Understanding Evolution (2)

[bhsmte]

Gosh, we should have some rule about the size of images we post, I can barely read this stuff now.

Don't believe you are missing much.

You have seen and heard it all before.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Location sometimes is necessary to function.

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.

Ty transposons reflect important properties of their viral relatives, striving for transcriptionally active regions to insert their cDNA copies [37]. This is not surprising considering that the retroviral genes integrated in the genome need the host transcriptional machinery to express themselves. But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing [37], practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified `hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically 41 and 43. A recent study of the de novo retroviral integration demonstrated also preference for scaffold- or matrix-attachment regions (S/MARs) flanked by DNA with high bending potential [35]. The S/MARs are thought to be important functional sequences of the genome that anchor chromatin loops to the nuclear matrix subdividing the genome into functional domains. They often neighbor regulatory elements involved in gene expression and DNA replication.
A cautious generalization from these findings could be that although TEs can integrate into many sites and may prefer non-coding regions, the de novo integration is frequently targeted at the sites in the vicinity of functionally important elements like transcription start points or origins of replication.


Emphasis mine.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579398004785

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

If an unrelated organism can and they do have identical locations for ERV's it raises the question of whether or not CA is the reason.

http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Genes/ERVWE1ID40497ch7q21.html

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

Yes. There is also some evidence that exogenous retroviruses are occasionally derived from ERVs - instead of the other way around.

"Exogenous retroviruses may have originated from ERVs and ERV-Ls in particular may represent an intermediate between retrotransposons and exogenous viruses."

This concept is supported by the observation that there are no known examples of current exogenous retroviral insertions into the modern human genome. Also, there are no known infectious exogenous counterparts of any human endogenous retroviruses known to exist today. This seems remarkable considering the striking commonality of ERVs within the human and ape genomes if the prevailing hypothesis that these ERV sequences were in fact derived from exogenous infective retroviruses.

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.

Yes, which is the problem. Chimps are claimed to be closer to humans than they are to gorillas. It would be expected that gorillas and chimps would only be expected to share an ERV if the same ERV were also present in humans. However, as has been discovered there are those that do not fit this pattern.

In conclusion, there are ERV's that are in the same location in unrelated organisms and there are some ERV's that are seen in bonobos, gorillas and chimps but not in humans as would be expected. This while not conclusively confirming a counter argument places some doubt on our current determinations about ERV's and the common ancestry of the ape line.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

If that's what you believe...Ok.

Yes, they do. In the "Causes of Mutations" section of the site, ONLY naturalistic mechanisms are revealed as the source of random mutations...

They ONLY reveal that for which they have evidence. Do you have evidence for other mechanisms or are you claiming the scientists are hiding evidence for those other mechanisms?

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 are claiming that it is a supposition when scientists state that mutations occur randomly in the DNA of the offspring of organisms? Do you believe that no statistical studies of mutations have been performed?

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.

Ok they are not evidence for the creative impetus. Never said they were. They are evidence of common ancestry, don't you agree?

'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.

I'm not trying to prove that.

There you go, offering the view that ONLY random/chance mutations created humanity. Got any other impetus to offer?

There you go misrepresenting what I write. Got any integrity?

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.

Another misrepresentation of what I wrote.

As well as whales and oak trees? All created by ONLY random/chance mutations?

I said

Even if the mutations were not random, humans and chimpanzees still have a common ancestor.​

So that would apply to whales and oak trees too, even if the mutations were not random. I guess you don't understand the term "not random".

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."​

What part of it is a guess?

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.

Perhaps you could.

Great. By ONLY random/chance mutations?

I've never claimed it was only by random/chance mutations, just that the mutations occurred and resulted in the evolution of humans from an ape ancestor.

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?

I don't disagree with the apparent randomness of mutations but leave open the possibility that they are not always random.

None. There's circumstantial evidence.

What circumstantial evidence do you have for directed mutation?

Would you mind defining this?

Sorry, I meant atheistic godist creationism.

And you believe you're the product of ONLY random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

What I believe is irrelevant to the question I asked. Specifically, do you accept that humans evolved from an ape ancestor that they have in common with chimpanzees, and that the mutations which caused that evolution were not random?

The "saying nothing" about randomness or non-randomness. That's a perfect example of ERVs not being the evidence I've asked repeatedly for.

Not true. The ERV's are evidence of common ancestry for chimpanzees and humans.
1. If the mutations that resulted in humans and chimpanzees being different species were random, the ERV's would still be in the same locations that we find them now.
2. If the mutations that resulted in humans and chimpanzees being different species were directed by a god, the ERV's would still be in the same locations that we find them now.
The ERV evidence of common ancestry for humans and chimpanzees would still be in place even if Jesus Himself came down long long ago and monkeyed around with the genes Himself, using a teeny-tiny toothpick.

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.

Your apt self-description aside, you will not be getting that evidence. The theory of evolution is described by what we have evidence for right now, but it doesn't claim to eliminate things for which there is no evidence right now.
The best that can be said is that there is evidence of common ancestry, evidence that mutations cause changes in DNA that are expressed as changes in organism morphology, and that, statistically speaking, the mutations appear to occur randomly.
Are mutations truly random? At this point, science doesn't know for sure.

The evidence for common ancestry is pretty rock solid however.

 

[justlookinla]

They ONLY reveal that for which they have evidence. Do you have evidence for other mechanisms or are you claiming the scientists are hiding evidence for those other mechanisms?

No, I'm claiming that pseudo-science offers only random/chance mutations as the impetus for the creation of all life we observe today from an alleged single life form from long long ago. The do not have evidence for that.

You are claiming that it is a supposition when scientists state that mutations occur randomly in the DNA of the offspring of organisms?

I'm claiming that the pseudo-science of creation by only random/chance mutations is based on guesses and suppositions.

Do you believe that no statistical studies of mutations have been performed?

Could be.

