Understanding Evolution (2)

[DerelictJunction]

So am I. Here's what's being taught.....

""The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak tree"
"
All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation—that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change."
"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—all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism’s DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random.
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."​

This is an example of the creationist view (the only one allowed) taught in our schools which concludes that humanity was created by ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

1. You didn't cite where you got your quotes from.
2. Point out where in those quotes they used the phrase "only naturalistic mechanisms".
3. Point out in those quotes where it is claimed that the mechanisms mentioned are the only mechanisms that could possibly be involved in evolution.

Per above, it would address exactly what is taught in the creationist view of atheistic Darwinist creationism......oft times referred to as evolution. Again, the term "evolution" isn't a monolithic term, there are many views within the belief system of evolution. When a claim is made in which the impetus for the creation of humanity allows for ONLY the evolutionary view of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago, this claim will be challenged. Frequently when the claim is challenged, an additional claim is made that there is evidence for that particular creationist view, but the evidence is never forthcoming. There's plenty of guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's, possibly's, ect, but not the slightest bit of evidence to support the view that humanity is the result of ONLY, nothing other impetus allowed, no other impetus considered, all other views banned, of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on a single life form of long long ago.

Evidence is not required for a claim that is not made.

Use the terms "evolution" and "evidence" if you wish, get angry if you must, respond with vitriol mockery and ridicule if it makes you feel better about yourself, but each time you attempt to introduce what is ultimately atheistic Darwinist creationism, that view will be challenged.

Well, we tried treating you with respect and show consideration for your point of view. However, we have found that vitriol, mockery and ridicule work better for someone that misrepresents our posts, ignores the presented evidence and openly lies about what has been said.

At this point, ONLY naturalistic mechanisms are allowed though. I'm actually talking about today, not tomorrow. What particular creationist impetus is being taught, allowed, promoted, rejected, banned today.

What particular impetuses have evidence supporting them? Is the theory being taught today rejecting any of those impetuses supported by evidence?
If you answer no other question, you should answer this one: Why should scientists give credence, or teach a proposed impetus or mechanism that has no evidence supporting it?

There is not a single bit of evidence that random/chance mutations are capable of producing a creation as incomprehensibly complex as a human by a series of actions on an alleged single life form from long long ago. Lots of guesses and suppositions supporting the creationist view though.

This is a lie.

The fair thing to do is to look at the beginning, look at the incomprehensible complexity of the human machine (and no, this is not an argument from incredulity), examine random/chance mutations and conclude that it's virtually impossible for random/chance mutations to create such a creation.

Sounds like the classic argument from incredulity to me. Perhaps you would like to explain why the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection cannot deliver the complexity of the human body from a "simpler" single celled species, rather than proclaim it is impossible. I don't expect a coherent, much less cogent response, but, who knows, maybe you'll surprise me.

Of course an answer is required. You just made the claim "the theory of evolution that science and I accept does not limit the process to ONLY those mechanisms so far identified by the evidence". If your use of "evolution" and 'science' does not limit the process to ONLY naturalistic mechanisms, what other mechanisms, what other impetus, other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms do you allow?

Impetuses for which evidence is found.

What other impetus is included in your "evolution" and 'science' other than only naturalistic mechanisms?

No other ones are included in my "evolution" but I await evidence in order to include some. You have any?

I hold to no evolutionary process viewpoint which concludes that humanity was created by ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

That is not what I asked you. Your inability to understand the written word is showing again. You might want to look into that.

No evidence exists for only random/chance mutations producing humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that, so it is irrelevant.

The creationist viewpoint taught in our schools today does deny, completely and totally, without exception, many times litigiously, any challenge to the atheistic Darwinist creationist view of humanity being the product of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on a single life form of long long ago.

This is another lie.
Show them evidence of more impetuses in evolution and scientists will embrace them. Educators will include these new impetuses in their classrooms.
However, claiming the existence of impetuses and mechanisms without evidence to support them, will result in derisive laughter on the part of scientists and educators....And rightly so.

You'll continue to not offer any impetus other than the one allowed in our schools today for which there is no evidence. The creationist view of only atheistic Darwinist creationism.

