Understanding Evolution (2)

[DerelictJunction]

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.

That wouldn't be a guess or a supposition. That would be a conclusion based on the evidence discovered so far. Your continued insistence that it is a guess or supposition indicates you have a severe cognitive disability bordering on the inability to function as a normal adult, or you are lying.

Also, the theory of evolution does not state that only naturalistic mechanisms, random/chance mutations, created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. It only concludes that those mechanisms are causing evolution to occur.

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

Repeating a statement does not actually explain the statement nor does it provide evidence supporting that statement. Is this another element of social interaction that you are unable to comprehend?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

So, you do know the difference between what the theory of evolution states, as we have told you and is taught in public schools, vs what you are requesting evidence for.
So why the requests for evidence of something we don't espouse nor claim to agree with? Are you debating dishonestly?

This does present an opportunity for some questions.

Do you believe that "evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes"?
Do you believe that "evidence exists to demonstrate that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor"?

Note: I didn't say "only evolutionary processes".

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

1. The assumption is that these insertions are non-functional and we do not have all the information needed to make this assumption.
2. There are studies that have shown that ERV's may not be as random as once thought and that there are hot and cold spots that are involved in where these insertions take place.
3. There is the assumption that these events were always deleterious but in studies it has been shown that this is not always the case.

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!

1. This is based on the assumption that ERV's come from retroviruses. How do we know that? The retroviruses could have come from the ERV's.
2. If this is true then there should be no similar ERV's in Chimps and Gorilla's unless there are the same in humans but we know that there is at least 1 ERV in Chimps and Gorillas that is not present in humans.

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!

As you can see, there are many assumptions that are being made in accordance with ERVs. In mammals ERVs very important to reproduction to protect the embryo from its mother's immune system and the location is necessary. This holds true in other cases as well. Why if random and rare would these ERVs have such important roles such as reproduction? It looks more like a design feature which allows for life to produce. It hardly looks like deceit.

 

[DerelictJunction]

1. The assumption is that these insertions are non-functional and we do not have all the information needed to make this assumption.

That is incorrect. ERV's are not necessarily parts of nonfunctional DNA.

2. There are studies that have shown that ERV's may not be as random as once thought and that there are hot and cold spots that are involved in where these insertions take place.

Hot and cold areas of the DNA string does not equate to exact locations being preferred.

3. There is the assumption that these events were always deleterious but in studies it has been shown that this is not always the case.

No such assumption has been been put forth, that I have been able to easily find. Could you point out a reference for your statement?

1. This is based on the assumption that ERV's come from retroviruses. How do we know that? The retroviruses could have come from the ERV's.

Kind of a chicken or egg question isn't it? However, retroviruses have been shown to infect DNA and produce ERV's in the lab. Addtionally, it has been shown in the lab that the insertion location is significantly random with some affinity for certain areas in the DNA string.

2. If this is true then there should be no similar ERV's in Chimps and Gorilla's unless there are the same in humans but we know that there is at least 1 ERV in Chimps and Gorillas that is not present in humans.

Not following you on this one. What ERV is in both Chimps and Gorillas, in the exact same spot in the DNA, but is not in humans? Wouldn't that be a break in the nested hierarchy?

As you can see, there are many assumptions that are being made in accordance with ERVs. In mammals ERVs very important to reproduction to protect the embryo from its mother's immune system and the location is necessary. This holds true in other cases as well. Why if random and rare would these ERVs have such important roles such as reproduction? It looks more like a design feature which allows for life to produce. It hardly looks like deceit.

The "assumptions" you claim are not actually assumptions used by scientists, as far as I can tell. You will have to support your claims regarding those assumptions. Again, the fact that an ERV string has acquired some usefulness in the organism is not an argument against its being an ERV nor is it a refutation of its existence in the exact location within chimps and humans.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Defense mechanisms are overly developed and utilized with those that have fundamentalist beliefs. Without these mechanisms, their personal beliefs would crumble.

While it can be entertaining to watch in action, it is an utter waste of time to try and engage in intellectually honest discussion with them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is incorrect. ERV's are not necessarily parts of nonfunctional DNA.

Hot and cold areas of the DNA string does not equate to exact locations being preferred.


No such assumption has been been put forth, that I have been able to easily find. Could you point out a reference for your statement?

Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought -- ScienceDaily

The above answers your questions.

Kind of a chicken or egg question isn't it? However, retroviruses have been shown to infect DNA and produce ERV's in the lab. Addtionally, it has been shown in the lab that the insertion location is significantly random with some affinity for certain areas in the DNA string.

