I don’t think you’re using “empirical” in the same way as we scientists use it.
1 Like
Natural selection removes degraded sequence.
And why can’t random mutations do that? Of the genetic differences between humans and chimps, which of those differences could not be produced by random mutations? Show me just one. I bet you can’t.
You are asserting that random mutations can not produce functional information. Where is the evidence?
This is not English, Bill. There is a sequential (alphabetical) arrangement of chemicals in my lab above the balance. It is not DNA.
If I take them out and put them back in randomly, with no design, there’s still a sequence. You’re trying to sneak the concept of design in by using the term “sequential.” It’s false.
Is this the level of the theory right now? Your opponent needs to prove a negative. This just an attempt to lower your burden of proof which is the result of an inability to support your claims.
You need to erase this from your tool kit along with calling people that disagree with you deniers.
So you can’t point to a single difference between humans and chimps that couldn’t be produced by random mutations. That much is settled.
So are all of those differences “degraded DNA”? Are we just degraded apes?
2 Likes
You got me 
No apes and humans are degraded versions on the mystical common ancestor if that is your explanation. Does not sound credible to me but that’s what makes a market.
Your post doesn’t make much sense.
If neither humans nor chimps are degraded while having 40 million mutations that separate them, then you have 40 million possible mutations that are examples of evolution improving genomes. Most of those are going to be neutral changes, but you have to admit that some of those are not degrading mutations, and you can’t point to a single one that could not be produced by random mutation. Therefore, I don’t see how you have an argument.
1 Like
You are begging the question. You need to establish your mechanism first that is the cause of all the differences. Our only debate is the causes or causes of the differences.
1 Like
I already did that:
Also, you can’t point to a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by random mutation.
1 Like
This does not say what we are observing is random change. It is a possibility but probably very remote as de novo genes are observed in this transition.
How is this a problem?
This is yet another bare assertion with no evidence to back it up.
2 Likes
I have been giving you evidence for over a year now and you don’t read it. This is a problem because you have not established what you claim is causing the change is causing it and a mind is more likely the cause of what we are observing.
Assertions are not evidence.
That’s just an assertion.
1 Like
No, it’s not. We know minds can build complex sequences and that is what we are observing.
This is the assertion:
“. . . and a mind is more likely the cause of what we are observing.”
1 Like
It is supported by a minds ability to create a sequence. It is far superior to chance and selection or drift. We can show that empirically.
1 Like
Where is the evidence that this mechanism was more likely in the case of the sequences we are looking at?
It would seem to me that your claim is unfalsifiable. Even if we watch natural mechanisms produce new mutations you would claim that a mind caused it.
1 Like
No, I think you have established that random mutation is part of what we are observing. We have commonality here.
The problem with the current evolutionary claims is how random change plus some selection or drift can find a novel complex sequence let alone a complex system like the ubiquitin system.
This is where a mind is a better mechanism to explain the origin of those sequences.
1 Like
Using the same criteria, you would have to conclude that a mind caused every single mutation because a mind is far superior. That would include mutations that happen right in front of us. Your claim is unfalsifiable.
Where is the problem? Why can’t random mutations and selection/drift find novel complex sequences?