When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, but since this is a scientific debate you need scientific evidence and in that case you do not have any evidence.

The design is observed with scientific methods. You haven't given any evidence that shows the design observed in living things is deceptive and is an illusion produced by evolutionary processes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Amazing! You are correct. Creationists have no scientific evidence.

Most don't even understand the concept.

 

[justlookinla]

The randomness, really can be said to occur at the lowest smallest level, such as the Quantum level. Because after that, there is cause and effect, which might seem like purpose driven from the point of view of those who need such devices, but a cell developing a better mechanism to use sugars, is in fact not a mutation, but the result of a long chain on previous changes, coming from the quantum level random occurrence.

There are lots of possibilities and all it takes is one success for the chain to start. Consider a jig saw puzzle, the pieces all heaped on the table. Total chaos, but once you realise that one side has a picture on it and the other does not, the puzzle is basically solved.

So, is this a yes or no to the question "are you suggesting that mutation isn't random, but driven by a purpose at a specific time?".

 

[justlookinla]

Of course this will all be resolved, if we where to find bunnies in the Cretaceous fossil record. Just one bunny bone and Darwin will be booted out the door. (Well maybe not, because we do have more than fossils to show evolution is the only story worth learning.)

What would finding a bunny in the Cretaceous fossil record do for the explanation of how the bunny was created?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Amazing! You are correct. Creationists have no scientific evidence.

Most don't even understand the concept.

What is even more amazing are the materialists that claim they have scientific evidence but can't produce anything specific for specific evolutionary claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But he is very very well versed in evidence. Something that it would behoove creationists to learn.

You do understand that there are creationists that have PhD's in Biology. They are very well versed in the evidence.

No, we can point out the obvious fact that you have no scientific evidence.

No WE can point out the obvious fact that you have no scientific evidence. If you did you would pull that out and wave it like a flag. There is no evidence that shows the design in living forms is only mimicking deliberate design. If you had it you would bring it. If Dawkins had it, he would too.

 

[Balstrome]

So, is this a yes or no to the question "are you suggesting that mutation isn't random, but driven by a purpose at a specific time?".

No I am saying that mutation is not random, it is the result of prior conditions being met. The effect of the mutation can be seen as random, depending on whether or not it has a useful effect. And by useful I mean that it does something that can be observed.

Going back to water, hydrogen and oxygen combining are the results of effect coming from the chemical quantum level. At that level there is randomness, either electrons are shared or they are not, everything after that is natural selection. So in the lowest level, mutation at the species level is just a chain of selection coming from that original random process.

As to purpose, the word means a future goal, and can not be used in association with evolution because of the above process I have described. Mutation is not driven, but rather it happens where it can. If it succeeds to happen, then it happens. If it does not then it does not. Whatever happens after that is due to a further selection step. And this is why the creationists have such a problem, they have need that things must be guided. Anything that is not guided, stands a chance of doing something that they are not prepared to accept, chaos lurks and that is scary.

 

[justlookinla]

No I am saying that mutation is not random, it is the result of prior conditions being met.

If the criteria for mutation is dependent on certain conditions there exists a plan.

The effect of the mutation can be seen as random, depending on whether or not it has a useful effect. And by useful I mean that it does something that can be observed.

The conditions which caused the mutation isn't random, but produces random results? This would still result in new life forms being the result of random events.

Going back to water, hydrogen and oxygen combining are the results of effect coming from the chemical quantum level. At that level there is randomness, either electrons are shared or they are not, everything after that is natural selection. So in the lowest level, mutation at the species level is just a chain of selection coming from that original random process.

Right, the creation of new life forms is the result of something random. Until that happens, there are no new life forms on which natural selection to act.

As to purpose, the word means a future goal, and can not be used in association with evolution because of the above process I have described. Mutation is not driven, but rather it happens where it can. If it succeeds to happen, then it happens. If it does not then it does not. Whatever happens after that is due to a further selection step. And this is why the creationists have such a problem, they have need that things must be guided. Anything that is not guided, stands a chance of doing something that they are not prepared to accept, chaos lurks and that is scary.

