How much longer?

[justlookinla]

Yes, exactly. I showed you the process of how. You failed to address it. Address my entire post step by step and explain in detail why you think it's not evidence.

Where? Post number and quote please.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Mutations rarely occur.

Define what you mean by "rarely". As Loudmouth pointed out, every single human being is born with 30 mutations. In 1997, 365,000 babies were born in the world each day. That's over 10 million mutations in the human population every single day. Again, please define what you mean by rare.

When mutations do occur in nature, they are either harmful to the organism or "silent" which means it's harmless. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information. Mutations are harmless or neutral at best, lethal at worst, and never have been proven in nature to be beneficial.

This is incorrect. After nylon was invented, a bacteria evolved that could eat nylon. This was shown to be caused by a mutation that was not in the wild population of the bacteria. Sounds beneficial to me, when an organism can take advantage of a new food source.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Where? Post number and quote please.

Post #511.
Address every point I make throughout the post with a detailed explanation of why you reject it .The response you enjoy using ad-infinitum will not be accepted and I will continue to ask you to address what is being presented to you.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I certainly presented that in the thread which was closed and it was concerning intelligent design and tactile sensory units. If you wish, I'll find it and link it here.

Don't be silly. That's the same thread where you confused hypothesis with observation. You'll just be highlighting your lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method.

I agree. But the how, the process, which Darwinism claims produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago hasn't been presented, based on the scientific method. All that Darwinism has presented is a series of guesses and suppositions concerning the how, the alleged process.

Mutation and natural selection are not guesses and suppositions. You agree that this occurs.

And those are observable in bacteria producing bacteria, finches producing finches, moths producing moths and are based on the scientific method. But not a single solitary bit of evidence can be given concerning the claims of the HOW, the process which Darwinism promotes, namely that mutation and natural selection, coupled with time, produced every life form that's ever lived, including pine trees and humans, from an alleged single life form of long ago. Again, there's no scientific evidence for the view.

Mutation and natural selection is the HOW. There is no indication of any limits which prevent one ancestor from producing, after many, many generations and many many mutations, both pine trees and humans.
It seems that the how has been provided to you. Perhaps you are actually asking for scientific evidence that the HOW (mutation and natural selection) actually performed this seemingly improbable task.

I've agreed probably hundreds of times on the forum that mutation and natural selection occur. I've done that very thing above

See? You do agree with the HOW that has been presented to you. I guess you don't need to ask that question anymore.

Now you're attempting to make a subtle change in the issue. The issue is concerning evidence, based on the scientific method, that mutation and natural selection was the HOW, the process, for the producing of all life we observe today from an alleged single life form (still unknown) of long long ago.

The evidence is that all life forms have DNA and the structure of that DNA for all organisms includes the necessary ingredients to allow cellular functions to occur. All the rest of the DNA is mutations from the essential structure.
Another piece of evidence is that, despite exhaustive investigation, no limit has been found in how many mutations can occur in DNA. Have you or any creation scientist been able to identify a limit to the allowable mutation of DNA?

All you've done is present baseless claims that mutation and natural selection DID produce all life forms we observe today. That's your guess, your faith-based belief for there's no evidence presented which would verify such a view.

You already agree that one population of finches can be changed so it is a population of a different kind of finch from the original population of finches. What prevents that population from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a duck? What prevents that population of finches from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a penguin?

What prevents that population of finches from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a rat?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Mutation and natural selection is the HOW. There is no indication of any limits which prevent one ancestor from producing, after many, many generations and many many mutations, both pine trees and humans.

Prepare to go around in circles with this poster. He doesn't know how the scientific method works. So you can present evidence all day long and he'll just take another lap around the circle.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, exactly. I showed you the process of how. You failed to address it. Address my entire post step by step and explain in detail why you think it's not evidence.

I'm going to take it step by step to make sure we adequately cover everything. Starting with your 3 points...

"1. Make an observation- It appears that the diversity of life is related.

2. Ask a question (s)- Is all life on earth related? If so, HOW did this happen?

3. Make a hypothesis- All living things on earth are related. This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection."
​

You've begun at the outset to once again make this about common ancestry. "Related" and "all living things on earth are related" isn't the issue, as I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.

Now, your next claim in #3...."This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection." This is the issue. You made a claim that the process which created all life we observe today, pine trees and humans, snails and elephants are the result of "random mutations and natural selection".

Now, taking your first point and lets see if it offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for your claim.

"A. Comparative anatomy conclusion- "Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities"http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml"
​

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.

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.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Magic is an illusion and has connotations of the occult. God creating is neither of these.

