Understanding Evolution (2)

[justlookinla]

Again, that is your strawman.

That's your evasion.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Only naturalistic mechanisms? Something else?

 

[justlookinla]

Again, that is your strawman.

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

Again, that's your evasion.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's your evasion.

The evasion is on your part. You refuse to address the real theory of evolution. Instead, you change the theory in order to evade a discussion on the real theory.

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that there are only natural mechanisms. Nowhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only naturalistic mechanisms? Something else?

Already explained ad nauseum.

When you are capable of having an honest adult conversation, let us know.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

I understand perfectly what those statements mean. They mean that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life from from long long ago according to the guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Do you hold the atheistic view that God created life?

No, I hold the theistic view that God created all life we observe today.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand perfectly what those statements mean. They mean that only naturalistic mechanisms . . .

You do not understand what those sentences mean. Try again.

No, I hold the theistic view that God created all life we observe today.

False. You are an atheist because you don't believe that Vishnu created all life. Atheists don't believe Vishnu created life, and you don't believe it either. That makes you an atheist. You are an atheistic creationist.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

The guess and supposition that only naturalistic mechanisms, random/chance mutations, created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. I conclude that it's a guess/supposition because of the fact there's no evidence for such a creationist view.

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?

ERVs don't support the atheistic Darwinist creationist viewpoint of creation of humanity by random/chance mutations.

 

[Loudmouth]

The guess and supposition that only naturalistic mechanisms . . .

No one is making such a supposition. Why do you continue with this lie?

 

[bhsmte]

No one is making such a supposition. Why do you continue with this lie?

You know why. We all know why.

 

[justlookinla]

I hold the view that the natural mechanism are the only impetuses that we have evidence for.

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms, mutation/chance, is capable of creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

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.

Prove it.

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.

There is complete randomness/chance in the process according to some views. Nothing but random/chance mutations on which natural selection then acted. Only random/chance mutations created the new life forms though.

Evidence supporting the naturalistic mechanisms has been provided to you

No it hasn't.

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.

Then give an example of anything other than ONLY random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago creating humanity. State the theory which involves impetuses other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms as the sole creator of all life we observe today.

 

[justlookinla]

No one is making such a supposition. Why do you continue with this lie?

Suppose something other than only naturalistic mechanisms then.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms, mutation/chance, is capable of creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

We would be interested in seeing evidence for any other mechanisms. Until you present that evidence, those are going to be the only mechanisms included in the theory.

Sorry, but you don't get to make stuff up and pretend it holds as much weight as evidenced mechanisms.

There is complete randomness/chance in the process according to some views. Nothing but random/chance mutations on which natural selection then acted. Only random/chance mutations created the new life forms though.

Can you show us an example of non-random mutations? If not, all of the evidence we have points to random mutations.

Then give an example of anything other than ONLY random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago creating humanity.

Why should we be responsible for supporting your claims? Isn't that your job as an atheistic creationist?

 

[Loudmouth]

Suppose something other than only naturalistic mechanisms then.

Already have. A supernatural creator would be able to create species that violate a nested hierarchy. In fact, we would expect a non-nested hierarchy if supernatural creation is true since it is different than natural evolution which does produce a nested hierarchy.

Special creation and separate creation have been considered from the very start. It just so happens that the evidence doesn't support it.

 

[justlookinla]

We would be interested in seeing evidence for any other mechanisms. Until you present that evidence, those are going to be the only mechanisms included in the theory.

Sorry, but you don't get to make stuff up and pretend it holds as much weight as evidenced mechanisms.

What evidenced mechanisms? Random/chance mutation creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago? There is absolutely no evidence for that particular creationist view.

Can you show us an example of non-random mutations? If not, all of the evidence we have points to random mutations.

No more than you can give us an example of only random/chance mutations producing new life forms.

Why should we be responsible for supporting your claims? Isn't that your job as an atheistic creationist?

My job is to point out the faith based claims of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Already have. A supernatural creator would be able to create species that violate a nested hierarchy.

A supernatural creator can design and create however He wishes.

In fact, we would expect a non-nested hierarchy if supernatural creation is true since it is different than natural evolution which does produce a nested hierarchy.

We would expect God's creation to be incomprehensibly complex, which it is.

Special creation and separate creation have been considered from the very start. It just so happens that the evidence doesn't support it.

Neither is there evidence to support the faith based atheistic Darwinist creationist view that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidenced mechanisms?

You can start with the two classic papers that hold all of the evidence you need for random mutations.

http://www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.full.pdf

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/bbabfj.pdf

Once you understand those papers, then we can discuss how it applies to detecting random mutations in the evolution of human kind.

Random/chance mutation creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago?

You forgot natural selection.

There is absolutely no evidence for that particular creationist view.

Which makes you an atheist.

No more than you can give us an example of only random/chance mutations producing new life forms.

What I can produce is evidence for random mutations which is more than you can do for supernatural mechanisms.

My job is to point out the faith based claims of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Random mutations and natural selection are based on evidence, not faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since justlookinla has refused to do so, let's see how spectacularly "common design" fails at making predictions in the real world.

Justlookinla has proclaimed that common design will put ERV's at the same location in the genomes of two species.

Evolution makes a different prediction. Evolution predicts a phylogeny of similarities AND differences. The only reason that ERV's should be shared at the same location is if the ERV were inherited from a common ancestor. Let's look at the distribution of CERV insertions across species. As it turns out, CERV insertions are not found in humans. Humans share the same common ancestor with chimps and gorillas. This means that the CERV insertions were NOT inherited by common ancestry and should be found at different positions in the chimp and gorilla genome.

So which is right? Common design predicts the same location, and evolution predicts different locations. The answer? They are found at different locations, just as evolution predictions and contrary to the predictions of common design. Natural mechanisms are supported, and supernatural mechanisms are not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

 

[bhsmte]

Since justlookinla has refused to do so, let's see how spectacularly "common design" fails at making predictions in the real world.

Justlookinla has proclaimed that common design will put ERV's at the same location in the genomes of two species.

Evolution makes a different prediction. Evolution predicts a phylogeny of similarities AND differences. The only reason that ERV's should be shared at the same location is if the ERV were inherited from a common ancestor. Let's look at the distribution of CERV insertions across species. As it turns out, CERV insertions are not found in humans. Humans share the same common ancestor with chimps and gorillas. This means that the CERV insertions were NOT inherited by common ancestry and should be found at different positions in the chimp and gorilla genome.

So which is right? Common design predicts the same location, and evolution predicts different locations. The answer? They are found at different locations, just as evolution predictions and contrary to the predictions of common design. Natural mechanisms are supported, and supernatural mechanisms are not.

When you make stuff up, these are the problems you run into.

 

[Smidlee]

When you make stuff up, these are the problems you run into.

Yeap . Like assuming ERV are junk or the nonsense that a mythological creature continually catch and pass it on viruses to it's offspring which finally lead to one offspring going to Harvard and others went ape. It's silly to think evolution kept all the junk around while performing miracles of creating man. The same miracle of the whale kept it's boobs and hair with all the transformations it had to go through according the evolution myth.

Here's the evolution theory in a nutshell : "Stuff happens". Atheist doesn't know themselves to realize their own faith.