Nondescendants Of Adam

[Log]

It is impossible to ever prove something is random with 100% confidence.

That is true. However, to prove something is consistent with randomness, there needs to be a chance hypothesis which renders the phenomenon in question more likely than not. So, for example, if you were to claim that a specific stochastic process - say, natural selection operating on random mutations - produced from a population of non-motile bacteria without flagella a population of bacteria with functioning flagella, I would request to see the probability calculations behind that assertion, and without them, would reject the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you see.

New traits can arise from insertions, deletions, duplications, recombinations, substitutions at levels from single basepairs in regulatory domains to entire chromosomes. These events are ongoing and commonplace and cause much of the variation we see in people. Twins are in contrast to this.

If a proposed material process is asserted to increase genetic variation, it can be referred to under the generic term "random mutations". If a proposed material process eliminates genetic variations, it may be referred to under the generic term "natural selection."

Can we therefore simply answer the questions now?

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[Log]

The questions that I did write, however, you have avoided answering.

That's true, because your questions do not address claims I've made within the scope of this thread. You, on the other hand, are obfuscating and derailing.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[shalamabobbi]

None of the above constitutes scientific "proof" of Evolution.

As for the Catholic guy, the Catholic Church officially adopted Evolution ages ago; still no scientific proof of Evolution.

And for the Evangelists it doesn't constitute proof either, but what it does do is force them into the position of positing a God that creates with "the appearance of age".

So you believe in a God that creates with the appearance of evolution. Wonderful!

I guess it goes along with brains with the appearance of thought..

[shalamabobbi]

That's true; when I saw their deceptive mischaracterization of intelligent design theory, I declined to pursue any further truth they might have to offer. Life's too short to go weeding in someone else's garden.

Thankyou. The irony is satisfying. You now have removed your objection to my not wanting to waste any time reviewing any further nonsense from ICR and Demski..

[shalamabobbi]

Panspermiaaaaa.

/drive-by post attempting to introduce a fourth way capable of cutting through the nonsense which has accumulated on every extreme of the "creation/evolution" debate by positing certain materialistic/naturalistic premises which discredit strict Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Neo-Darwinism with something (coincidentally?) close to LDS teachings, woooo

/Fox Mulder-esque enthusiasm

Thanks for the contribution Jeremy. Will post back when I get a chance to look it over.

[Log]

Thankyou. The irony is satisfying. You now have removed your objection to my not wanting to waste any time reviewing any further nonsense from ICR and Demski..

With your concession in hand, I could literally not care less where you waste your time - you have not yet shown evidence of reviewing any of Dembski's work, so I can't imagine you'd have to change anything.

Wherever it is, have fun at it.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[shalamabobbi]

With your concession in hand, I could literally not care less where you waste your time - you have not yet shown evidence of reviewing any of Dembski's work, so I can't imagine you'd have to change anything.

Wherever it is, have fun at it.

No need to re-invent the wheel..

http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski

[zerinus]

And for the Evangelists it doesn't constitute proof either, but what it does do is force them into the position of positing a God that creates with "the appearance of age".

So you believe in a God that creates with the appearance of evolution. Wonderful!

I guess it goes along with brains with the appearance of thought..

No, I don't believe that God creates with the appearance of Evolution. I believe that you are reading the data wrong. The data is in fact sufficiently complex that you can only affirm your conclusions categorically by assuming to know more than you really do. That is another way of saying that some Evolutionists are being wilfully dishonest, while others are easily duped by them.

[Log]

No need to re-invent the wheel..

http://ncse.com/rncs...william-dembski

You might be surprised to find out what you have isn't even round.

[shalamabobbi]

No, I don't believe that God creates with the appearance of Evolution. I believe that you are reading the data wrong. The data is in fact sufficiently complex that you can only affirm your conclusions categorically by assuming to know more than you really do. That is another way of saying that some Evolutionists are being wilfully dishonest, while others are easily duped by them.

Duped into what? Having a specific conviction about how the details of the creation took place doesn't change anything. Do you think there is significant merit in holding to one viewpoint over another that justifies separating the sheep from the goats??

But to the topic of your remark, Why is there NO DATA that contradicts the evolutionary model? It would be expected for instance that ERV patterns would not agree between primates if there were no relationship between the species.

[Log]

Why is there NO DATA that contradicts the evolutionary model?

What would such data look like?

What would evidence of directed mutations look like?

What would evidence of artificial or intelligent selection look like?

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[shalamabobbi]

You might be surprised to find out what you have isn't even round.

You might be surprised to find out what you have isn't even round.

Been there, done that..

May I recommend to you the "evolution fairytale forum". You might enjoy your stay there..

bye.. it's been real..

[Log]

Been there, done that..

I've seen no evidence of that, yet.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[shalamabobbi]

What would such data look like?

One last post..

It would look like separate ERV insertions for distinct species with no common heredity. In other words there would be at least one ERV insertion that disproves common descent. Are you positing the God directly inserts ERV damage into each and every genome? and just for fun He does it in a pattern that coincides with an evolutionary model?

I've seen no evidence of that yet

Funny. The church's site I posted didn't encourage learning any psuedo-science. It did mention biology among the subjects worthy of study. I see no evidence as yet that you have taken such a course. Maybe if you could follow the persuasion of our church and do so and get a descent grade in such a class we could have a conversation.

I can't live live on this forum as you apparently do. I have to eat. So enjoy the last word..

[Log]

One last post..

It would look like separate ERV insertions for distinct species with no common heredity. In other words there would be at least one ERV insertion that disproves common descent.

Really? That alone is what directed mutations or artificial or intelligent selection would look like? On what possible grounds can you make any such assertion? "For each instance of directed mutations or artificial or intelligent selection, it must be manifested by at least one ERV insertion that disproves common descent." Nevermind that when dog breeders apply their trade, there is no necessary involvement of retroviruses at all... apparently, then, there can never be evidence of dog breeding.

Funny. The church's site I posted didn't encourage learning any psuedo-science. It did mention biology among the subjects worthy of study. I see no evidence as yet that you have taken such a course. Maybe if you could follow the persuasion of our church and do so and get a descent grade in such a class we could have a conversation.

Gee, what kind of grades do you suppose I got in science and mathematics throughout my education? What level of education do you suppose I have? What do you think my majors were? Don't hold back; tell me what you really think.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[rodheadlee]

Really? That alone is what directed mutations or artificial or intelligent selection would look like? On what possible grounds can you make any such assertion? "For each instance of directed mutations or artificial or intelligent selection, it must be manifested by at least one ERV insertion that disproves common descent." Nevermind that when dog breeders apply their trade, there is no necessary involvement of retroviruses at all... apparently, then, there can never be evidence of dog breeding.

Gee, what kind of grades do you suppose I got in science and mathematics throughout my education? What level of education do you suppose I have? What do you think my majors were? Don't hold back; tell me what you really think.

It wasn't public relations.

[Calm]

It wasn't public relations.

*snort*

[Hestia]

This thread looks like it needs to be retired.