So miracles are magic performed by God. That clears things up.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Prepare to go around in circles with this poster. He doesn't know how the scientific method works. So you can present evidence all day long and he'll just take another lap around the circle.

Oh, I know that. I just like getting him to the point where, because he has no cogent rebuttal, he parrots out his original claim. We already know this conversation can bear no fruit.

 

[justlookinla]

Don't be silly. That's the same thread where you confused hypothesis with observation. You'll just be highlighting your lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method.

The scientific method is simple. I've shown it time and time again in the graph I posted.

Mutation and natural selection are not guesses and suppositions. You agree that this occurs.

Yes, I agree that mutation and natural selection occurs. The guesses and suppositions are concerning the view that mutations and natural selection somehow produced all life (the HOW, the process) we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Mutation and natural selection is the HOW.

Guesses and suppositions. There's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view.

There is no indication of any limits which prevent one ancestor from producing, after many, many generations and many many mutations, both pine trees and humans.

There's no evidence for it.

It seems that the how has been provided to you.

Where? When? Reference?

Perhaps you are actually asking for scientific evidence that the HOW (mutation and natural selection) actually performed this seemingly improbable task.

No, I'm asking for evidence that mutation and natural selection did produce all life we observe today.

See? You do agree with the HOW that has been presented to you. I guess you don't need to ask that question anymore.

Only for bacteria producing bacteria, finches producing finches, moths producing moths...etc.

The evidence is that all life forms have DNA and the structure of that DNA for all organisms includes the necessary ingredients to allow cellular functions to occur.

Meaningless comment with no relation to the issue at hand.

All the rest of the DNA is mutations from the essential structure.

Prove it.

Another piece of evidence is that, despite exhaustive investigation, no limit has been found in how many mutations can occur in DNA. Have you or any creation scientist been able to identify a limit to the allowable mutation of DNA?

Another meaningless comment with no relation to the issue at hand.

You already agree that one population of finches can be changed so it is a population of a different kind of finch from the original population of finches. What prevents that population from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a duck? What prevents that population of finches from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a penguin?

What prevents that population of finches from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a rat?

All are guesses and suppositions.

 

[justlookinla]

Oh, I know that. I just like getting him to the point where, because he has no cogent rebuttal, he parrots out his original claim. We already know this conversation can bear no fruit.

We know that your post doesn't contain evidence, based on the scientific method. Everyone will realize that if you simply take it one step at a time with me. Hopefully you'll stick around for the examination of your entire post.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You've begun at the outset to once again make this about common ancestry. "Related" and "all living things on earth are related" isn't the issue, as I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.​

Common ancestry is part of the evidence explaining what we'd see if all life on earth was related.

This is the issue. You made a claim that the process which created all life we observe today, pine trees and humans, snails and elephants are the result of "random mutations and natural selection".

And you have agreed that random mutations and natural selection occur right here:

I've agreed probably hundreds of times on the forum that mutation and natural selection occur.

You've answered your own question in regards to "HOW". I provided you the evidence of what resulted from these genetic mutations and natural selection over millions of years and generations.

 

[justlookinla]

Common ancestry is part of the evidence explaining what we'd see if all life on earth was related.

It doesn't address the HOW, the process.

And you have agreed that random mutations and natural selection occur right here:

Yes, they do.

You've answered your own question in regards to

"HOW". I provided you the evidence of what resulted from these genetic mutations and natural selection over millions of years and generations.

No you have not. I expected you to do this. I responded point by point to your post, a bit at a time and you did not respond to my response. You'll not discuss the very post you made claiming you were giving evidence. That's because from the beginning you're not offering evidence.

I'm going to bookmark post #511 and refer back to it for you to identify the evidence you claim you offered.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The scientific method is simple. I've shown it time and time again in the graph I posted.

Showing a picture proves nothing. I could show you a diagram of the construction of an internal combustion engine but unless I accurately describe the parts of the diagram, I haven't shown that I understand how the engine works.
You showed the diagram, sure. However, your explanation of that diagram is where you fail.

Yes, I agree that mutation and natural selection occurs. The guesses and suppositions are concerning the view that mutations and natural selection somehow produced all life (the HOW, the process) we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Explain your objection to mutation and natural selection being the HOW of evolution of all life from a single life form of long ago. What specifically do you think mutation and natural selection could not do?

Guesses and suppositions. There's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view.

What, specifically, about the claim of mutation and natural selection changing the morphology of populations of organisms is in violation of the scientific method? Does the predominant morphology of the populations of finches on the Galapagos change in response to changes in the food source or not?

