Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
He asked you to be specific, and give an example of his 'incoherence'.
And your answer is (unsurprisingly) to simply repeat your claim that he is not coherent.

If you can't give an example and then explain why it's not coherent, then it's you who is plastering the screen with nonsensical word soup.

Dj2becker jumped in like you have and I asked him to explain the KellyJay post in question and he hasn’t been able to do so, perhaps you would like to try?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Dj2becker jumped in like you have and I asked him to explain the KellyJay post in question and he hasn’t been able to do so, perhaps you would like to try?

I asked you to enlighten me on what you found confusing about my post, and by your own
admission you refused to say and just repeated that I'm incoherent at least three times.

Why should anyone attempt to make some coherent to you that you cannot grasp, if you
cannot even point out what it is you find incoherent!?

Perhaps you would like to try to answer my question, if are able to comprehend it.
What about that post was it that you found incoherent, what sentence was beyond your
understanding? There where only 5 of them, I broke them out in numbers to make it
simple for you.

1. Yes, mutations will accumulate over time through generations and these changes are going to alter the lives they are now part of to what ever end that happens to be.

2. You have to explain why none of the negative affects are not treated and accepted like the good ones are.

3. The good ones come with less frequently and in addition to that they have to continue a work already started by a previously random mutation.

4. It is not enough to not kill or harm the life that receives a mutation it must also accomplish something already started correctly, and not screw up all previous changes that were building something.

5. The mechanics that can blindly shift through just random mutations, whose value is totally unknown until it causes something occur, is so precise it can build eyeballs connect them to a brain it also built is unbelievable to me.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I asked you to enlighten me on what you found confusing about my post, and by your own
admission you refused to say and just repeated that I'm incoherent at least three times.

Why should anyone attempt to make some coherent to you that you cannot grasp, if you
cannot even point out what it is you find incoherent!?

Perhaps you would like to try to a ...[text shortened]... is so precise it can build eyeballs connect them to a brain it also built is unbelievable to me.

1. Then you agree with me that accumulative changes can be significant.

So what’s your beef? Significant changes occur over time.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes, mutations will accumulate over time through generations and these changes are going to alter the lives they are now part of to what ever end that happens to be. You have to explain why none of the negative affects are not treated and accepted like the good ones are. The good ones come with less frequently and in addition to that they have to continue ...[text shortened]... is so precise it can build eyeballs connect them to a brain it also built is unbelievable to me.

Gosh. This is like a bank of white phosphorus fog.

Originally posted by @divegeester
1. Then you agree with me that accumulative changes can be significant.

So what’s your beef? Significant changes occur over time.

You were able to understand it, good.

I did agree that accumulated changes can be significant, that said, significant how?

If bad accumulated changes through mutations build up, then bad things can occur.

If good accumulated changes through mutations build up, then good things can occur.

For the bad, significant how is that there are more bad mutations than good, so they
would by far accumulate more often than the good. The bad don't have to connect to
anything specifically to add something new and helpful to any process. The bad can just
show up anywhere, breaking down what is required by adding to or taking away from the
code that was accomplishing something before the mutations occurred.

For the good, significant how for the good mutations is much harder to achieve, it isn't
enough that the lifeform does not die because they occur. The theory has them building
upon themselves, as you said when they accumulate, but not just accumulate, they are
building things like organs (livers, hearts) and systems (respiratory, auditory) within the
lifeforms.

This means a good mutation not only doesn’t kill a lifeform, they also must add to work
already accomplished supposedly by other random mutations, continuing to build highly
sophisticated organs and systems, while not breaking something required, to kill off or
harm the life. So where they occur, what they do is very specific to each life form, a little
more than any ole random mutation popping up anywhere.

Originally posted by @kellyjay

2. You have to explain why none of the negative affects are not treated and accepted like the good ones are.

"Bad" mutations reduce reproductive fitness (by definition) and thus are less likely to end up in the following generations than good or neutral mutations. This is a key aspect of natural selection.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
"Bad" mutations reduce reproductive fitness (by definition) and thus are less likely to end up in the following generations than good or neutral mutations. This is a key aspect of natural selection.

Bad mutations are more common than good mutations. Do the math.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I did agree that accumulated changes can be significant, that said, significant how?

