Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[justlookinla]

This has been done for you in previous threads. You ignore it. Stop wasting time. Demonstrate you can comprehend what is being presented to you so we can continue the conversation.

The content from links have been presented to you in the previous threads. You've demonstrated yourself to be a complete time waster.

No, it's never been presented, it's been as we've seen in your last few posts....links with no content, claims with no references. I ask you again, simply pick one of your links in which you apparently have found what you believe to be evidence. Your choice of the link. Post something, point to something, reference something in the link you choose concerning the evidence you claim is there.

 

[ecco]

ecco post #49 in response to justlookinla

If someone accepts micro-evolution but does not accept macro-evolution, it is only because he cannot accept that the HOW that produces micro-evolution is the same HOW that produces macro-evolution. The only difference is the scale of time.​

No, that's not the only difference. The difference, and this is an insurrmountable one for Darwinism, it's the fatal flaw of Darwinism in it's claim that Darwinism is based on science, is that one has evidence, based on the scientific method (micro-evolution) and the other has no evidence, that the process which produced very similar life forms also produced the vastly disparate life forms such as pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

The guess, the supposition, of Darwinism is basically that mutation + natural selection + time is the process which produced both pine trees and humans. There's no scientific evidence for that.

ecco post #49

There is only one reason that people cannot accept macro-evolution, and that is their deeply held fundamentalist religious beliefs. They must discount science or they must discount (some of) their religious beliefs.​

As I pointed out, the reason some cannot accept macro-evolution is because it's not proven. It's a faith-based system of 'creation' in and of itself.

I guess we could go back and forth on this. I say you don't accept evolution because of your religious beliefs; you say it's because you don't accept the science.

I posted this earlier (post #55) but I'll try again...

A. You do not believe in macro-evolution.
B. Your religious beliefs include "god created all life on earth".

If both A. and B. are correct, you are more evidence attesting to the validity of my post.

If B. is not correct, then please tell your concept of how humans came to be.



​

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No, it's never been presented

It has. You're wasting time.

I'll just patiently wait for you to address it even though it's obvious you have no intention of doing so.

 

[justlookinla]

ecco post #49 in response to justlookinla

If someone accepts micro-evolution but does not accept macro-evolution, it is only because he cannot accept that the HOW that produces micro-evolution is the same HOW that produces macro-evolution. The only difference is the scale of time.​

ecco post #49

There is only one reason that people cannot accept macro-evolution, and that is their deeply held fundamentalist religious beliefs. They must discount science or they must discount (some of) their religious beliefs.​

I guess we could go back and forth on this. I say you don't accept evolution because of your religious beliefs; you say it's because you don't accept the science.

That's the point, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process of the Darwinist claim. It's not science.

I posted this earlier (post #55) but I'll try again...

A. You do not believe in macro-evolution.​

True. There's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view.

B. Your religious beliefs include "god created all life on earth".

True. It's a faith-based view.

If both A. and B. are correct, you are more evidence attesting to the validity of my post.

No, that doesn't address the issue of the complete lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, of the how/process of Darwinist claims. This is an attempt to push the issue aside and introduce another issue.

If B. is not correct, then please tell your concept of how humans came to be.

B is correct, but it's a faith-based view, just as the how/process claimed by Darwinism is a faith-based view.



​

 

[justlookinla]

It has. You're wasting time.

I'll just patiently wait for you to address it even though it's obvious you have no intention of doing so.

No, it hasn't. You've not done it before and after repeated requests for you to pick one of your links and offer the evidence, you still cannot do that. That's because your links do not contain the evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No, it hasn't. You've not done it before and after repeated requests for you to pick one of your links and offer the evidence, you still cannot do that. That's because your links do not contain the evidence.

I'm not going to treat you like a child.
I'm also not going to go back and forth with you like this.
Address the evidence that has been presented to you or end the thread.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not going to treat you like a child.
I'm also not going to go back and forth with you like this.
Address the evidence that has been presented to you or end the thread.

You're not going to pick one of your own links in which you claim offers evidence and actually post content from the link. That's because the evidence isn't there. You can't find it and neither can anyone else.

You've presented nothing but personal claims. That's not evidence, based on the scientific method.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You're not going to pick one of your own links in which you claim offers evidence and actually post content from the link. That's because the evidence isn't there. You can't find it and neither can anyone else.

