Creation - Evolution Debates - Dawkins Vs Lennox at Cambridge

*THEN PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.  YOU CAN START BY REBUTTING THE EVIDENCE I HAVE GIVEN FOR HUMAN-PRIMATE COMMON ANCESTRY FROM STATISTICS AND ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES instead of dodging it.  Ball's in your court.  Go.

If you want to agree to disagree no problem. If you simply don't believe evolution is true, no problem.  If you're going to drop your claim that people don't accept evolution on the basis of any factual evidence (and they just accept it because of blind belief and political correctness), then no problem.  But if you're going to continue to make that claim, then back it up.  Rebut the evidence for human-primate common ancestry that I have given you.  If you're unable to do so at this time, then no problem.  But just say so.  Don't keep saying you reject evolution on the basis of evidence and then not address the evidence and especially don't pretend like you have or that we're just looking at the same evidence differently when you haven't even addressed or looked at that evidence at all!

I've given you alternate views, and you just don't speak to them.

I have repeatedly said I believe in evolution, just not to a common ancestor, please, when speaking to what I have said at least quote me correctly. I have said people look at things and interpret them due to their worldviews; this is how everyone, without exception, views the world. It is what people do, not just me, but you and everyone else. Agreeing with your assessment doesn't mean I have not given this serious thought, I've given you reasons. There is a difference in looking at conclusions and looking at the evidence, and right now, it seems to me that if I don't accept your conclusions, I'm not looking at the evidence as far as your concern.

I can't tell if you're playing games or if you truly lack this much self-awareness.  Paste the link to the post where you directly rebutted, disputed or even just addressed or discussed the evidence for human-primate common ancestry from endogenous retroviruses that I posted on.  Here is the link to my post: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/mathematical-challenges-to-darwins-theory-of-evolution?page=6#comment-48819734

And, no, this is not a case of having two different conclusions for the same evidence.  You literally have not discussed the evidence for human-primate common ancestry from endogenous retroviruses at all.  

And the statistical evidence I gave that there is virtually a 0% chance that genetic similarities between primates (including humans) is due to separate ancestry and NOT due to common ancestry, you simply stated your disagreement and claimed the data could be interpreted differently but never explained how when I asked.  You simply said it could without backing it up by either disputing the conclusions of that study or the results or the methodology.

Surely I don't need to explain to you how simply making a claim or voicing your disagreement is not the same as presenting and alternate conclusion or interpretation of the evidence, which you have not even directly discussed.

As I pointed out in #97, what I see is not anything like the theory in life, in nature, which is the only real evidence. Small changes over time would still be continuing, leaving an evidenceial trail in every life form everywhere. It isn't what we see in nature. Concerning common ancestors and primates, did you produced primates that were used in the study? I don't recall seeing them, so who was compared to whom sort of matters. I can only imagine some species of primates are very similar to others. Do you have that information, or you just running with that was there, maybe I missed it?

*Here, why don't we do this.  Re-read my post on endogenous retroviruses (see link above), including the additional links in my post (which will provide you with more detailed information and answer your questions about what is being compared and all the specifics).  Take some time.  A few days or more or however much time you need.  Then, let me know when you're ready to discuss.

Well, the only thing I can agree with, with respect to what I saw that they that did their math correctly. For all, I know they were suggesting more was true that they could show looking at some primates whatever ones they used! Regardless of what primates were used, and their numbers are spot-on for all the right reasons, that still doesn't mean that jellyfish and rosebushes have the same common ancestor, and I believe I brought this up before as well.

You see what I mean?  Evasive.  Changing the subject.  The human-primate study did not make any claims beyond that, so why are you bringing up jellyfish and rosebuds which the study had nothing to do with (and you keep doing this repeatedly)?  You don't believe that all life has a universal common ancestor, but you ALSO don't believe humans and other primates share a common ancestor either, so let's just deal with that claim first and one thing at a time.  True, this evidence doesn't speak to universal common ancestry but it does speak to your rejection of human-primate common ancestry, so if you're correct in that rejection and you want others to be convinced by your reasoning then you need to actually provide us with reasons for why we should reject human-primate common ancestry and explain how separate ancestry better explains the statistical evidence and evidence from endogenous retroviruses instead of just saying you disagree.