Ok they are not evidence for the creative impetus. Never said they were. They are evidence of common ancestry, don't you agree?

At this point in time, the most important thing is to determine if you and I are creations of only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago. That only random/chance mutations is the creator of both elephants and pine trees from a common ancestor is yet another question.

I'm not trying to prove that.

What are you trying to prove concerning creation of all life forms from a single alleged life form other than by only random/chance mutation?

There you go misrepresenting what I write. Got any integrity?
Another misrepresentation of what I wrote.
I said

Even if the mutations were not random, humans and chimpanzees still have a common ancestor.​

So that would apply to whales and oak trees too, even if the mutations were not random. I guess you don't understand the term "not random".

Great. If the mutations are not random/chance, what would that suggest?

"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."​

What part of it is a guess?

"Mutations are random".

Perhaps you could.

I only have faith-based views as do atheistic Darwinist creationists who believe that mutations created them.

I've never claimed it was only by random/chance mutations, just that the mutations occurred and resulted in the evolution of humans from an ape ancestor.

What else is there which allegedly created humanity?

I don't disagree with the apparent randomness of mutations but leave open the possibility that they are not always random.

What would be the possible impetus if not random/chance mutation creating humanity?

What circumstantial evidence do you have for directed mutation?

The complexity and variety of creation could be explained by directed mutation.

Sorry, I meant atheistic godist creationism.

Sorry, still not understanding the term. Would you be a little clearer?

What I believe is irrelevant to the question I asked. Specifically, do you accept that humans evolved from an ape ancestor that they have in common with chimpanzees, and that the mutations which caused that evolution were not random?

No, I see no evidence of that.

Not true. The ERV's are evidence of common ancestry for chimpanzees and humans.
1. If the mutations that resulted in humans and chimpanzees being different species were random, the ERV's would still be in the same locations that we find them now.
2. If the mutations that resulted in humans and chimpanzees being different species were directed by a god, the ERV's would still be in the same locations that we find them now.
The ERV evidence of common ancestry for humans and chimpanzees would still be in place even if Jesus Himself came down long long ago and monkeyed around with the genes Himself, using a teeny-tiny toothpick.

If Jesus is the intelligent designer and maker, he being the designer and maker could make his design however he wished.

Your apt self-description aside, you will not be getting that evidence. The theory of evolution is described by what we have evidence for right now, but it doesn't claim to eliminate things for which there is no evidence right now.

Which theory of evolution? The atheistic Darwinist creationism theory of evolution or something else?

The best that can be said is that there is evidence of common ancestry, evidence that mutations cause changes in DNA that are expressed as changes in organism morphology, and that, statistically speaking, the mutations appear to occur randomly.
Are mutations truly random? At this point, science doesn't know for sure.

The evidence for common ancestry is pretty rock solid however.

Then 'science' shouldn't claim that random/chance mutations created all of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

See the UC - Berkley site that I've referenced several times now if you believe any other creative impetus, other than only random/chance mutations, are responsible for elephants and pine trees.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, I'm claiming that pseudo-science offers only random/chance mutations as the impetus for the creation of all life we observe today from an alleged single life form from long long ago. The do not have evidence for that.
I'm claiming that the pseudo-science of creation by only random/chance mutations is based on guesses and suppositions.

At this point in time, the most important thing is to determine if you and I are creations of only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago. That only random/chance mutations is the creator of both elephants and pine trees from a common ancestor is yet another question.

It appears from your comments that the only issue you have is whether mutations are random or directed. You don't seem to have any objection to the theory's conclusion that humans and all current life forms evolved from a common ancestor from a long long time ago. You also don't seem to have a problem with naturalistic mechanisms being used for that evolution.

Great. If the mutations are not random/chance, what would that suggest?

That would depend on what the evidence revealed about the lack of randomness in the mutations. Here are a couple of articles on the possibility of less randomness in mutations. They don't point to an outside force, however.

Evolution is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)
Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations : Nature News & Comment

"Mutations are random".

Not entirely, no. They have some degrees of freedom based on the structure of the DNA molecule.

I only have faith-based views as do atheistic Darwinist creationists who believe that mutations created them.

That is not an answer to my question. Also, mutations are part of the creation process and the impetus for evolution once they occur. The question is whether they are the ultimate impetus or can we find evidence that deliberate manipulation of the DNA is occurring.

What else is there which allegedly created humanity? What would be the possible impetus if not random/chance mutation creating humanity?

FSM, IPU, Satan, Jesus, fairies, Leprechauns or a sentient universe. I could probably think of lots more, or even make up some.

The complexity and variety of creation could be explained by directed mutation.

It can also be explained by non-directed mutation. Coming up with an explanation doesn't help unless evidence supports that explanation.
Unfortunately, the statistical study of mutations suggests strongly that a significant amount of randomness is present in the insertion of mutations.

Sorry, still not understanding the term. Would you be a little clearer?

It's a mixing of atheism with creationism. You did it, so I thought I would give your belief a more appropriately descriptive term. Perhaps naturalistic godist creationism would be better.

No, I see no evidence of that.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the ERV evidence before dismissing it.

If Jesus is the intelligent designer and maker, he being the designer and maker could make his design however he wished.

No argument there, but why would He need to put any ERV's in at all much less in the same locations in the DNA, two hundred thousand times. Without common ancestry, it seems a little deceitful on His part.

Which theory of evolution? The atheistic Darwinist creationism theory of evolution or something else?

The real one. Perhaps you should look it up yourself since you dismiss my description of it.

Then 'science' shouldn't claim that random/chance mutations created all of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

See the UC - Berkley site that I've referenced several times now if you believe any other creative impetus, other than only random/chance mutations, are responsible for elephants and pine trees.

They don't have evidence of anything other that random mutations (within constraints dictated by the DNA structure and content), why should they propose anything they don't have evidence for? I have answered your questions. Even if you don't agree with my answers you should at least do the courtesy of answering my question. Specifically, why should scientists and teachers include something in a theory or lesson, when there is no evidence for it?

