Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter Bob74h
- Start date
I also read that, difference being you're misinterpretating my point when my actual point is the fact that the UCA model is becoming more problematic, not specifically the model hypotheses proposed by the author.
You can google that what scientific athesits mean, but they share a common characteristics.
Web of Life Model: every node can have a connection to each other as opposed to the tree of life model, where branches only stem from 1 node. It doesn't guarantee eukaryotes or bacteria or archae share only one common ancestor because otherwise it would not be called the web of life.
You can google that what scientific athesits mean, but they share a common characteristics.
Web of Life Model: every node can have a connection to each other as opposed to the tree of life model, where branches only stem from 1 node. It doesn't guarantee eukaryotes or bacteria or archae share only one common ancestor because otherwise it would not be called the web of life.
thats why i said "self-claimed", youre so dense lmao. You didnt explicitly claim that, but your attitude does.
Yea keep being deaf
Evolutionists: It's still an open debate and remains controversial between the web of life and tree of life model
Web of Life Model: every node can have a connection to each other as opposed to the tree of life model, where branches only stem from 1 node. It doesn't guarantee eukaryotes or bacteria or archae share only one common ancestor because otherwise it would not be called the web of life.
But sure, im the one lying. This is what people call the "self-claimed" scientific atheists, theyre actually not scientific atheists but rather ones who has beef with religion and follows atheism because it looks cooler lmao
Yea keep being deaf
Evolutionists: It's still an open debate and remains controversial between the web of life and tree of life model
Web of Life Model: every node can have a connection to each other as opposed to the tree of life model, where branches only stem from 1 node. It doesn't guarantee eukaryotes or bacteria or archae share only one common ancestor because otherwise it would not be called the web of life.
But sure, im the one lying. This is what people call the "self-claimed" scientific atheists, theyre actually not scientific atheists but rather ones who has beef with religion and follows atheism because it looks cooler lmao
Is there even any fundamentally objective research that proves that "Likleyhood" or are they based on assumptions?
Like the one tejas posted which took similarity and homology as principal and used a probabilistic model to reinforce UCA and concede that assumption of homology is generally the premised used conventionally
Where does this "likely hood" come from
The last time i checked the similarity was base on assumption and even numerically there isn't an objective percentage unless you pick a choose attributes
Like the one tejas posted which took similarity and homology as principal and used a probabilistic model to reinforce UCA and concede that assumption of homology is generally the premised used conventionally
Where does this "likely hood" come from
The last time i checked the similarity was base on assumption and even numerically there isn't an objective percentage unless you pick a choose attributes
You being deaf and disingeneously misinterpretating my points is a proof youre an atheist not because of genuine reason, but because of other motive
As i said, these evolutionists, some of which are atheists said it remains controversial. They are scientific atheists because of genuine reasons, not like you and your friends that are actually going against the scientists themselves lmao.
As i said, these evolutionists, some of which are atheists said it remains controversial. They are scientific atheists because of genuine reasons, not like you and your friends that are actually going against the scientists themselves lmao.
im not going against any scientists tho lmfao.
i also didnt misinterpret your points. they just suck ass.
and im still an atheist because religions dont have anything tangible backing up their stuff. on the contrary even, with there being anti-reality passages in the major religions scriptures if you read them literally, i.e. what people of said beliefs did up until science debunked the scriptures claims
yeah you right, there are no cases for the religions, could have phrased that better
i also didnt misinterpret your points. they just suck ass.
and im still an atheist because religions dont have anything tangible backing up their stuff. on the contrary even, with there being anti-reality passages in the major religions scriptures if you read them literally, i.e. what people of said beliefs did up until science debunked the scriptures claims
Post automatically merged:
yeah you right, there are no cases for the religions, could have phrased that better
Before 2010s, UCA is done qualitatively based on similartiy of DNA, morphology, fetus, etc. Professor Theobald started the first quantitative study about the reliability of UCA model using computational statistics. He did find that the probability of the UCA model being true is 10^2860 more likely than the other current alternatives. But even he himself said that it remains controversial and is still an open debate even with that finding that heavily favors the UCA model.
Professor Hasegawa in his paper said that the DNA alignment used by Theobald gives a strong bias for the UCA model. Another leading evolutionists Professor Masatoshi Nei found out in his study that the tree of life is not universal for some of the chain genes. He found that the bootstrap probability of Human and Chimp sharing the same branches based on the Class II beta chain genes is 66% (<75%), and he considered it low.
In the end, there are no direct evidence that human share a common ancestry with chimp or that human evolved from a single cell organisms. A scientists in France said it himself there are no evidence of the tree of life model. As such, religion and science would never directly oppose each other.
A philosopher who is an evolutionist, Robert T. Pennock, and a biologists who is an evolutionists as well, Brian Alters, said that the sketicism of the student regarding current evolution theory is JUSTIFIED, and it doesnt directly make them creationists.
You can find all these references in my original posts, sorry im lazy to go back through pages and copy paste them xd
You did, you either misinterpret or you disagree. If you didnt misinterpret what i said, then it means you disagree with this which is agreed by the evolutionists.
that makes it worse lmao
Professor Hasegawa in his paper said that the DNA alignment used by Theobald gives a strong bias for the UCA model. Another leading evolutionists Professor Masatoshi Nei found out in his study that the tree of life is not universal for some of the chain genes. He found that the bootstrap probability of Human and Chimp sharing the same branches based on the Class II beta chain genes is 66% (<75%), and he considered it low.
In the end, there are no direct evidence that human share a common ancestry with chimp or that human evolved from a single cell organisms. A scientists in France said it himself there are no evidence of the tree of life model. As such, religion and science would never directly oppose each other.
A philosopher who is an evolutionist, Robert T. Pennock, and a biologists who is an evolutionists as well, Brian Alters, said that the sketicism of the student regarding current evolution theory is JUSTIFIED, and it doesnt directly make them creationists.
You can find all these references in my original posts, sorry im lazy to go back through pages and copy paste them xd
You did, you either misinterpret or you disagree. If you didnt misinterpret what i said, then it means you disagree with this which is agreed by the evolutionists.
that makes it worse lmao
