Why " evolution vs creationism"

[leroy]

If it is so easy why do you constantly fail to do so?





Oops, try again. NGE is merely another meaningless creationist buzz term. And please, to be able to say "by your logic" you would first need to be able to reason logically first.





.

[/QUOTE]

No, NGE is not creationist buzz term; it is a scientific term, widely available in peer review articles, books, and many other sources.

But even if it where a creationists, that doesn’t make it “wrong” or “invalid” you have to provide some justification.


--------------------------

So you picked option 3, what a shame

You have 3 alternatives

1 grant that I already provided evidence for macro evolution cased by NGE

2 reject the idea micro evolution necessarily implies macro evolution

3 be a troll and avoid a direct answer or refutation

.

Whoa! A personal attack and a lie. Once again, work on those logic skills a bit. Right now you cannot even ask proper questions more than half of the time

A Lie?, so far I succeeded in predicting that you are not going to answer to the question, for some reason you are unable to answer questions. You can’t even justify why are my questions inappropriate.

 

[Audie]

If it is so easy why do you constantly fail to do so?





Oops, try again. NGE is merely another meaningless creationist buzz term. And please, to be able to say "by your logic" you would first need to be able to reason logically first.





Whoa! A personal attack and a lie. Once again, work on those logic skills a bit. Right now you cannot even ask proper questions more than half of the time.

[/QUOTE]

I dont always sing your praises but that was not merely
a lie, it was ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, NGE is not creationist buzz term; it is a scientific term, widely available in peer review articles, books, and many other sources.

But even if it where a creationists, that doesn’t make it “wrong” or “invalid” you have to provide some justification.


--------------------------

So you picked option 3, what a shame


.



A Lie?, so far I succeeded in predicting that you are not going to answer to the question, for some reason you are unable to answer questions. You can’t even justify why are my questions inappropriate.

Your question was dishonest itself and you lied.

If you want an answer try to ask questions politely and honestly. Only a troll would have trouble doing so.

 

[Bear Wild]

And my suggestion is that “controlled mutations” (as you described them) play a mayor role in creating the complexity and diversity of life, while random mutations play a minor role.

Do you have a different view?

Would you say that my view is at least plausible and worthy of consideration?

They are both important. All directed by natural forces, no intelligent intervention. But both are important aspects of evolution. One creates slower but still important changes the other faster changes but both important. Do not separate them when both are important to evolution. Again there is no intelligent designer necessary.

 

[leroy]

Your question was dishonest itself and you lied.

If you want an answer try to ask questions politely and honestly. Only a troll would have trouble doing so.

Well this is an example of an honest and polite question

Leroy said
You believe that diversity is caused mainly by random genetic changes and natural selection, what test would prove your idea wrong.?

And this was your reply.

Before I give you an answer you need to be honest. You just claimed your beliefs were unscientific. Admit that and I will answer you.

You are the one who is avoiding an answer, you are the one who is being a troll,

 

[leroy]

They are both important. All directed by natural forces, no intelligent intervention. But both are important aspects of evolution. One creates slower but still important changes the other faster changes but both important. Do not separate them when both are important to evolution. Again there is no intelligent designer necessary.

What exactly do you mean by important ?

How do you know that the process of random mutations + natural selection are important in explaining the origin and complexity of life?

I am not invoquing a God, at least not directly, my claim is that there are natural mechanisms that are not based on random mutations, that play a major role in explaining the diversity of life, while random mutations play a minor role.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well this is an example of an honest and polite question




And this was your reply.



You are the one who is avoiding an answer, you are the one who is being a troll,

Did you ever openly admit that your beliefs are not scientific? You admitted as much without knowing that you did. If you made such an admission I missed it.

Edit: And quote mining is a form of lying as well.

Where have I ever avoided answering a properly asked question?

 

[Audie]

What exactly do you mean by important ?

How do you know that the process of random mutations + natural selection are important in explaining the origin and complexity of life?

I am not invoquing a God, at least not directly, my claim is that there are natural mechanisms that are not based on random mutations, that play a major role in explaining the diversity of life, while random mutations play a minor role.

