Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

I can read. My question was to gain clarity because I wanted to completely understand your meaning. Repeating a sentence that I already don't understand does nothing to add clarity.
If the "other many guesses and suppositions" are "called into question" by "lack of identity of an alleged single common ancestor", doesn't that call into question the entire conclusion that humanity evolved from a common ancestor? What do you mean by "call into question"? Is that the same as invalidating it, or just lowering its likelihood some percentage points?

"Calling into question" is the process of examining a particular view, seeing it peppered with 'assumes', 'could be's, 'might have beens', 'possibly's' and determining that the view isn't based on evidence, but subjective views of those promoting and/or embracing the view.

There is evidence that naturalistic processes were involved in evolution at some points.

I agree. Darwin's finches are a prime example of it. What there isn't evidence for is the belief that humanity is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

There is evidence that humans evolved from an common ancestor with chimpanzee's. Since there is evidence that humans evolved and that naturalistic processes were involved, that evidence can be used to point to humanity being the creation of only totally completely solely naturalistic processes.

There is no evidence that humans evolved from chimpanzees completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms. That's a guess, a supposition.

The evidence scientists have uncovered does not guarantee that the process was only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic, but it still points to it. What the evidence does not point to is God creating humanity as a life form which never previously existed (assuming that means humans did not evolve from other animals).

As I've pointed out several times now, all creationist views are faith-based views. For the theistic creationist, there is reason to believe for a supernatural involvement in the creation of humanity through supernatural means.

I agree if you mean that the supernatural involvement consisted of humanity evolving from a common ancestor with chimpanzee's. The evidence for God forming the first humans separately from the rest of life, with no ancestors, has almost no evidence, none of which is scientific evidence.

My position is that humanity has never existed, in any form, before the creation of humanity by supernatural means. I have no proof, no evidence for that other than taking the information I have available and making a subjective decision from it. Well that and personally meeting Jesus Christ 'face to face' over 26 years ago. But, I guess that would be subjective to others also.

Except that the evolution of humanity from a common ancestor has some scientific evidence pointing to it, whereas the "formed from the dust of the ground" hypothesis has none.

Depends on what one places their faith in.

 

[justlookinla]

What nonsense. You call evolution "atheistic creationism" even though it does not talk about the ultimate origin of the universe.

You can't even keep your lies straight.

No, I call the position which views humanity as a creation from a single life form of long long ago solely by naturalistic means "atheistic creationism".

 

[justlookinla]

That's strange. When evolution is said to occur through just natural processes, you call it atheistic. So why doesn't the same apply to lightning?

When the creation of humanity is only by naturalistic means, I call it atheistic.

 

[Loudmouth]

When the creation of humanity is only by naturalistic means, I call it atheistic.

So why isn't it atheistic creationism when lightning is created only by naturalistic means? Why the double standard?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I call the position which views humanity as a creation from a single life form of long long ago solely by naturalistic means "atheistic creationism".

Look at your definition of creation. It mentions nothing of only applying to humans.

cre·a·tion
krēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.


So why the double standard?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Calling into question" is the process of examining a particular view, seeing it peppered with 'assumes', 'could be's, 'might have beens', 'possibly's' and determining that the view isn't based on evidence, but subjective views of those promoting and/or embracing the view.

Could you point those out for me in this excerpt from a scientific paper demonstrating that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

There is no evidence that humans evolved from chimpanzees completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms. That's a guess, a supposition.

There is evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor shared with chimpanzees, and it has been presented to you multiple times now.

As I've pointed out several times now, all creationist views are faith-based views.

Then evolution is not a creationist view since it is supported by evidence, as demonstrated above.

My position is that humanity has never existed, in any form, before the creation of humanity by supernatural means.

Then the 200,000 ERV's shared by humans and chimps proves that you are wrong.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Depends on what one places their faith in.

