Understanding Evolution (2)

[Loudmouth]

What other mechanisms, other than naturalistic mechanisms, are in play for the creation of humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago?

All of the supernautral mechanisms that have evidence to back them are in play.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's see how well atheistic Darwinist creationism works. First, there's absolutely no evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms are capable of producing the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago. We can go on to point #2 once that's acknowledged.

Still avoiding the evidence, I see.

Let's see how well your theory works.

Both chimps and gorillas have a type of ERV called CERV's (aka PtERV's). This family of retroviral DNA is not found in humans.

Using "common design", should I find CERV insertions at the same locations in the gorilla and chimp genomes? Explain your answer.

When you are finished, I will give the predictions made by the theory of evolution, and why the theory makes those predictions.

If you can't make these predictions, then you can't claim common design.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not just ID but the ENCODE researchers that Junk-DNA believers are up against. ENCORE isn't very supportive of the Junk-DNA myth.

"A recent slew of ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is less than 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious."
On the Immortality of Television Sets: ?Function? in the Human Genome According to the Evolution-Free Gospel of ENCODE

So which is it? Is 70% of the genome protected from any changes through mutations, or is it impossible for there to be deleterious mutations in 70% of the genome? Those are your choices.

The problem is that the ENCODE group uses a definition of function that includes junk DNA. If a stretch of DNA participates in a "biochemical interaction" in the cell, they define it as having function. If leaky RNA polymerase activity produces a few RNA molecules from junk DNA, they count that junk DNA as having function, as one example. Low level transcription does not turn junk DNA into functional DNA. It is still junk DNA. In fact, if you used the ENCODE definition of functional, they would count the trash in your kitchen trash can as functional because it releases odor molecules into the air. They would define real life junk as having function.

"If these results are true there can be no evolution."

Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, I have more if you want it. None of them lend any credence that humanity is the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.



Actually, you're the one who misquoted me, either purposely or ignorantly, and then attempted to introduce ERVs to change the subject.

Didn't work, did it?

You are the one who made the claim that the ERV evidence is consistent with common design. Let's see you prove it.

Both chimps and gorillas have a type of ERV called CERV's (aka PtERV's). This family of retroviral DNA is not found in humans.

Using "common design", should I find CERV insertions at the same locations in the gorilla and chimp genomes? Explain your answer.

When you are finished, I will give the predictions made by the theory of evolution, and why the theory makes those predictions.

If you can't make these predictions, then you can't claim common design.

 

[justlookinla]

Oh yes, it worked quite perfectly thanks!

It drew out of you the absolutely asinine response of "common design", wherein you displayed how inept and uninformed you are in understanding what ERVs are and how they become to be inserted.

It drew out of you total failure to show any evidence whatsoever that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago. You're a member of a not-so-exclusive club of a long line of failures.

You then double up with a cowardly display of subject-changing and goalpost-shifting in a vain attempt to run from the question.

You're not going to address your misquote of my original request, are you? Do you commonly misquote people in your attempt to cover your failure?

So thank you for once again displaying your dishonesty and lack of integrity for all to see.

Well, this really doesn't bother me at all. Your idea of honesty and integrity is to misquote folks then offer failed evidence for your Godless creationist view, a behavior for all to see.

 

[Loudmouth]

It drew out of you total failure to show any evidence whatsoever that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago.

Why should anyone have to evidence a theory they don't accept or hold?

You don't get to change the theory of evolution, and then expect people to evidence your strawman version of the theory.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You're not going to address your misquote of my original request, are you? Do you commonly misquote people in your attempt to cover your failure?
Well, this really doesn't bother me at all. Your idea of honesty and integrity is to misquote folks then offer failed evidence for your Godless creationist view, a behavior for all to see.

I don't believe he misquoted you. Maybe I missed it. Could you point out where that was done?

 

[justlookinla]

And for those interested in an HONEST discussion about the many evidence trails for evolutionary processes, let me point out that the phenomena surrounding the appearance of ERVs in the genomes of primates and other animal groups provide overwhelming evidence for the past existence of common ancestors for all living things.

And for those who are interested in an HONEST discussion about the complete lack of evidence for only naturalistic mechanisms creating all life from an alleged single life form from long long ago, let me point out that ERVs do not, I repeat, do NOT offer a smidgen of evidence for that particular atheistic Darwinist creationist view. Anytime someone offers such 'evidence', they're doing nothing more than attempting to change the focus from the guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

In fact, there are many in the field of biological research who observe that, even if we did not have the mountains of evidence provided by other streams, even if not one fossil had ever been unearthed, the evidence provided by ERVs would be by itself a slam-dunk justification for the theory of common ancestry.

ERVs nor any of the other alleged 'mountains of evidence' address the creationist view of chance mutations creating humanity.

 

[justlookinla]

H2O is also a code that has information and instructions just like DNA. Even more, each individual atom also has a code, information, and instructions. Here is a chart of that information:

Electron orbital position in an atom are codes in the same way that base positions in DNA polymers are codes.

This is more than about codes, even though the complexity of the DNA code is tremendously more complex than an H2O molecule. From the University of Washington....

