Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Evidence to support the theory that we all evolved from a single cell maybe?

That wasn't what you asked for though, you're moving the goalposts.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
That wasn't what you asked for though, you're moving the goalposts.

If you don’t claim that ‘evolution’ explains how humans ultimately evolved from single celled organisms then there is no issue.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
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?

Death, if all you are going to say is the good is kept the bad isn't, that is a formula for
success you cannot go wrong. You can write code to produce whatever it is, to get what
you want. If you have no way of filtering out the bad other than letting the bad be bad so it
must be shown as bad, the good gets swallowed up by the sheer numbers and nothing
is accomplished. Then building specific good upon specific mutations good that would
drive a task like forming a liver with all the accompanying and necessary support, would
not take place. You really should look at what is said about this theory with less of a
twinkle in your eye approving it, and with a little more criticism.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]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, tri ...[text shortened]... h needed help.

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

So, is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
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?

The environment drives random changes? No, the environment setup specific barriers to
over come, that does not make a mutation occur in the first place, it may add to what is
rejected.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you don’t claim that ‘evolution’ explains how humans ultimately evolved from single celled organisms then there is no issue.

I agree with this, it is the universal common ancestor I have an issue with not evolution
which has life changing to suit the environment it is in, so it finds a niche.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you don’t claim that ‘evolution’ explains how humans ultimately evolved from single celled organisms then there is no issue.

You are making no sense whatsoever. What does this have to do with what you've been asking over the last few posts?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Death, if all you are going to say is the good is kept the bad isn't, that is a formula for
success you cannot go wrong. You can write code to produce whatever it is, to get what
you want. If you have no way of filtering out the bad other than letting the bad be bad so it
must be shown as bad, the good gets swallowed up by the sheer numbers and nothing ...[text shortened]... this theory with less of a
twinkle in your eye approving it, and with a little more criticism.

Sorry, I've read that 3 times now and i have no idea what you are getting at.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The environment drives random changes? No, the environment setup specific barriers to
over come, that does not make a mutation occur in the first place, it may add to what is
rejected.

Again, this makes no sense.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I agree with this, it is the universal common ancestor I have an issue with not evolution
which has life changing to suit the environment it is in, so it finds a niche.

And again, this makes no sense. You don't get to decide what evolution is and isn't Kelly.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Death, if all you are going to say is the good is kept the bad isn't, that is a formula for
success you cannot go wrong. You can write code to produce whatever it is, to get what
you want. If you have no way of filtering out the bad other than letting the bad be bad so it
must be shown as bad, the good gets swallowed up by the sheer numbers and nothing ...[text shortened]... this theory with less of a
twinkle in your eye approving it, and with a little more criticism.

You really should look at what is said about this theory with less of a twinkle in your eye approving it, and with a little more criticism.

Says the Young Earth Creationist. 'Comedy Gold' as ever on the Spirituality forum.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
You are making no sense whatsoever. What does this have to do with what you've been asking over the last few posts?

Do you agree that evolution explains how humans ultimately evolved from single celled organisms?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you agree that evolution explains how humans ultimately evolved from single celled organisms?

Of course.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
And again, this makes no sense. You don't get to decide what evolution is and isn't Kelly.

Evolution is a process, the starting point is in dispute as far as I'm concern not the process
itself. I have no issues with an established life form with all the parts required changing,
that isn't difficult to see or prove; however, beginning from scratch, not so much.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Again, this makes no sense.

A random mutation is just that, random, if you can make it do something and mutate
to help build an eye that isn't random. The selection of what gets passed on and not has
to do with what the mutation changes does, so all of the filtering is done after the mutation
occurs not before.