What do you mean by "some affinity for certain areas"?

Not following you on this one. What ERV is in both Chimps and Gorillas, in the exact same spot in the DNA, but is not in humans? Wouldn't that be a break in the nested hierarchy?

You tell me?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought -- ScienceDaily

The above answers your questions.

No it doesn't. It claims that the insertion may not be always deleterious and, in fact, may be beneficial. No one here is saying that they couldn't be.

That doesn't stop them from being rather random in their insertion location. So, the fact that over 200,000 insertions in the chimp genome exactly match insertion locations in the human genome.

What do you mean by "some affinity for certain areas"?

ED has pointed out that there are some "sweet spots" for ERV insertion within the DNA. Unfortunately, for him, the sweet spots are large swaths of the genome rather than pinpoint locations.

You tell me?

You mean that you actually don't know of one common ERV between the gorilla and chimp genome that doesn't exist in the human genome?
Then why did you state that there was at least one?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No it doesn't. It claims that the insertion may not be always deleterious and, in fact, may be beneficial. No one here is saying that they couldn't be.

You missed that part?

"The thinking has been that these insertion events are very rare because they always have bad effects," said postdoctoral fellow Abraham Tucker, a lead author of the Science paper.

That doesn't stop them from being rather random in their insertion location. So, the fact that over 200,000 insertions in the chimp genome exactly match insertion locations in the human genome.

ED has pointed out that there are some "sweet spots" for ERV insertion within the DNA. Unfortunately, for him, the sweet spots are large swaths of the genome rather than pinpoint locations.

Their study of the model organism Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by "introns," as the interrupting sequences are known. The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict. The scientists also found what appear to be "hot spots" for intron insertion -- areas of the genome where repeated insertions are more likely to occur. And surprisingly, the vast majority of intron DNA sequences the scientists examined were of unknown origin.

You mean that you actually don't know of one common ERV between the gorilla and chimp genome that doesn't exist in the human genome?
Then why did you state that there was at least one?

Oh there is, what I meant was you tell me whether or not it is a problem for nested hierarchy.

HERV-K is present in chimps, bonobos and gorillas but not humans.

It is interesting to note as well that gorillas and orangutans share parts of our DNA that chimps don't.

 

[Smidlee]

That is incorrect. ERV's are not necessarily parts of nonfunctional DNA.



Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought -- ScienceDaily

The above answers your questions.

If Neo-Darwinism is true you would expect the so called "Junk DNA" randomly place in the genome but they are starting to realize this is not the case.
Atheist are continually using ERV as evidence of common descent like they did 10 years ago not realizing just how much has been revealed in the last decade.

-Atheist assumes ERV came from virus while there is good reason the opposite is true. Viruses came from ERV as where else would viruses get their code from.

-Atheist assumes ERV location in the genome is exactly where the unknown virus insert it. This ignores the fact a living cell has the ability to move around sections of DNA on purpose. This is like ignoring the fact our brains have the ability to rewire itself.

-Atheist assumes if two species happen to have the same ERV at the same location it means a virus insert in the genome from the unknown mythological ancestor. The is no reason to assume this except those who wants to believe in the evolution myth.

-Atheist assumes ERV are junk even though some ERV have already be shown to have a function. Knock out section of DNA often doesn't reveal it function as a cell (just like our brain) has plasticity to adapted in case of absent or broken gene.

-Atheist assumes natural selection can change an mythological ape-like creature into a man and a cow-like creature into a whale but totally powerless of removing the piles of "junk DNA" from the human genome.

 

[Davian]

If Neo-Darwinism is true you would expect the so called "Junk DNA" randomly place in the genome but they are starting to realize this is not the case.
Atheist are continually using ERV as evidence of common descent like they did 10 years ago not realizing just how much has been revealed in the last decade.

-Atheist assumes ERV came from virus while there is good reason the opposite is true. Viruses came from ERV as where else would viruses get their code from.

-Atheist assumes ERV location in the genome is exactly where the unknown virus insert it. This ignores the fact a living cell has the ability to move around sections of DNA on purpose. This is like ignoring the fact our brains have the ability to rewire itself.

-Atheist assumes if two species happen to have the same ERV at the same location it means a virus insert in the genome from the unknown mythological ancestor. The is no reason to assume this except those who wants to believe in the evolution myth.

-Atheist assumes ERV are junk even though some ERV have already be shown to have a function. Knock out section of DNA often doesn't reveal it function as a cell (just like our brain) has plasticity to adapted in case of absent or broken gene.

