Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

This is what you do. No where in my post was there a claim that you don't admit error.

I thank you for the gift of evidence to support my position.

Enjoy this rabbit hole, but you are going into it alone.

Hmm, double checking your post, you said it SEEMS he does not like to admit error. At this point it's ok because it's kind of sad to see. But here is what you ostensibly said:
"You do not seem to be able to admit error, I have watched you go to extraordinary effort to divert and avoid admitting errors and personal ignorance of the topics and discussion.:"

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm always curious how to handle passive aggression, obvious disrespect of others and backhanded insults from those claiming the high ground of moral superiority for themselves.

Like intelligence tests for picnic baskets, how is this dichotomy to be reconciled?

By people like you. Thanks, Dan!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No! There is no such thing as intelligence. Properly assessing conditions such that your actions are consistent with your goals depends on beliefs and models. The better your definitions, beliefs, and models the greater the likelihood of good outcomes. There is no intelligence hence there need be no word to symbolize or represent it. My friends all agree that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket but this doesn't mean "intelligence" exists either. It only means I can think circles around inanimate objects even if they were at one time alive. Thinking circles around everything is what we all do best.

I still don't see a description of what it is that you say doesn't exist and which you call intelligence, and I really don't know why. Nor do I expect your help in getting an answer to either the question of what the word means to you or why you won't define intelligence. Is this a cognitive issue or trolling? I'm guessing the former. You just can't give what is asked of you. You'd like to cooperate but don't know how.

I'll mention for perusal by some that the process of evolution is promoted only by mutation. Only and solely. No other means but mutation. References upon request so no wabbit holes necessary. Deep or not so deep. Mutations are absolutely necessary, according to science, for evolution to occur

Your source is in error. You've already seen several other mechanisms in play. Maybe you didn't understand it. You asked me, "do you believe that all changes of a particular species are due to random mutations?" This was my answer. Note the list containing mutation but not limited to it:

No. The are other mechanisms involved named by @gnostic and repeated below:

"In population genetics, the Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include genetic drift, mate choice, assortative mating, natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, gene flow, meiotic drive, genetic hitchhiking, population bottleneck, founder effect, inbreeding and outbreeding depression."​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Heritable genetic variation provides the fodder on which natural selection acts and drives change in populations that is best described by the theory of evolution.

What are the sources of that genetic variation?

1. Mutation is the predominant source of genetic variation. But not the only source and even were it to be reduced or eliminated, evolution would continue to occur through other sources of variation.

2. Genetic drift.

3. Nonrandom mating.

4. Sexual reproduction.

5. Recombination during meiosis.

When those that do not really understand the science for which they claim personal expertise and complete understanding attempt to make what they think are unassailable declarations, they often stumble over their own ignorance and fail to recognize they really don't understand well enough to dismiss the conclusions on a rational basis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm always curious how to handle passive aggression, obvious disrespect of others and backhanded insults from those claiming the high ground of moral superiority for themselves.

Like intelligence tests for picnic baskets, how is this dichotomy to be reconciled?

It is difficult to understand how some can hold themselves to be such superior individuals when their disrespect and personal attacks litter the discussion.

I sometimes wonder if I'm not the one in the superior position out of honest examination of the evidence and the conviction of my faith that others of lessor mien are driven to snap at my heals like an irate Pomeranian.

Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. But at least I'm not the one that fired the first shot or the one that continues to fire.

 

[YoursTrue]

I still don't see a description of what it is that you say doesn't exist and which you call intelligence, and I really don't know why. Nor do I expect your help in getting an answer to either the question of what the word means to you or why you won't define intelligence. Is this a cognitive issue or trolling? I'm guessing the former. You just can't give what is asked of you. You'd like to cooperate but don't know how.

Your source is in error. You've already seen several other mechanisms in play. Maybe you didn't understand it. You asked me, "do you believe that all changes of a particular species are due to random mutations?" This was my answer. Note the list containing mutation but not limited to it:

No. The are other mechanisms involved named by @gnostic and repeated below:​

​

"In population genetics, the Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include genetic drift, mate choice, assortative mating, natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, gene flow, meiotic drive, genetic hitchhiking, population bottleneck, founder effect, inbreeding and outbreeding depression."​

Mutations are essential for evolution because they create genetic variation, which is the raw material for evolution. Without mutations, evolution could not occur. you can check it out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Heritable genetic variation provides the fodder on which natural selection acts and drives change in populations that is best described by the theory of evolution.