You know there is some evidence for randomness in mutation occurrences and you know from my links that scientists are studying that very thing. So you cannot claim that they have zero evidence of randomness.

 

[justlookinla]

It appears from your comments that the only issue you have is whether mutations are random or directed.

My primary issue is that, here it is for the umpteenth time, humanity is the creation of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanisms acting on an alleged life form of long long ago. This philosophical worldview has no basis other than the guesses and suppositions of the pseudo-science of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

You don't seem to have any objection to the theory's conclusion that humans and all current life forms evolved from a common ancestor from a long long time ago. You also don't seem to have a problem with naturalistic mechanisms being used for that evolution.

Well, yes, I do have a problem with it, but I'm addressing one issue at a time.

That would depend on what the evidence revealed about the lack of randomness in the mutations. Here are a couple of articles on the possibility of less randomness in mutations. They don't point to an outside force, however.

Evolution is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)
Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations : Nature News & Comment

Both articles are very interesting and I appreciate you referencing them. I found the LiveScience article to be more informative than the Nature article though.

From the LiveScience article....

"These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said."​

Interesting words "code" and "need" in the paragraph. Both are suggestive of intelligence and a goal in the creation of life (not abiogenesis). If, as the article suggests, mutations are directed to a desired end by something other than randomness...in this case the "code" and "need", then forces are at work which are apart from naturalistic mechanisms.

Not entirely, no. They have some degrees of freedom based on the structure of the DNA molecule.

Freedom to create because of what? What impetus creates and why?

That is not an answer to my question. Also, mutations are part of the creation process and the impetus for evolution once they occur. The question is whether they are the ultimate impetus or can we find evidence that deliberate manipulation of the DNA is occurring.

The question is are only random/chance mutations capable of producing the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago. It seems that you're suggesting, as well as the articles you referenced above, that it's not.

FSM, IPU, Satan, Jesus, fairies, Leprechauns or a sentient universe. I could probably think of lots more, or even make up some.

I'm not sure what FSM and IPU are, but don't forget to include the faith-based view that only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanism as creator.

It can also be explained by non-directed mutation. Coming up with an explanation doesn't help unless evidence supports that explanation. Unfortunately, the statistical study of mutations suggests strongly that a significant amount of randomness is present in the insertion of mutations.

It cannot be explained by ONLY non-directed mutation though. There's only guesses and suppositions for the pseudo-scientific creationist of ONLY non-directed mutation creating all life we observe today (not abiogenesis).

It's a mixing of atheism with creationism. You did it, so I thought I would give your belief a more appropriately descriptive term. Perhaps naturalistic godist creationism would be better.

Atheism and creationism do not mix.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the ERV evidence before dismissing it.

I have.

No argument there, but why would He need to put any ERV's in at all much less in the same locations in the DNA, two hundred thousand times. Without common ancestry, it seems a little deceitful on His part.

There's the common ancestry issue and then there's the creation of all life (not abiogenesis) issue.

The real one. Perhaps you should look it up yourself since you dismiss my description of it.

Evolution isn't a monolithic term. Your view of evolution isn't everyone's view of evolution. Nor is mine.

They don't have evidence of anything other that random mutations (within constraints dictated by the DNA structure and content), why should they propose anything they don't have evidence for?

No, they do not have evidence that ONLY random/chance mutations created all life we observe today (not abiogenesis).

I have answered your questions. Even if you don't agree with my answers you should at least do the courtesy of answering my question. Specifically, why should scientists and teachers include something in a theory or lesson, when there is no evidence for it?

I couldn't agree more, why teach something for which there is no evidence? I'm not proposing teaching anything, including atheistic Darwinist creationism in our schools. But when the ONLY impetus for our existence is the random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless impetus of mutation is taught, when that creationist worldview is taught which is based upon a series of guesses and suppositions, then other guesses and suppositions should be taught also. The fact is that the atheistic Darwinist creationist view of creation only by mutation isn't science but is simply a Godless creationist worldview wrapped in the cloak of pseudo-science.

If you're going to have one faith-based creationist view (atheistic Darwinist creationism), present other faith-based creationist views.

You know there is some evidence for randomness in mutation occurrences and you know from my links that scientists are studying that very thing. So you cannot claim that they have zero evidence of randomness.

My claim is that there is zero evidence that only random mutation created the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

 

[Smidlee]

"These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said."​

Interesting words "code" and "need" in the paragraph. Both are suggestive of intelligence and a goal in the creation of life (not abiogenesis). If, as the article suggests, mutations are directed to a desired end by something other than randomness...in this case the "code" and "need", then forces are at work which are apart from naturalistic mechanisms.


.

Here evolutionist shows that mutations are not random which support Shapiro's "Natural Genetic Engineering" but not Neo-Darwinism. Evolutionist wants it both ways. They want to use evolution found in nature (non-random) to try to support Darwinian evolution (unguided , blind ,random)when it clearly doesn't.
Darwinism evolution is way too slow (and stupid) to adapt to the environment.
The only thing blind random mutations produce is birth defects and death ; genetic entropy. The living cell tries it best to reduce truly random unguided mutations including cause it's own death.

- So yes "real" evolution is not random at all which supports creationism.

The phonotype has the ability to make changes to it's DNA. So we are not "DNA-R-US" as Darwinist believe.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Here evolutionist shows that mutations are not random which support Shapiro's "Natural Genetic Engineering" but not Neo-Darwinism. Evolutionist wants it both ways. They want to use evolution found in nature (non-random) to try to support Darwinian evolution (unguided , blind ,random)when it clearly doesn't.

The articles discussed the research that suggested some limitations on the amount of randomness in mutation events. It didn't find that mutations were not random at all. You do understand the difference, don't you?

Darwinism evolution is way too slow (and stupid) to adapt to the environment.

