The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

You didn't answer the question I actually asekd.

What question was that ?

Are any of these scientists arguing for unnatural intentional "intervention" of third party entities in the course of evolution? Or are all of them merely arguing for natural processes?

They are arguing for natural processes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What question was that ?

The one you quoted in the post.

They are arguing for natural processes.

Thank you.

 

[leroy]

The one you quoted in the post.



Thank you.

so do we agree? or is there any point of disagreement related to this thread?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I did provide the the scientific references

Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

Awaiting for your apology

No you have not.
None of your references support your religious agenda, and that was pointed out to you by others.

No apology is forthcoming.

 

[leroy]

No you have not.
None of your references support your religious agenda, and that was pointed out to you by others.

No apology is forthcoming.

Did I ever said that the references support my "religious agenda" ?........ NO.

I said that the sources support the claim that darwinism fails (at least partially) as a theory for how organisms evolve........so ether agree or refute this point........

 

[shunyadragon]

Did I ever said that the references support my "religious agenda" ?........ NO.

I said that the sources support the claim that darwinism fails (at least partially) as a theory for how organisms evolve........so ether agree or refute this point........

. . . which is your religious agenda.

The references you provided refuted your agenda.

 

[We Never Know]

Then please quote the comment where made the correct math

My math

- The human/chimp genome is 3B base pairs long

- The difference between chimps and humans is said to be 2%

- 2% of 2billion is 60,000

The math seems to be correct, but feel free to find any errors.

@leroy.
Since you point blank asked to find a mistake in your math, which I replied and you ignored....

I'm going to post your mistake again. When you ask and get a response, its only polite to respond in return...

So again...

2% of 2 billion is 40 million(40,000,000), not 60,000

But if you meant..
2% of 3 billion that is 60 million(60,000,000) still not 60,000

 

[leroy]

@leroy.
Since you point blank asked to find a mistake in your math, which I replied and you ignored....

I'm going to post your mistake again. When you ask and get a response, its only polite to respond in return...

So again...

2% of 2 billion is 40 million(40,000,000), not 60,000

But if you meant..
2% of 3 billion that is 60 million(60,000,000) still not 60,000

Yes thanks for the correction

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so do we agree? or is there any point of disagreement related to this thread?

I don't know.

You move goalposts around so much, it's hard to keep track of your nonsense and/or ambiguous objections.

 

[leroy]

I don't know.

You move goalposts around so much, it's hard to keep track of your nonsense and/or ambiguous objections.

My objection is that random + natural selection is not enough to explain all evolution…. And particularly that random + natural selection is not enough to explain the evolution of humans (from primitive primates) because there are too many differences (2%) and too little time.

Any disagreement from your part?

This is not a big deal, all you have to do is grant that probably/maybe/perhaps some mutations are not random and that probably non random mutations played a mayor role in evolution.

This is what I mean with random

“In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them.” Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable.

Can you quote any comment in this tread where I moved the goal post?

So íll ask you once again, is there any disagreement form your part?

 

[metis]

My objection is that random + natural selection is not enough to explain all evolution

Because you are missing "mutations", and then genetic drift and natural selection work from there.

 

[Jose Fly]

@leroy.
Since you point blank asked to find a mistake in your math, which I replied and you ignored....

Get used to it. That's Leroy's go-to tactic.

 

[leroy]

Because you are missing "mutations", and then genetic drift and natural selection work from there.

Well the peer reviewd articles that I shared* conclude the opposite,

Random mutation + natural selection are too limited and can’t explain evolution


So it all boils down to 2 alternatives

1 trust peer revied articles

2 trust internet atheist and fanatic evolutionists from an open forum

You cant blame me for picking option 1

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My objection is that random + natural selection is not enough to explain all evolution…. And particularly that random + natural selection is not enough to explain the evolution of humans (from primitive primates) because there are too many differences (2%) and too little time.

This was demonstrated to be nonsense several posts ago already.

Any disagreement from your part?

Yes. Read all the replies you ignored.

 

[shunyadragon]

My objection is that random + natural selection is not enough to explain all evolution…. And particularly that random + natural selection is not enough to explain the evolution of humans (from primitive primates) because there are too many differences (2%) and too little time.

Any disagreement from your part?

This is not a big deal, all you have to do is grant that probably/maybe/perhaps some mutations are not random and that probably non random mutations played a mayor role in evolution.

This is what I mean with random

“In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them.” Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable.

Can you quote any comment in this tread where I moved the goal post?

So íll ask you once again, is there any disagreement form your part?

The individual occurrence of mutations is random, which only contributes to the diversity of the genetics of DNA. The process of evolution, such as genetic drift, and change over time in response to changes in the environment is NOT RANDOM.

 

[Jose Fly]

The process of evolution, such as genetic drift, and change over time in response to changes in the environment is NOT RANDOM.

Actually, genetic drift is random. It's pretty much the basis of how it works.

 

[leroy]

This was demonstrated to be nonsense several posts ago already.

Yes. Read all the replies you ignored.

Ok once again you are just trolling

Please contact me when you are ready to have a descent conversation….. start by explaining your points of disagreement.

 

[leroy]

Actually, genetic drift is random. It's pretty much the basis of how it works.

The individual occurrence of mutations is random, which only contributes to the diversity of the genetics of DNA. The process of evolution, such as genetic drift, and change over time in response to changes in the environment is NOT RANDOM.

Aja

And I provided peer reviewed sources that conclude that some mutations are not random and that they play a major role in evolution.

So ether agree with the peer reviewed sources, or show that the authors are wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok once again you are just trolling

Says the troll.

Please contact me when you are ready to have a descent conversation….. start by explaining your points of disagreement.

It didn't work the first 20 times. I have no hope that attempt 21 will be any different.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Aja

And I provided peer reviewed sources that conclude that some mutations are not random and that they play a major role in evolution.

So ether agree with the peer reviewed sources, or show that the authors are wrong.

You have been spamming those "sources" for months and people, including actual biologists, have addressed those multiple times already.