Well we both agree that over time changes to a creature through the process of natural selection and that these can accumulate to a significant and ongoing degree. Deleterious effects from “bad” changes are deselected through natural selection, I.e survival of the fittest for the environment.

That’s it really, thanks.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
"Bad" mutations reduce reproductive fitness (by definition) and thus are less likely to end up in the following generations than good or neutral mutations. This is a key aspect of natural selection.

Good and bad mutations are not known until they do something good or bad.
Do you have some other explanation for how they are identified?

Good mutations in order to actually add to a good work being done, for example build
an eye in a lifeform not only has to show up, but in the right place to continue the work, in
the way as to continue the work, be the right type to continue the work, and not harm
anything already in place to continue the work. Do this while showing up with less
frequency by the overwhelming numbers of bad mutations. I looked up the ratio for bad
to good, it wasn't close, but if you want to find numbers that support your views state them.

I don't believe even an 80% suppression of bad mutations puts the good and bad on an
even basis, they are still outweighed. On top of that the good would have to be specific
in nature in what, where, and how they are good, while the bad has no such limitations.
This doesn't bode well for any lifeform, could you describe the process in how all of this
is over come without just saying the words 'natural selection'?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Good and bad mutations are not known until they do something good or bad.
Do you have some other explanation for how they are identified?

Good mutations in order to actually add to a good work being done, for example build
an eye in a lifeform not only has to show up, but in the right place to continue the work, in
the way as to continue the work, be ...[text shortened]... the process in how all of this
is over come without just saying the words 'natural selection'?

Natural selection implies that "good" mutations proliferate, while the spread of "bad" mutations is suppressed (this is true by virtue of the definition of good and bad mutations). So "good" mutations don't need to be more common or as common as "bad" mutations for natural selection to work.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Natural selection implies that "good" mutations proliferate, while the spread of "bad" mutations is suppressed (this is true by virtue of the definition of good and bad mutations). So "good" mutations don't need to be more common or as common as "bad" mutations for natural selection to work.

Great but my question was not what is done with the good ones once a mutation is classified as good or bad!

I have been saying that the only time it is revealed that a mutation is either good or bad is after something happens either good or bad.

Can you describe the mechanics behind your process if it differs from what I have been saying about identifying good and bad mutations? There something that is actually making judgment calls before the mutation does something either good or bad?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Great but my question was not what is done with the good ones once a mutation is classified as good or bad!

I have been saying that the only time it is revealed that a mutation is either good or bad is after something happens either good or bad.

Can you describe the mechanics behind your process if it differs from what I have been saying about identi ...[text shortened]... ng that is actually making judgment calls before the mutation does something either good or bad?

A "good" or "bad" mutation is identified by the effect it has on the reproductive success of the organism. This is the definition of "good" and "bad" mutations in the context of evolution. So no, there is no "judgement" required at the time the mutation itself occurs.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
A "good" or "bad" mutation is identified by the effect it has on the reproductive success of the organism. This is the definition of "good" and "bad" mutations in the context of evolution. So no, there is no "judgement" required at the time the mutation itself occurs.

So then all mutations go forward until such time they are revealed? That would mean the damages are already done. You think that there are judgment calls figuring out what is causing damage?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So then all mutations go forward until such time they are revealed? That would mean the damages are already done. You think that there are judgment calls figuring out what is causing damage?

The effect on the reproductive success of an organism defines whether a mutation is "good" or "bad." If the mutation improves it, the mutation is good, if it reduces it, the mutation is bad.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So then all mutations go forward until such time they are revealed? That would mean the damages are already done. You think that there are judgment calls figuring out what is causing damage?

No. Not necessarily. Genetics is hugely complex.

If a mutation for say “luminous scales” occurred in a subset of a species and that mutation did not have a negative effect e.g. making it easier to spot by predators or prey, then it would possibly be neutral in its impact on survival. However if having luminous scales made the males more attractive to females and increased their chances of reproducing, then all the individuals without the mutation would be hugely disadvantaged, less able to reproduce and the characteristic of “luminous scales” would be become a dominant trait. The species would have changed, it would have evolved.

The same principle is in play if there is a neutral characteristic but the environment changes making that neutral characteristic an advantage.