As I recall, you professed support for the efficacy of the scientific method. That method is what is used to infer that H. sapiens evolved from non-H. sapiens hominids. I agree that the claim that evolution is divinely ordained and sustained is basically on par with the claim that there is no God involved whatsoever; both are metaphysical positions that by definition cannot be addressed scientifically. But you are also claiming that your belief that humans were created in their present form is on par with the claim that humans evolved from non-human hominids; that's false. There is fossil and molecular evidence for the latter and , by your own admission, zero empirical evidence for the former.

 

[justlookinla]

Could you point those out for me in this excerpt from a scientific paper demonstrating that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

Where's the part about humanity being created only by naturalistic processes acting on a life form from long long ago?

There is evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor shared with chimpanzees, and it has been presented to you multiple times now.

You're still not offering evidence proving by what mechanism humanity was created.

Then evolution is not a creationist view since it is supported by evidence, as demonstrated above.

Humanity being created by only naturalistic processes is a creationist view, like it or not.

Then the 200,000 ERV's shared by humans and chimps proves that you are wrong.

And still nothing offering evidence for the creationist view that all of life, including humanity, is only, solely, completely, totally by naturalistic means. That may be your faith based view and you're certainly welcome to it.

 

[DerelictJunction]

"Calling into question" is the process of examining a particular view, seeing it peppered with 'assumes', 'could be's, 'might have beens', 'possibly's' and determining that the view isn't based on evidence, but subjective views of those promoting and/or embracing the view.

Basically using the fact that some things in the theory are not completely proven or haven't actually been witnessed, to dismiss the parts that are known or have been determined through actual experiment. That way you can claim that the whole thing is mere supposition. I guess if we don't know everything about a particular hypothesis, we don't really know anything about it. If you don't know how to rebuild the engine of your automobile, I shouldn't believe you know how to put gasoline in it.

I agree. Darwin's finches are a prime example of it. What there isn't evidence for is the belief that humanity is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Yes there is, you've been shown it. To say it doesn't exist makes you either very ignorant or a liar.

There is no evidence that humans evolved from chimpanzees completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms. That's a guess, a supposition.

You've been shown the information on shared ERV's. That is evidence that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor. Is there the slightest possibility that no God was involved...yes. Is there the very very slightest possibility that chimps and humans are not related?....yes, but God would have had to purposely put the ERV's in the same place in both genomes. Maybe that's what He did. However, the evidence doesn't show that in any way.

As I've pointed out several times now, all creationist views are faith-based views. For the theistic creationist, there is reason to believe for a supernatural involvement in the creation of humanity through supernatural means.

This is pure baloney that has been refuted many times just by the shared ERV's example. The evidence points to common ancestry and doesn't support your position shown below.

My position is that humanity has never existed, in any form, before the creation of humanity by supernatural means. I have no proof, no evidence for that other than taking the information I have available and making a subjective decision from it. Well that and personally meeting Jesus Christ 'face to face' over 26 years ago. But, I guess that would be subjective to others also.

If you met Christ you can answer a few questions for me, hopefully.
1. What color were His eyes?
2. What did He do to prove He was Christ, and not an angel, demon or some other supernatural entity?
3. What about the experience caused you to believe that He did not use evolution from a common ancestor to create humans?

 

[justlookinla]

"Calling into question" is the process of examining a particular view, seeing it peppered with 'assumes', 'could be's, 'might have beens', 'possibly's' and determining that the view isn't based on evidence, but subjective views of those promoting and/or embracing the view.

Basically using the fact that some things in the theory are not completely proven or haven't actually been witnessed, to dismiss the parts that are known or have been determined through actual experiment. That way you can claim that the whole thing is mere supposition. I guess if we don't know everything about a particular hypothesis, we don't really know anything about it. If you don't know how to rebuild the engine of your automobile, I shouldn't believe you know how to put gasoline in it.

I agree. Darwin's finches are a prime example of it. What there isn't evidence for is the belief that humanity is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Yes there is, you've been shown it. To say it doesn't exist makes you either very ignorant or a liar.

