Understanding Evolution (2)

[Loudmouth]

Yeap . Like assuming ERV are junk . . .

No one is making that assumption. Science is aware of many functional ERV's. However, the vast majority are accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift which is strong evidence for a lack of function.

Also, nothing about the ERV evidence for common ancestry rests on whether or not they are functional. ERV's evidence common ancestry because of their LOCATION in each genome, not their lack of function.

or the nonsense that a mythological creature continually caught and pass it on to it's offspring which finally lead to one offspring going to Harvard and others went ape.

For each ERV, there is only a single infection, not a continual infection in every generation.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the evidence.

It's silly to think Evolution kept all the junk around while performing miracles of creating man just like somehow the whale kept it's boobs and hair with all the transformations it had to go through according the evolution myth.

Why is it silly for non-functional DNA to stay in the genome? What are the selective pressures and mechanisms that would remove it?

 

[Smidlee]

No one is making that assumption. Science is aware of many functional ERV's. However, the vast majority are accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift which is strong evidence for a lack of function.

Also, nothing about the ERV evidence for common ancestry rests on whether or not they are functional. ERV's evidence common ancestry because of their LOCATION in each genome, not their lack of function.

Scientist are now starting to realize the living cell has the ability to move around code on purpose . Atheist assumes it's all random.

For each ERV, there is only a single infection, not a continual infection in every generation.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the evidence.

The germ cell has to be pass alone to it's offspring without the cell trigger it's own death.

Why is it silly for non-functional DNA to stay in the genome? What are the selective pressures and mechanisms that would remove it?

There is a long term cost for carrying around all that junk which the almighty natural selection should have been able to remove.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Here's your story. You misrepresent the theory. You do not tell the truth of what the theory really states.

The theory does not say "stuff happens" and you know it. The theory predicts a nested hierarchy. Always has. Those predictions are testable. Just because you don't like science does not mean you get to misrepresent it.

 

[Smidlee]

Here's your story. You misrepresent the theory. You do not tell the truth of what the theory really states.

The theory does not say "stuff happens" and you know it. The theory predicts a nested hierarchy. Always has. Those predictions are testable. Just because you don't like science does not mean you get to misrepresent it.

You believe the theory predicts a nested hierarchy. The fossil record is totally against the theory and always has. It doesn't explain the nested hierarchy it just assumes it.

 

[bhsmte]

You believe the theory predicts a nested hierarchy. The fossil record is totally against the theory and always has. It doesn't explain the nested hierarchy it just assumes it.

You are indeed, a funny guy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientist are now starting to realize the living cell has the ability to move around code on purpose .

References? Papers? Evidence? Mechanisms?

Atheist assumes it's all random.

We have evidence that it is random, evidence that you continue to ignore.

REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS

Mutations that confer antibiotic resistance occur in the ABSENCE of antibiotics. Those mutations are occuring in the background whether antibiotics are present or not. That is the very definition of random mutation with respect to fitness.

The germ cell has to be pass alone to it's offspring without the cell trigger it's own death.

Why is that a problem?

There is a long term cost for carrying around all that junk which the almighty natural selection should have been able to remove.

What is the long term cost? Please try to use something other than bare assertions. Link to real science and real research.

 

[Loudmouth]

You believe the theory predicts a nested hierarchy.

We OBSERVE evolution producing a nested hierarchy in real, living populations.

mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains

The fossil record is totally against the theory and always has.

Show me a single fossil that goes against the theory.

It doesn't explain the nested hierarchy it just assumes it.

The mechanisms of vertical inheritance, speciation, random mutation, and natural selection perfectly explain the nested hierarchy. If you can't understand why these mechanisms would lead to a nested hierarchy, then you need to start with 6th grade biology and start reading.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria. No new life form to see here, folks.

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

And....bacteria are bacteria are bacteria.

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

Once you give any evidence that only random/chance mutations was the impetus for creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago, we can discuss it.

You forgot natural selection.

Natural selection doesn't produce new life forms. It only acts on existing life forms.

Which makes you an atheist.

Explain how embracing the view that humanity was created by God makes me an atheist. This should be interesting.

