Denial of evolution III

[ElectricFetus]

how does genetics prove a tree can turn into a man?
especially when science hasn't demonstrated it possible?

Genetics can prove that X child is mine, it can prove parental linage, correct? Well in the same exact manner genetics proves the descent of man from an ape like ancestor, the relation of many other creatures and even rough times and when they diverged from a mutual ancestor.

 

[James R]

yeah, one of my posts from that thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2716879&postcount=432

Two posts after that one you were caught out for reproducing a statement that was never made by the scientist concerned. In fact, he had expressly denied making such a statement.

Now, maybe you weren't aware of that fact the first time, because you probably just copied the quote from AnswersInGenesis.

But you were certainly aware of it after you were informed two posts after the one you made.

And now you have the gall to repost the same thing again, as if you had never been informed it was a lie.

And, moreover, you have the gall to contact me by PM complaining about a moderator's intellectual dishonesty in this matter.

---

Moderator note: leopold99 has been banned from sciforums for 3 days for telling lies and for wasting moderator time.

 

[billvon]

Say I made a fancy design with popcorn on the grass, where all the popcorn touches to form a continuous figure. I leave the design out for several weeks so the birds can randomly eat. This is an analogy for the fossil data where only a small fraction of the original data is left.

Since science requires that we infer from the hard data, we may not be able to properly infer the reality of the original continuous popcorn design, due to 99.9 percent lost popcorn and the discontinuous remains.

Good example. No, with that evidence alone we could not recreate that continuous figure.

But now suppose we had grainy satellite pictures that showed that figure from three weeks ago when it was still mostly complete. In places, the popcorn had left flakes of corn, and we could analyze the grass to see where it has been. Same with salt; we recover tiny salt fragments in places left by the popcorn. Some of those birds who ate the popcorn had pooped and shed feathers where they had landed, and we discover that the poop and feathers are always close to the figure we postulate. We realize that slugs ate the popcorn too, and slug trails cluster over where we assume the popcorn was. We could look at other places where you made similar designs and realize "hey, he always makes a similar pattern, and it is indeed similar to this one." We can take prints of your shoes and say "look at this, there are footprints right next to where we assume the popcorn was." We can take tire prints and samples near where they end and say "yep, he drove here with a bag of popcorn."

At some point you have so much evidence that the only reasonable conclusion is that the pattern is very close to our predictions.

 

[iceaura]

Say I made a llong trail of popcorn based on some winding design. Next, I let the birds eat most of the popcorn, until the final number of popcorn pieces is roughly in proportion to the modern fossil data percentage relative to all the possible data.

Is the sparse and random popcorn that is left enough to give an accurate picture of the original popcorn design?

Some changes are necessary to bring this into analogy with the fossil evidence.

The popcorn changed incrementally along the design - there were different colors or shapes or something in different parts of the design.

The kernels in the remaining fragments are connected, and breaks in the connection appear at each apparent gap in the design.

There were billions of copies of each stage of the laying down of the design, of which millions left connected fragments.

Nobody is claiming complete knowledge of the design.

There are a bunch of people called "creationists" claiming no such design ever existed - that all the appearances of pattern in the millions of remaining fragments are merely there by chance.

And so forth. That was for the fossils. Next we would examine the genetic, geological, chemical, demographic, and other forms of evidence.