I really am going to require evidence before I can accept this asinine statement as something possibly resembling reality.

The only thing blind random mutations produce is birth defects and death ; genetic entropy.

Evidence? How about evidence that you even know what natural selection is.

The living cell tries it best to reduce truly random unguided mutations including cause it's own death.

The living cell has mechanisms within it to maintain the DNA structure. Those mechanisms limit the randomness of the mutations but they don't eliminate it altogether. If they did, we wouldn't have any mutations at all.

So yes "real" evolution is not random at all which supports creationism.

The "so" gives me the impression that you are drawing a conclusion. However, your conclusion (if that is what your sentence is supposed to be) does not flow from your previous remarks. Additionally, if mutations are not somewhat random, why are there any deleterious mutations at all?

The phonotype has the ability to make changes to it's DNA. So we are not "DNA-R-US" as Darwinist believe.

Then you believe that DNA does not control our morphology?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here evolutionist shows that mutations are not random which support Shapiro's "Natural Genetic Engineering" but not Neo-Darwinism. Evolutionist wants it both ways. They want to use evolution found in nature (non-random) to try to support Darwinian evolution (unguided , blind ,random)when it clearly doesn't.
Darwinism evolution is way too slow (and stupid) to adapt to the environment.
The only thing blind random mutations produce is birth defects and death ; genetic entropy. The living cell tries it best to reduce truly random unguided mutations including cause it's own death.

- So yes "real" evolution is not random at all which supports creationism.

The phonotype has the ability to make changes to it's DNA. So we are not "DNA-R-US" as Darwinist believe.

No, evolution on a whole was never asserted to be a completely random process. Yes, mutations are not 100% random, and no one will ever claim that explicitly who has knowledge of how mutations work (and no, simply calling mutations random and calling them absolutely random is not the same). Certain genes mutate more frequently than others, in fact, we have measured it for a lot of genetic diseases known to pop up in families with no previous history of the conditions.

Phonotype? I think you mean phenotype, which still doesn't make much sense with the context.

Sure, bash the version of the theory that is over 100 years out of date that people only know about for historical context. You do realize that those flaws were addressed ages ago, right?

 

[Smidlee]

No, evolution on a whole was never asserted to be a completely random process. Yes, mutations are not 100% random, and no one will ever claim that explicitly who has knowledge of how mutations work (and no, simply calling mutations random and calling them absolutely random is not the same). Certain genes mutate more frequently than others, in fact, we have measured it for a lot of genetic diseases known to pop up in families with no previous history of the conditions.

Phonotype? I think you mean phenotype, which still doesn't make much sense with the context.

Sure, bash the version of the theory that is over 100 years out of date that people only know about for historical context. You do realize that those flaws were addressed ages ago, right?

Yeap, Neo-Darwinian evolution has been known to be false since the 50's. Let me guess you believe evolution is random mutations plus natural selection except when it's not random. Evolution covers both "A" and "not-A" so to make it impossible to falsify.

The living cell has layers on top of layers of information which helps it to adapt to it environment. True evolution , plasticity ,etc. But it doesn't mean a phenotype doesn't have it limits. There is very little if anything that id truly randomly when it comes to living cells... "Purpose" and "Design" is found everywhere.

 

[Euler]

Yeap, Neo-Darwinian evolution has been known to be false since the 50's. Let me guess you believe evolution is random mutations plus natural selection except when it's not random. Evolution covers both "A" and "not-A" so to make it impossible to falsify.

The living cell has layers on top of layers of information which helps it to adapt to it environment. True evolution , plasticity ,etc. But it doesn't mean a phenotype doesn't have it limits. There is very little if anything that id truly randomly when it comes to living cells... "Purpose" and "Design" is found everywhere.

What are those "limits"? Please explain the mechanism that holds up a road sign that effectively says "This far but no farther!".

 

[Smidlee]

What are those "limits"? Please explain the mechanism that holds up a road sign that effectively says "This far but no farther!".

From what I understand we are a long way of fully understand the development of an embryo yet so far they have learned it extreme complex and interconnected a lot like a circuit board. A few mutations here and there will not cut it.
No doubt as they nailed down exactly what would be required to make majority changes to the body plan we will be able to see the limit more clearly.

 

[bhsmte]

From what I understand we are a long way of fully understand the development of an embryo yet so far they have learned it extreme complex and interconnected a lot like a circuit board.

Doesn't answer his question.

 

[Smidlee]

Doesn't answer his question.

For one thing :Information. We are finding species with it's own set of ORFans genes and singletons. Then you have cell structure outside of the DNA.

 

[justlookinla]

Good. Then we are done talking about impetus and can concentrate on common descent.

No, we still must recognize the fact that faith-based creation is taught in our schools.

No. I did not. I used it as evidence of common ancestry for humans and chimpanzees. I was quite clear about that. It's not my fault you become confused.

Ok, you've offered no evidence contrary to your earlier claims that you had. On this we agree.

See? Your are obviously confused because I was clearly stating that your mantra was nonsense. That is unless you are using the debate forum version of "I know you are but what am I?".

Some believe that humanity being the result of only random/chance mutations is nonsense, others believe that humanity being the result of an intelligent designer is nonsense. Depends on one's faith-based view as to one's personal view of nonsense.

We are done with this line of inquiry. On to common descent.

Nope, not until you recognize the fact that faith-based creationism is being taught in our schools today.

Your past troubles with written English hardly qualify you as an expert on the meaning of words used in a scientific article.

Try as you must to change the facts, but the fact is that "code", "encode" and "need" all point to something other than creation by random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mutation.

Except for that pesky evidence thing regarding relative randomness of mutations. Certainly more evidence than that naturalistic godist creationism.

Not a single new life form can be presented as evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism. Guess and suppositions, might be's, could have been's and possibly's aren't evidence in the real world.

Yes nature does a good job of defying the odds doesn't it?

Defying the odds according to certain faith-based creationist views.

