Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
That's a good point. If humans would have never evolved, we probably wouldn't be wondering about how we evolved.

Nothing circular about that statement of faith, or was there?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Yep. The "guide" is called natural selection. Since this is apparently the first time you hear about, I suggest you read more about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Without some interaction of the phenotype with the environment, the notion of "good" and "bad" mutations aren't even well-defined.

Did you read what I wrote? I don’t care if you have the greatest microbiologist sifting through the mutations as they happen after they occurred! If the shear numbers of mutations are heavy on the bad side, they occur randomly which means several bad, maybe a good one, and there is nothing in a random system that says you can keep anything good or bad! So if more bad, or deadly mutations occur then good ones are dwarfed in numbers. The only way that could succeed would be in a computer generated model designed to make it work, OR all life starts fully functioning and built into each life is the ability to adapt and evolve. That doesn’t removes random killer mutations, it just makes them part of the process.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Did you read what I wrote? I don’t care if you have the greatest microbiologist sifting through the mutations as they happen after they occurred! If the shear numbers of mutations are heavy on the bad side, they occur randomly which means several bad, maybe a good one, and there is nothing in a random system that says you can keep anything good or bad! So ...[text shortened]... nd evolve. That doesn’t removes random killer mutations, it just makes them part of the process.

Natural selection results in the proliferation of "good" mutations and suppresses the proliferation of "bad" ones. Once again, I urge you to read a bit about natural selection, which could help you gain some basic understanding of the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Natural selection only passes along the improvements to facilitate the changes in DNA. Notice the changes come before they are passed along, which means it doesn’t direct change only filters them. Yet without a guide you believe among all the changes that are randomly taking place, nothing that would kill off life occurs and sticks around, only the good even though more bad happens than good?

Following is a very simple explanation as to why the "good" mutations are much more likely to be selected than "bad" mutations:

As you saw in the previous section, mutations are a random and constant process. As mutations occur, natural selection decides which mutations will live on and which ones will die out. If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproducing. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutated organism survives to reproduce, and the mutation gets passed on to its offspring. In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process to incorporate only the good mutations into the species, and expunge the bad mutations.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm

Hopefully you can understand this simple and very basic concept.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Natural selection results in the proliferation of "good" mutations and suppresses the proliferation of "bad" ones. Once again, I urge you to read a bit about natural selection, which could help you gain some basic understanding of the theory of evolution.

Sorry random mutations are not directed mutations, if that were the case, design is what you are supporting.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Following is a very simple explanation as to why the "good" mutations are much more likely to be selected than "bad" mutations:

As you saw in the previous section, mutations are a random and constant process. As mutations occur, natural selection decides which mutations will live on and which ones will die out. [b]If the mutation is harmful, th ...[text shortened]... on/evolution6.htm

Hopefully you can understand this simple and very basic concept.

To be clear, mutations occur, good and bad you get them all. A bad one can harm, or kill
ending it all. Only in a computer program can this work itself out the way you are
suggesting, and there only if the programmer caused it too. Without direction in how
things change anything can happen, and the number of bad things occurring are far
larger than those good ones.

On top of this keeping only the good ones is ignoring everything else that can happen
to life as well. There are several life ending events that can occur that life may not be
prepared to handle. Think about how vulnerable life would have been early on at its start,
if what you think happen, happened. Life would have been very vulnerable it would not
have all the built-in protections an established lifeform has to fight off things. Therefore
so much more could have killed them all off at the start or somewhere along the way for
what millions of years!?

The common ancestor has so much stacked against it, it isn't funny let alone all of the
things that would have had to occur to even start the process.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
To be clear, mutations occur, good and bad you get them all. A bad one can harm, or kill
ending it all. Only in a computer program can this work itself out the way you are
suggesting, and there only if the programmer caused it too. Without direction in how
things change anything can happen, and the number of bad things occurring are far
larger than tho ...[text shortened]... isn't funny let alone all of the
things that would have had to occur to even start the process.

Simply repeating yourself doesn't address the point. It's just a tactic that you often employ to side-step actually addressing the point.

Please reread the following:
<<If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproducing. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutated organism survives to reproduce, and the mutation gets passed on to its offspring.>>

Antibiotic resistant bacteria are developed in this manner. Generation by generation, bacteria that are most resistant to antibiotics survive and those that are least resistant to antibiotics do not generate offspring.