What are the sources of that genetic variation?

1. Mutation is the predominant source of genetic variation. But not the only source and even were it to be reduced or eliminated, evolution would continue to occur through other sources of variation.

2. Genetic drift.

3. Nonrandom mating.

4. Sexual reproduction.

5. Recombination during meiosis.

When those that do not really understand the science for which they claim personal expertise and complete understanding attempt to make what they think are unassailable declarations, they often stumble over their own ignorance and fail to recognize they really don't understand well enough to dismiss the conclusions on a rational basis.

Yes. In the absence of mutation, evolution would continue to occur through the contributions of other mechanisms of variation that are active in populations.

This has long been known in science and it surprises me to see those claiming full understanding do not know this information.

Are they wrong in their personal assessment of their own understanding and thus rejecting science on grounds other than understanding?

It seems so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please -- argue with these folks, not with me about mutations being absolutely necessary for organisms to evolve. Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. In the absence of mutation, evolution would continue to occur through the contributions of other mechanisms of variation that are active in populations.

This has long been known in science and it surprises me to see those claiming full understanding do not know this information.

Are they wrong in their personal assessment of their own understanding and thus rejecting science on grounds other than understanding?

It seems so.

If I promote a position and use an external source in that promotion, it is I that is making the argument and not my source. So, it is I that has to continue the argument or admit that I have failed to support my argument out of my own ignorance.

If I were to pass the buck and declare that the real argument is with the source, would I not be diminishing myself and revealing that I'm ignorant of the difference between basic introductory material intended for an audience of limited understanding compared to the knowledge of those with obviously deeper and fuller understanding?

In such an event, I would have to admit defeat and recognize that I don't really have the sort of understanding that I had been continually protesting that I possess.

Wouldn't it be the Christian thing to say that I reject the conclusions of science on the basis of a literal interpretation of scripture and not out of an understanding of the evidence? Wouldn't it be the right thing to say that, despite the evidence and scientific explanations, I cannot reconcile the existence of the evidence with the claims that I accept without evidence?

Those seem to be foundational to these discussions and how they are personally answered drives the desire to force observation to fit a pre-existing narrative.

 

[Pogo]

I think circles around everyone making sense and causality.

To each his own.

Yes we realize, while you think circles, we have thought forward from our cavemen pasts. I'll keep mine, be happy with yours.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution."

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Mutation is the only way that new alleles can be created within a population. Mutations generate the variation on which natural selection acts.

www.nature.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. In the absence of mutation, evolution would continue to occur through the contributions of other mechanisms of variation that are active in populations.

This has long been known in science and it surprises me to see those claiming full understanding do not know this information.

Are they wrong in their personal assessment of their own understanding and thus rejecting science on grounds other than understanding?

It seems so.

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Mutation is the only way that new alleles can be created within a population. Mutations generate the variation on which natural selection acts.

www.nature.com

"Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder. Is my effort to enlighten driving attempts at one-upmanship? Is that a good means to stimulate those that seem in need of a feeling of superiority and get them to dig deeper and learn more?

Of course, you have to watch those goal posts. Sometimes they are moved. Some have to move them in order to continue that feeling of one-upping and maintain the belief that they fully understand.

Mutations for instance were initially claimed to the only means of variation by which evolution occurs. That has been falsified by the facts and other mechanisms of variation have been noted. That is not a rejection of the fact that mutation is the predominant or even the original means of variation, just that it is not the only means and that it is not absolutely required for the evolution of a population.

I don't fully understand. It is why I continue to study and learn. But I understand enough and more than some to come to the conclusions that I do. I don't pretend to have sufficient grounds arising independently and apart from that which I reject to reject it as others do.

Is it a valid conclusion to say that something is so incredible to me and that I cannot fathom how it exists and use that as a basis to reject even the best explanation based on logic, reason and evidence?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Mutations are essential for evolution because they create genetic variation, which is the raw material for evolution. Without mutations, evolution could not occur. you can check it out.

