Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Maybe you could clarify for me and describe, with an example or two, how natural selection could 'destroy all life'?

Natural selection isn't in the business of making life go on or end, there are no
advantages or disadvantages with it. If something is weak, cannot handle an
environment, can’t adapt to some circumstance or predators it will move out or die. If it is
all a matter of strength, speed, or the ability to make the most of opportunities than that
life will go on. If mutations occur that hinder a life form in any capacity, reducing its
speed, strength, endurance, life fitness in any function, that list of what could go wrong
is too numerous to catalogue. Life either has what it takes to survive or not.

Mutations that appear randomly that alters DNA in a sensitive spot could negatively
affect any life form, sometimes minutely others in a dramatic fashion. Small changes
over time even slowly to give new organs, limbs, sight, hearing, and on and on means
that nothing about that life form’s DNA cannot be touched. Since random changes that
could do damage far outnumber the chances of a good one continuing a specific work, in
just the right way, without ruining it why would anyone think that this type of micro
alterations could be anything but harmful.

On an aside, because my religion has been brought up. The argument not the ideology is
all that matters here not my religion. We can end up proving evolution cannot do what
many say it can, that does not automatically mean what I believe is the only solution.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
When something "goes wrong" the reproductive success of an organism is decreased. When something "goes right," on the other hand, the reproductive success of an organism is increased. The implication of this is that "good" mutations are more likely to be passed on to following generations. This describes a phenomenon called "natural selection" in a nutshell.

You can read more about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Just post the piece of the link you think proves your point, or tell me where to look I have
no desire to read the whole thing, but will at your request read specific portions.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So you don’t think I should be able to say I believe in that process because I don’t agree with the universal common ancestor. Is that like saying I believe in God, but not a specific God so I don’t get to claim I am a Theist?

Kelly, I specifically said to forget the common ancestor thing for a moment (which seems to be an impasse) and to consider the overwhelming physical evidence for homo erectus and how this makes belief in 2 perfectly formed humans in a garden 'evolutionarily impossible.'

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Kelly, I specifically said to forget the common ancestor thing for a moment (which seems to be an impasse) and to consider the overwhelming physical evidence for homo erectus and how this makes belief in 2 perfectly formed humans in a garden 'evolutionarily impossible.'

By looking purely at a few bones how could you possibly know with certainty what they represent without using some creative license? Take for example the Nebraskan man. The entire man was ‘built’ around only a tooth which was later found to belong to an extinct pig.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Actually young earth creationist believe when everything stepped off the ark natural selection went into over drive! I don’t have the slow time table you do, I just believe in a shorter span required to accomplish it all.

I don’t believe a common ancestor is required either bypassing all the hard things required in genetics.

Actually young earth creationist believe when everything stepped off the ark natural selection went into over drive! I don’t have the slow time table you do, I just believe in a shorter span required to accomplish it all.

None of what you have typed in the text above is compatible with evolution. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. To think that it does demonstrates a very poor understanding of what evolutionary theory claims. Evolution explains how all life diversified from on this planet from a single common ancestor.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Can we just agree Kelly that you reject the common understanding of natural selection and with it the theory of evolution that it underpins?

Can we also agree that believing some small mutations occur within a given species does not entitle you to claim a belief in evolution? - It would be like me accepting the books of Job and Ezekiel and then ...[text shortened]... s. (Bones don't lie).


Hear have a wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

I think by design not by chance do we share traits with other species, if there were
random changes splitting one species DNA code from another that split would make lives
appear so very dissimilar. We do see a variety of species, some fly, live in water,
feathers, scales, warm blooded, cold blooded, very large, very small. Where you would
think they would have had to completely break from one genetic path to another to form
these unique species.

Yet, and I think this important why are all these dissimilar life forms sharing much of the
same designs within them hearts, livers, nervous system, eyes of a variety of kinds? If
the split was marking where life’s DNA was diverging from one another, why then is that
so much of it share so many traits in the quite different bodies? Common design makes
more sense to me than what a random split from one evolutionary path would take one
life than another. We have similar organs in quite dissimilar bodies, even male and
females within each species, what a wonder that would have had to have been keep two
sexes on the same evolutionary path in a host of unique species, with some birthing life,
other eggs, and some still just splitting in half without a pair of sexes.

Beating this horse to death, but imagine how many alterations required through random
mutations it would take to spin off a mouse, house fly, catfish, oak tree, and a whale’s
DNA while nothing went wrong? That would have meant so many alterations were being
used to build each life form! Think about that, one random mutation had to add to
another random mutation’s work for millions of years and generations, all the while only
good DNA was being passed along? As it was said, this was even done blindly too, since
there wasn’t a judge looking at each mutation figuring out what was good or bad,
because that could not be determine until some went wrong. If all the mutations were
being passed along without a means to determine which were good and bad until
something happens what makes a mouse different than an ant would of more than like
not gotten that far, blind random changes in the process would have been just like
adding random letters to a programs code it would fail long before that, or putting in
random letters, numbers, and symbols in what we type, you would lose the information
for gibberish in no time. Dvaodi ddneir 23dsdlc szdidls! doGDE soier.s

Originally posted by @proper-knob

Actually young earth creationist believe when everything stepped off the ark natural selection went into over drive! I don’t have the slow time table you do, I just believe in a shorter span required to accomplish it all.

