Spirituality
25 Jul 18
10 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayMaybe you could clarify for me, with an example or two, how what you are describing would work and how natural selection wouldn’t counteract this process.
Possibility of errors where what occurs destroys something required for life to continue as is, even without improving. A death of a thousand errors would occur long before one random mutation works in unison with a previous random mutation to construct a system with timing requirements, stop start, and so on. Simply repeating only the good moves on doesn’t address the issues that would be In countered.
10 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYou have said that, and I don’t believe that it would. Suggesting I don’t understand because I don’t agree with your assumptions doesn’t address the complaints I have, instead it simply suggests, you smart, me stupid, not a thoughtful retort.
There is a process which allows beneficial mutations to accumulate, while harmful ones gradually disappear from the population.
That process is called "natural selection."
That also stops any thoughtful discussion by reducing it to something personal. Giving you an out from addressing any controversy surrounding the theory you hold cannot fail.
10 Aug 18
Originally posted by @proper-knobAt work I will try to give you something tonight.
Maybe you could clarify for me, with an example or two, how what you are describing would work and how natural selection wouldn’t counteract this process.
10 Aug 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerPlease identify one person who believes, or has indicated, that inanimate objects like umbrellas evolve.
The loon is the one that believes the umbrella will evolve into a helicopter.
The exact opposite has been said.
10 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraPrecisely.
There is a process which allows beneficial mutations to accumulate, while harmful ones gradually disappear from the population.
That process is called "natural selection."
Originally posted by @kellyjayOrganisms don't know the difference between a good (or potentially good) mutation and a bad one. They can't because it's a blind process unable to recognize the concept of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no internal 'peer review' process before DNA coding is copied and passed along to a next generation, because it's a strictly mechanical (blind) process.
Possibility of errors where what occurs destroys something required for life to continue as is, even without improving. A death of a thousand errors would occur long before one random mutation works in unison with a previous random mutation to construct a system with timing requirements, stop start, and so on. Simply repeating only the good moves on doesn’t address the issues that would be In countered.
This means innefective and harmful mutations can be passed along and accumulate from one generation to the next. And at some point along succeeding generational lines, whatever good changes that may have occurred would eventually be overwhemed by the accumulative toxic changes.
This is where wishfull thinking comes into play. Pretending the good will always outweigh the bad (instead of the other way around) saves evolution from a self defeating process.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAs per Kelly, you don't seem to understand how 'natural selection' works.
Organisms don't know the difference between a good (or potentially good) mutation and a bad one. They can't because it's a blind process unable to recognize the concept of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no internal 'peer review' process before DNA coding is copied and passed along to a next generation, because it's a strictly mechanical (blind) process.
Thi ...[text shortened]... utweigh the bad (instead of the other way around) saves evolution from a self defeating process.
Originally posted by @proper-knobRight. Mr Natural Selection works for you... you da boss of him.
As per Kelly, you don't seem to understand how 'natural selection' works.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou should read a primary school book on natural selection, how the notion of survival of the fittest works over time and through environmental changes. It would stop you embarrassing yourself.
Organisms don't know the difference between a good (or potentially good) mutation and a bad one. They can't because it's a blind process unable to recognize the concept of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no internal 'peer review' process before DNA coding is copied and passed along to a next generation, because it's a strictly mechanical (blind) process.
Thi ...[text shortened]... utweigh the bad (instead of the other way around) saves evolution from a self defeating process.
10 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayWhich of my assumptions do you disagree with?
You have said that, and I don’t believe that it would. Suggesting I don’t understand because I don’t agree with your assumptions doesn’t address the complaints I have, instead it simply suggests, you smart, me stupid, not a thoughtful retort.
That also stops any thoughtful discussion by reducing it to something personal. Giving you an out from addressing any controversy surrounding the theory you hold cannot fail.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI agree looking at only what helps makes the theory work, and deminshing or rejecting all the possible reasons it wouldn’t work, can only give favorable outcomes.
Organisms don't know the difference between a good (or potentially good) mutation and a bad one. They can't because it's a blind process unable to recognize the concept of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no internal 'peer review' process before DNA coding is copied and passed along to a next generation, because it's a strictly mechanical (blind) process.
Thi ...[text shortened]... utweigh the bad (instead of the other way around) saves evolution from a self defeating process.
Originally posted by @proper-knobI think he nailed it.
As per Kelly, you don't seem to understand how 'natural selection' works.
10 Aug 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterIt's unlikely Mr Natural Selection will ever fail or betray you.
You should read a primary school book on natural selection, how the notion of survival of the fittest works over time and through environmental changes. It would stop you embarrassing yourself.
But if he does, you can always point at him and say "You're fired!"
10 Aug 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @kellyjayOf course you do, he's a creationist like you.
I think he nailed it.
This means innefective and harmful mutations can be passed along and accumulate from one generation to the next. And at some point along succeeding generational lines, whatever good changes that may have occurred would eventually be overwhemed by the accumulative toxic changes.
Can either of you substantiate this claim?