Right and Wrong Reasons for being (A)theist

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree with one very small quibble. Since the gene for blue eyes is recessive the person that first got the blue eyed gene probably had it in only of the two sites, one brown colored gene from his mother and one brown gene from his father, one mutated. It is highly doubtful that both would mutate in one generation. So he would have had brown eyes. As would all of his children. It was not until there was some degree of inbreeding that one of his progeny would have a blue colored gene from both of his parents. The first blue eyed child probably did not happen until after several generations (I hope) from the first appearance of the gene in our genome.

Makes sense. I was wondering about the recessive nature, but not enough to check it out myself...
*Blushes*

 

[1213]

I get that it 'seems to be' that way for you. I'm asking more what evidence led you to that belief?

It is based on the common claim that there happen mutations in the DNA copy process. I have not seen evidence for that. It is possible that it is a lie that there happen mutations.

 

[1213]

You are making no sense. What objective standard are you using to judge optimization? You are just using your own opinions as to what constitutes optimization of a life form. A life form that is not optimal is all ways is by definition sub-optimal.

Optimal depends on purpose. If the purpose would be to be the fastest swimmer, then if everything is set the best way for that, it could be called optimal for that. The problem is, we don’t know accurately what the main purpose was, therefore it is not possible to say something is optimal or less optimal. However, it could be said that the purpose of every living thing was that they can live on earth. And because that is true with all created things, they all can live on earth, they are optimal in that sense.

Over 90% of the life forms that have ever existed are now extinct. What happened to their "optimization"???

Evilness.

Bottom line here......you have provided nothing but a continuous string of opinions and conjecture and not one particle of evidence to substantiate your claims.

Perhaps, I think the same is with those who defend the mother earth (=evolution, the creator and former of life).

 

[1213]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

We could look at just the shared ERVs between the chimp and human genomes. The human genome contains just over 200,000 endogenous retrovirus insertions. We share all but ~100 of those insertions with chimps. That is 200,000 pieces of evidence just with ERVs.

Similarity can be because of other reasons also. It is in no way proof or evidence for evolution. There really is no evidence for macro evolution, it is only wishful thinking.

 

[1213]

…Since the evidence tells us that the diversity of life is from …

That is only belief and bad interpretation of things that can be seen.

Once again the evidence only supports the idea that there never was such a flood…

Again, that is your claim and belief, not the truth. Modern continents, vast sediment formations, orogenic mountains, oil and gas fields, marine fossils on high mountains … …all are evidence for the great flood.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Similarity can be because of other reasons also. It is in no way proof or evidence for evolution. There really is no evidence for macro evolution, it is only wishful thinking.

What other observed mechanisms create endogenous retroviruses other than viral insertion? What other observed mechanism produces orthologous ERVs other than vertical inheritance?

Unless you can evidence these other mechanisms and support your claims with evidence you don't have an argument. As of now, we can directly observe retroviruses producing new ERVs in the lab and in the wild. We can observe parents having offspring that share 200,000 orthologous ERVs through vertical inheritance and common ancestry. We can also observe that ERVs can become retroviruses, demonstrating their retroviral origins. What observations do you have?

Let's use an analogy. A forensic scientist finds these swirly oil marks at a crime scene. From observation, we know that human fingers leave marks like these. When the swirly oil marks at the crime scene are compared to the ridges on the fingertips of a suspect they match. Is this not evidence for the suspect being at the crime scene because God could have planted fingerprints at the crime scene?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is only belief and bad interpretation of things that can be seen.

No, it is a demonstrable fact if one understands the nature of evidence.

Again, that is your claim and belief, not the truth. Modern continents, vast sediment formations, orogenic mountains, oil and gas fields, marine fossils on high mountains … …all are evidence for the great flood.

Nope, not scientific evidence. They are only "evidence for a flood" to the uneducated. If one understands how mountains formed etc. then all you have is a wrong interpretation.

Are you ready to learn? Right now you have only demonstrated ignorance about the science involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Similarity can be because of other reasons also. It is in no way proof or evidence for evolution. There really is no evidence for macro evolution, it is only wishful thinking.

Once again demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the concept of evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is based on the common claim that there happen mutations in the DNA copy process. I have not seen evidence for that. It is possible that it is a lie that there happen mutations.

Ever seen an albino?

 

[1213]

Ever seen an albino?

Reason for albinism could in theory be something else than mutation (mistake in DNA copy process). But maybe it is because of mutation.

 

[1213]

Unless you can evidence these other mechanisms and support your claims with evidence you don't have an argument. As of now, we can directly observe retroviruses producing new ERVs in the lab and in the wild. We can observe parents having offspring that share 200,000 orthologous ERVs through vertical inheritance and common ancestry. We can also observe that ERVs can become retroviruses, demonstrating their retroviral origins. What observations do you have?

Lack of evidence is not evidence for something else. Your claim doesn’t become true, if other claim is not proven correct.