No, there hasn't.

You've been shown the information on shared ERV's. That is evidence that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.

You're very persistent in your effort to take the focus from your failure to provide the evidence for humanity to be the creation of entirely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Try as you may though, the focus is going to stay on creationist views, including Darwinist creationism.

Is there the slightest possibility that no God was involved...yes. Is there the very very slightest possibility that chimps and humans are not related?....yes, but God would have had to purposely put the ERV's in the same place in both genomes. Maybe that's what He did. However, the evidence doesn't show that in any way.

This is pure baloney that has been refuted many times just by the shared ERV's example. The evidence points to common ancestry and doesn't support your position shown below.

Shared ERV's doesn't offer the slightest evidence that only naturalistic forces created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. That particular creationist view is common to Darwinist creationism.

If you met Christ you can answer a few questions for me, hopefully.

Sure, no problem. I sense that the answers are going to be met with disbelief, mocking, ridicule and personal disparaging, but who cares?

1. What color were His eyes?

I didn't see His eyes. It was His presence, His manifestation, His person.

2. What did He do to prove He was Christ, and not an angel, demon or some other supernatural entity?

He didn't do anything to prove He was Christ, He simply was.

3. What about the experience caused you to believe that He did not use evolution from a common ancestor to create humans?

He may have used evolution, but He didn't use Darwinist creationism.

 

[bhsmte]

I still can't find a definition for; Darwinist creationism, or more aptly put; justlookinlaism. Can anyone else?

Lots of tail chasing, just like my dog does.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Shared ERV's doesn't offer the slightest evidence that only naturalistic forces created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. That particular creationist view is common to Darwinist creationism.

You have a strange concept of evidence.

Concerning the ERV's
1. ERV's are remnants of viral infections of seed cells (sperm or egg cells).
2. Those viral infections never built viruses again but, instead remained in the cell for some reason.
3. Virus infections of cells has been shown in the lab to latch onto the DNA strands in a mostly random pattern.
4. If one species is actually descended from another, those two species will have portions of DNA in common.
5. ERV's are portions of the DNA, so related species should have common ERV's.
6. Human's and chimpanzee's have over 200,000 ERV's in common with each other.

By my logic, and that of scientists, having 200,000 ERV's in common is evidence that chimpanzee's and humans are related through a common ancestor.
By your logic having 200,000 ERV's in common is evidence of absolutely nothing.

Let's look at a simple example to showcase your logic.
Marleen has been murdered by stabbing. The police investigation reveals the following clues.
1. A witness heard a man an a woman arguing then the woman screaming.
2. A different witness heard the scream, then saw a man in a white polo shirt running from Marleen's house with a bloody knife.
3. Marleen is married to Dan.
4. Marleen has a boyfriend named Mark.
5. Dan and Marleen were witnessed in a heated argument at Dan's workplace earlier that day.
6. Mark told a coworker that Marleen broke up with him the night before and he wanted to go talk to her about it.
7. Both Dan and Mark wear white polo shirts at their workplace.

By my logic, the fact that the murderer had on a white polo shirt is evidence that Mark possibly committed the crime. It is also evidence that Dan possibly committed the crime.
According to your logic, the fact that the murderer had on a white polo shirt not evidence of anything at all.

Now, I am not saying that having 200,000 ERV's in common proves that humans evolved from an ancestor of chimpanzee's through only, completely, solely naturalistic processes. God could have monkeyed with the pre-chimp DNA just enough to cause humans to come into existence. Common ERV's are evidence of that too.

Sure, no problem. I sense that the answers are going to be met with disbelief, mocking, ridicule and personal disparaging, but who cares?
I didn't see His eyes. It was His presence, His manifestation, His person.

What do you mean by "His manifestation, His person"? Is that a physical visible presence whereby you saw his body?

He didn't do anything to prove He was Christ, He simply was.

