Endogenous Retroviruses: Evidence for Human Evolution

[justlookinla]

Go to the other thread with these comments.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/new-link-in-human-evolution-homo-naledi.7907125/page-23

Yes, please go to that thread. When you find evidence offered for HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged life form of long ago, please reference it.

 

[justlookinla]

Ostriches are, in my experience, better conversationalists.

OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

So mutation and natural selection occur. No evidence, based on the scientific method, for those mechanisms producing anything but like life forms. Bacteria produce bacteria, finches produce finches, moths produce moths.

The genetic evidence of common descent has been pointed out to you over and over. There is very strong evidence in the genetic record that (e.g.) plants such as a pine tree and animals such as humans evolved from a common ancestor. E.g. ubiquitous genes.

I post the image in an attempt to help you understand the scientific method. It would behoove you to review it again.

What part of the scientific method is it that you are following when you stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence given to you? Here's a Jeopardy style answer for you to find a question for. 'One sticks their head in the sand and pretends that if it can't see something, it doesn't exist. The other is an ostrich.'

Same thing as HOW, by what process, were pine trees and humans produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Answer: Evolution.

What is it about this answer that you do not understand?

That's not an answer, that's simply a meaningless word until you describe the process.

Words have meaning. If had posted the word 'Glaggagumphalink' as an answer, then it would have no meaning. The word 'evolution' in English has a deep meaning, and you can find out more about it if you do a bit of research.

The problem is not in my one word answer, the problem is in your lack of engagement with the correct answer to your question. If you don't understand my answer, well then I wonder what you think you will be able to achieve debating evolution if you don't know what it is. Try here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm for a start, though the Richard Dawkins book will give you a better understanding as well as a good summary of the evidence that evolution did occur.

Sorry, links and book titles aren't evidence.

The information contained in them includes very large amounts of evidence. If you refuse to look at them, that doesn't in any way discount the information contain therein.

Unable to simply discuss the issue, are you?

As can be seen in this post, yes I can simply and reasonably discuss the issue.

 

[justlookinla]

The genetic evidence of common descent has been pointed out to you over and over. There is very strong evidence in the genetic record that (e.g.) plants such as a pine tree and animals such as humans evolved from a common ancestor. E.g. ubiquitous genes.

For the hundredth time, this isn't about common descent. This is about the HOW, the process.

What part of the scientific method is it that you are following when you stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence given to you? Here's a Jeopardy style answer for you to find a question for. 'One sticks their head in the sand and pretends that if it can't see something, it doesn't exist. The other is an ostrich.'

Much ado about nothing.

Answer: Evolution.

What is it about this answer that you do not understand?

You aren't revealing HOW, the process. Simply saying "evolution" is meaningless without an explanation and evidence for the HOW, the process

Words have meaning. If had posted the word 'Glaggagumphalink' as an answer, then it would have no meaning. The word 'evolution' in English has a deep meaning, and you can find out more about it if you do a bit of research.

You're certainly not going to explain the process, the HOW, of evolution. You're in full evasion mode

The problem is not in my one word answer,

It not an answer.

the problem is in your lack of engagement with the correct answer to your question. If you don't understand my answer, well then I wonder what you think you will be able to achieve debating evolution if you don't know what it is. Try here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm for a start, though the Richard Dawkins book will give you a better understanding as well as a good summary of the evidence that evolution did occur.

Links and book titles aren't evidence.

The information contained in them includes very large amounts of evidence. If you refuse to look at them, that doesn't in any way discount the information contain therein.

Just more empty and baseless claims with no evidence from you.

As can be seen in this post, yes I can simply and reasonably discuss the issue.

As we can see in this post, as well as every one of your posts, you have completely failed to give evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

For the hundredth time, this isn't about common descent. This is about the HOW, the process.

The process is evolution.

You aren't revealing HOW, the process. Simply saying "evolution" is meaningless without an explanation and evidence for the HOW, the process

Evolution is the process. I've provided evidence for evolution, e.g. ubiquitous genes.

You're certainly not going to explain the process, the HOW, of evolution. You're in full evasion mode

Here you go: How evolution works. It's not the best source, you need a book to do the subject justice. But, you don't seem to know how books work. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Links and book titles aren't evidence.

Can you explain how the information in that book and in the academic papers I provided isn't evidence for evolution? Have you actually looked at them? The material in the pages, academic papers, and book that I recommended to you is evidence, absolutely loads of it.

Just more empty and baseless claims with no evidence from you.

As we can see in this post, as well as every one of your posts, you have completely failed to give evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Tons of evidence provided. Dawkins' book 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' is a good explanation of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evidence, based on the scientific method. Either you have it or you don't. You don't.

As I have just explained, we don't require evidence for negative claims. And most certainly not for claims that nobody makes...

Stop being so dishonest about this.

 

[justlookinla]

The process is evolution.

Describe the process, the HOW. Offer evidence, based on the scientific method for the process. "Evolution" is simply yet another example of evasion.

Evolution is the process. I've provided evidence for evolution, e.g. ubiquitous genes.

"Evolution" is simply a word. Tell us about the process, what actions actually occurred to impact the alleged single life form to produce both pine trees and humans? Give the evidence for the process, those actions which produced pine trees and humans, based on the scientific method.

Here you go: How evolution works. It's not the best source, you need a book to do the subject justice. But, you don't seem to know how books work. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm

That's simply a link, a haystack with an alleged needle. Actually post content, actually offer evidence for the HOW, the process, the actions which produced pine trees and humans. Describe it.

Can you explain how the information in that book and in the academic papers I provided isn't evidence for evolution?

No, can you actually offer the content in the link which offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, the actions which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged life form of long ago? Of course you can't and aren't.

Have you actually looked at them? The material in the pages, academic papers, and book that I recommended to you is evidence, absolutely loads of it.

Yet another baseless claim. And yet another post with no evidence.

Tons of evidence provided. Dawkins' book 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' is a good explanation of it.

And yet another empty claim with absolutely no content.