Again, you have not demonstrated accuracy in any of your interpretations of anything in written English. Why should be believe you have avoided misinterpreting something this time?

It's you trying to twist "code", "encode" and "need" into something that will eliminate the inherent intelligence contained in those words. Your 'scientific' doublespeak just doesn't work here.

Why? Does intelligence control the solubility of salt in water or the chemical interaction of acids and bases?

Is the solubility of salt in water evidence that you're the product of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mutations?

No. I was pointing out the limitations that the authors of the article stated about the research. If you consider the articles to be guesses and suppositions, then why do you consider their use of the words

"code" and "need" to have any validity?

Of course the article was chock full of guesses and suppositions. My point was that if the guesses and suppositions are true, then intelligence in the creation process would have to be addressed.

The same can be said of naturalistic godist creationism except that some have attached man-made goals and purpose to that guess.

Right, it depends on the philosophical worldview which is inherent in atheistic Darwinist creationism or the philosophical worldview which is inherent in theistic creationism. One philosophical world view is taught in schools, the other isn't.

Not mockery if you believe in those deities. Would it be mockery if I had said Shiva or Allah?

Those 'deities' were created solely for the mockery of theists. Please don't try to justify your mockery by adding more mockery.

Then you don't believe Jesus created humans? Make up your mind.

Read my sig line. It's been there for quite a while now.

I have shown you the evidence for the random nature of mutations. Did you miss it?

You've not shown me evidence that only random/chance mutation created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

Denial...it's not just a tourist attraction anymore.

Failure. It's nothing new to see anymore.

I'm unaware of any definition of "creationism" that is not theistic. I just figured that you make things up as you go along so I would do the same. I invented the term "Naturalistic Godist Creationism" to describe what you believe. What part of that term is inaccurate?

I'm not claiming that your term is inaccurate, but to be clear, your creationism is Godless while mine is theistic.

1. You brought it up after I had stated that I would wait until a discussion on common descent before referring to ERV's.
2. You never came out and stated that you agreed to leave ERV's for later.
Good. Since the discussion regarding impetus is over, I don't expect the words purposeless, mindless, meaningless or goalless to be brought up again.

The discussing regarding the creation of all life we observe today (not abiogenesis) isn't over. You've offered no evidence for your view, other than faith-based claims.

I asked you what you agree with regarding evolution, not what we are discussing. You're not winning any points with the reading comprehension judges.

Stick with what we're discussing instead of very transparent attempt to change the focus.

Yes, every time you misrepresent what I write and ignore the points I make. Also when you dismiss evidence I have presented as if it were worth nothing.

You've provided no evidence that humanity is the result of only random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

I am here to discuss this controversy not listen to repeated misrepresentations of the theory of evolution, and what I have written. If you don't want to engage in an adult conversation,[/QUOTE ]

This from you is an "adult conversation"...."is this some kind of birth defect or congenital disease of yours?"

You know there are probably folks here on the forum who have children or loved ones which may be physically or mentally challenged in some way and your ignorant, childish, cold and calculated mocking of that situation doesn't lend support that anything other than revealing your bitterness and deep hatred toward those who embrace Christ as creator. Thankfully the forum doesn't allow filthy or foul language or you, as I've seen in non-Christian forums discussing these issues, would be using those tactics also in an attempt to disparage those who oppose your atheistic Darwinist creationist gospel.

I am more than able to meet you at your level of mockery.

Disagreement with your posts isn't mockery, it's disagreement.

When I think you are seriously discussing a point, I treat you with deserved respect. When you go back to playing your games, I also treat you with the respect that you earn by your actions. I see no reason for you to be a whiny baby about it.

Oh, I'm not whining nor am I backing away from opposing atheistic Darwinist creationism. Your actions aren't hurting me, they're hurting you and those individuals who have the issues of challenged children or loved ones in their family. Sad really that you feel the need to mock the less fortunate, but it's really not surprising.

More misrepresentation. I was pointing out the evidence of randomness with respect to the mutation events. I never stated that it was fait accompli proof of only naturalistic mechanisms resulting in the evolution of humanity. Maybe you should start reading what I write instead of what you assume I am writing.

Right, you've continually and totally failed to provide evidence that only random/chance mutations created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Simple as that.

 

[BibleProphecy]

ALL things that were manifested upon the earth throughout the six days of creation (the seventh day God rested) where created by the LORD throughout the beginning of His way (Prov.8:22-23, Eccel.1:9) prior to the creation (Gen.2:4-5).

While as yet He (the LORD – Prov.8:22) had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world; when He prepared the heavens, Wisdom was there: when He set a compass upon the face of the depth; when He established the clouds: when He strengthened the fountains of the deep. When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment: when He appointed the foundations of the earth, then Wisdom was by the LORD as one brought up with Him: and Wisdom was the LORD’s delight daily, Wisdom rejoicing always before Him. (Prov.8:26-30).

The LORD made ALL things; He stretched forth the heavens ALONE; He spread abroad the earth BY HIMSELF (Isa.44:24).

There is no new thing under the sun (Eccl.1:9); it has been already of old time been done, which was before us (Eccl.1:10).

NOTHING can be put to it, nor can anything be taken from it (Eccl.3:14); that which has been is now and that which is to be has already been (Eccl.3:15).

By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him (Col. 1:16).



google.com/+PatriciaBurns

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, we still must recognize the fact that faith-based creation is taught in our schools.

Nope. They teach what they have evidence for, even if particular persons from particular belief systems refuse to acknowledge that it is evidence.

Ok, you've offered no evidence contrary to your earlier claims that you had. On this we agree.

From your point of view, my refusal to acknowledge the existence of God, doesn't affect the actuality of His existence. In the same vein, your refusal to acknowledge the existence of evidence in support of randomness in mutation events, doesn't affect the actuality of randomness in mutation events.
You don't even look at the evidence before you spout out your canned response. If you are not going to be bothered to attempt to discredit the evidence, why should this line of conversation continue? You are not going to change your mantra and I am not going to move from my position until you at least attempt to defend your position against the evidence I have presented.
"No, it's not!!!" fails as a rebuttal in any debate ever conducted.

