Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
No.

Wait, what?

You are not a swami?

Originally posted by @divegeester
What on Earth are you on about?

It depends. When traveling through outer space I touch down on Earth for about 20 or so minutes a day. Traveling between galaxies is another matter... I could be away for two or three weeks at a time.

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?

I pointed out a few times I can write a program to do specific things, to get specific
outcomes. I can weight it to have the outcomes I want to arrive right away or get there
through some longer drawn out process. The point being I can make sure I never fail to
get the outcome I want if I'm writing the code.

Evolution, as described cannot fail, because it only takes the good mutations, and uses
them over time, building with the other good mutations. Strange thing about these
random mutations the way they react to one another, that they all seem to want to build
upon previously random mutations! I find it amazing that after a while in several
generations we could find very complex organs, or systems as circulatory or respiratory
has been made. What a wonder that at some time there were none of these things, but
now they are in several different and unique life forms.

Evolution is like a card game; each player/lifeform can only play with the cards/mutations
dealt to them, some cards help, some kill, others harm, some do nothing now. When the
cards are dealt out the Cards/Mutations are not called for and delivered, so a player must
play with just the cards/mutations they were dealt. That means that each life gets a hand
and hopes to avoid harm and death cards. There isn’t any mechanism in play that can
ask the dealer to get what is wanted, like a 10 of hearts/mutation to fill an inside straight,
complete a flush, help grow an eye that isn’t blind. Which means if a specific mutation is
required getting one on cue isn’t going to be the norm, all the while hoping none of the
bad cards show up.

Now a program can deal out cards/mutations taking out random chance, or a cheat
dealer, but on a level playing field what would happen if more cards in the deck were
harm, death cards, and the game lasted millions of years? How long before all lives are
lost? Natural selection also would be limited, it too could only play with the
cards/mutations dealt, it doesn’t call for a card it doesn’t have, and if it gets dealt a death
or harm card, well survival of the fittest.

In your opinion does evolution reflect a computer game designed to never lose?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Well no kidding.
Reproduction had to have been a self existing feature right from the start... nothing mystical about that, oh great and wise Swami.

Why? Exactly why was it a feature right from the start? Seems to me handy yes, needful,
yes, but what part of this mixture in abio-genesis not only started a life form, but also had
built into the life the need to eat and reproduce. I know computer games give the various
participants basic abilities to start a game, how did life get those?

Originally posted by @divegeester
You forgot to respond to him in the 3rd person.

You jumped into this conversation just to be an a$$ to me?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
A scenario for you.

We have an animal which has fur, it also has a mutation within its genome which means that it has longer fur. This means the animal will be warmer. If this animal lives in a cold environment then that mutation is beneficial, ie good, as it will improve that animals chances of survival. That mutation will then be given to its chil ...[text shortened]... her it's 'good' or 'bad' depends on the environment the animal lives in. Are you with me so far?

Yep, and whatever that animal was, it remains the same with longer fur or not. I agree
and have no issues with this type of change.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Are you claiming that the survival of the fittest individuals through natural selection only happens through an increased fitness which is already solely contained within the individuals existing DNA? I.e. no new information?

No

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
The significant difference rendering my analogy useless is that the act of storing and keeping (unused, unusable) parts in a box is a directed (not random) process. The parts did not [b]by themselves collect and store themselves because of any perceived potential possibility of future usefulness.

This would be analogous to evolution develop ...[text shortened]... ture early on, and in so doing able to take advantage of any future potential usefulness.[/b]

If a life form had those additional features, they would draw away resources from the
rest of the life, expending energy not required. Say there is this life that does not have
any eyes, it gets a light sensitive spot, but there isn't any means to convey any
information from that spot to any other part of the life form that would make that
information useful. What would then be needed, a means to receive light information and
a way to translate that information into something useful not harmful. These types of
things can be programmed into what is needed if it is just coding, but random mutations
don't take into account anything, which is why we call them random. If they were
assessing features and realized what was needed, they would not be random, and we
would be talking about a completely different process.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I was thinking of comparing a pebble to a bug. But yes, your comparison works just as well... the salient difference between a pebble and a human being.

Your post at the top of this page is therefore asking if there is any salient difference between a human being and a pebble...is this really what you are asking?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I should rephrase that question and omit the word "will".

...is there any salient difference between how an animate and inanimate object reacts to (or acts on) its environment?

Well that’s a completely different question but just as silly. Insert the pebble and the human into your premise and see if you can come up with something.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Well that’s a completely different question but just as silly. Insert the pebble and the human into your premise and see if you can come up with something.

I prefer pebble and bug for aesthetic purposes.

Nevertheless, my question was not rhetorical. I was asking to see what other people might say. If working this out is beneath you, or too silly for you to waste your valuable time then don't bother yourself with it. I'm not demanding an answer or explanation from anyone.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I was asking to see what other people might say. If working this out is beneath you, or too silly for you to waste your valuable time then don't bother yourself with it. I'm not demanding an answer or explanation from anyone.

Answering your banal questions about whether there are evolutionary differences between a bug and a pebble and/or how they might react to their environment, is beneath me yes.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Answering your banal questions about whether there are evolutionary differences between a bug and a pebble and/or how they might react to their environment, is beneath me yes.

Perhaps the answers you seek can be found here...

http://www.madhauscreative.com/pr-swami%20monkey.html

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I'm sure we can all agree that an umbrella exhibits intelligent design.

When compared to your brain, perhaps.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
When compared to your brain, perhaps.

Right on cue with the ad hominems.