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

You cannot produce evidence that random/chance mutations created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Bacteria becoming bacteria, moths becoming moths and finches becoming finches isn't' an example of random/chance mutations producing new life forms.

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

The creation of humanity by only random/chance mutations is based on faith. There's no evidence for the view.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

I've claimed the designer can product whatever design He wishes.

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,

No it doesn't. Common design predicts using common building blocks throughout the common design.

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.

Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans

Doesn't have one thing to do with evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism's view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Atheistic Darwinist creationism predicts that a human is nothing more than a sack of various chemicals, fortunately arranged, by random chance.

 

[Smidlee]

We OBSERVE evolution producing a nested hierarchy in real, living populations.

mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains



Show me a single fossil that goes against the theory.



The mechanisms of vertical inheritance, speciation, random mutation, and natural selection perfectly explain the nested hierarchy. If you can't understand why these mechanisms would lead to a nested hierarchy, then you need to start with 6th grade biology and start reading.

That same mechanisms can explain if there weren't any nested hierarchy. It can explain away any pattern including stasis in the fossil record which should have falsified evolution a long time ago. Am I suppose to be impress with a theory that explain "A" and "not-A" at the same time. The emperor is naked.

Atheist has to believe our cells which shown to be extremely efficient is carrying around a pile of "junk DNA" which would be extremely inefficient.

 

[Euler]

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.



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

Then please explain how the observed phenomenon of 200,000 separate ERV insertions in the genomes of chimps are found in EXACTLY THE SAME LOCATIONS in the genomes of humans, if they are not linked through some form of common ancestor.

And, while you're at it, please also explain why the few insertions that aren't in the same location just happen to be the infections which occurred AFTER the 'split' from the common ancestor!

Please, please tell me again that your God 'designed' it that way. That he went to the painstaking effort of arranging all of those ERV insertions just so that it would appear that the genuses are linked through a common ancestor. Please explain to me why he would act as the world's greatest deceiver!

 

[dad]

Then please explain how the observed phenomenon of 200,000 separate ERV insertions in the genomes of chimps are found in EXACTLY THE SAME LOCATIONS in the genomes of humans, if they are not linked through some form of common ancestor.

No need to seek some present state explanation. You don't know. That is what matters.

 

[justlookinla]

Then please explain how the observed phenomenon of 200,000 separate ERV insertions in the genomes of chimps are found in EXACTLY THE SAME LOCATIONS in the genomes of humans, if they are not linked through some form of common ancestor.

Explain how humanity was created by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long long ago and give the evidence for your view.

And, while you're at it, please also explain why the few insertions that aren't in the same location just happen to be the infections which occurred AFTER the 'split' from the common ancestor!

Please, please tell me again that your God 'designed' it that way. That he went to the painstaking effort of arranging all of those ERV insertions just so that it would appear that the genuses are linked through a common ancestor. Please explain to me why he would act as the world's greatest deceiver!

When you can design a living machine like the incomprehensibly complex human machine, we'll talk. Until then, you're simply speaking from a position of complete ignorance.

Oh....and don't misquote me please. You're bad about doing that and then not taking personal responsibility for your actions.

 

[Euler]

Explain how humanity was created by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long long ago and give the evidence for your view.



When you can design a living machine like the incomprehensibly complex human machine, we'll talk. Until then, you're simply speaking from a position of complete ignorance.

Oh....and don't misquote me please. You're bad about doing that and then not taking personal responsibility for your actions.

I quoted you perfectly, word for word, so stop trying to deflect from what is obviously a very embarrassing question for you. I've seen you using this tactic with others - it won't work with me. As Loudmouth has said, you can keep parroting your mindless mantra, but the question that you can't answer still hangs there.

Why would 200,000+ sites of ancient retroviral infection be found in IDENTICAL LOCATIONS in both the genomes of chimps and humans, if they were not linked by a common ancestor??

Oh, and something else for you to chew on. This phenomenon is repeated in every other mammal species! ie, they each have their own genomic record of ERV insertions and surprise, surprise - the more closely related the species, the greater the number of orthologous insertion points!

Now, please confirm to us your cowardly stance and retreat once again behind your moronic mantra.

