Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Do you or do you not understand how mutations accumulate?Cephalanalectomy, stat.

Neither am I. All mutations are passed on in the same way. The same mechanism that passes on neutral and detrimental mutations also passes on beneficial mutations. It's called vertical inheritance. A nested hierarchy isn't an explanation. It is an observation.Want to try again? I never said that all of their mutations were neutral.

I already did the math. It's over in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319As predicted, you are trying to pull the thread off topic so you can hop on your hobby horse. Already covered in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319 And I have stated many times now what the explanation for that observation is. Here it is again:"The explanation for the observation of a nested hierarchy is a combination of common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. You get shared features from common ancestry, and you get lineage specific adaptations from mutations that stay within a lineage due to the lack of horizontal genetic transfer (i.e. vertical inheritance)." Do you think that none of them are adaptive?

Then please tell me what pattern common ancestry, vertical inheritance, and evolution should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy. "For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. "--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882I am using the logic of science when I use parsimony. You are using the logic of superstition when you ignore parsimony.

We aren't assuming a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy. This observation is the same for everyone regardless of their position.Do you agree with this or not?

You were responding to a post about the nested hierarchy. The question still stands.We aren't assuming a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy. This observation is the same for everyone regardless of their position.
​
Do you agree with this or not?

Frankly, you won't say what assumptions you are talking about. You just say that we are making assumptions. It makes us think that you are just trying to invent a reason to ignore the evidence.So do we observe a nested hierarchy or not?

Based on what evidence?

Do you think a scientific theory is falsified by simply pronouncing that it is false?Talk about assumptions . . .

How do you think babies are made? Is each person magically created, or is there a natural process that does exactly what you are describing?I also showed you the evidence that random mutations are responsible for the differences between species:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367Common ancestry is evidence by the nested hierarchy.So that covers both the similarities and differences between genomes.Where is your evidence?

If that is a faulty conclusion, then please tell me what pattern of shared features common ancestry should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy. If we find a body riddled with bullet holes, wouldn't that be evidence for murder?In the same way, isn't a nested hierarchy evidence for common ancestry? Wouldn't this make a nested hierarchy a piece of evidence in support of common ancestry?

Where did that DNA come from? Did it come from a natural source, or a supernatural one?What do we see all around us? Do we see natural reproduction, or life being created by supernatural deities?

Every child is born with 50 to 100 new mutations. No genome is finished evolved. All genomes are evolving, constantly. We learn how DNA evolves by watching it evolve.

How life originated is irrelevant to the question of common ancestry and evolution. If God created the first single celled organism that all life evolved from nothing in the theory of evolution would need to be changed.

I hit it dead center. You are just incapable of responding.