Some believe that humanity being the result of only random/chance mutations is nonsense, others believe that humanity being the result of an intelligent designer is nonsense. Depends on one's faith-based view as to one's personal view of nonsense.

Belief is irrelevant without evidence. I have presented mine. You have not even addressed it, much less attempted to refute it.

Nope, not until you recognize the fact that faith-based creationism is being taught in our schools today.

I cannot accept any proposal of yours that you make no attempt to support or defend.

Try as you must to change the facts, but the fact is that "code", "encode" and "need" all point to something other than creation by random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mutation.

Yet those same articles propose that randomness is still involved in the mutation events. You refuse to acknowledge that part of the articles and instead focus on the use of 2 words that could have just been shorthand for DNA and the fixation mechanisms in the reproduction process.

Not a single new life form can be presented as evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism. Guess and suppositions, might be's, could have been's and possibly's aren't evidence in the real world.

Define "new life form". I have a bacteria species that split to form the original species and a new species that can use nylon as a food source. Is that a new life form?

Defying the odds according to certain faith-based creationist views.

Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

It's you trying to twist "code", "encode" and "need" into something that will eliminate the inherent intelligence contained in those words. Your 'scientific' doublespeak just doesn't work here.

Just saying that the letters in the genetic "code" are merely a description of the chemical sequences within the DNA. Microbiologists define what it means. Your agreement is unnecessary.

Is the solubility of salt in water evidence that you're the product of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mutations?

I am through trying to explain the obvious meaning behind what I write. You are either incapable of understanding or are stonewalling. So, I will simply post: Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

Of course the article was chock full of guesses and suppositions. My point was that if the guesses and suppositions are true, then intelligence in the creation process would have to be addressed.

Your attempt at logic is a complete failure, especially since your judgement concerning their guesses and suppositions doesn't include their use of the words "code" and "need". For some reason, according to you, they must have intended those words to mean exactly what YOU think they should mean.

Right, it depends on the philosophical worldview which is inherent in atheistic Darwinist creationism or the philosophical worldview which is inherent in theistic creationism. One philosophical world view is taught in schools, the other isn't.

Yep. The philosophical view that has evidence supporting it is taught. The one without evidence is ignored, rightly so. (cue Mantra in 3....2...)

Those 'deities' were created solely for the mockery of theists. Please don't try to justify your mockery by adding more mockery.

Ok...it was a bit of mockery. Just showing that all sorts of beings could be attributed to the "intelligent design" of the human race, because of the lack of evidence. If you are offended, I don't think I should be concerned since your actions on this board and your claim to follow the teachings of Jesus indicate that this is how you wish to be treated. Just trying to be accommodating.

Read my sig line. It's been there for quite a while now.

I have, which is why I was confused by your post and felt I should point out the seeming contradiction. Thanks for clearing it up.

You've not shown me evidence that only random/chance mutation created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

Again, I get to say....Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

Failure. It's nothing new to see anymore.

How can I fail to defeat something you won't even defend?

I'm not claiming that your term is inaccurate, but to be clear, your creationism is Godless while mine is theistic.

Yours was made up by you to use as a mockery of the theory of evolution.

The discussing regarding the creation of all life we observe today (not abiogenesis) isn't over. You've offered no evidence for your view, other than faith-based claims.

I have offered evidence that you refuse to look at much less attempt to refute....and this discussion is over.

Stick with what we're discussing instead of very transparent attempt to change the focus.

Not changing focus, just commenting on the fact that you refuse to define your beliefs regarding evolution beyond "Jesus did it!" and "It wasn't only naturalistic mechanisms".

You've provided no evidence that humanity is the result of only random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

And once again: Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

This from you is an "adult conversation"...."is this some kind of birth defect or congenital disease of yours?"

Ah! So you don't want to be treated in the same manner that you treat others! I didn't know you had decided not to follow that particular teaching by Jesus. Do you think He didn't mean it or is that a place in the Bible where is doesn't mean what it literally says?

You know there are probably folks here on the forum who have children or loved ones which may be physically or mentally challenged in some way and your ignorant, childish, cold and calculated mocking of that situation doesn't lend support that anything other than revealing your bitterness and deep hatred toward those who embrace Christ as creator.

I'm Irish, so I understand shaming. You didn't do it very well. Actually, I don't have bitterness or deep hatred toward those who embrace Christ as their creator. My wife is a YEC and regularly mocks what is said in the nature documentaries we watch on television. I don't say anything in return because that disagreement is not worth any possible effect on our relationship.
You, however, have no relationship with me that I value very highly. You have repeatedly treated others with disdain and refused to address a single piece of evidence presented to you. Your air of superiority wafting about in every post is only overwhelmed by the stench of that insipid mantra you continue to post. So, yeah, I probably go overboard a bit when commenting on the lack of support you provide for your claims.

Thankfully the forum doesn't allow filthy or foul language or you, as I've seen in non-Christian forums discussing these issues, would be using those tactics also in an attempt to disparage those who oppose your atheistic Darwinist creationist gospel.

I find the use of "foul language" and mantras to be the refuge of those with no imagination. I reserve my foul language for inanimate objects such as a stubborn bolt or cable. They don't object and their vocabulary is rather limited.
While I am an atheist, I don't have a gospel per se. In fact, I would become a believer if evidence was provided for a particular God. You got any?

Disagreement with your posts isn't mockery, it's disagreement.

I don't consider the fact that you disagree to be mockery. It's the way you disagree through flat-out refusal to address anything presented to you. Well, except through the repetition of your mantra.

Oh, I'm not whining nor am I backing away from opposing atheistic Darwinist creationism.