=invoking a god.

 

[Audie]

Did you ever openly admit that your beliefs are not scientific? You admitted as much without knowing that you did. If you made such an admission I missed it.

Edit: And quote mining is a form of lying as well.

Where have I ever avoided answering a properly asked question?

Nobody else obsesses about "properly asked". Get over it already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody else obsesses about "properly asked". Get over it already.

If a person asks a dishonest question he has no business demanding an honest answer.

 

[leroy]

Did you ever openly admit that your beliefs are not scientific? You admitted as much without knowing that you did. If you made such an admission I missed it.

I don’t grant that my view is “unscientific” I even share my view with some scientists that have publish in peer reviewed articles (James Shapiro for example)

If you what to claim that the view is not scientific then you have to provide some justification

Edit: And quote mining is a form of lying as well.

I quoted the relevant portions of the comments, feel free to quote the complete text.

Where have I ever avoided answering a properly asked question?

try this question

Leroy said
You believe that diversity is caused mainly by random genetic changes and natural selection right?, what test would prove your idea wrong.?

So ether answer the question or justify why is this question dishonest or inappropriate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t grant that my view is “unscientific” I even share my view with some scientists that have publish in peer reviewed articles (James Shapiro for example)

If you what to claim that the view is not scientific then you have to provide some justification

When I checked out Shapiro's work it appears that he does not agree with you. How does his work support your beliefs? Shapiro opposes ID, at least in any sense that you seem to accept it. His guiding "intelligence" was within the cell itself and was not an intelligence in the same sense that you or I would use it. Perhaps you should peruse this:


http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/shapiro2002.AnnNYAS.pdf

And you did admit your work to be unscientific. The proper action would have to to ask how.

I quoted the relevant portions of the comments, feel free to quote the complete text.

Nope, you quote mined. No links. Quoting out of context is quite often a form of lying. Not supply links only adds on to the probability.

try this question


So ether answer the question or justify why is this question dishonest or inappropriate.

Since you keep adding the word "random" when that has been explained to you again and again why that is not a proper term to use you in effect are asking a "Have you quite beating your wife yet?" question. It cannot be properly answered as asked. Questions with built in false assumptions simply cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no".

Far too often your questions have false assumptions built into those questions. That is why people very often refuse to answer them. Ask proper questions and you will get the answers that you demand.

 

[leroy]

When I checked out Shapiro's work it appears that he does not agree with you. How does his work support your beliefs? Shapiro opposes ID, at least in any sense that you seem to accept it. His guiding "intelligence" was within the cell itself and was not an intelligence in the same sense that you or I would use it. Perhaps you should peruse this:


http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/shapiro2002.AnnNYAS.pdf

And you did admit your work to be unscientific. The proper action would have to to ask how.




Nope, you quote mined. No links. Quoting out of context is quite often a form of lying. Not supply links only adds on to the probability.



Since you keep adding the word "random" when that has been explained to you again and again why that is not a proper term to use you in effect are asking a "Have you quite beating your wife yet?" question. It cannot be properly answered as asked. Questions with built in false assumptions simply cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no".

Far too often your questions have false assumptions built into those questions. That is why people very often refuse to answer them. Ask proper questions and you will get the answers that you demand.

Okey, so this is what I mean when I use the term random mutation, which is the most common use of the word “random” when used in the context of genetics and mutations, books and research articles use the term random in the same.

Are Mutations Random?



The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. 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.

So using the term random in the sense in which the term is being used in the source, can you answer to my question? ….

Leroy said
You believe that diversity is caused mainly by random genetic changes and natural selection right?, what test would prove your idea wrong.?

--------

When I checked out Shapiro's work it appears that he does not agree with you.

My view is that evolution is driven mainly by natural mechanisms ( non-random mutations as in Natural genetic engineering and other mechanisms) ….and of course my view as a theist is that God is the creator of all natural laws, but I do not claim direct divine intervention.

so shapiro and I agree with the science, perhaps we desagree on the theology, But my theological interpretations are far beyond the scope of this conversation.

