Creation AND Evolution?

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?

Perhaps it would be helpful to move away from 'good' mutations and think instead of mutations that are 'advantageous' or 'beneficial' for survival or reproduction?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Perhaps it would be helpful to move away from 'good' mutations and think instead of mutations that are 'advantageous' or 'beneficial' for survival or reproduction?

A rose by any other name. The problem isn’t our naming convention it’s in how these are being segregated, when they are being segregated, and why?

Any damaging mutations that are not good meaning harmful if allowed to go forward becomes an issue. A deadly one.

So okay the claim is only good go forward, explanations are in order!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
A rose by any other name. The problem isn’t our naming convention it’s in how these are being segregated, when they are being segregated, and why?

Any damaging mutations that are not good meaning harmful if allowed to go forward becomes an issue. A deadly one.

So okay the claim is only good go forward, explanations are in order!

The explanation is that good mutations enhance reproductive success, while bad ones diminish it. So, after many generations, the good ones stick around, while the bad ones eventually disappear. This process is called "natural selection."

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The explanation is that good mutations enhance reproductive success, while bad ones diminish it. So, after many generations, the good ones stick around, while the bad ones eventually disappear. This process is called "natural selection."

You either can’t or will not get into the details about that?

When are the good ones identified before or after damages are done?

If before how?

If after what segregates the good from the bad? It isn’t like a microbiologist is watching over the code pointing out good from bad to do a clean up in isle four where just the bad mutations ended up.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Just so I know, How did everything come from nothing?

What makes you think there was ever nothing?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You either can’t or will not get into the details about that?

When are the good ones identified before or after damages are done?

If before how?

If after what segregates the good from the bad? It isn’t like a microbiologist is watching over the code pointing out good from bad to do a clean up in isle four where just the bad mutations ended up.

The good and bad ones are identified through the effect the mutation has on the reproductive success of the organism. If the mutation enhances reproductive success, it will proliferate, whereas if the mutation reduces reproductive success, its proliferation through the population is suppressed.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
A rose by any other name. The problem isn’t our naming convention it’s in how these are being segregated, when they are being segregated, and why?

Any damaging mutations that are not good meaning harmful if allowed to go forward becomes an issue. A deadly one.

So okay the claim is only good go forward, explanations are in order!

Grumble grumble.... (me, not you).

Okay, let's extrapolate. 2 opposing armies are locked in perpetual warfare. Both sides use a crude bow and arrow and their battles are always equally matched. One day one of the armies develops a crossbow which is more powerful than the bow and arrow and can reach the enemy at a longer distance. This 'development' proves advantageous in battle and accordingly, this development is passed down to future generations, while the use of bow and arrows in battles dies out, due to being less successful in winning battles.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Grumble grumble.... (me, not you).

Okay, let's extrapolate. 2 opposing armies are locked in perpetual warfare. Both sides use a crude bow and arrow and their battles are always equally matched. One day one of the armies develops a crossbow which is more powerful than the bow and arrow and can reach the enemy at a longer distance. This 'developmen ...[text shortened]... the use of bow and arrows in battles dies out, due to being less successful in winning battles.

Yea team, the trouble is there are more people attempting to slip something dangerous
into the camp to hinder one sides fighting over the other, and much more of that is going
on over the cross bows showing up. There could be mutations causing discontentment
among the troops, so they stop their coordinated fighting, they might even fight among
themselves, there could be mutations causing soldiers to lose time on their watches, so
that delicately scheduled events are not handled properly, like perhaps blood clots are
not done correctly, eyes are blind, kidneys malfunction, and on and on.

Yes, yes, yes, give a lifeform an advantage it will matter, but if genetic mutation isn’t how
that can be done without destroying the life, shouldn’t that be examined thoroughly?

Originally posted by @athousandyoung
What makes you think there was ever nothing?

One of the few things I believe scripture and science have in common is the belief there
was a beginning to everything in the universe, why date it if that were not true? Besides,
endless time what star would still be shinning?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The good and bad ones are identified through the effect the mutation has on the reproductive success of the organism. If the mutation enhances reproductive success, it will proliferate, whereas if the mutation reduces reproductive success, its proliferation through the population is suppressed.

This is more of the same, good move on bad do not.
The details is what I'm asking for, can you describe the process or no?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
This is more of the same, good move on bad do not.
The details is what I'm asking for, can you describe the process or no?

Seriously KJ.

You've already had the process described many a time. Be it cut-and-pastes, links to articles that describe the process, posters on this forum describing the process, etc. No matter how it's put, you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't understand what's being described. Even worse you arrogantly keep insisting that you understand what's being described.

The fact of the matter is that you struggle comprehending the written word. This has been proven out with this topic and many a topic in the past. You arrogantly refuse to take responsibility for your failings and instead blame everyone else. You can keep telling yourself that this isn't the case, but then there's the truth of the matter.

The truth will make you free.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Seriously KJ.

You've already had the process described many a time. Be it cut-and-pastes, links to articles that describe the process, posters on this forum describing the process, etc. No matter how it's put, you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't understand what's being described. Even worse you arrogantly keep insisting that you understand what' ...[text shortened]... this isn't the case, but then there's the truth of the matter.

The truth will make you free.

I get it, people simply say only the good move on.
All I'm asking for is a little details into the process, explain why!

There isn't much to it.
There is DNA code as is, its currently produces life.
There are mutations.
The mutations at the moment can they be called good or bad before they do anything,
yes, no?
If yes how?
If no, then when are they called bad?
If is after they start doing damage, than the damage has been done, whatever is there
is there isn't it?
If not is there something that can and will sort out the good from the bad, and if so how does it know what is good or bad?

No one has taken the time to describe the process beyond just saying, in so many words
the good move on.

I see you have backed up your claims with shots at me personally instead of actually
adding to the discussion.

Truth does make us free, and since you brought that up, is Jesus Christ your Lord?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I get it, people simply say only the good move on.
All I'm asking for is a little details into the process, explain why!

There isn't much to it.
There is DNA code as is, its currently produces life.
There are mutations.
The mutations at the moment can they be called good or bad before they do anything,
yes, no?
If yes how?
If no, then when are th ...[text shortened]... iscussion.

Truth does make us free, and since you brought that up, is Jesus Christ your Lord?

KJ, if you were able to understand what people have been writing (or the articles that have been cited for that matter), you'd have the answers to your questions. But thus far you haven't been able to comprehend any of the explanations.

When it's been explained to you in the most simplistic terms, you haven't been able to comprehend it. When it's been explained in detail, you haven't been able to comprehend it. That's just the truth of the matter.

I remember some years ago, you responded to a post which you mistakenly thought was written by me. No matter how many times I tried to explain the situation to you, you were unable to understand what I was saying and you refused to reread the post in question. I finally had to give up when you got all defensive about it as you have on this thread. This type of thing happens quite a bit with you.

No one has taken the time to describe the process beyond just saying, in so many words the good move on.

Actually if you'd been able to comprehend ANY of the MANY explanations that have been given this far, you'd know that this isn't true. The fact of the matter is that more than a few people have "taken the time to describe the process beyond just saying, in so many words the good move on.". With your poor reading comprehension, evidently all YOUsee is "the good move on".

Originally posted by @thinkofone
KJ, if you were able to understand what people have been writing (or the articles that have been cited for that matter), you'd have the answers to your questions. But thus far you haven't been able to comprehend any of the explanations.

When it's been explained to you in the most simplistic terms, you haven't been able to comprehend it. When it's bee ...[text shortened]... d move on.". With your poor reading comprehension, evidently all YOU hear is "the good move on".

Well, use little words.
Explain it in simple terms besides just saying only the good move on!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Well, use little words.
Explain it in simple terms besides just saying only the good move on!

What KN wrote a few posts ago puts the concept in reasonably simple terms:
<<The good and bad ones are identified through the effect the mutation has on the reproductive success of the organism. If the mutation enhances reproductive success, it will proliferate, whereas if the mutation reduces reproductive success, its proliferation through the population is suppressed.>>

Clearly he is NOT saying "only the good move on". Which of the above words need to be made "little" for you?