Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
lol. You've demonstrated once again that you don't understand natural selection.

If you were able to understand the following, you'd understand the mechanism by which the "good" is selected rather than the "bad":
Please reread the following:
<<[b]If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproduci ...[text shortened]... u don't understand natural selection. You continue to allow your pride to get the better of you.

There are no good or bad mutations within any life form until they do something that will
affect life moving forward or not; moreover, mutations do not get tested one at a time to
see if they help or hurt. So there could be batches of mutations occurring all doing this
and that, and they all go forward, and they will do whatever it is they will do. They will do it
all in concert with one another, or whatever it is they do with some others or none. So, as
I said in a computer program I can check variables to see if I have one that gives an
advantage, a non-issue, or harm/death. Until the reactions start adding up they all are
there, not just the 'good ones'. You have some idea how any life form would choose what
mutations should go forward, and if it knew how to stop them from going forward if bad?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
There are no good or bad mutations within any life form until they do something that will
affect life moving forward or not; moreover, mutations do not get tested one at a time to
see if they help or hurt. So there could be batches of mutations occurring all doing this
and that, and they all go forward, and they will do whatever it is they will do. They ...[text shortened]... se what
mutations should go forward, and if it knew how to stop them from going forward if bad?

You have some idea how any life form would choose what
mutations should go forward, and if it knew how to stop them from going forward if bad?

The "life form" does not "choose what mutations should go forward". Rather it is the result of the process of natural selection - for the reasons that have been put in front of you many times. You clearly don't understand what's being said.

The process of natural selection eventually weeds out most of the harmful mutations over many generations.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I have a box where I keep odds and ends, things that by themselves serve no particular purpose. The reason for keeping (not discarding) these 'useless' bits and pieces is the off chance of possibly needing one (or some) of them at some future date.

Accumulating bits and pieces of useless genetic material (mutations) until they might prove useful hundr ...[text shortened]... for saving parts, except for one significant difference rendering the analogy itself useless...

If life were an old watch with gears and springs, would it be a useful watch if there were
so many additional pieces inside it taking up space without doing anything useful? What
about a digital watch, what if all the extra pieces in it also affected the timing of the
watch, took power away from what was required, would those extra parts be making it
useful? Something carrying what is required and bunch of useless parts, would it really
be able to function for maybe thousands of years, or die off due to the extra work it has
to do supporting things not needed. How would those extra non-useful parts ever
become useful, there some grand plan, or a series of happy accidents that would cause
things to occur to turn what is there into something needed, or required?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b] You have some idea how any life form would choose what
mutations should go forward, and if it knew how to stop them from going forward if bad?

The "life form" does not "choose what mutations should go forward". Rather it is the result of the process of natural selection - for the reasons that have been put in front of you many times. You cl ...[text shortened]... s of natural selection eventually weeds out most of the harmful mutations over many generations.[/b]

Exactly until a mutation does something that hinders or helps they all go forward, and as
soon as a bad one shows up it can all stop. I remind you there are much more bad than
good, and there isn't anyway other than they actually do something that reveals what is
good or a bad. They don't come in one at a time with a generational pause to validate
if the last mutation was good or bad.

Also what directs a good one to enhance or build upon a previous mutation?
That would be like hitting a target you were not shooting for in the dark.

I don't think you guys put a lot of effort being critical of what is being purposed as truth.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Exactly until a mutation does something that hinders or helps they all go forward, and as
soon as a bad one shows up it can all stop. I remind you there are much more bad than
good, and there isn't anyway other than they actually do something that reveals what is
good or a bad. They don't come in one at a time with a generational pause to validate
if t ...[text shortened]...

I don't think you guys put a lot of effort being critical of what is being purposed as truth.

You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the underlying concept. Set aside your pride and stop to actually think about what's being said.

Try to understand the following:

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

What do you think the portion in bold is saying?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the underlying concept. Set aside your pride and stop to actually think about what's being said.

Try to understand the following:

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in ...[text shortened]... eley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

What do you think the portion in bold is saying?

Okay, why sure! On a sterile planet, a bunch of stuff without help, purpose, direction just
gets mixed together properly and forms life! After a few million years of this life mutating
randomly into more complex living systems, until it gets to some point where it stops
having random mutations, it does so now with all the randomness removed out of the
equation.