"Scientists have discovered a second code hiding within DNA. This second code contains information that changes how scientists read the instructions contained in DNA and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease.

Genome scientist Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos.
Genome scientist Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos led a team that discovered a second code hidden in DNA.

A research team led by Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine, made the discovery. The findings are reported in the Dec. 13 issue of Science.

Read the research paper. Also see commentary in Science, “The Hidden Codes that Shape Protein Evolution.”

The work is part of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, also known as ENCODE. The National Human Genome Research Institute funded the multi-year, international effort. ENCODE aims to discover where and how the directions for biological functions are stored in the human genome.

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long."​

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

You're wildly flailing about in your attempt to equate the code, information and instructions which are present in DNA with the H2O molecule. The H2O molecule does not contain the life building, instructional information code of DNA and your suggestion that it does has no support whatsoever. If you would, simply post a reference where H2O and DNA have the same code, information and instructions.

 

[justlookinla]

You didn't answer. Once again, you don't see valves, chambers, power, inter-machine communication, information, sensors,ruggedness, inherent healing ability in human designs?

The things that evidence evolution are not seen in human designs.

That's not what I asked you. Yet again....you don't see valves, chambers, power, inter-machine communication, information, sensors, ruggedness, inherent healing ability in human designs?

 

[justlookinla]

What other mechanisms, other than naturalistic mechanisms, are in play for the creation of humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago?

All of the supernautral mechanisms that have evidence to back them are in play.

I'm honestly enjoying this.

Yet again....what other mechanisms, other than naturalistic mechanisms, are in play for the creation of humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago?

 

[justlookinla]

Still avoiding the evidence, I see.

Let's see how well your theory works.

Both chimps and gorillas have a type of ERV called CERV's (aka PtERV's). This family of retroviral DNA is not found in humans.

Using "common design", should I find CERV insertions at the same locations in the gorilla and chimp genomes? Explain your answer.

When you are finished, I will give the predictions made by the theory of evolution, and why the theory makes those predictions.

If you can't make these predictions, then you can't claim common design.

If you can't give evidence for only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity from a single life form of long long ago, then you're only offering atheistic Darwinist creationist guesses and suppositions.

 

[justlookinla]

Why should anyone have to evidence a theory they don't accept or hold?

You don't accept or hold to the view that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago? If not, what other impetuses are present other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms?

Anything?

You don't get to change the theory of evolution, and then expect people to evidence your strawman version of the theory.

One does not get the chance to offer a creationist view that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago and not offer evidence for the creationist view.

 

[justlookinla]

I don't believe he misquoted you. Maybe I missed it. Could you point out where that was done?

No, it wasn't you who misquoted me, it was someone else. Sorry if I claimed it was you, my mistake.

 

[Loudmouth]

only naturalistic mechanisms

Again, that is your strawman.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm honestly enjoying this.

Yet again....what other mechanisms, other than naturalistic mechanisms, are in play for the creation of humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago?

I just told you. All of the evidenced mechanisms are included. No theory excludes the possibility of unevidenced mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

only naturalistic mechanisms

Again, that is your strawman.

It's time you learned how to honestly portray science and stop with the misrepresentations.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't accept or hold to the view that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago?

I DO NOT hold the view that there is evidence for only naturalistic mechanisms. What I claim is that all of the evidence we do have supports naturalistic mechanisms. If you can't understand what those statements mean, then you need to take a step back and ask more questions.

One does not get the chance to offer a creationist view that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago and not offer evidence for the creationist view.

Do you hold the atheistic view that God created life?

 

[DerelictJunction]

And for those who are interested in an HONEST discussion about the complete lack of evidence for only naturalistic mechanisms creating all life from an alleged single life form from long long ago, let me point out that ERVs do not, I repeat, do NOT offer a smidgen of evidence for that particular atheistic Darwinist creationist view. Anytime someone offers such 'evidence', they're doing nothing more than attempting to change the focus from the guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

You say this but I don't understand how you conclude that Loudmouth's presentation of the ERV insertions in the same locations in the genomes of chimps and humans being evidence of common ancestry, is a distraction from the "guesses and suppositions". In what way is it a distraction?
Name one guess or supposition and tell us how you conclude it is a guess or supposition.

ERVs nor any of the other alleged 'mountains of evidence' address the creationist view of chance mutations creating humanity.

ERV's don't support common ancestry? What is it about the 200,000 common ERV's between chimpanzees and humans that preclude the conclusion that they are in the same locations in the genome because of common ancestry?

 

[DerelictJunction]

You don't accept or hold to the view that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago? If not, what other impetuses are present other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms?

I hold the view that the natural mechanism are the only impetuses that we have evidence for. I also hold the view that the natural mechanisms we have evidence for are able by themselves to have created humanity from a single life form.
However, because there is some randomness in the process (mutations), I don't discount the possibility that some particular mutations could have been put in place by a, thus far unevidenced, outside influence.

One does not get the chance to offer a creationist view that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago and not offer evidence for the creationist view.

Evidence supporting the naturalistic mechanisms has been provided to you and you dismiss them out of hand by claiming that the theory states that only naturalistic mechanisms are involved. That is not what the theory states. Your lack of recognition of that fact, doesn't change it.