-Atheist assumes natural selection can change an mythological ape-like creature into a man and a cow-like creature into a whale but totally powerless of removing the piles of "junk DNA" from the human genome.

Your straw-man arguments notwithstanding, since when are all atheists evolutionary biologists?

 

[Euler]

1. The assumption is that these insertions are non-functional and we do not have all the information needed to make this assumption.

Red herring. My comments were not about FUNCTION - they were about LOCATION. There is indeed evidence to suggest that further evolutionary processes may have acted upon some of this ancient DNA, enabling it to develop some form of function. But, that does NOT explain the pattern of identical location (orthologous) found for more than 200,000 of these insertions in the genomes of chimps and humans.

2. There are studies that have shown that ERV's may not be as random as once thought and that there are hot and cold spots that are involved in where these insertions take place.

Oh goody - the 'hotspot' red herring.

Let me give you a good analogy of the 'hotspot' effect. Let's suppose you and I sit down and randomly select 200,000 street addresses from within the U.S. What do you think would be the likelihood of us both choosing the SAME locations? Vanishingly small?

Ok, suppose we make our task easier. Let's create some 'hotspots' in our exercise. We still have to choose 200,000 addresses, but this time we restrict our choices to only the states of, say, Texas, Ohio, California and Pennsylvania.

Will our odds have improved? Certainly. By limiting ourselves to those 'hotspot' states, our chances of an exact match have increased approximately 12 fold. But has that made much of an impact overall? Hardly.

Consider this: The odds of you and I randomly matching just 50 addresses is a staggering 3 x 10^64 ! Yes, that's a 3 with 64 zeroes after it. And that's just getting 50 to match!

3. There is the assumption that these events were always deleterious but in studies it has been shown that this is not always the case

More of the big red fish. Explain the IDENTICAL LOCATIONS.

1. This is based on the assumption that ERV's come from retroviruses. How do we know that? The retroviruses could have come from the ERV's.

UMMMM. It's right there in the name! You do know that ERV stands for Endogenous RETROVIRUS?

2. If this is true then there should be no similar ERV's in Chimps and Gorilla's unless there are the same in humans but we know that there is at least 1 ERV in Chimps and Gorillas that is not present in humans.

Ok, here comes another UMMMMMM. The patterns of ERV insertions that we observe in all the primates EXACTLY matches the nested hierarchy we would expect if the theory of common ancestry is correct. Yes, we find some insertions that are common only to chimps and humans, some only to chimps and gorillas, some to chimps, humans and gorillas. And so on. And remember, these insertions didn't all occur BEFORE the various genuses split from their common ancestors - some of the infections occurred after, as you would expect. So, in the case of chimps and humans, we find a very small number of insertions in each that are not found in the other. This number is very small, because the split in our two genuses was very recent.

 

[justlookinla]

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!

The fact is there's no evidence for the Godless atheistic Darwinist creationist view of only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

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.

Honestly point out where you misquoted me.

Vaya con Dios.

 

[justlookinla]

That wouldn't be a guess or a supposition. That would be a conclusion based on the evidence discovered so far. Your continued insistence that it is a guess or supposition indicates you have a severe cognitive disability bordering on the inability to function as a normal adult, or you are lying.

No evidence has been discovered for atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Also, the theory of evolution does not state that only naturalistic mechanisms, random/chance mutations, created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. It only concludes that those mechanisms are causing evolution to occur.

It concludes that random/change mutations is the impetus for creating all of life we observe today from the alleged single life form of long long ago. Any attempt to include anything other than a random/chance impetus for the creation of all life is met with complete resistance from those who embrace the current creationist view of atheistic Darwinist creationism. Nothing else is allowed, nothing else is permitted. So, yes, only naturalistic mechanisms is precisely what the version of evolution, atheistic Darwinist creationism demands.

Repeating a statement does not actually explain the statement nor does it provide evidence supporting that statement. Is this another element of social interaction that you are unable to comprehend?

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.

 

[justlookinla]

So, you do know the difference between what the theory of evolution states

See, here you're attempting to make "evolution" a generic term, and it's not for reasons I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.

, as we have told you and is taught in public schools, vs what you are requesting evidence for.

I'm requesting evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms are capable of producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

So why the requests for evidence of something we don't espouse nor claim to agree with? Are you debating dishonestly?

If you don't espouse or claim it, then offer another impetus other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long which created humanity.

This does present an opportunity for some questions.

Do you believe that "evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes"?

This is an opportunity for you to present your alleged evidence. Do you have evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago? Yes or no.

Do you believe that "evidence exists to demonstrate that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor"?