Who programmed that into the equation?

Look at it like this, there is a line of code, small changes are taking place up and down
this code, over time there are lots of them millions, billions, trillions. I don’t care if your
genetic variation favors anything, it doesn’t change the facts that bad mutations heavily
out weight the good ones, it isn’t close. Changes are taking place everywhere, up and
down the code nothing is left untouchable, according to you and the true believers, these
mutations cause changes that build upon changes accomplishing great feats like giving
life the ability to see, hear, taste, feel, and touch through nothing but good mutations
each completing a task like creating a brain over time through generations of mutations.
With bad mutations out weighing the good does it matter where and how they are passed
down, it only takes one in the wrong place doing the wrong thing to end it.

You are believing a fairy tale, only the good build upon the good, and so we have
arteries, nerves, ligaments, bones, brains, ears, eyes, males, females, and large number
of other things, because something sterile without any assistance other than all the right
things, happen to be in the right place, under the right conditions, mix properly, in a
setting that would not destroy it, but make it flourish instead over time under all the
conditions it was exposed to for millions of years without any disease, sickness, drought,
fire, or asteroid falling on it killing everything off.

I’ll repeat this point because it seemed to pass over your head, mutations get passed
along and there is nothing that says this one is good, that one is bad, until they cause
things to occur, or stop occurring. If the bad out number the good, any change is a risk,
having to hope millions of them were all good, billions of them were all good, trillions of
them were all good without something bad ending it all over time…the math doesn’t work.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the underlying concept. Set aside your pride and stop to actually think about what's being said.

Try to understand the following:

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in ...[text shortened]... eley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

What do you think the portion in bold is saying?

I think the bold is saying God is required.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Okay, why sure! On a sterile planet, a bunch of stuff without help, purpose, direction just
gets mixed together properly and forms life! After a few million years of this life mutating
randomly into more complex living systems, until it gets to some point where it stops
having random mutations, it does so now with all the randomness removed out of the
...[text shortened]... ions of
them were all good without something bad ending it all over time…the math doesn’t work.

I’ll repeat this point because it seemed to pass over your head, mutations get passed
along and there is nothing that says this one is good, that one is bad, until they cause
things to occur, or stop occurring. If the bad out number the good, any change is a risk,
having to hope millions of them were all good, billions of them were all good, trillions of
them were all good without something bad ending it all over time…the math doesn’t work.

If you had any clue what the following was saying, you wouldn't be making statements like the above. You can repeat it all you want. Every time you repeat it you demonstrate that you don't have a clue as to what it says.
<<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.>>

But you don't have a clue KJ. Do yourself a favor and ask someone you trust that will tell you the truth and ask them if you have reading comprehension problems. You've probably been faking it most of your life. Evidently you've been faking it so long that you've deluded yourself into thinking that you don't have reading comprehension problems. Grow up and accept the truth about yourself. Get a tutor and some much needed help.

Why is it that so many Christians are amongst the least humble people around?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You are suggesting mutations are not random that there is indeed something holding back the bad, and promoting the good. This requires being able to foretell what is beneficial before it can become either a benefit or a deprament. You believe there is some foreknowledge in play, that it is not advantages or disadvantages that determines out outcomes?

No, it doesn't require "foreknowledge." All it requires is for the environment to have an effect on the reproductive success of organisms. You'd know this, of course, if you knew what natural selection is. Perhaps you should consider looking up what it is?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Elaborate.

Investigate.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Elaborate.

Touché.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I can write a program to sort values into specific buckets advantages, no affect, or harm/death. What is being suggested through natural selection and mutations that good mutations are passed along and the bad ones die off so that the good ones can build upon one another. So that in some number of generations we could get a liver, heart, eyes, and so on wh ...[text shortened]... It is a fluid random process without directions or guides.

This process built the human body?

You’re rambling Kelly. I’m asking a very specific question in relation to DNA.. If you accept beneficial mutations can occur, ie changes in DNA coding, then why can’t it happen again and again. What is stopping this process from happening?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Touché.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Started off as E. coli, ended as E. coli.

I guess that’s proof that we all evolved from a single cell?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Started off as E. coli, ended as E. coli.

What were you expecting?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
What were you expecting?

Evidence to support the theory that we all evolved from a single cell maybe?