It is. You haven't read it.
I politely ask you to end the thread as it is evident that you are not going to address anything presented to you. Thank you

 

[mickiio]

If someone accepts micro-evolution but does not accept macro-evolution, it is only because he cannot accept that the HOW that produces micro-evolution is the same HOW that produces macro-evolution. The only difference is the scale of time.​

There is only one reason that people cannot accept macro-evolution, and that is their deeply held fundamentalist religious beliefs. They must discount science or they must discount (some of) their religious beliefs.

Actually it doesn't have to be taken on faith, although I do have Faith in God. Macroevolution goes against Laws of sciences in Physics like the Law of Cause and Effect , against the II Law of Thermodynamics, and probabilities too.

I guess we could go back and forth on this. I say you don't accept evolution because of your religious beliefs; you say it's because you don't accept the science.

Oh I have no problems with science! I just prefer what is verifiable, and testable. I prefer GOOD science.

I posted this earlier (post #55) but I'll try again...

A. You do not believe in macro-evolution.
B. Your religious beliefs include "god created all life on earth".

If both A. and B. are correct, you are more evidence attesting to the validity of my post.

If B. is not correct, then please tell your concept of how humans came to be.​

I can verify that. If you prefer to believe you came from electrified mud and monkeys over billions and billions of years (because you NEED those years to take care of the many problems you have with that theory) it's your choice.

​

 

[justlookinla]

It is. You haven't read it.
I politely ask you to end the thread as it is evident that you are not going to address anything presented to you. Thank you

It is? Where? Where's the content in the link (you make the choice) which offers the evidence asked for? Where's the reference? Where's the description?

You're only making baseless claims. You claim the evidence is contained in the link but you cannot support your claim.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It is? Where? Where's the content in the link

There are quotations from the sources that were provided in post #511 in the closed thread.
Address them or end the thread.

 

[justlookinla]

There are quotations from the sources that were provided in post #511 in the closed thread.
Address them or end the thread.

I addressed them in post #1, taking it a bit at at time.

You're not going to pick a link you provided and actually reference evidence you claim is contained in that link, are you? Why did you make such a claim if you cannot support your claim?

 

[mickiio]

There are quotations from the sources that were provided in post #511 in the closed thread.
Address them or end the thread.

So far I've seen grandstanding and threats, do you do that often in debates?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I addressed them in post #1, taking it a bit at at time

False. You copy/pasted from post #511 "Comparative Anatomy" portion of my post and instead of addressing the content of the comparative anatomy portion of the post presented to you, you responded with this: Now I know this is your favorite stalling tactic as you repeat it ad-nauseam.

Point out in your statement where the evidence is offered, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process (mutation and natural selection?) which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You claimed that you addressed every point made from post #511.
Shall we find out how dishonest your statement is?
Here is what you did not include in post #1 that you are claiming you addressed.

From Post #511 in the previously closed thread.
The floor is yours to now address it.


B. Embryology conclusion- "Rathke looked at the development of frogs, salamanders, fish, birds, and mammals, and emphasized the similarities in the development of all these vertebrate groups. During his 40 years of embryological research, he described for the first time the vertebrate pharyngeal arches , which become the gill apparatus of fish but become the mammalian jaws and ears" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9974/

C. Evolutionary genetics- Four evolutionary forces (mutation, random genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow) acting within and among populations cause micro-evolutionary change and these processes are sufficient to account for macro-evolutionary patterns, which arise in the longer term from the collective action of these forces. That is, given very long periods of time, the micro-evolutionary forces will eventually give rise to the macro-evolutionary patterns that characterize the higher taxonomic groups. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-genetics/

D. DNA- "A mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life."http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-genetics/
An example of the results of a genetic mutation would be the bipedal hips in Australopithecus

We can also see evidence of similarities between chimpanzees and humans in human chromosome #2
"All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong."
The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2 http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

E. The fossil record. If what we know from above is true, we will see transitional fossils in the fossil record. A prediction was made for the Tiktaalik fossil. The prediction was confirmed accurate. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
There is also a massive transitional fossil record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

F. Analyze your data and draw conclusions: After studying the evidence closely, it is determined that all life on earth is related. This happened by natural selection over millions of years and generations. Desirable traits are selected by natural selection based on the environment a population lives in.

G. Report your results. Was your hypothesis correct? Yes

Now that I have demonstrated everything you left out and failed to address. Here is another opportunity to reconcile your incorrect claim of having addressed it.

