Why are you an evolutionist?

[whois]

I believe you're misunderstanding an argument somewhere. None of the papers or researchers I've seen you cite has expressed the slightest doubt that the major transitions of evolution occurred. What some claim is that there's no (or little) empirical evidence for how they happened. The first is the fact of evolution: we share common ancestors with all other known life on this planet. The second is the theory (or theories) of evolution: how and why those changes have occurred.

isn't that what evolution is all about, explaining how these things happen?
making a statement such as "one life form came from another" is simply that, a statement.
there is no clear evidence that such a thing happened.
the only evidence i've seen in this regard is the ability to trace gene history through deep time.
this however doesn't make any sense in the light of such things like base insertions, this sort of thing would soon erase any gene history.

 

[lasthero]

I was once like you.

I am extremely doubtful that you were, at any point, like Loudmouth.

 

[SeventyTimes7]

The DNA evidence demonstrates that we share a common ancestor.



No one is saying that chimps are our ancestor. They are our cousins.

DNA evidences demonstrates that we have the same DNA present all around the livings and that's why we share a lot of DNA with plants and animals, so we don't have an ancestor with plants and which from nowhere a mushroom or a monkey little by little can become a man.
And this means which there is an ever-existed DNA cause there are no evidences of "positive mutations" in the DNA which could lead to new functional living beings.

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA evidences demonstrates that we have the same DNA present all around the livings and that's why we share a lot of DNA with plants and animals, so we don't have an ancestor with plants and which from nowhere a mushroom or a monkey little by little can become a man.

The DNA evidence demonstrates that we do share an ancestor.

Do we have to witness a criminal leave DNA at a crime scene before we use DNA fingerprinting evidence?

And this means which there is an ever-existed DNA cause there are no evidences of "positive mutations" in the DNA which could lead to new functional living beings.

Please explain how there is no evidence for positive mutations. From where I am sitting, the DNA differences between the human and chimp genomes include positive mutations. Those DNA differences are responsible for the physical differences between our species, including the positive adaptations. Therefore, those DNA differences include positive mutations.

 

[sfs]

isn't that what evolution is all about, explaining how these things happen?

Quite a lot of evolutionary theory is about explaining how these things happen, yes.

making a statement such as "one life form came from another" is simply that, a statement.
there is no clear evidence that such a thing happened.

There is immense, overwhelming evidence that such things have indeed happened. None of the biologists you've been quoting or citing have expressed any doubt at all that they did indeed happen.

the only evidence i've seen in this regard is the ability to trace gene history through deep time.
this however doesn't make any sense in the light of such things like base insertions, this sort of thing would soon erase any gene history.

Don't worry about the entire history of life: just focus on humans and chimpanzees. How many base insertions have occurred in the last 7 million years, roughly speaking?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

The DNA evidence demonstrates that we do share an ancestor.

Do we have to witness a criminal leave DNA at a crime scene before we use DNA fingerprinting evidence?



Please explain how there is no evidence for positive mutations. From where I am sitting, the DNA differences between the human and chimp genomes include positive mutations. Those DNA differences are responsible for the physical differences between our species, including the positive adaptations. Therefore, those DNA differences include positive mutations.

there are no proofs cause you would be able to observe that and to find intermediary forms of humans, but there are not indeed. So the so called "ancestors" don't exist.
ps. and we cannot observe which the DNA was formed after an explosion of material which formed from nowhere with an explosion generated from nothing.
So let's talk about evidences we can see with common logic and not by inventing

 

[sfs]

DNA evidences demonstrates that we have the same DNA present all around the livings and that's why we share a lot of DNA with plants and animals, so we don't have an ancestor with plants and which from nowhere a mushroom or a monkey little by little can become a man.

So why can creationists never explain the shared DNA we have? Why do you think we have 200,000 identical viral insertions as chimpanzees? What's your explanation?

And this means which there is an ever-existed DNA cause there are no evidences of "positive mutations" in the DNA which could lead to new functional living beings.

Where do you get your information about genetics from?

 

[Loudmouth]

there are no proofs cause you would be able to observe that and to find intermediary forms of humans, but there are not indeed.

Here are the intermediate forms of humans.

ps. and we cannot observe which the DNA was formed after an explosion of material which formed from nowhere with an explosion generated from nothing.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with common ancestry or the evidence for evolution.

So let's talk about evidences we can see with common logic and not by inventing

What evidence have I invented?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

So why can creationists never explain the shared DNA we have? Why do you think we have 200,000 identical viral insertions as chimpanzees? What's your explanation?


Where do you get your information about genetics from?

Human and chimps are the only living beings to have viral insertions? No, so what you say is irrelevant.

 

[Loudmouth]

Human and chimps are the only living beings to have viral insertions? No, so what you say is irrelevant.

How does that make it irrelevant?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

Here are the intermediate forms of humans.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with common ancestry or the evidence for evolution.



What evidence have I invented?

I just see human skulls and monkey skulls mixed. There are also elliptical human skulls, so what? come out with proofs of an intermediary human if you can. All we can observe is which the chimp is still alive and we should have intermediary chimps and human alive but there are not. The End.

 

[sfs]

Human and chimps are the only living beings to have viral insertions? No, so what you say is irrelevant.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you think we have so many identical viral insertions as chimpanzees?

 

[Loudmouth]

I just see human skulls and monkey skulls mixed. There are also elliptical human skulls, so what? come out with proofs of an intermediary human if you can. All we can observe is which the chimps is still alive and we should have intermediary chimps and human alive but there are not. The End.

Please show me how those are not intermediate.

 

[lasthero]

I just see human skulls and monkey skulls mixed.

Can you point out which are which?

we should have intermediary chimps and human alive but there are not. The End.

What the heck is an 'intermediary chimp'?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

Please show me how those are not intermediate.

All we can observe is which the chimp is still alive and we should have intermediary chimps and human alive but there are not. So what you assume has no meaning from the root, so why should I keep answering to you if what you say has no foundation?

 

[Loudmouth]

All we can observe is which the chimps is still alive and we should have intermediary chimps and human alive but there are not.

Why should those intermediate forms be alive? That would make those individuals millions of years old. Most apes die in their 30's to 80's.

Please explain why those are not transitional fossils. What criteria are you using?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

Can you point out which are which?



What the heck is an 'intermediary chimp'?

There are no missing links alive between the chimp and the man that's what we can observe. So there is no way to invent conjectures to make the evolution belief fitting with reality.

 

[lasthero]

There are no missing links alive between the chimp and the man that's what we can observe. So there is no way to invent conjectures to make the evolution belief fitting with reality.

So you have no idea what this missing link should look like...but you know it doesn't exist.

 

[lasthero]

All we can observe is which the chimp is still alive and we should have intermediary chimps and human alive but there are not. So what you assume has no meaning from the root, so why should I keep answering to you if what you say has no foundation?

Seventy, no offense, but it seems to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem like you're just repeating arguments you heard someone else say, but since you don't have any real understanding of the subject beyond those arguments, you can't really argue them effectively.

Do you understand what an ERV is? What a transitional fossil is?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are no missing links alive between the chimp and the man that's what we can observe.

Why do you think these hominid transitionals should stay alive for millions of years? Why can't they be transitional and dead?

So there is no way to invent conjectures to make the evolution belief fitting with reality.

It is just a conjecture that the two pelvises in the middle of the photo look more like the pelvis on the left than the pelvis on the right?