Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Right on cue with the ad hominems.

You understand that an umbrella is an inanimate object that hasn't had millions of years to evolve organically, right? And that the intelligent design for that umbrella came from an animate being who has had millions of years to evolve organically, right?

I recommend spending at least 30 minutes thinking about this before replying. (Maybe an hour).

Originally posted by @divegeester
I think what KJ is trying to say is that in your example the code for “long fur” is already present but is recessive. The animals genome contains the code for both long and short fur and where long fur is exhibited through chance of fertilisation mitosis (or mitosis, I forget) then that animal will have either an advantage if the climate is cold, or a disadvantage if it is hot.

If you can decider what Kelly is getting at you’re doing a better job than I am.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No problem with that at all. But how does the environment affect a single celled organism to mutate into a fully functional animal with fur without any intelligent intervention?

Evolution by natural selection. Building complexity by one layer at a time.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So what scientific evidence is there for that that can be repeated in the lab?

Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking here.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
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, becau ...[text shortened]... f the fittest.

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

Firstly, complex systems such as the circulatory and respiratory take more than ‘several’ generations to form.

As for your last question, I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘lose’. The fossil record though is filled with thousands upon thousands of animals who are extinct, they have quite clearly ‘lost’.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
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.

But do you understand how the mutation which gave it longer fur was only ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because of the environment it lived in?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
But do you understand how the mutation which gave it longer fur was only ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because of the environment it lived in?

I said I agreed with this as an example of evolution, where I draw the line are brand new
features like organs, systems, fur if it didn't have them before.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Firstly, complex systems such as the circulatory and respiratory take more than ‘several’ generations to form.

As for your last question, I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘lose’. The fossil record though is filled with thousands upon thousands of animals who are extinct, they have quite clearly ‘lost’.

You believe through millions of years the process would improve not destroy all life as it
goes through the processes as described. I believe you are looking at it through rose
colored glasses. You are only viewing it as if that process could only do exactly as you
claim without fail, improve and not fail completely by destroying all life.

Life is just programmed to improve therefore it cannot do anything else, but that through
evolution. Have you ever looked at it critically or are just a true believer and that is that?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You believe through millions of years the process would improve not destroy all life as it
goes through the processes as described. I believe you are looking at it through rose
colored glasses. You are only viewing it as if that process could only do exactly as you
claim without fail, improve and not fail completely by destroying all life.

Life is ju ...[text shortened]...
evolution. Have you ever looked at it critically or are just a true believer and that is that?

You don't seem to have an understanding of how natural selection works Kelly. By its very nature beneficial mutations will survive and passed onto future generations and the bad ones will not. How is this process can 'destroy all life' i have no idea.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
You don't seem to have an understanding of how natural selection works Kelly. By its very nature beneficial mutations will survive and passed onto future generations and the bad ones will not. How is this process can 'destroy all life' i have no idea.

Like I said, you believe.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I said I agreed with this as an example of evolution, where I draw the line are brand new
features like organs, systems, fur if it didn't have them before.

Could an animal become bigger using the process i described?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Like I said, you believe.

What sort of nonsense reply is that?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Like I said, you believe.

Maybe you could clarify for me and describe, with an example or two, how natural selection could 'destroy all life'?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
You understand that an umbrella is an inanimate object that hasn't had millions of years to evolve organically, right? And that the intelligent design for that umbrella came from an animate being who has had millions of years to evolve organically, right?

I recommend spending at least 30 minutes thinking about this before replying. (Maybe an hour).

Give an umbrella only a decade to evolve and it will wither away into rubble.

I recommend spending at least 30 minutes thinking about this before replying. (Maybe an hour).

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking here.

Obviously that’s because there is no evidence for you to provide to answer my question.