Right, in Darwinian evolution the creation of all life we observe today is the result of a chaotic creation system, but there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The design is observed with scientific methods. You haven't given any evidence that shows the design observed in living things is deceptive and is an illusion produced by evolutionary processes.

You don't know what scientific evidence is. You claimed to have scientific evidence, what is your testable, which means falsifiable, hypothesis. I said nothing about the explanatory claim. I was pointing out your weakness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is even more amazing are the materialists that claim they have scientific evidence but can't produce anything specific for specific evolutionary claims.

We can and we have. It has been presented many many times here. Sadly you don't know what scientific evidence is and falsely rejected it.

I can help you to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do understand that there are creationists that have PhD's in Biology. They are very well versed in the evidence.

There is only a very very small handful. And in any large enough group you will have a few people that are willing to deceive themselves. You should ask yourself why none of these PhD's, that know how to publish a peer reviewed article, don't have any article in well respected journals opposing evolution.

No WE can point out the obvious fact that you have no scientific evidence. If you did you would pull that out and wave it like a flag. There is no evidence that shows the design in living forms is only mimicking deliberate design. If you had it you would bring it. If Dawkins had it, he would too.

And you are laughably wrong. First I would like to see what you call "deliberate design". If it can be explained by natural processes then by definition it is not "deliberate design". Please the claim is "apparent design" not "deliberate" the reason it is called "apparent" is because a natural explanation has been found. You have also shown that you have no clue as to what scientific evidence is, but that goes without saying.

 

[justlookinla]

We can and we have. It has been presented many many times here. Sadly you don't know what scientific evidence is and falsely rejected it.

I can help you to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence.

And there's your frequent evasion response with still no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there's your frequent evasion response with still no evidence.

I have given you evidence in the past. You disqualified yourself form demanding any by dishonestly denying it. When you learn what scientific evidence is I will provide the evidence. I will even help you to learn. You can't ask for more than that. You made a foolish denial and I am ready to help you atone for your past sin.

 

[justlookinla]

I have given you evidence in the past. You disqualified yourself form demanding any by dishonestly denying it. When you learn what scientific evidence is I will provide the evidence. I will even help you to learn. You can't ask for more than that. You made a foolish denial and I am ready to help you atone for your past sin.

LOL. You've given nothing and will never give anything other than empty claims. There's months and months of, and mountains of nothing, from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. You've given nothing and will never give anything other than empty claims. There's months and months of, and mountains of nothing, from you.

Then why are you so afraid to learn? You don't know what I have since you have been running away from my simple offer for months and months. I am willing to put up or shut up, I see that you aren't.

 

[justlookinla]

Then why are you so afraid to learn? You don't know what I have since you have been running away from my simple offer for months and months. I am willing to put up or shut up, I see that you aren't.

All I've see you willing to do is evade and make empty claims. Like you're doing now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I've see you willing to do is evade and make empty claims. Like you're doing now.

Wrong again. I have made the offer, you keep running away.

All that you have to do is to learn what scientific evidence is. You keep acting like a coward. I have put a "Put up or shut up" upon myself and you run away form that offer.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong again. I have made the offer, you keep running away.

All that you have to do is to learn what scientific evidence is. You keep acting like a coward. I have put a "Put up or shut up" upon myself and you run away form that offer.

And your next post will be like dozens of your previous posts......nothing but empty words with not a smidgen of evidence.

Your pattern of evasion was set several months ago and continues today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And your next post will be like dozens of your previous posts......nothing but empty words with not a smidgen of evidence.

Your pattern of evasion was set several months ago and continues today.

There is no evasion on my part. I gave you a very simple task. You continue to run away from that simple demand like a coward. You could make me put up or shut up, but you are afraid. I am not the one running away here.

 

[justlookinla]

There is no evasion on my part. I gave you a very simple task. You continue to run away from that simple demand like a coward. You could make me put up or shut up, but you are afraid. I am not the one running away here.

Yes, I was right. And your next post will be like the others.....devoid of evidence, choosing rather to make totally empty claims.