"Simply was" is not helpful. How did you know that the presence was Christ if no means of identification was provided? Was it an assumption on your part?

He may have used evolution, but He didn't use Darwinist creationism.

I am not trying to prove Darwinist creationism because it cannot be proven. I thought we had agreed on the impossibility of proving it. Besides, your God can't use Darwinist creationism because by definition it excludes any gods.
We are at the point where I am providing evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzee's. The process of that evolution, Darwinist creationism or God directed evolving, is not part of the discussion except to say that the evidence could point to either one.

 

[Dizredux]

From the magical keyboard of Just

There is no evidence that humans evolved from chimpanzees completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms. That's a guess, a supposition.

It just occurred to me that one could have some fun with this.

"There is no evidence for ( ) completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms. That's a guess, a supposition."


Some ideas that could be substituted

"the sun shining"
"rain falling"
"birds singing"
"water being wet"
"bears s*ing in the woods"
"sh* stinking"
"fleas biting"
"snapping turtles snapping"
"dogs barking"
"rocks sliding"
"clouds forming"
"roses being red"
"hair growing"
"crystals forming"
"snowflakes forming"
"apples falling"
"today being Friday"

The list could go on and on and on as Just does.

And with every phenomenon anyone has ever observed, he could say that there is no evidence that any of them could happen completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms.

Since he covers everything, he covers nothing but he seems to have fun doing it. I guess he is easily entertained.



Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not. Building blocks are building blocks. Sharing is sharing.

If you have no problem with humans and an amoeba sharing a common ancestor, then why do you have a problem with humans and flatworms sharing a more recent ancestor?

 

[Loudmouth]

Where's the part about humanity being created only by naturalistic processes acting on a life form from long long ago?

It is in your posts, which have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I am presenting evidence for the theory of evolution.

You're still not offering evidence proving by what mechanism humanity was created.

That is exactly what that paper provieds. The mechanism is the same mechanism we observe every day: descent with modification. You do know how babies are made, don't you?

Humanity being created by only naturalistic processes is a creationist view, like it or not.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Dizredux]

Offered by the keyboard of Just

Humanity being created by only naturalistic processes is a creationist view, like it or not

Boy, talk about private definitions!

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Shared ERV's doesn't offer the slightest evidence that only naturalistic forces created humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

The divergence of LTR's in ERV's does prove it. If random mutations and selection produced the human genome we see today then we should observe divergence in LTR's of ERV's produce a phylogenetic signal. This is due to the fact that LTR's are identical in sequence when the retrovirus inserts. Overtime, due to random mutations, the LTR's at each end of the viral genome will accumulate different mutations causing them to diverge. The longer they have been in the genome the more divergent they will become. Therefore, the amount of divergence should mirror the time since common ancestry. That is EXACTLY what we see. It is evidence that naturalistic forces acted on our genome through common ancestry, natural selection, and random mutations.

Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

Here are the results from the experiments.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254/F2.expansion.html

As expected, the LTR divergence falls into the predicted phylogenies.

I didn't see His eyes. It was His presence, His manifestation, His person.

What color was his hair? Large nose? Small nose?

 

[Loudmouth]

Offered by the keyboard of Just



Boy, talk about private definitions!

Dizredux

Exactly. Since he bases this on the base definition for "creation", anything that is created by natural processes is creationism. This would apply to lightning, steam, clouds, rivers, etc. The entirety of science is creationism, according to such a definition.

 

[justlookinla]

You have a strange concept of evidence.

Not really.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.​

Concerning the ERV's
1. ERV's are remnants of viral infections of seed cells (sperm or egg cells).
2. Those viral infections never built viruses again but, instead remained in the cell for some reason.
3. Virus infections of cells has been shown in the lab to latch onto the DNA strands in a mostly random pattern.
4. If one species is actually descended from another, those two species will have portions of DNA in common.
5. ERV's are portions of the DNA, so related species should have common ERV's.
6. Human's and chimpanzee's have over 200,000 ERV's in common with each other.