So, you won't back away from your made up strawman of the theory of evolution? That's nice. When do you plan on confronting something real?

Your actions aren't hurting me, they're hurting you and those individuals who have the issues of challenged children or loved ones in their family. Sad really that you feel the need to mock the less fortunate, but it's really not surprising.

Shame is still not working here. Besides, if you had a real concern for the less fortunate you would be admonishing AV, another Christian, for his insensitive Thalidomide comments. Since you don't, I have doubts about your sincerity.

Right, you've continually and totally failed to provide evidence that only random/chance mutations created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Simple as that.

Manta, mantra...who's got the mantra!! As I said before, mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope. They teach what they have evidence for, even if particular persons from particular belief systems refuse to acknowledge that it is evidence.

Nope, they do not have evidence that only random/chance mutations created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

The atheistic Darwnist creationists try to start teaching that the creation of one's life is created without purpose, without design, without intent. They try to begin the Godless worldview very early in the child's life. For example, here's a smidgen of the atheistic Darwinist creationist philosophical worldview that's taught to K-2 children......

"Choosing your words carefully: Function not purpose
The purpose of a hammer is to pound nails, and one's purpose in using the hammer might be to build a bench. However, it's not appropriate to say that one purpose of a hand is to hold a hammer. Instead, you can say that one function of a hand is to grasp or grip. Designed tools and independent agents have purposes. Structures of living things have functions. So, for example, it is preferable to say that the function (not purpose) of wings is flight or that wings are used for flying. Since purpose implies design or intent, this is an important distinction in the science classroom even early on."​

"Design an animal
When we ask students to design an animal to fit an ecosystem, on paper or out of pipe cleaners, we may be sending the message that living things are designed or that an individual animal can "adapt" to its environment by choosing to do so. This is far from the scientific view that living things are adapted over time to their environmental situations through genetic variation and natural selection. If you use such activities be sure to clarify for students how what they are doing contrasts with the natural processes of evolution."​

Find more of the atheistic Darwinist creationist philosophical worldview that you, little children, are the product of only a random/chance, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago here......

Teaching materials

From your point of view, my refusal to acknowledge the existence of God, doesn't affect the actuality of His existence.

True. And neither does my belief in God doesn't affect the actuality of His existence.

In the same vein, your refusal to acknowledge the existence of evidence in support of randomness in mutation events, doesn't affect the actuality of randomness in mutation events.

You're misstating the issue. The issue is concerning the view that only random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago produced the incomprehensibly complex and varied life we observe today. There is no evidence for such a view. Your belief that random/chance mutation is the creator of all life (not abiogenesis) is a faith-based one.

You don't even look at the evidence before you spout out your canned response. If you are not going to be bothered to attempt to discredit the evidence, why should this line of conversation continue? You are not going to change your mantra and I am not going to move from my position until you at least attempt to defend your position against the evidence I have presented.

You've presented no evidence that only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago created all life we observe today. You did attempt to introduce ERVs into the conversation, but we both agreed they're not evidence for such a view, didn't we?

"No, it's not!!!" fails as a rebuttal in any debate ever conducted.
Belief is irrelevant without evidence. I have presented mine. You have not even addressed it, much less attempted to refute it.

Where did you present it? Reference your post number.

I cannot accept any proposal of yours that you make no attempt to support or defend.

And neither can I accept the view that only random/chance mutation is our creator. Offering off-topic 'evidence' in an effort to take the view off the creation issue isn't a position of yours which I accept.

Yet those same articles propose that randomness is still involved in the mutation events. You refuse to acknowledge that part of the articles and instead focus on the use of 2 words that could have just been shorthand for DNA and the fixation mechanisms in the reproduction process.

'Might', 'could be', 'possibly'....."propose" are vague guesses and suppositions. Add to that the words in the article which point to intelligence and you have an article that offers nothing for your position.

Define "new life form".

The first life form, whatever that was...nobody seems to know that either...becoming a pine tree and elephant, different and new life forms.

I have a bacteria species that split to form the original species and a new species that can use nylon as a food source. Is that a new life form?

Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria. Bacteria aren't roses. Or finches. Or whales.

Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

Why do folks continue to offer the mantra of a Godless creation then?

Just saying that the letters in the genetic "code" are merely a description of the chemical sequences within the DNA. Microbiologists define what it means. Your agreement is unnecessary.

This is merely code for the letter "a"......"01100001". It's from intelligence and it contains information in it's encoding.

I am through trying to explain the obvious meaning behind what I write. You are either incapable of understanding or are stonewalling. So, I will simply post: Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

That one's life is produced by a series of random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mutations acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago is the philosophical worldview mantra which is introduced to our children throughout their educational years and cloaked in the putrid wrapper of pseudo-science.

Your attempt at logic is a complete failure, especially since your judgement concerning their guesses and suppositions doesn't include their use of the words "code" and "need". For some reason, according to you, they must have intended those words to mean exactly what YOU think they should mean.

Code is for communication, specific communication, specific communication requires need and purpose and intent and a goal.

Trying to dismiss or redefine the words, to try to twist them into the pretzel shape of pseudo-science in order to protect the philosophical worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism isn't going to work.

Yep. The philosophical view that has evidence supporting it is taught. The one without evidence is ignored, rightly so. (cue Mantra in 3....2...)

There is no evidence supporting it, only the guesses and suppositions of the pseudo-science of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Ok...it was a bit of mockery. Just showing that all sorts of beings could be attributed to the "intelligent design" of the human race, because of the lack of evidence. If you are offended, I don't think I should be concerned since your actions on this board and your claim to follow the teachings of Jesus indicate that this is how you wish to be treated. Just trying to be accommodating.

I'm not offended at all. Your behavior is very common within the atheistic Darwinist community. The main thing will stay the main thing no matter how mocking or derisive you feel you must be in your responses.

I have, which is why I was confused by your post and felt I should point out the seeming contradiction. Thanks for clearing it up.
Again, I get to say....Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

The mantra of Godless creationism sure bears that out.