*What I gather from all the talking *around* the evidence is that you are simply unable to do so, which is fine.  You still believe that humans don't share common ancestry with other primates but you're unable to provide any convincing reasons why we should reject this evidence in favor of human-primate common ancestry.  I get it.  You can't provide evidence but still believe otherwise.  That's fine. 

Believe what you will.

Continue in your denial.  Facts are facts and the simple fact is that you have not rebutted the evidence I provided for human-chimpanzee common ancestry from endogenous retroviruses.  You haven't even tried to discuss it.  Not once.  Not at all, which is fine.  You don't have to.  I've just never met someone before who is so insistent that they've done something when they haven't.  But hey, whatever. 

I'm still talking about what I want you to explain on evolution as I asked. I've not changed the subject at all. It is a simple matter; you seem to alter from one version to the next in how the process works. I have no idea what you think is going on still. I admit you could be very constant in what and how you have been wording your posts, but I don't understand, and I want to. I'm going to give up on the information driving all the alterations due to small changes for the moment. And settle on one point that I would like you to address.

Why don't we see all of the not quite human's, from what we are to what we once where that are still alive? Where are all of the not quite dogs, cats, frogs, snakes, eagles, and so on? We are told the earliest lifeforms appear very long ago, and the theory has them evolving into life today. Since there were single-cell lifeforms in the strata that are supposed to be the earliest life and we have them here with us today, that means again, and they didn't go away. If they didn't go away, where are all of the other living less than lifeforms we should still see? If all the changes are small over long periods, there should be a variety of humans and less than all over the world.

Before I answer I want to first make sure that I'm understanding you correctly.  It seems like you're asking me two questions: (1) Where are all the "missing links" that we should see if evolution occurs gradually by small changes over long periods of time? And (2) Why do we have "living fossils" that have essentially stayed the same after millions or even billions of years without evolving?

*Are these the two issues you would like me to address? (i.e., "missing links" & "living fossils")

No, I'm not at all asking about fossils of missing links! I'm talking about living breathing lifeforms that should be here today living among us. If small changes over time took place throughout all of the distant past, then they should be continuing right now as well. If changes take millions of years to get us from where life was to where life is now, where are all of the living examples? What we do see are distinct lifeforms! Right now, we can say this is a human that is a chimpanzee, and we know they are two different things, but where are all of the living examples of all of the in-between evolutionary forms living among us? We have single-cell creatures among us now, and we found them in the fossils, so even if some did change due to evolutionary processes, they didn't go away throughout all of life's history.

Who claimed that small changes took place over millions of years?  Who claimed that there should be lots of "in-between" forms?  I didn't make those claims; nor do most evolutionary biologists today.

Please explain it as you see it, I am not concern about how I'm getting yours or anyone else's views about it wrong as much as I am you enlightening me on how you view it.

A comprehensive answer would take a long time and include discussions on the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, "Natural Genetic Engineering," the "Read-Write" Genome, Phenotypic Plasticity,  Developmental Constraints & Bias, Reciprocal Causation, Symbiogenesis and much, much, more...Let me know if you'd like to get into that and we can go a step at a time (and I'll try to keep it interesting and not put you to sleep)

Regarding just the two issues we discussed above, athough, small genetic changes still can and do occur slowly over time and evolution can occur gradually and result in a series of "in-between" forms (i.e., what we call "continuous phenotypes" or morphologies) the evidence indicates that many/most major changes occur rapidly without "in-between" forms (i.e., what we call "discontinuous phenotypes" or morphologies) due to major genetic restructuring or due to small changes in major regulatory genes.  I'm painting with a real broad brush here.  There are a plethora of ways and different mechanisms and combinations of mechanisms that have been discovered that can be involved.  It can be difficult to generalize here, and would probably be most instructive to look at a number of different, specific examples

You have seen what I have written, I'll trust your intuition as to what you think I should look into. I will not be bored, promise, well maybe not promise, I'll try to not be bored, or maybe I can just promise I will not fall asleep while reading it, or wait.