Do you believe that evidence exists for only random/chance impetuses creating both chimps and humans, and pine trees and buttercups and whales and ants and bacteria and wheat and worms from an alleged single life form of long long ago? Yes or no.

Note: I didn't say "only evolutionary processes".

You have an impetus other than only naturalistic mechanisms?

 

[Davian]

I'm requesting evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms are capable of producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[DerelictJunction]

See, here you're attempting to make "evolution" a generic term, and it's not for reasons I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.

No. I'm only pointing out what is stated in the theory of evolution that is taught in U.S. public schools.

I'm requesting evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms are capable of producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

And I'm saying your request doesn't need to be answered by me or evolution scientists because it doesn't address what is stated in the theory.

If you don't espouse or claim it, then offer another impetus other than ONLY naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long which created humanity.

That is not necessary. Leaving open the possibility of as yet undiscovered impetuses covers that point just fine. If some other outside influence is uncovered in, say, the introduction of mutation events, the theory can incorporate it.

This is an opportunity for you to present your alleged evidence. Do you have evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago? Yes or no.

There is evidence that naturalistic mechanism were involved. There is evidence that humans developed from other species through the actions of those naturalistic mechanisms. Was it ONLY through those mechanisms? I don't know for sure. However, the theory of evolution that science and I accept does not limit the process to ONLY those mechanisms so far identified by the evidence. So, no answer to your request is required in order to support the theory of evolution.

Do you believe that evidence exists for only random/chance impetuses creating both chimps and humans, and pine trees and buttercups and whales and ants and bacteria and wheat and worms from an alleged single life form of long long ago? Yes or no.

Answered in the previous question. 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.

You have an impetus other than only naturalistic mechanisms?

As I said before, the identification of particular impetuses other than the ones for which evidence exists, is not necessary as long as the theory does not deny the possibility of previously unidentified causes or mechanisms.
Of course this detailed explanation will not deter you from continuing to shout out your false claims. Your type is rarely deflected from their chosen path by a confrontation with the truth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

I don't support your listed view, distorted though it is beyond reason.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You missed that part?

"The thinking has been that these insertion events are very rare because they always have bad effects," said postdoctoral fellow Abraham Tucker, a lead author of the Science paper.

Not really an argument against common descent evidence of ERV's in exact same locations within 2 different species.

Their study of the model organism Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by "introns," as the interrupting sequences are known. The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict. The scientists also found what appear to be "hot spots" for intron insertion -- areas of the genome where repeated insertions are more likely to occur. And surprisingly, the vast majority of intron DNA sequences the scientists examined were of unknown origin.

Hot spots are not the same as exact location. Frequency of insertion is immaterial to the argument that 200,000 insertions in the exact locations in chimps and humans is evidence for common descent.

Oh there is, what I meant was you tell me whether or not it is a problem for nested hierarchy.

HERV-K is present in chimps, bonobos and gorillas but not humans.

It appears that this insertion is in the same exact location in gorillas and chimps but not in humans. Does this one instance overthrow the massive ERV evidence that supports the nested hierarchy?

This site, ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model , offers an explanation for the existence of that outlying ERV. It is in the section labeled HERV-K-GC1.

It is interesting to note as well that gorillas and orangutans share parts of our DNA that chimps don't.

Please point out a source for this statement.

 

[justlookinla]

No. I'm only pointing out what is stated in the theory of evolution that is taught in U.S. public schools.

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.

And I'm saying your request doesn't need to be answered by me or evolution scientists because it doesn't address what is stated in the theory.

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.

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.

That is not necessary. Leaving open the possibility of as yet undiscovered impetuses covers that point just fine. If some other outside influence is uncovered in, say, the introduction of mutation events, the theory can incorporate it.

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.

There is evidence that naturalistic mechanism were involved.

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.

There is evidence that humans developed from other species through the actions of those naturalistic mechanisms. Was it ONLY through those mechanisms? I don't know for sure.

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.

However, the theory of evolution that science and I accept does not limit the process to ONLY those mechanisms so far identified by the evidence. So, no answer to your request is required in order to support the theory of evolution.

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

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

As I said before, the identification of particular impetuses other than the ones for which evidence exists, is not necessary as long as the theory does not deny the possibility of previously unidentified causes or mechanisms.

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

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.

Of course this detailed explanation will not deter you from continuing to shout out your false claims. Your type is rarely deflected from their chosen path by a confrontation with the truth.

Point out my "false claims".

 

[justlookinla]

I don't support your listed view, distorted though it is beyond reason.

What creationist view do you support?