And you did admit your work to be unscientific.

when did I admit that?

 

[leroy]

Far too often your questions have false assumptions built into those questions. That is why people very often refuse to answer them. Ask proper questions and you will get the answers that you demand.

Well that should be easy, if I made a false assumption, you could simply say “hey you are wrongly assuming “xyz” for example in my last question I am assuming that you hold the view that life evolves mainly by a process of random mutations and natural selection,

If this assumption is wrong, you can simply say “hey Leroy the assumption is wrong I don’t hold that view, my view is “xxxxxxxxxxxx”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okey, so this is what I mean when I use the term random mutation, which is the most common use of the word “random” when used in the context of genetics and mutations, books and research articles use the term random in the same.




So using the term random in the sense in which the term is being used in the source, can you answer to my question? ….

--------


My view is that evolution is driven mainly by natural mechanisms ( non-random mutations as in Natural genetic engineering and other mechanisms) ….and of course my view as a theist is that God is the creator of all natural laws, but I do not claim direct divine intervention.

so shapiro and I agree with the science, perhaps we desagree on the theology, But my theological interpretations are far beyond the scope of this conversation.


when did I admit that?

Ihave to run for now, but in answer to where you admitted that your approach was not scientific why don't you go to the post where I made that claim? It would link directly to where you made the admission. That was the time to ask. Dig it up with a link and I will answer if you can't figure it out for yourself.

 

[ecco]

When I checked out Shapiro's work it appears that he does not agree with you.

All he said was that he shared his views...

I even share my view with some scientists that have publish in peer reviewed articles
​

I know an eight year old who sent a letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson. I guess he can say he shared his views with a peer-reviewed scientist.

 

[ecco]

My view is that evolution is driven mainly by natural mechanisms

What natural mechanisms? I ask because I too believe that evolution is driven mainly by natural mechanisms. But I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that should be easy, if I made a false assumption, you could simply say “hey you are wrongly assuming “xyz” for example in my last question I am assuming that you hold the view that life evolves mainly by a process of random mutations and natural selection,

If this assumption is wrong, you can simply say “hey Leroy the assumption is wrong I don’t hold that view, my view is “xxxxxxxxxxxx”

When you demand an answer then the responsibility is yours to not put assumptions that you know by now are incorrect.

It really should not be so hard to ask questions without assumptions in them. Here is a clue, try to avoid possible false dichotomies. If you think the answer is one of only two choices there is a good chance that you are wrong.

 

[leroy]

What natural mechanisms? I ask because I too believe that evolution is driven mainly by natural mechanisms. But I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

I am talking about mechanisms like natural genetic engineering,.... when there is selective preassure of some sort, organisms can rearrange their DNA, and produce say new proteins, to overcome that selective preassure.

These mechanisms have been observed, new proteins (and functional genetic material) appear by these me mechanisms, and at least "micro evolution" has been observed to have happened by these mechanisms.

My claim is that this mechanisms where responsable for most of the complexity and diversity of life. While random mutations are responsable for a minor part.

Note that these me mechanisms are not random, (as in random mutations) organisms are predetermined to react in certain ways given certain information that they receive from the environment.

@Subduction Zone
See this is how some answers to a question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am talking about mechanisms like natural genetic engineering,.... when there is selective preassure of some sort, organisms can rearrange their DNA, and produce say new proteins, to overcome that selective preassure.

These mechanisms have been observed, new proteins (and functional genetic material) appear by these me mechanisms, and at least "micro evolution" has been observed to have happened by these mechanisms.

My claim is that this mechanisms where responsable for most of the complexity and diversity of life. While random mutations are responsable for a minor part.

Note that these me mechanisms are not random, (as in random mutations) organisms are predetermined to react in certain ways given certain information that they receive from the environment.

@Subduction Zone
See this is how some answers to a question.

Please note, that was how one asked questions.

By the way "macro-evolution" has been observed by those processes too. Your use of the term micro evolution indicates to me that you do not know the meaning of the terms. macroevolution is anything above the species level and news species forming has been observed quite a few times.