 

[ecco]

That's the point, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process of the Darwinist claim. It's not science.

True. There's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view.
True. It's a faith-based view.
No, that doesn't address the issue of the complete lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, of the how/process of Darwinist claims. This is an attempt to push the issue aside and introduce another issue.
B is correct, but it's a faith-based view, just as the how/process claimed by Darwinism is a faith-based view.​

As I said:

There is only one reason that people cannot accept macro-evolution, and that is their deeply held fundamentalist religious beliefs. They must discount science or they must discount (some of) their religious beliefs.

​

This is not "an attempt to push the issue aside and introduce another issue." It is the issue. You, and others, must dismiss science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. The only other alternative is to dismiss some of your religious beliefs, and that's not going to happen.

There are many christians who accept Genesis as allegory and accept evolution as scientific fact.

Those christians who interpret Genesis literally, cannot accept the findings of thousands of scientists in diverse fields such as genetics, biology and paleontology and must try desperately to find holes where there are none.

​

 

[whois]

So far I've seen grandstanding and threats, do you do that often in debates?

he just usually ignores that which he has no answer for.
he has yet to address any of the points in the following post:
Common ancestor between chimps and humans

 

[justlookinla]

False. You copy/pasted from post #511 "Comparative Anatomy" portion of my post and instead of addressing the content of the comparative anatomy portion of the post presented to you, you responded with this: Now I know this is your favorite stalling tactic as you repeat it ad-nauseam.

As I pointed out in my post #1, I'm taking your claims and addressing them one at a time. Now, actually respond to my post #1.

And while you're at it, you made certain claims concerning links you posted. You now seem to wish to not discuss those claims you made concerning the links for some reason. Actually pick out one of your links, offer a reference, something pointing out within the link, the evidence you claim is there. So far, you've not done that. Why not? Didn't you read the content of the link and find the evidence? Why not share it with us?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

As I pointed out in my post #1, I'm taking your claims and addressing them one at a time.

You haven't addressed anything yet. If you'd like to start with comparative anatomy, feel free to do so.

This repeated response is not addressing anything. Its your time wasting tactic.

And again...and again...and again...I'm not asking about common ancestry, about relatedness, I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself. When you identify the process, based on evidence, based on the scientific method in A, we'll examine B

Actually pick out one of your links, offer a reference, something pointing out within the link, the evidence you claim is there

They are available to you in the post above from post #511 in the closed thread. You may choose which one you want to start with.

If you'd like to concede to your religious beliefs instead of addressing the content, I understand and will recognize your right to do so.

 

[justlookinla]

As I said:

There is only one reason that people cannot accept macro-evolution, and that is their deeply held fundamentalist religious beliefs. They must discount science or they must discount (some of) their religious beliefs.​

And I disagree with that. If macro-evolution was based on real science as is micro-evolution, I would have to accept it. It's not though.
​

This is not "an attempt to push the issue aside and introduce another issue." It is the issue. You, and others, must dismiss science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. The only other alternative is to dismiss some of your religious beliefs, and that's not going to happen.

No, the issue is what the issue has been for quite a while now. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process claimed by the Darwinian view (only naturalistic mechanisms, namely mutation+natural selection+time) produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. You're attempting to move the goal posts and play on another field.

There are many christians who accept Genesis as allegory and accept evolution as scientific fact.

What form of evolution? Micro-evolution? Macro-evolution? Theistic evolution? Non-theistic evolution?

Those christians who interpret Genesis literally, cannot accept the findings of thousands of scientists in diverse fields such as genetics, biology and paleontology and must try desperately to find holes where there are none.

​

And you keep trying to move the goal posts and haven't offered any evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process of the production of pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. You may reference the process of micro-evolution and attempt to equate it with an alleged process of macro-evolution, but one is based on evidence of the scientific method (micro-evolution), the other isn't (macro-evolution).

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't addressed anything yet. If you'd like to start with comparative anatomy, feel free to do so.

This repeated response is not addressing anything. Its your time wasting tactic.

I started with your point A in post #1.

They are available to you in the post above from post #511 in the closed thread. You may choose which one you want to start with.

If you'd like to concede to your religious beliefs instead of addressing the content, I understand and will recognize your right to do so.

Are you going to address your baseless claims that the links contain evidence for the how/process of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago? Will you please support that claim with actual content, actual references within a link?

Why did you claim evidence in the links if the evidence isn't there? What were you attempting to accomplish?