Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Define science and then when you are done you can define evolution. Then we can talk like adults who take the subject matter seriously instead of fielding these pedantic, fallacious one liners.
Have a nice day
Mark
Because they represent over 90 million base pairs, some millions of base pairs long.
Both the total number of candidate human insertions/chimpanzee deletions (blue) and the number of bases altered (red) are shown. FIGURE 6. Length distribution of large indel events (> 15 kb), as determined using paired-end sequences from chimpanzee mapped against the human genome.
90 million base pairs of divergence, some sequences in the millions of base pairs that include the sequence that includes the HAR1f sequence and Pterv sequence that represent at least a million base pairs. I see a problem with the absence of an argument for this even being conceivable.
You are all over the road, the taxonomic philosophy you are appealing to has a long history and you could care less about the substantive foundation. It's sad really.
I need nothing of the sort, you have one paper published before the human genome paper that proves nothing.
No you didn't, you just echoed their naturalistic assumptions and I have yet to see even the most cursory exposition. Actually not so much as a quote or even a proper citation. You have nothing as usual.
"The completion of the human genome sequence has made possible genome-wide studies of retroviral DNA integration. Here we report an analysis of 3,127 integration site sequences from human cells."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15314653
You have:
We compared retroviral vectors derived from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), avian sarcoma-leukosis virus (ASLV), and murine leukemia virus (MLV).ERVs that have severely deleterious effects. If this is going to have devastating consequences somatic cells it would be amplified by orders of magnitude in germ cells and that is painfully obvious.
Ignoring it? I'm basing my argument on it.
Because they are not germ line invasions and they have devastating deleterious effects. That's why LM!
That's a flat out fallacy, if it's an argument from similarity thought to be from common descent it's called homology. You don't know your semantics, even when you are playing a semantically based shell game.
Gross lack of substance...
snip the pedantic one liners...
Identification of someone based on DNA and lineage are two very different things. A typical equivocation fallacy.
You don't know the meaning of science, evolution or how the term homology is used in biology and you are trying to make a homology argument. That's the problem.
No, you just don't have any.
You don't get to draw a conclusion based on a false assumption.
Only 29% are identical and on average each lineage requires a single amino acid substitution. Impossible given the deleterious nature of mutations and the enormity of change required.
Nonsense!!!!!
No it's not!!!
NO ITS NOT!!!! See how easy that is?
You don't have an argument, I was being generous calling it a homology argument.
Melted down quick on this one. It's so much fun watching it boil down to nothing so fast.
That's a strawman argument, we can talk about the effects of mutations when you finally start using source material and actually talking about mutations.
You actually had a point in there but I would be willing to bet you will never know what it was. I promise you, I will never be the one to tell you.
This has been like a gift... sooooo much fun. Thanks LM.
Have a nice day
Mark
-snip-
I know exactly what the term means as well as the history and philosophy of modern science. You don't have a clue what the term means but you want to pretend you are arguing for and from science. Your not, now why don't you find a definition of science and when you are done you can look up evolution. Then you can use terms you actually understand which will help to alleviate your dependence on pedantic, fallacious arguments from science, falsely so called.
Have a nice day
Mark
That's right, I have a degree in Liberal Arts with a big interest in theology and philosophy. Let me guess, you don't have a definition for science all you know is that if you are opposed to anything remotely theistic you think you are being scientific. You just don't have a clue what the word means. Define the word, what is science?
You know so much more about science then me then a basic definition should be easy, except you didn't do that, you chose instead a fallacious rhetorical taunt. It never fails.
Have a nice day
Mark
No it's not about science and yes, I agree with that attitude it's pointless. Mainly because you didn't even try to make a point you just decided to insult me because of my religion. Since you know so much and I know so little you should be able to define science. Because when you do, whether you post it or not, you'll find that it's essentially:
With this definition science went from the deductive logic of Aristotelian Scholasticism to the inductive approach we would recognize as empirical. Even when it was inverted, the definition of science did not change. What does the word mean?
Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. (Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis. 1726)
Notice the element of cause and effect, Newton also had an argument for the cause of our solar system:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One. [...] This Being Governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ, or Universal Ruler (Newton, General Scholium)
Clearly the man who introduced calculus to science and crowned the Scientific Revolution with the Principia believed God was a sufficient to explain the appearance of natural things. Now to suggest God is creator or even designer insights fallacious, inflammatory rhetoric. What changed is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by elusively naturalistic causes:
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,Conceived in mythic verse, culmination in On the Origin of Species, it would be described as one long argument against creation in the Modern Synthesis:
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
(The Temple of Nature, Erasmus Darwin)
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)During the Scientific Revolution atheism was rare, now it's equivocated as science and what changed that was Darwinism. Not science.
It's nothing new for men to reject God in their understanding:
Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors (Sir Isaac Newton)
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom. 1:20-23)Science means knowledge, literally. But now it's fashionable to reject God as the first cause of the universe and life. Science as we know it came to be an inductive approach to investigating nature, not the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.
This controversy isn't between religion and science, it's between essential Christian theism and Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. If you don't make the first assumption of universal common descent there is a second assumption that automatically kicks in that you are therefore ignorant of science. It's called an equivocation fallacy, pretending two very different things are the same.
So the challenge remains, define science. But your not going to do that because you know that when you do God as first cause is perfectly compatible with science, just as Newton did.
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Francis Bacon)Francis Bacon at the dawn of the Scientific Revolution speaks of the idols of the mind, the fourth being the idol of the theater. Today that theater is Darwinism, I'm not ignorant of science as you suppose, I'm opposed to this Darwinian theater of the mind.
Have a nice day
Mark
In the world we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself, because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so therefore there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Isaac Newton thought otherwise, which I showed you in no uncertain terms. It has a place in Principia but not in modern science. A term, I remind you, you have failed to define.
Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. (Principia, Isaac Newton)The cause being God is sufficient to explain the created order, there is nothing inherent in science that excludes God as the Primary Mover, aka First Cause. As far as Metaphysics have you never heard of String Theory, it's an attempt at a unified theory of physics, it is almost pure metaphysics. Metaphysics isn't necessarily miraculous, the point of it is to identify principles that transcend all reality.
Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. (Oxford Dictionaries)Now you have misused yet another word. First it was science which you refused to define then to ignore the in depth discussion. Then you misused metaphysics which is a legitimate branch of philosophy, obviously useful in science since the quest for a unified theory was developed into String Theory. Now you want to mention TOE which isn't really a theory, evolution is a phenomenon. It's defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, not the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.
Darwinism, what you are equivocating with science and evolution is actually metaphysics. It's not as far reaching as String Theory but it's a unified theory of Biology.
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. (D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial)You have went straight to the ad hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself (Wikipedia)These discussions always end up here, which is when, I know you have nothing left. What is distinctive about your posts is you never had anything else. You call that science, I call that fallacious.
Have a nice day
Mark