You really are a one-trick pony aren't you? Why should scientists, educators or I offer any impetus for which there is no evidence?

Why don't doctors include demons as the cause for diseases in their medical school classes. Why don't they include treatments for the removal of demons from their patients?

Point out my "false claims".

That U.S. public schools teach that the impetuses for evolution are ONLY naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Linuxgal]

That U.S. public schools teach that the impetuses for evolution are ONLY naturalistic mechanisms.

Rather, they only teach the natural mechanisms for evolution because supernatural mechanisms have not yet been demonstrated.

 

[justlookinla]

1. You didn't cite where you got your quotes from.

Sorry, my mistake. I posted this earlier and included the source, it was simply an oversight on my part.

An introduction to evolution

Mechanisms of change

Evolution 101: Mutations

And there are lesson plans for schools teaching this creationist view also...

Evolution 101

2. Point out where in those quotes they used the phrase "only naturalistic mechanisms".

Point out where any impetus, other than only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago is presented or allowed. Read the the quotes from the UC - Berkley website that I posted. Show impetus for the creation of 'humans and oak trees' other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

3. Point out in those quotes where it is claimed that the mechanisms mentioned are the only mechanisms that could possibly be involved in evolution.

Point out in the quotes, or anywhere on the Evolution 101 website for that matter, where anything other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms are allowed. Point out the consideration of any other impetus. Any hint of a view of anything other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms which created humanity.

Evidence is not required for a claim that is not made.

The quotes claim that ONLY random/chance mutations are responsible for the changes in all life forms.

Well, we tried treating you with respect and show consideration for your point of view. However, we have found that vitriol, mockery and ridicule work better for someone that misrepresents our posts, ignores the presented evidence and openly lies about what has been said.

I haven't misrepresented anyone's post, there's been not one shred of evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism and the empty personal attacks will not slightly dissuade me from disagreeing with, opposing and exposing the creationist evolutionary view of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

What particular impetuses have evidence supporting them?

None. They're all faith-based creationist views, including atheistic Darwinist creationism. The only faith-based creationist view allowed and taught in schools is the atheistic Darwinist creationist view though. Without evidence.

Is the theory being taught today rejecting any of those impetuses supported by evidence?

The creationist view taught today rejects any creationist view which disagrees with the view that all of life is the product of random/chance mutations.

If you answer no other question, you should answer this one: Why should scientists give credence, or teach a proposed impetus or mechanism that has no evidence supporting it?

That's a great, wonderful, tremendously important question. Thank you for asking it. I ask that question frequently. My answer is that scientists shouldn't give credence, or teach a proposed impetus or mechanism that has no evidence supporting it.

A followup question would be, why then is the creationist view that all of life is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago being taught where there is absolutely no evidence for such a view?

This is a lie.

Just so folks can be sure of what you're claiming to be a lie. Again, there is not a single bit of evidence that random/chance mutations are capable of producing a creation as incomprehensibly complex as a human by a series of actions on an alleged single life form from long long ago. Lots of guesses and suppositions supporting the creationist view though.

Now, if this is a lie, point out the part that's a lie and give evidence that random/chance mutations are capable of producing a creation as incomprehensibly complex as a human by a series of actions on an alleged life form of long long ago. No guesses and suppositions though. No maybe's, could have been's, possibly's. Give us the cold hard facts.

Sounds like the classic argument from incredulity to me. Perhaps you would like to explain why the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection cannot deliver the complexity of the human body from a "simpler" single celled species, rather than proclaim it is impossible. I don't expect a coherent, much less cogent response, but, who knows, maybe you'll surprise me.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that only random/chance mutations created the incomprehensibly complex and varied life forms we observe today. There is absolutely no evidence presented which hints at only random/chance events creating the human machine. Changing beak sizes and dots on moths doesn't cut it.

Impetuses for which evidence is found.

And what would that evidence be? Finches becoming.......finches?

No other ones are included in my "evolution" but I await evidence in order to include some.

Right, you embrace the faith-based view that ONLY a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago is your creator. Classic atheistic Darwinist creationism.

You have any?

Just like you, only faith based ones.

That is not what I asked you. Your inability to understand the written word is showing again. You might want to look into that.

