Prove nature did itAnd? And?
Prove nature did itAnd? And?
Bump for @Cisco Qid. Any response to this? Any defence of your blatantly dishonest quotemining? Or will you just keep running?As this is compatible with what I said, and you don't understand that, I would suggest that it is your learning that is inadequate here. Or maybe you are just dishonest. Let's look at the full paragraph from which you selected this quote:
" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift."
Just for fun, I highlighted the sections you redacted. Guess what? They blow your position out of the water. What you have been caught red-handed doing here is selective quote mining, as close to outright lying as makes no difference. Not only does it highlight your dishonesty but it also reveals a significant fact regarding your position in general. The only way to get authoritative figures with a known pedigree in this field to agree with your position is to lie about what they actually say.
Gosh! Science makes new discovery about gene switches! That's what science is all about. Uncovering the real world, expanding knowledge and banishing lies.
The full context of the definition still states what I original stated and is not contradictory as want to claim. Mutations and genetic drift are dispersive forces contradictory to your statement that mutations are creative forces. When in fact all that they do is create variation in fully functional genes. The trouble with evolution is that it can only proceed from fully functional genes and create slight variations without any idea of how the fully functional genes got there in the first place which explains why you don't have a theory for the origin of life. This is also the reason why your group ostentatiously claims that evolution is dichotomized into two fields one for the origin of life and one for changes in life in its fully functional form. But in reality the second is dependent on the first. But on top of this you ignore the fact that woollier sheep were produced without mutations or new genes but rather from already pre-existing funcitonal genes in selective breeding which lends to the fact that the information was already in the genome.As this is compatible with what I said, and you don't understand that, I would suggest that it is your learning that is inadequate here. Or maybe you are just dishonest. Let's look at the full paragraph from which you selected this quote:
" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift."
Just for fun, I highlighted the sections you redacted. Guess what? They blow your position out of the water. What you have been caught red-handed doing here is selective quote mining, as close to outright lying as makes no difference. Not only does it highlight your dishonesty but it also reveals a significant fact regarding your position in general. The only way to get authoritative figures with a known pedigree in this field to agree with your position is to lie about what they actually say.
The lie or rather the false premise was that the human genome was composed of a vast sea of useless "junk DNA" which most Darwinists used as justification for the cliam that gene production was a mindless stochastic process and for which ID had already predicted beforehand undiscovered function. It is composed of at least 13% switches which you now want to assimilate as evidence for evolution.Gosh! Science makes new discovery about gene switches! That's what science is all about. Uncovering the real world, expanding knowledge and banishing lies.
But according to you we came from a common ancestor, what's the difference?But according to your biblical ID theory we all came from only one person, and we should therefore all be mirror images of each other.
So what blood group was that person, and was it AA or BB or AB or AO or BO or OO?
And did that person have blue eyes or brown eyes or green eyes?
And was that person a blonde or a brunette or a redhead?
You will find my reply after your response. I have other priorities besides this forum.Bump for @Cisco Qid. Any response to this? Any defence of your blatantly dishonest quotemining? Or will you just keep running?
Do you not read this rubbish from your lying sources before you post it? You post that mutations are not "creative" and in the next sentence you say that mutations "create variation". Is it any wonder that your self-contradictory arguments get nowhere? Your sources are contradicting themselves, as well as being wrong.Mutations and genetic drift are dispersive forces contradictory to your statement that mutations are creative forces. When in fact all that they do is create variation in fully functional genes.
The difference is that we have an explanation for the fact that there are three types: A, B, O. You, on the other hand, have not provided any explanation at all.But according to you we came from a common ancestor, what's the difference?
As @rossum has pointed out, this reply is internally self-contradictory. You also seem incapable of grasping that science assimilates new information and moves on, unlike creationism which smothers new information and perpetuates failed arguments against scientific ideas prevalent decades ago.The full context of the definition still states what I original stated and is not contradictory as want to claim. Mutations and genetic drift are dispersive forces contradictory to your statement that mutations are creative forces. When in fact all that they do is create variation in fully functional genes. The trouble with evolution is that it can only proceed from fully functional genes and create slight variations without any idea of how the fully functional genes got there in the first place which explains why you don't have a theory for the origin of life. This is also the reason why your group ostentatiously claims that evolution is dichotomized into two fields one for the origin of life and one for changes in life in its fully functional form. But in reality the second is dependent on the first. But on top of this you ignore the fact that woollier sheep were produced without mutations or new genes but rather from already pre-existing funcitonal genes in selective breeding which lends to the fact that the information was already in the genome.
The lie or rather the false premise was that the human genome was composed of a vast sea of useless "junk DNA" which most Darwinists used as justification for the cliam that gene production was a mindless stochastic process and for which ID had already predicted beforehand undiscovered function. It is composed of at least 13% switches which you now want to assimilate as evidence for evolution.
Knowing the very common creationist use of quote mines, it is possible that Cisco has not seen the actual source, just a pre-mined quote in a list of creationist quote mines on the web.Can you confirm that the reason that you use sources that actually contradict your position, then dishonestly distort what they say, is that the authoritative sources that actually do support your position don't exist?
Your evidence is?As the Bible says: "There is no God."
Me - So how did nature cause the universe and life to begin?As @rossum has pointed out, this reply is internally self-contradictory.
That is an all too generous interpretation. Still, it is as unlikely that Cisco will admit that his sources are lying that he is himself.Knowing the very common creationist use of quote mines, it is possible that Cisco has not seen the actual source, just a pre-mined quote in a list of creationist quote mines on the web.
As the Bible says: "There is no God."
Me - So how did nature cause the universe and life to begin?That is an all too generous interpretation.
Let's compare the two stated quotes:As @rossum has pointed out, this reply is internally self-contradictory. You also seem incapable of grasping that science assimilates new information and moves on, unlike creationism which smothers new information and perpetuates failed arguments against scientific ideas prevalent decades ago.
What you have not addressed or acknowledged is your selective quote-mining. What is your explanation for redacting from your quoted source this section, which contradicts your stated position and supports what we have been telling you all along?
" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. "
Can you confirm that the reason that you use sources that actually contradict your position, then dishonestly distort what they say, is that the authoritative sources that actually do support your position don't exist?
Thank you for admitting defeat. If ID is not something "that can be measured" then all your claimed design detectors are wrong, since design cannot be measured. Without measurement then you are in the realms of philosophy or theology, not science.The claim is not against natural selection and mutations or anything else that can be measured but rather the ability of evolution to create differing species from simple single cell organisms or even from one species to another for that matter.
Atheists have been saying this to the Christian fundamentalists here for several decades now...Opinion not compelling.
And atheist fundamentalists have not presented evidence god does not exist since creationAtheists have been saying this to the Christian fundamentalists here for several decades now...
That is the funniest claim I read today.Actually,,, I do.
lolAnd atheist fundamentalists have not presented evidence god does not exist since creation
Still no evidence god does not exist