There's no evidence for it.

That's what I said. There is no evidence of any limits which prevent one ancestor from producing, after many, many generations and many many mutations, both pine trees and humans. Without evidence to the contrary, I would have to conclude that it is likely that there is no limit to the changes in morphology for descendants of any organism. How does that conclusion violate the scientific method?

Where? When? Reference?

The HOW is mutation and natural selection. It has been presented to you and you agree that these processes occur in populations of organisms. Moreover, you have not provided any rebuttal to the conclusion, via the scientific method, that the change in morphology of the populations of organisms is not limited in any way.

No, I'm asking for evidence that mutation and natural selection did produce all life we observe today.

Nested hierarchy in morphology and DNA structure in all life on Earth.

Only for bacteria producing bacteria, finches producing finches, moths producing moths...etc.

This is a claim that is not supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method. Evidence obtained using the scientific method indicates that there is no limit in change in DNA structure in organisms. So there is no limit in change in morphology of populations of organisms. You have evidence that there is a limit to the change in morphology of finches?

Meaningless comment with no relation to the issue at hand.

How is it meaningless to show that all life contains a commonality in how cellular functions occur?

Prove it.

Observation: DNA structure in all life contains a common structure for cellular functions.
Observation: Other parts of the DNA structure differ between organisms.
Observation: Mutations cause differences in DNA structure.
Logical conclusion based on the scientific method is that the differences in structure of DNA in different organisms is caused by mutations.

Another meaningless comment with no relation to the issue at hand.

How is it meaningless to point out that there is no process that limits the possible structural changes that can occur in DNA, when this whole conversation is about one organism undergoing mutations over multiple generations to result in populations of pine trees and populations of humans as that organism's descendants?

All are guesses and suppositions.

No. Those are called questions. Guesses and suppositions traditionally end with a punctuation mark called a "period". That looks like this ".". Questions traditionally end with a punctuation mark called, strangely enough, a "question mark". That looks like this "?".
The only possible guess or supposition would be my contention that you already agree that one population of finches can be changed so it is a population of a different kind of finch from the original population of finches. Do you disagree that mutation and natural selection can make different kinds of finches from one population of finches? (note: that was a question)
Here are some more questions for which I would appreciate an answer:
What prevents that population from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a duck?
What prevents that population of finches from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a penguin?
What prevents that population of finches from changing into a different kind of finch that resembles a rat?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It doesn't address the HOW, the process.

You presented the how yourself. You agree that mutations and natural selection occur. That is the answer to the how we got all the diversity of life from a single cell.

You moved the goal posts so much that you backed yourself into a corner.

The evidence was provided to you through several lines of study.

Explain in detail why genetic mutations and natural selection did not give rise to the diversity of life we see today.
Address the lines of study that I gave to you that demonstrate the results of genetic mutations and natural selection. You yourself have agreed that these mutations and natural selection occur. Explain why the evidence provided to you did not come from these mutations and selection.

The evidence you will need to address is:
1. Comparative anatomy
2. DNA (I'd really like to see you address human chromosome #2)
3. Embryology
4. The fossil record

You backed yourself into a corner. I'm interested to see how you are going to address the evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Without evidence to the contrary, I would have to conclude that it is likely that there is no limit to the changes in morphology for descendants of any organism. How does that conclusion violate the scientific method?

It would be really helpful if he knew how the scientific method worked. He kind of backed himself into a corner by answering his own question to the "how". Are you ready for the goal posts to get moved?

 

[bhsmte]

You presented the how yourself. You agree that mutations and natural selection occur. That is the answer to the how we got all the diversity on life from a single cell.

You moved the goal posts so much that you backed yourself into a corner.

The evidence was provided to you through several lines of study.

Explain in detail why genetic mutations and natural selection did not give rise to the diversity of life we see today.
Address the lines of study that I gave to you that demonstrate the results of genetic mutations and natural selection. You yourself have agreed that these mutations and natural selection occur. Explain why the evidence provided to you did not come from these mutations and selection.

The evidence you will need to address is:
1. Comparative anatomy
2. DNA (I'd really like to see you address human chromosome #2)
3. Embryology
4. The fossil record

You backed yourself into a corner. I'm interested to see how you are going to address the evidence.

He can't address the evidence, it is too dangerous for him.

He will hold onto his strawman arguments, like a child holds onto their favorite blanket.

 

[High Fidelity]

Mod

The thread has been permanently closed due to the amount of flaming going on.

Please remember for future reference to discuss things in a civil manner and to address the content of the post, not the poster and/or their character.


Mod​