 

[justlookinla]

I quoted you perfectly, word for word, so stop trying to deflect from what is obviously a very embarrassing question for you.

No you did not.

You claimed that I "made the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes". I then asked repeatedly for my quote and of course nothing was forthcoming.

What I actually said was "there's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago."

You're totally confused. You did not quote me word for word, you changed it and haven't faced your rewrite.

I've seen you using this tactic with others - it won't work with me. As Loudmouth has said, you can keep parroting your mindless mantra, but the question that you can't answer still hangs there.

No doubt the question still hangs in there, the question of how humanity was created by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long long ago. As as usual, you have no answer.

Why would 200,000+ sites of ancient retroviral infection be found in IDENTICAL LOCATIONS in both the genomes of chimps and humans, if they were not linked by a common ancestor??

You'll have to ask the designer. Of course since the human machine is one of incomprehensible complexity, you'd just stand there slack-jawed and glassy-eyed when He began explaining to you.

Oh, and something else for you to chew on. This phenomenon is repeated in every other mammal species! ie, they each have their own genomic record of ERV insertions and surprise, surprise - the more closely related the species, the greater the number of orthologous insertion points!

Now, please confirm to us your cowardly stance and retreat once again behind your moronic mantra.

The designer/creator is awesome, isn't He?

 

[Euler]

No you did not.

You claimed that I "made the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes". I then asked repeatedly for my quote and of course nothing was forthcoming.

Correct. Which was not QUOTING you! I said you had made such a claim, which you had. So, the first comment I made was to paraphrase what you had said. Then you asked me to quote you.

And......

What I actually said was "there's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago."

Again correct! When asked to quote you, I did. That quote supports the paraphrase that I made earlier.

You're totally confused. You did not quote me word for word, you changed it and haven't faced your rewrite.

Yes I did. Word for word. That sentence above is exactly what I quoted you as saying. It supports what I said earlier about you. Namely, that you say that there is no evidence that lends support to the idea of common ancestry.

No doubt the question still hangs in there, the question of how humanity was created by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long long ago. As as usual, you have no answer.

There has been provided to you a perfectly good answer. Not directly to that gibberish you keep repeating woodenly like a loon. But an answer that DOES provide evidence for the process of individual species being linked through common ancestry.

You'll have to ask the designer. Of course since the human machine is one of incomprehensible complexity, you'd just stand there slack-jawed and glassy-eyed when He began explaining to you.

No. I have to ask YOU.

Because YOU are the one that tries to wave that evidence away. YOU are the one that says that it doesn't qualify as evidence for common ancestry. So, it is up to YOU to provide an alternative.

If your only response is to say "I dunno, it's too tough for me to figger out", that's fine. You have already amply demonstrated your inability for flexible thought. BUT, under those circumstances of complete ignorance, you are NOT then in a position to make ANY judgement about evidence that is brought before you!

The designer/creator is awesome, isn't He?

There is no designer.

 

[justlookinla]

Correct. Which was not QUOTING you! I said you had made such a claim, which you had. So, the first comment I made was to paraphrase what you had said. Then you asked me to quote you.

And......



Again correct! When asked to quote you, I did.

You've never quoted me.

That quote supports the paraphrase that I made earlier.

You misstated what I said, either purposely or ignorantly.

Yes I did. Word for word. That sentence above is exactly what I quoted you as saying. It supports what I said earlier about you. Namely, that you say that there is no evidence that lends support to the idea of common ancestry.

Amazing, simply amazing. A paraphrase isn't word for word. You haven't quoted me word for word. Didn't before and still haven't. And apparently will not.

There has been provided to you a perfectly good answer. Not directly to that gibberish you keep repeating woodenly like a loon. But an answer that DOES provide evidence for the process of individual species being linked through common ancestry.

Not true. You've not offered a single bit of evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Of course neither has anyone else.

No. I have to ask YOU.

Because YOU are the one that tries to wave that evidence away. YOU are the one that says that it doesn't qualify as evidence for common ancestry. So, it is up to YOU to provide an alternatives.