You said..."However, since you refuse to answer my direct questions regarding the level of your acceptance of evolutionary processes, you can take your questions and pack sand."

I gave you my level of acceptance of evolutionary processes. Here it is again.....I hold to no evolutionary process viewpoint which concludes that humanity was created by ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that, so it is irrelevant.

You're trying to make the term "evolution" a monolithic one again, and it isn't. No evidence exists for evolutionary viewpoint that only random/chance mutations produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

This is another lie.
Show them evidence of more impetuses in evolution and scientists will embrace them. Educators will include these new impetuses in their classrooms.
However, claiming the existence of impetuses and mechanisms without evidence to support them, will result in derisive laughter on the part of scientists and educators....And rightly so.

No derisive laughter when the faith-based view that only random/chance mutations created all life from an alleged single life form of long long ago though, is there? You and I both know the response when that particular faith-based creationist view is challenged in our schools, don't we?

You really are a one-trick pony aren't you? Why should scientists, educators or I offer any impetus for which there is no evidence?

Exactly! Why offer the faith-based view that random/chance mutations are capable, and in fact did, created all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago? There's no evidence for the creationist view so why present such a view as fact?

Why don't doctors include demons as the cause for diseases in their medical school classes. Why don't they include treatments for the removal of demons from their patients?

Why do people believe their creator is a mutation?

That U.S. public schools teach that the impetuses for evolution are ONLY naturalistic mechanisms.

And as I've asked probably hundreds of times now, point out anything other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[justlookinla]

Rather, they only teach the natural mechanisms for evolution because supernatural mechanisms have not yet been demonstrated.

What natural mechanisms and what do you mean by evolution?

 

[Linuxgal]

What natural mechanisms and what do you mean by evolution?

Descent with variation (with variation by mutation and sexual selection) culled by competition with other organisms for the available energy.

 

[justlookinla]

Descent with variation (with variation by mutation and sexual selection) culled by competition with other organisms for the available energy.

Only one impetus actually creates a new life form though, right?

 

[Linuxgal]

Only one impetus actually creates a new life form though, right?

The principles of evolution apply to organic chemistry as well as biology, for bioiogy is organic chemistry, and there is a twilight area between the non-living and the living populated with prions and phages and viruses.

 

[justlookinla]

The principles of evolution apply to organic chemistry as well as biology, for bioiogy is organic chemistry, and there is a twilight area between the non-living and the living populated with prions and phages and viruses.

Let me ask it again. Only one impetus actually creates a new life form though, right?

 

[Smidlee]

Rather, they only teach the natural mechanisms for evolution because supernatural mechanisms have not yet been demonstrated.

You are right. It hasn't been demonstrated that supernatural selection can create all the diversity of life we see around us.

 

[HitchSlap]

You are right. It hasn't been demonstrated that supernatural ...

Correct.

 

[Linuxgal]

Attempting to use the term "evolution" as a generic term isn't going to work and each time you attempt to use it as such, there will be the usual challenge to one of the views of evolution.....atheistic Darwinist creationism.

That's fine, since the preferred term is the modern synthesis, which combines Darwin's work with that of Mendel.

 

[justlookinla]

That's fine, since the preferred term is the modern synthesis, which combines Darwin's work with that of Mendel.

"Modern synthesis" is just another name for atheistic Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

The principles of evolution apply to organic chemistry as well as biology, for bioiogy is organic chemistry, and there is a twilight area between the non-living and the living populated with prions and phages and viruses.

Let me ask it again. Only one impetus actually creates a new life form though, right?

And again. Only one impetus actually creates a new life form, right?

 

[justlookinla]

And again. Only one impetus actually creates a new life form, right?

Bump?

 

[Davian]

Bump?

Someone not taking your bait?

 

[justlookinla]

Someone not taking your bait?

Someone maybe missing a post?

 

[Davian]

Someone maybe missing a post?

Keep trolling then.

 

[justlookinla]

Keep trolling then.

Keep up with your antichrist mockery.

 

[Davian]

Keep up with your antichrist mockery.

I cannot possibly compete with yours. I'll stick to pointing out your bad science and straw-man arguments.

 

[Linuxgal]

There is no designer.

If there was, he'd have to explain why men have nipples.