I am not sure if I understand correctly what you try to say, but if the point is that humans have same retroviruses as some animals, it is not a proof for common ancestor. The same way as the “common ancestor” got it, could have happened to many species, by similar way, without there being common ancestor.

Is this not evidence for the suspect being at the crime scene because God could have planted fingerprints at the crime scene?

Fingerprints are not proof that person commit the crime.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reason for albinism could in theory be something else than mutation (mistake in DNA copy process). But maybe it is because of mutation.

Seriously? A "mistake" in DNA copying is a mutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lack of evidence is not evidence for something else. Your claim doesn’t become true, if other claim is not proven correct.

He gave you examples of evidence for his claims. You have not been able to provide any evidence for yours. If of two concepts one concept is supported by evidence and the other is not which one is more reasonable to accept?

I am not sure if I understand correctly what you try to say, but if the point is that humans have same retroviruses as some animals, it is not a proof for common ancestor. The same way as the “common ancestor” got it, could have happened to many species, by similar way, without there being common ancestor.

You mean some other animals. People are animals too. And it is not "proof" it is evidence. You clearly do not understand the concept of evidence. And if you want to claim some other method, guess what? The burden of proof is upon you.

Fingerprints are not proof that person commit the crime.

But once again, they are evidence.

In the sciences one works with testable ideas. The tests provide evidence. If an idea fails a test that is very strong evidence that the concept is wrong. If it passes the test that is evidence for the concept. Thermos asked you if the fingerprints were evidence that the person was at the crime scene. The proper answer would have been "Yes". No one asked if it proved that the person did it. In fact in criminal trials there is no ultimate "proof". There is only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". If you ever thought that someone was "proved" to be guilty of a crime then by those same standards you should accept the theory of evolution. It has as much evidence behind it as any murder trial.

A discussion on the nature of evidence would help you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Reason for albinism could in theory be something else than mutation (mistake in DNA copy process). But maybe it is because of mutation.

Errr...what's the difference?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Lack of evidence is not evidence for something else. Your claim doesn’t become true, if other claim is not proven correct.

We don't have a lack of evidence. We have an observed mechanism which produces endogenous retroviruses. That observed mechanism is retroviruses. If you are claiming that a different mechanism is responsible for ERV's, then it is up to you to evidence that mechanism. Otherwise, we will stick to the mechanism that we do observe.

I am not sure if I understand correctly what you try to say, but if the point is that humans have same retroviruses as some animals, it is not a proof for common ancestor. The same way as the “common ancestor” got it, could have happened to many species, by similar way, without there being common ancestor.

If we were independently infected by the same retrovirus then we would have retroviral insertions at different places in our genomes since retroviruses insert randomly into the genome. That is not what we see. What we see is the same insertion at the same position in the genomes of multiple species. The only observed mechanism capable of producing ERV's at the same position in multiple genomes is common ancestry, the same mechanism that causes you and your siblings to have the same 200,000 ERV's at the same positions in your genomes.

Fingerprints are not proof that person commit the crime.

But it is evidence that they were at the crime scene, unless you are a creationist then you would say that fingerprints can't be evidence because God could have made them.

 

[1213]

...retroviral insertions at different places in our genomes since retroviruses insert randomly into the genome. That is not what we see. What we see is the same insertion at the same position in the genomes of multiple species. The only observed mechanism capable of producing ERV's at the same position in multiple genomes is common ancestry,...

And there is the problem. I don’ts see any reason to believe that “only explanation”, sorry.

 

[1213]

... Thermos asked you if the fingerprints were evidence that the person was at the crime scene. The proper answer would have been "Yes". No one asked if it proved that the person did it. In fact in criminal trials there is no ultimate "proof". There is only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". ...

And proof beyond reasonable doubt seems to be quite subjective. I can agree that evidence is only sign that something could have happened. There is always room for other explanations and evidence is not proof. And that means, evolution theory, as explanation for all species, depends greatly on what one wants to believe.

 

[1213]

Seriously? A "mistake" in DNA copying is a mutation.

Reason for mutation.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And there is the problem. I don’ts see any reason to believe that “only explanation”, sorry.

Then show us an alternate observation that is supported by observation and evidence. If you can't, then common ancestry is the only explanation we have right now.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And proof beyond reasonable doubt seems to be quite subjective. I can agree that evidence is only sign that something could have happened. There is always room for other explanations and evidence is not proof. And that means, evolution theory, as explanation for all species, depends greatly on what one wants to believe.

Is it a belief that common ancestry produces organisms that share ERV insertions? Nope, that is an observation.

Is it a belief that retroviruses insert randomly into genomes and produce new ERV's? Nope, that is an observation.

Is it a belief that humans and chimps share more than 99% of their 200,000+ ERV's at the same spot in their genomes? Nope, that is an observation.

The theory of evolution depends on observations.