I'm the one who says you, nor anyone else, has offered on bit of evidence that humanity was created by only a naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago. Try as you may, you aren't going to change the focus from that fact.

If your only response is to say "I dunno, it's too tough for me to figger out", that's fine. You have already amply demonstrated your inability for flexible thought. BUT, under those circumstances of complete ignorance, you are NOT then in a position to make ANY judgement about evidence that is brought before you!

What evidence?

There is no designer.

That's simply the faith-based Godless viewpoint of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

 

[Euler]

You've never quoted me.

Now you are simply bald-faced LYING. How pathetically sad for someone of your age who should be respected for their experience and wisdom. Is this what you have reduced yourself to?

Here is post #974 from this thread:

Quote me.

There's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. If you have such evidence, post it.
Actually make a point.

You say there's no evidence. So please explain the pattern of ERV insertions.

Now, that's the post in full. The middle section are YOUR WORDS which I quoted, as requested.

Please, please, please deny that they are your words, or that I did not quote them in that post. Please do.

Or be a man and apologize for your lie.

You haven't Quoted me word for word. Didn't before and still haven't. And apparently will not.

Your lie stands for all to see.

Not true. You've not offered a single bit of evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Of course neither has anyone else.

Yes, I'm afraid for you I have. And as all can see, all that you have left is to moronically keep repeating your mantra, RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE!

I'm the one who says you, nor anyone else, has offered on bit of evidence that humanity was created by only a naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago. Try as you may, you aren't going to change the focus from that fact.

What evidence?

That's simply the faith-based Godless viewpoint of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Address the evidence. All 200,000+ pieces of it!

 

[justlookinla]

Now you are simply bald-faced LYING. How pathetically sad for someone of your age who should be respected for their experience and wisdom. Is this what you have reduced yourself to?

Here is post #974 from this thread:

Now, that's the post in full. The middle section are YOUR WORDS which I quoted, as requested.

Please, please, please deny that they are your words, or that I did not quote them in that post. Please do.

Or be a man and apologize for your lie.

The great thing about communicating in a forum is that one can go back and reference the conversation in question. Your deceitfullness began in your post #471 where you falsely accused me of making "the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes." I've made no such claim and I asked you to quote me concerning such a claim. You can find your original false claim, of which you've yet to acknowledge, here......

http://www.christianforums.com/t7851239-98/

Not satisfied with misquoting me once, you continue with your attempted deception of what I said in this post of yours and again make a false claim.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7851239-98/#post66696977

Your lie stands for all to see.

Your false claims of what I said is there for all to see.

Yes, I'm afraid for you I have. And as all can see, all that you have left is to moronically keep repeating your mantra, RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE!

As all can see, you're offering not one bit of evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. I've repeatedly asked for that from you and your response is a continual attempt to change the focus from your abject failure.

Address the evidence. All 200,000+ pieces of it!

Fantasize whatever number you wish, reality dismisses your claim of evidence each and every time.

 

[Euler]

The great thing about communicating in a forum is that one can go back and reference the conversation in question. Your deceitfullness began in your post #471 where you falsely accused me of making "the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes." I've made no such claim and I asked you to quote me concerning such a claim. You can find your original false claim, of which you've yet to acknowledge, here......

http://www.christianforums.com/t7851239-98/

Not satisfied with misquoting me once, you continue with your attempted deception of what I said in this post of yours and again make a false claim.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7851239-98/#post66696977




Your false claims of what I said is there for all to see.



As all can see, you're offering not one bit of evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. I've repeatedly asked for that from you and your response is a continual attempt to change the focus from your abject failure.




Fantasize whatever number you wish, reality dismisses your claim of evidence each and every time.

That's it again?

You just shift the focus, or when you can't, you just deny?

This is how an honorable man conducts himself?

You remind me of the thoroughly dishonest shopkeeper in the Monty Python skit about 'The Dead Parrot'.
"That parrot's not dead - it's just restin'!"

Just keep denying, even when the facts are right in your face!

You should be ashamed of yourself little man.

Judging by the efforts of others who have tried to engage you, I thought it may have been a pointless exercise in engaging with you.

I was right. You can't argue honestly with a dishonest man. Adios.