By my logic, and that of scientists, having 200,000 ERV's in common is evidence that chimpanzee's and humans are related through a common ancestor.
By your logic having 200,000 ERV's in common is evidence of absolutely nothing.

It's not evidence that humanity was created entirely, completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

look at a simple example to showcase your logic.
Marleen has been murdered by stabbing. The police investigation reveals the following clues.
1. A witness heard a man an a woman arguing then the woman screaming.
2. A different witness heard the scream, then saw a man in a white polo shirt running from Marleen's house with a bloody knife.
3. Marleen is married to Dan.
4. Marleen has a boyfriend named Mark.
5. Dan and Marleen were witnessed in a heated argument at Dan's workplace earlier that day.
6. Mark told a coworker that Marleen broke up with him the night before and he wanted to go talk to her about it.
7. Both Dan and Mark wear white polo shirts at their workplace.

By my logic, the fact that the murderer had on a white polo shirt is evidence that Mark possibly committed the crime. It is also evidence that Dan possibly committed the crime.
According to your logic, the fact that the murderer had on a white polo shirt not evidence of anything at all.

I'd rather we just stick to finding the evidence that humanity was created entirely by naturalistic processes.

Now, I am not saying that having 200,000 ERV's in common proves that humans evolved from an ancestor of chimpanzee's through only, completely, solely naturalistic processes. God could have monkeyed with the pre-chimp DNA just enough to cause humans to come into existence. Common ERV's are evidence of that too.

I'm curious why you aren't starting with the first life form and offering evidence for the creation of humans from that single life form.

What do you mean by "His manifestation, His person"? Is that a physical visible presence whereby you saw his body?

Since it was a spiritual encounter, the experience cannot be fully described using naturalistic terms. There was a presence, an entity, which manifested Himself in a reality just as real as a corporeal physical presence, but without the corporeal, physical, presence.

"Simply was" is not helpful. How did you know that the presence was Christ if no means of identification was provided? Was it an assumption on your part?

No, it was no assumption, I knew Him, it was a non-verbal interaction with a spiritual being.

I am not trying to prove Darwinist creationism because it cannot be proven. I thought we had agreed on the impossibility of proving it.

I agree. It's another creationist view based on faith.

Besides, your God can't use Darwinist creationism because by definition it excludes any gods.

It's more like Darwinist creationism cannot use any God(s) because it presents the view that humanity is the result only, totally, completely, solely of naturalistic processes. All other impetuses are disallowed, rejected, discarded, forbidden.

We are at the point where I am providing evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzee's. The process of that evolution, Darwinist creationism or God directed evolving, is not part of the discussion except to say that the evidence could point to either one.

The issue, in this particular case, isn't about evolution from a common ancestor, the issue is entirely about the impetus which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. The impetus, whatever the view, is a form of creationism. Whatever the creationist view of the individual, it's based on faith. None of the views have absolute evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

From the magical keyboard of Just

It just occurred to me that one could have some fun with this.

"There is no evidence for ( ) completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms. That's a guess, a supposition."


Some ideas that could be substituted

"the sun shining"
"rain falling"
"birds singing"
"water being wet"
"bears s*ing in the woods"
"sh* stinking"
"fleas biting"
"snapping turtles snapping"
"dogs barking"
"rocks sliding"
"clouds forming"
"roses being red"
"hair growing"
"crystals forming"
"snowflakes forming"
"apples falling"
"today being Friday"

The list could go on and on and on as Just does.

And with every phenomenon anyone has ever observed, he could say that there is no evidence that any of them could happen completely, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms.

Since he covers everything, he covers nothing but he seems to have fun doing it. I guess he is easily entertained.



Dizredux

I've admitted before that I have fun doing this. I enjoy it.

Now, do you have the evidence that the following is a lie?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
​