Natural selection is proven wrong

[jumma]

Canalon didn't avoid the question, the question was addressed by pointing out that its presuppositions are mistaken. In short, you didn't ask a genuine question.

canalon said

Viruses do insert themselves

so point out where he told us-
"how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves"-which is a real question because they got there for some reason you must admit that

or are you admitting that genetics cant answer that question
in which case what dean says is very cogent-which canalon said was not cogent

the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant

[ughaibu]

or are you admitting that genetics cant answer that question

I thought I'd made it quite clear that I don't think that "genetics", whatever you mean by that, can answer the question.
Perhaps you will now answer my four questions.

[jumma]

I thought I'd made it quite clear that I don't think that "genetics", whatever you mean by that, can answer the question.

thank you
thus you are disagreeing with canalon when he says deans point is not cogent
by you admitting that genetics cant answer the question
thus deans point is cogent

the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant

[ughaibu]

I thought I'd made it quite clear that I don't think that "genetics", whatever you mean by that, can answer the question.

you are disagreeing with canalon when he says deans point is not cogent

No, I am not disagreeing with Canalon, as Canalon has also made it clear that your question is outside the scope of "genetics", whatever you mean by that, and I have not commented on Dean's point.
You have exactly one remaining opportunity to answer my questions.

[jumma]

No, I am not disagreeing with Canalon, as Canalon has also made it clear that your question is outside the scope of "genetics"

you disagree with canalon when he says deans point is not cogent

canalon said this point of dean was not cogent

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears....

lets go all the way back
the question was

"tell us how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves

you say

that I don't think that "genetics", ... can answer the question

if genetics cant answer that question then it cant explain how/why new species appear as we are told that species come from mutations caused by radiation virus etc
but as you admit genetics cant tell us how/why the virus gets to the DNA in the first place
so it follows genetics cant tell us how/why new species appear

thus deans point is cogent

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears....

or how/why the virus inserted itself in the DNA
now canalon says deans point is not cogent

so to simplify it even more
just answer yes or no
do you think this point of deans is cogent

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears....

[ughaibu]

My final post to you on this subject.
I could ask Canalon to explain how genetics could control a chariot carrying the sun, and point out that if no such explanation is forthcoming, we still have the explanation of Apollo.
This is the form and cogency of you and Dean's argument. Asking questions with invalid presuppositions, does not support realism about fictional entities.

[jumma]

This is the form and cogency of you and Dean's argument. Asking questions with invalid presuppositions, does not support realism about fictional entities.

seeing you admit genetic cant answer the question as to why/how a virus gets to the DNA in the first place

can you just answer the simple question with a yes or no-
do you think this point of deans is cogent

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears....

[ughaibu]

can you just answer the simple question with a yes or no
do you think this point of deans is cogent

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears....

In order to comment on that, I would need the answers to, at least, the first two of my questions. As you refused to answer those questions, the matter is now closed.

[jumma]

In order to comment on that, I would need the answers to, at least, the first two of my questions. As you refused to answer those questions, the matter is now closed

your two questions

1) what you mean by "genetics"
2) what manner of set of statements you consider to constitute an "explanation"

1
why not ask what people mean by
biology
science
i suggest you just go to a biology text book and look up a definition
one could simply say the science of genes
but the you can just ask
what is science
what are genes
species-well we do have the species controvosy ie just what it is is in debete

you can qibble over definitions
but if you want to deconstruct definitions/words go right ahead

2again go to some dictionary and look up a definition of "explanation"
but again

you can qibble over definitions
but if you want to deconstruct definitions/words go right ahead


i think my question is really very simple

do you a agree this point of deans is cogent
just yes or no

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears....

just look up a dictionary to see what these term mean
random
genetics
species
account
appears

you can qibble over definitions
but if you want to deconstruct definitions/words go right ahead

[canalon]

Dean's point is stupid beyond description.

There are genetic mechanisms for the insertion of viral DNA in an host DNA. The description of which can be found in a textbook (there are plenty available on the NCBI Bookshelf: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books)
You might also find how viruses do infect their hosts, That not all viruses do insert their DNA, That DNA insertion is a mechanism that is often used by some organisms in order to scavenge for genes of interest (naturally transformable) and that random insertion of DNA by a virus has nothing exceptional.
Generally all that would be described as molecular biology rather than genetics.
And in your case it will easily demonstrate that you are as ignorant of basic biology as Dean and that if you do not want to be called stupid, you better not try to assert knowingly your ignorance and misconceptions. In conclusion you are stupid.

[jumma]

There are genetic mechanisms for the insertion of viral DNA in an host DNA. The description of which can be found in a textbook (there are plenty available on the NCBI Bookshelf: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books)
You might also find how viruses do infect their hosts

look canalon

you just dont get what is being asked-perhaps you have not come across the idea in your biology text books
so i will be even more simple for you
i am not asking you to tell us genetic mechanisms for the insertion of viral DNA in an host DNA

what i am asking is
if the process of generating new species is random
just tells us

how genetics explains the random process that leads up to the start of the mutation-before the viral insertion

not what happens after the random process starts the mutation ie after the viral insertion
but
how genetics explains the random process that leads up to the start of the mutation-before the viral insertion

[JackBean]

there is nothing like "starting mutation". Mutation simply happens and that's it