How can I fail to defeat something you won't even defend?

I've given my reasons for my faith-based views. You, on the other hand will not admit to your faith-based views, claiming instead you have evidence...which you haven't presented in spite of your claims to the contrary.

Yours was made up by you to use as a mockery of the theory of evolution.
I have offered evidence that you refuse to look at much less attempt to refute....and this discussion is over.

Give the post number for the evidence that all of life (not abiogenesis) is the result of only random/chance mutations. Usually, you'll try to deflect by suggesting that you're not claiming "only" and if you're true to form, you'll not offer a single alternative to "only".

Not changing focus, just commenting on the fact that you refuse to define your beliefs regarding evolution beyond "Jesus did it!" and "It wasn't only naturalistic mechanisms".

"Jesus did it" is enough for me.

And once again: Mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

Are you suggesting that the continuing mantra of Godless creationism is indicative of a defeated philosophical worldview?

Ah! So you don't want to be treated in the same manner that you treat others! I didn't know you had decided not to follow that particular teaching by Jesus. Do you think He didn't mean it or is that a place in the Bible where is doesn't mean what it literally says?

Your mocking of those with special needs individuals in their families is actually unique to you. Your callousness in your comment of "is this some kind of birth defect or congenital disease of yours?" is there for all to see.

QUOTE][I'm Irish, so I understand shaming. You didn't do it very well. [/QUOTE]

I'm not the one mocking those with special needs individuals in their families.

Actually, I don't have bitterness or deep hatred toward those who embrace Christ as their creator. My wife is a YEC and regularly mocks what is said in the nature documentaries we watch on television. I don't say anything in return because that disagreement is not worth any possible effect on our relationship.

Your relationship with your wife is none of my business.

You, however, have no relationship with me that I value very highly. You have repeatedly treated others with disdain

Where? My disagreement isn't disdain.

and refused to address a single piece of evidence presented to you.

You've presented no evidence for only random/chance mutations producing the incomprehensibly complex and varied life forms from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

Your air of superiority wafting about in every post is only overwhelmed by the stench of that insipid mantra you continue to post.

Notice that I'm not the one calling the creationist view stupid that all of life we observe today (not abiogenesis) was created by only random/chance mutations.

So, yeah, I probably go oQverboard a bit when commenting on the lack of support you provide for your claims.

Mocking special needs individuals is more than 'going overboard' in my opinion. Apparently it's not yours though. Just something else on which we disagree, I guess.

I find the use of "foul language" and mantras to be the refuge of those with no imagination. I reserve my foul language for inanimate objects such as a stubborn bolt or cable. They don't object and their vocabulary is rather limited.

I'm sure you visit those forums where that's permitted and common toward those who embrace theistic creationism.

While I am an atheist, I don't have a gospel per se. In fact, I would become a believer if evidence was provided for a particular God. You got any?

No more than the faith-based views of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

I don't consider the fact that you disagree to be mockery. It's the way you disagree through flat-out refusal to address anything presented to you. Well, except through the repetition of your mantra.

I address anything which concerns how humanity was created. The impetus of creation.

So, you won't back away from your made up strawman of the theory of evolution? That's nice. When do you plan on confronting something real?

What theory of evolution? Which version. The atheistic Darwinist creationism version?

Shame is still not working here. Besides, if you had a real concern for the less fortunate you would be admonishing AV, another Christian, for his insensitive Thalidomide comments. Since you don't, I have doubts about your sincerity.

The Thalidomide posts were concerning science gone bad....very very bad. They were not mocking special need individuals, as were your comments. Nobody mocked Thalidomide victims as you were mocking the victims of the special need individuals.

But, you seem to be ok, and self-justified, with your mockery. We can move on.

Manta, mantra...who's got the mantra!! As I said before, mantra repeats are the hallmark of a defeated foe in a debate.

When the mantras of Godless creationism ceases I guess there'll be no mantras to mantra.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nope, they do not have evidence that only random/chance mutations created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.....

Not discussing this anymore.

Where did you present it? Reference your post number.

The post where I supplied links to the two articles on limitations on randomness in mutations. The articles both showed that research indicates a significant amount of randomness still occurs in mutation events. You never addressed it except to say "guess and suppositions". You obviously didn't comprehend the articles. That is why this part of the discussion is over. Moving on to the evidence for common descent.

And neither can I accept the view that only random/chance mutation is our creator. Offering off-topic 'evidence' in an effort to take the view off the creation issue isn't a position of yours which I accept.

Which is why I'm moving on to common descent.

Give the post number for the evidence that all of life (not abiogenesis) is the result of only random/chance mutations. Usually, you'll try to deflect by suggesting that you're not claiming "only" and if you're true to form, you'll not offer a single alternative to "only".

Neither will you.

I'm not the one mocking those with special needs individuals in their families.

No, you just mock anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I only mocked you.

When the mantras of Godless creationism ceases I guess there'll be no mantras to mantra.

Ready to move on to common descent?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeap, Neo-Darwinian evolution has been known to be false since the 50's. Let me guess you believe evolution is random mutations plus natural selection except when it's not random. Evolution covers both "A" and "not-A" so to make it impossible to falsify.

The living cell has layers on top of layers of information which helps it to adapt to it environment. True evolution , plasticity ,etc. But it doesn't mean a phenotype doesn't have it limits. There is very little if anything that id truly randomly when it comes to living cells... "Purpose" and "Design" is found everywhere.

No, I know evolution isn't random, no one who understands the theory, or even just observes nature in general, would consider it random. The wind isn't random either, and it is just as much a part of nature. Something doesn't have to have intelligence behind it to be nonrandom.

Purpose and design is found everywhere by some people as a result of a logic fallacy inherent in our species. I see faces in a bunch of situations where there is no actual face, like at the front of a lot of cars. It is just a result of a tendecy to group things.