Now you've moved the goalpost. This is what you wrote before, and which I told you was incorrect: "the process of evolution is promoted only by mutation." That statement is false.

There are other mechanisms in addition to mutation that power evolution as well. I just listed them for you, but I'm guessing that you didn't understand what it said or how it contradicted you.

Mutations are essential for evolution because they create genetic variation, which is the raw material for evolution. Without mutations, evolution could not occur. you can check it out.

No need. That's common knowledge. It's also not what I contradicted above, which was not that mutation is essential, but rather, that it is the ONLY mechanism that leads to evolution.

 

[Pogo]

Please -- argue with these folks, not with me about mutations being absolutely necessary for organisms to evolve. Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution.

No, because the problem is with you who claims not to understand evolution and perseverates on different ways of explaining knowledge while ignoring differences of interpretation as if they were significant. This is a pop-sci explanation of a particular situation whose purpose was not to inform of a major question but to explain one of the basic elements of genetic variation for those who may not consider them regularly.

The only answer is, you should know better given your time here and what you say you have read.

You should know better by now, look inside your bias and be honest with yourself. That you even spend time reading this article and your creationist websites and with your experience don't recognize the difference between the two and parrot your religious bias, to the extent that you lack the faith in your sources and only present them as sources that you already know will be dismantled.

ETA some more respect for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now you've moved the goalpost. This is what you wrote before, and which I told you was incorrect: "the process of evolution is promoted only by mutation." That statement is false.

There are other mechanisms in addition to mutation that power evolution as well. I just listed them for you, but I'm guessing that you didn't understand what it said or how it contradicted you.

No need. That's common knowledge. It's also not what I contradicted above, which was not that mutation is essential, but rather, that it is the ONLY mechanism that leads to evolution.

Perhaps I did not word it correctly. Reasoning and the information from scientific sources tells me (maybe not you or some others) that evolution occurs only by means of mutations. Once again -- "Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution." (I didn't make this up...)
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you've moved the goalpost. This is what you wrote before, and which I told you was incorrect: "the process of evolution is promoted only by mutation." That statement is false.

There are other mechanisms in addition to mutation that power evolution as well. I just listed them for you, but I'm guessing that you didn't understand what it said or how it contradicted you.

No need. That's common knowledge. It's also not what I contradicted above, which was not that mutation is essential, but rather, that it is the ONLY mechanism that leads to evolution.

We know that it is valid to recognize the application of a logical fallacy to support a claim. And equally valid to use that as the basis to reject the claim. But past experience tells me to expect that every effort will be employed to twist this rational and valid action and frame it as an insult.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps I did not word it correctly. Reasoning and the information from scientific sources tells me (maybe not you or some others) that evolution occurs only by means of mutations. Once again -- "Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution." (I didn't make this up...)
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution

Only if you insist on using the editorial version of reality rather than a deeper understanding which by now you are capable of. The mutation yesterday and new species today is a cartoon version that you should have left behind with Barney.

 

[YoursTrue]

To @It Aint Necessarily So and others -- we are all free to have opinions. You may disagree with the following, but I see no reason to disagree with it. "Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation." This from www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution
Just to clarify, do I believe that life came about (after abiogenesis, of course) by means of Darwin's explanation of evolution? No, I do not. Be that as it may, the above link is what science says about it, though. "
See--"Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation."
My discussion about this is basically over. If you don't think you're in error, obviously that's up to you and others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, because the problem is with you who claims not to understand evolution and perseverates on different ways of explaining knowledge while ignoring differences of interpretation as if they were significant. This is a pop-sci explanation of a particular situation whose purpose was not to inform of a major question but to explain one of the basic elements of genetic variation for those who may not consider them regularly.

The only answer is, you should know better given your time here and what you say you have read.

You should know better by now, look inside your bias and be honest with yourself. That you even spend time reading this article and your creationist websites and with your experience don't recognize the difference between the two and parrot your religious bias, to the extent that you lack the faith in your sources and only present them as sources that you already know will be dismantled.

ETA some more respect for you.

I would expect that those claiming to have full understanding of the subject would recognize that the source they are using is limited and would know of the other mechanisms of variation that have been identified and characterized.

Failure to adhere to that overarching claim raises serious questions.