Not one of them limit the impetuses to only naturalistic mechanisms.
Just to be clear on my claim, and even though I've posted it hundreds of times now, let me repeat it one more time......humanity, and all life we observe today, was created by ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.
They simply don't mention possible mechanisms that have no evidence supporting them (IPU's, FSM's, Leprechauns, fairies, God, Allah, Jesus, Satan....etc)
Yes, they do. In the "Causes of Mutations" section of the site, ONLY naturalistic mechanisms are revealed as the source of random mutations...
"The causes of mutations
Mutations happen for several reasons.
DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.
Following cell division, the copied DNA is imperfect
External influences can create mutations
Radioactive signMutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation."
The causes of mutations
I've asked you time and time again to point out an impetus other than ONLY naturalistic impetuses which created all life we observe today from an alleged life form from long long ago.
Evading the question again, I see. I asked you to point out where any of those quotes said there could be no other mechanisms involved in evolution besides the ones they have evidence for.
I gave a reference above. Additionally, the random/chance element of mutations, which is the only creative element in atheistic Darwinist creationism, offers yet another baseless view that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.
I don't have to, because they don't limit the mechanisms to ONLY the ones they have evidence for. Are you really so challenged that you fail to see the difference?
Without exception, 100% of the time, they limit the mechanism whereby all life was created to one and only one impetus....random/chance mutations. Natural selection does not produce new life forms, it only acts on the new life forms allegedly created by random/chance mutation therefore isn't part of the creative impetus in atheistic Darwinist creationism.
You haven't shown any quotes that make that claim. I believe you know you haven't shown it.
If you would, please identify any other impetus, other than only random/chance naturalistic mechanisms in the following quote.....
"External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation."
The causes of mutations
You have been shown the evidence of common ERV locations in the DNA of chimpanzees and humans. You simply claim that it is not evidence without providing a shred of support for your claim. Since you, nor anyone else on this forum has effectively countered the ERV evidence, claiming that no evidence has been provided is a lie.
ERVs offer not one bit of evidence that ONLY random/chance mutations created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. I've asked repeatedly how ERVs are evidence for the creative impetus which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago, but I've never gotten an answer. 'Yer a liar' isn't an answer, you know.
Evidence has been presented to you and you have dismissed it without even providing any reasoning for your dismissal. So, your claim is without merit and you know it is without merit. Therefore, you are knowingly making a false claim. IOW, you are lying.
'Yer a liar' isn't evidence. Actually present something which proves that ONLY random/chance mutations acting on a single life form from long long ago created humanity and all life we observe today.
This is not true. You provide evidence that mutations are not random and science will, at a minimum, investigate it.
There you go, offering the view that ONLY random/chance mutations created humanity. Got any other impetus to offer?
If the evidence can be verified, science will include the non-chance mechanism in the theory.
Science hasn't provided the evidence that ONLY random/chance mutations are capable of producing the incomprehensibly complex and varied life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.
Guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's and possibly's are nothing more than baseless faith-based views of atheistic Darwinist creationism.
Even if the mutations were not random, humans and chimpanzees still have a common ancestor.
As well as whales and oak trees? All created by ONLY random/chance mutations?
It's nice that we agree, but why do I feel that the wheels are about to come off this vehicle we are riding in.
And there they go...wheels everywhere! You had to bring in this inaccurate statement that you have failed to support.
You know this is inaccurate but you insist on misrepresenting the theory of evolution and what is taught in school.
I haven't misrepresented anything. I've posted the claims from the UC - Berkley website along with supporting links. The offer a lesson plans for teachers also.
Yet you have refused to provide one example of a guess or supposition used in the theory, despite repeated requests to do so.
Therefore, you are spouting a claim that you know is false.
Here's a guess...a supposition.....
"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."
That's the atheistic Darwinist creationist mantra of humanity being the creation of ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.
There's no evidence for that particular faith-based creationist view.
Over 200,000 ERV's are in the same locations in the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. You haven't provided any rebuttal to that evidence, merely claims of common construction materials without supporting why that applies to ERV's. You won't even seriously address one piece of evidence.
When you wish to point out why that is evidence that humanity is the creation of random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago, I'd sure be interested in seeing it.
So, why should we make any effort to provide you with more?
You've provided me with nothing.
No one here has claimed that "only random/chance mutations created".
The UC - Berkley claims that. But more importantly, what other than random/chance mutations created you?
We have claimed that mutations created, and provided evidence of such.
What did mutations create? Finches becoming finches? Moths becoming moths? Neither are new life forms and offer not the slightest bit of evidence that ONLY random/chance mutations created the incomprehensibly complex and varied life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.
Perhaps you should find someone who has a better grasp of the English language and have them explain the difference to you.
Perhaps you should offer any creative impetus, other than ONLY random/chance mutations, which created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.
No. Apes becoming apes with greater complex thinking capacity.
Great. By ONLY random/chance mutations?
Actually, I don't embrace that. I have made it clear to you that if evidence supported directed mutation, I would accept that.
Would you point out the part of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long which which you disagree?
You have any evidence for directed mutation? I didn't think so.
None. There's circumstantial evidence.
Yet you claim that humans were created from dust by a supreme being 6000 years ago.
That's simply a faith-based view as is atheistic Darwinist creationism.
Classic creationistic god atheism.
Would you mind defining this?
I asked if you had evidence. That was implying "scientific evidence". Do you have any?
I have as much as those who espouse atheistic Darwinist creationism.
Well, then you accept that humans evolved from an ape ancestor that they have in common with chimpanzees. You simply believe that the mutations which caused that evolution were not random.
And you believe you're the product of ONLY random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.
K.
So, what's your problem with chimpanzees and humans having over 200,000 ERV's in the exact same locations in their DNA? That simply shows common ancestry and says nothing about the randomness or non-randomness of the mutations that led to the two separate species of ape.
The "saying nothing" about randomness or non-randomness. That's a perfect example of ERVs not being the evidence I've asked repeatedly for.
And you're trying, once again, to attribute that claim to the theory of evolution when you have been shown time and again that the theory states no such thing.
We know that what you claim is taught in schools is not actually taught there. If it were, you would have produced evidence of such by now.
I have. Once again, if you can find any other impetus, other than by ONLY random/chance mutation, please reveal it......
Welcome to Evolution 101!
Mutations appear to be random.
All mutations ARE random/chance according to this evolutionary view....
Mutations
If you can find any impetus other than random/chance impetus, reveal it.
All testing with DNA, thus far, indicates that randomness prevails. Until evidence is provided that they are not random, the results we have from scientific testing will be taught.
The view that all of life is the result of only random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago is a pseudo-scientific view not based on the scientific method.
You think mutations don't cause changes in an population of organisms?
Not at all.
And we've pointed out that the theory doesn't state that. So, a defense of the theory of evolution doesn't require a defense of that claim. Again, please find someone who understands English and request that they explain to you the difference between your claim and what the theory of evolution states.
I'm a simple man, all I ask for is evidence that ONLY random/chance mutations created the incomprehensibly complex and varied life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.