Is such a concept really so far out of your grasp? Actually take the time to think about it KJ instead of mindlessly continuing to repeat yourself.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Simply repeating yourself doesn't address the point. It's just a tactic that you often employ to side-step actually addressing the point.

Please reread the following:
<<[b]If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproducing. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutated organism survives to repro ...[text shortened]... Actually take the time to think about it KJ instead of mindlessly continuing to repeat yourself.[/b]

Actually simply correcting yours, there is no magic that gives life only GOOD mutations,
you get what you get. So claiming it is so doesn't make it that way. Talking about fully
established life forms who have immune systems, along with several other built in
save the life systems, and acting like what is true with them would have also been true
with the very beginning of life after abiogenesis is bogus, you should know better.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Actually simply correcting yours, there is no magic that gives life only GOOD mutations,
you get what you get. So claiming it is so doesn't make it that way. Talking about fully
established life forms who have immune systems, along with several other built in
save the life systems, and acting like what is true with them would have also been true
with the very beginning of life after abiogenesis is bogus, you should know better.

Actually simply correcting yours, there is no magic that gives life only GOOD mutations,
you get what you get.

Never said that there is a "magic that gives life only GOOD mutations". No one who understands even the basics about natural selection would make such a claim.

When you make statements like that, not only do you make it quite clear that not only don't you understand the basics about natural selection, you also make it quite clear that your reading comprehension is poor.

Why are you so prideful about the fact that your reading comprehension is poor? Admit your deficiency to yourself and get some help with it instead of continuing to pretend that you understand things you obviously understand nothing about. Admit the truth about your poor reading comprehension to yourself. Keep in mind that Jesus used the "Spirit of Truth" as HIs name for the "Holy Spirit". What does it say about you that you deny truth? If anyone "denies Jesus" it is you.

The truth will make you free.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Sorry random mutations are not directed mutations, if that were the case, design is what you are supporting.

Natural selection is responsible for the "direction." You should really read a bit about natural selection.

What surprises me is that this topic apparently interests you, yet never in your life have you taken a few minutes to find out what the theory of evolution actually says. Are you scared that understanding it might shake your beliefs?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The horses skeletons could be horses skeletons and the dog like skeletons could be dog skeletons. Finding the bones doesn’t prove the horse used to be a dog. Unless of course you have a vivid imagination.

The actual evolution of the dog that can be observed starts with dogs and ends with different species of dogs. Yes the dogs change but at the end they’re still dogs.

Read again:

'The sequence, from Eohippus to the modern horse (Equus), was popularized by Thomas Huxley and became one of the most widely known examples of a clear evolutionary progression.'

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Natural selection is responsible for the "direction." You should really read a bit about natural selection.

What surprises me is that this topic apparently interests you, yet never in your life have you taken a few minutes to find out what the theory of evolution actually says. Are you scared that understanding it might shake your beliefs?

Christianity has a long history of 'absorbing' perceived threats (pagan practices and the like) and I think Kelly has been trying to do the same thing with evolution. So, perhaps it is less him being 'scared that understanding it might shake (his) beliefs' and more that it is easier to absorb a watered down version of evolution. Therefore, having a deeper and more thorough understanding of evolution is not in his interest.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Natural selection results in the proliferation of "good" mutations and suppresses the proliferation of "bad" ones. Once again, I urge you to read a bit about natural selection, which could help you gain some basic understanding of the theory of evolution.

Would you describe natural selection as an intelligent system or not?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Did you read what I wrote? I don’t care if you have the greatest microbiologist sifting through the mutations as they happen after they occurred! If the shear numbers of mutations are heavy on the bad side, they occur randomly which means several bad, maybe a good one, and there is nothing in a random system that says you can keep anything good or bad! So ...[text shortened]... nd evolve. That doesn’t removes random killer mutations, it just makes them part of the process.

But what makes a bad mutation? Only one that renders the organism more likely to die, especially before reproducing. In this way, bad mutations that are truly bad do not get passed on. Good mutations, on the other hand, give the organism an advantage, enabling it to live better or longer, making reproduction more likely, and therefore the organism with the good mutation passes it on. This is Evolution 101.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Any reasonable person should concede that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Ditto creation and modern cosmology.