhi. These results tentatively confirm the common creationist claim that fossil hominids can be divided into human and non-human categories. In contrast to many creationist claims, however, the present results indicate that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba belong in the human holobaramin. Future studies should focus on including postcranial characters in baraminic distance calculations and developing a model for understanding biological similarity and the significance of human-like australopiths and the ape-like humans.


:rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest