Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes never once disagreed with that.
You added a twist which is that if something reproduces only the good mutations get to accumulate after the reproduction and the next generation arrives.

Good mutations accumulate and proliferate in populations over many generations since the organisms that have them have greater reproductive success than their competitors.

Originally posted by @divegeester
What are you, his spokesperson?

I’m merely reiterating what he has told you himself.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Good mutations accumulate and proliferate in populations over many generations since the organisms that have them have greater reproductive success than their competitors.

Yes but you denied that bad mutations could get passed along and accumulate. Not denying if something is healthy it will have better chances to accumulate. That still is still not what I am talking about, a healthy life form can still carry bad mutations with it into the next generation, then accumulate. With the specific requirements that the good ones have it would even be easier.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I’m merely reiterating what he has told you himself.

Well can you jazz it up a bit as it was bloody boring first time.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes but you denied that bad mutations could get passed along and accumulate. Not denying if something is healthy it will have better chances to accumulate. That still is still not what I am talking about, a healthy life form can still carry bad mutations with it into the next generation, then accumulate. With the specific requirements that the good ones have it would even be easier.

The bad mutations will not accumulate significantly, since the organisms that carry them have lower reproductive success. Hence, their descendants will be at a competitive disadvantage compared to organisms that did not have the bad mutations in question.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes but you denied that bad mutations could get passed along and accumulate. Not denying if something is healthy it will have better chances to accumulate. That still is still not what I am talking about, a healthy life form can still carry bad mutations with it into the next generation, then accumulate. With the specific requirements that the good ones have it would even be easier.

Kelly, it might indeed take many generations to slowly weed out 'bad' mutations, but overall we are looking at ‘averages’ here and once the pointer is very slightly on the side of ‘selecting for fitness’ (a beneficial mutation) then that's all that's required.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Kelly, it might indeed take many generations to slowly weed out 'bad' mutations, but overall we are looking at ‘averages’ here and once the pointer is very slightly on the side of ‘selecting for fitness’ (a beneficial mutation) then that's all that's required.

Except there is no process in place to do anything like that! When a generation passes on to the next the really bad do not! I believe we agree on that point, yes?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Kelly, it might indeed take many generations to slowly weed out 'bad' mutations, but overall we are looking at ‘averages’ here and once the pointer is very slightly on the side of ‘selecting for fitness’ (a beneficial mutation) then that's all that's required.

The next generation gets all the DNA passes along from the previous one, minus that which
didn't make the cut. Then as always things happen, good and bad that did make the cut
are there and one thing would build upon another. You disagree with this?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The next generation gets all the DNA passes along from the previous one, minus that which
didn't make the cut. Then as always things happen, good and bad that did make the cut
are there and one thing would build upon another. You disagree with this?

With respect Kelly, I'm dropping out of this conversation.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The next generation gets all the DNA passes along from the previous one, minus that which
didn't make the cut. Then as always things happen, good and bad that did make the cut
are there and one thing would build upon another. You disagree with this?

Good mutations imply that descendants are more likely to "make the cut," while bad mutations mean descendants are less likely to "make the cut." The repeated application of this process leads to a proliferation of good mutations throughout the population, and a suppression of bad ones. This is called "natural selection."

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
With respect Kelly, I'm dropping out of this conversation.

It’s like talking to a 10 year old from a hundred years ago.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Good mutations imply that descendants are more likely to "make the cut," while bad mutations mean descendants are less likely to "make the cut." The repeated application of this process leads to a proliferation of good mutations throughout the population, and a suppression of bad ones. This is called "natural selection."

Your patience is incredible.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Good mutations imply that descendants are more likely to "make the cut," while bad mutations mean descendants are less likely to "make the cut." The repeated application of this process leads to a proliferation of good mutations throughout the population, and a suppression of bad ones. This is called "natural selection."

Yes, and not one time have I argued against that.

My point was/is that those that make the cut continue.

They would continue as they are, if there are good mutations within them and bad.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
With respect Kelly, I'm dropping out of this conversation.

As you will, but that is the central point, nothing ends if it makes the cut. If good are passed
on they will be there for the next round, the same is true with the bad. The issue with the
process is how specific a good one must be to continue a good work like build an eye while
the bad have no limitations and come in much greater numbers. Eventually if that was the
process the bad would contaminate the whole of the life and nothing would pass to the
next generation. Repeating only the good accumulate isn't a truth that can be really
defended, only repeated mind numbly over and over.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes, and not one time have I argued against that.

My point was/is that those that make the cut continue.

They would continue as they are, if there are good mutations within them and bad.

Yes, some bad mutations can persist over one or more generations - the closer the bad mutation is to a neutral one (i.e. only "slightly bad," so to speak), the longer they can persist. The point is that they eventually disappear from the population due to the fact that the organisms that have them have a competitive disadvantage compared to the organisms that did not get the bad mutations in question.