None of what you have typed in the text above is compatible with evolution. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. To think that i ...[text shortened]... . Evolution explains how all life diversified from on this planet from a single common ancestor.

It explains it, that doesn't mean it is correct. I believe it is just unworkable on its face, and
anyone who pulls off their blinders will see it. That isn't done by many because it is
practically a holy doctrine for some, so people they fear the shunning that would follow,
and to lose of reputation in some circles. If you don't believe that look at how those who
do reject the universal common ancestor are treated they get labeled as less than, name
calling, intelligence questioned.

I will say this, this conversation with almost every one in it has been very respectful, at
least to me anyway.

Originally posted by @kellyjay to Proper Knob
I will say this, this conversation with almost every one in it has been very respectful, at
east to me anyway.

I notice that you haven't been calling Proper Knob a liar over and over again in order to deflect what he has been putting to you.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Just post the piece of the link you think proves your point, or tell me where to look I have
no desire to read the whole thing, but will at your request read specific portions.

How can you have "no desire" to learn about our understanding of the origin of the diversity of life? Even if you think scientists are wrong, aren't you at least a bit curious as to how they arrive at their (in your view) incorrect conclusions?

Anyway, since you don't understand the mechanism of natural selection, I recommend you read that chapter of the article.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I think by design not by chance do we share traits with other species, if there were
random changes splitting one species DNA code from another that split would make lives
appear so very dissimilar. We do see a variety of species, some fly, live in water,
feathers, scales, warm blooded, cold blooded, very large, very small. Where you would
think they w ...[text shortened]... uld lose the information
for gibberish in no time. Dvaodi ddneir 23dsdlc szdidls! doGDE soier.s

'Beating this horse to death, but imagine how many alterations required through random
mutations it would take to spin off a mouse, house fly, catfish, oak tree etc etc...'


The very reason Kelly you need to view evolution through the prism of a very old Earth.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Kelly, I specifically said to forget the common ancestor thing for a moment (which seems to be an impasse) and to consider the overwhelming physical evidence for homo erectus and how this makes belief in 2 perfectly formed humans in a garden 'evolutionarily impossible.'

Polite nudge for Kelly.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
By looking purely at a few bones how could you possibly know with certainty what they represent without using some creative license? Take for example the Nebraskan man. The entire man was ‘built’ around only a tooth which was later found to belong to an extinct pig.

Polite nudge for the Ghost.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
'Beating this horse to death, but imagine how many alterations required through random
mutations it would take to spin off a mouse, house fly, catfish, oak tree etc etc...'


The very reason Kelly you need to view evolution through the prism of a very old Earth.

No, I think time offers you no help. It offers none in abio-genesis and it doesn't help in
evolutionary change either.

With abio-genesis it isn't how long a sterile planet had to get it right, that only adds to the
issues not the solutions. Abio-genesis was only about small windows of opportunities not
huge amounts of time attempting to get it right. The small windows of opportunities
would be where everything required had to be in the same place, in the proper
quantities, mixed together without anything contaminating the process, in an
environment that allowed life to start. Any of those things not right or missing nothing
could have happen, and this providing that was possible on top of that. Moreover, if any
of the ingredients that were required for life was changed due to some mixing it into
something else altering what was needed into something else, it then could never occur.

With respect to large quantities of time and evolutions time lines, having more time to get
something right is also more time for things to go wrong. In a large part of the west in
this country right now are wild fires, taking out all types of things, there are volcanos in
the Pacific and elsewhere. Life can be assailed by diseases, sickness, starvation, all
manner of natural disasters. So, when life began whereever that spot was, that was it,
anything negative could have wiped all life.

The mutation issue isn’t helped by longer periods of time! The issues I have isn’t a matter
of try and try again, the process as described is flawed. Being able to do the wrong thing
for longer periods of time doesn’t make it the right thing. If you had an endless amount
of opportunities, and all you were trying to do was open a combination lock yes. At some
point because the answer is fixed you will find it, but that is not what is going on with
evolution as it is being described, particularly when it comes to a universal common
ancestor. There is a limited number of lives, not endless, more failures are introduced
than not, and this without considering all the other things that can go wrong. So, having
more time doesn’t help because of the limited number of lives, the opportunities for total
failure are immense.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Polite nudge for Kelly.

Go check, I've already addressed this.

Originally posted by @fmf
I notice that you haven't been calling Proper Knob a liar over and over again in order to deflect what he has been putting to you.

I don't believe he is one.