Spirituality
25 Jul 18
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterAnd another sweeping ad-hominem generalisation about Kelly as a person.
It’s like talking to a 10 year old from a hundred years ago.
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI don’t think you see what I am driving at.
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.
With the good according to the theory they build upon mutations that have come before. So mutations that are working on an eye would continue to do that, if some were molding a heart they would continue to do that, which means specific mutations into specific areas of DNA. Do we agree?
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayNo, that's not how it works. Mutations don't "work towards" anything. Either they are beneficial to reproductive success, in which case they will proliferate, or they are neutral, or they are detrimental to reproductive success, in which case they will eventually disappear from populations due to natural selection.
I don’t think you see what I am driving at.
With the good according to the theory they build upon mutations that have come before. So mutations that are working on an eye would continue to do that, if some were molding a heart they would continue to do that, which means specific mutations into specific areas of DNA. Do we agree?
Once you understand this mechanism, I am happy to go into how complex features might result from it.
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraBackwards engineering these random means of forming an eye and ears with the ability to receive information with recognition should be described as what? The purely really very lucky happenstance for visual and auditory formation of sight and sound formations brought to us by nothing.
No, that's not how it works. Mutations don't "work towards" anything. Either they are beneficial to reproductive success, in which case they will proliferate, or they are neutral, or they are detrimental to reproductive success, in which case they will eventually disappear from populations due to natural selection.
Once you understand this mechanism, I am happy to go into how complex features might result from it.
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayWe're losing track a bit here. An eye is not the result of any single mutation, that's not how it works. I am still trying to understand where you get lost in understanding the concept of natural selection. Do you understand why good mutations will proliferate, and bad ones will not?
Backwards engineering these random means of forming an eye and ears with the ability to receive information with recognition should be described as what? The purely really very lucky happenstance for visual and auditory formation of sight and sound formations brought to us by nothing.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraDo you understand why good mutations will proliferate, and bad ones will not?
We're losing track a bit here. An eye is not the result of any single mutation, that's not how it works. I am still trying to understand where you get lost in understanding the concept of natural selection. Do you understand why good mutations will proliferate, and bad ones will not?
After more than 40 pages, no one has made an effort to explain it. Thus far all explanations presented have said, "...blah, blah, "magic", blah, blah, blah, "faith", blah, blah"...
Will you explain it instead of repeating the same things over and over again?
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneDon’t you understand how natural selection works?
[b] Do you understand why good mutations will proliferate, and bad ones will not?
After more than 40 pages, no one has made an effort to explain it. Thus far all explanations presented have said, "...blah, blah, "magic", blah, blah, blah, "faith", blah, blah"...
Will you explain it instead of repeating the same things over and over again?[/b]
Originally posted by @divegeesterOf course I understand it. The problem is that no one can explain why good mutations go on and bad ones don't.
Don’t you understand how natural selection works?
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneIt’s been explained in this thread about 16,000,000,000 times.
Of course I understand it. The problem is that no one can explain why good mutations go on and bad ones don't.
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayIt has been proven that there was NO good reason for all the separate parts of the eyes to evolve over millions of years. Individually, those parts serve NO lasting purpose.
Backwards engineering these random means of forming an eye and ears with the ability to receive information with recognition should be described as what? The purely really very lucky happenstance for visual and auditory formation of sight and sound formations brought to us by nothing.
What does make sense is to believe that the eyes were created, fully functioning, as one complete unit.
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAccording to the theory they were supposedly formed over more than quite a handful of years and generations. Which was why from this point in time looking backwards if I believed the claims. Then mutations would be accomplishing the tasks of eyes and ears with all the accompanying necessities. Which in my opinion are quite a group of impressive accomplishments.
We're losing track a bit here. An eye is not the result of any single mutation, that's not how it works. I am still trying to understand where you get lost in understanding the concept of natural selection. Do you understand why good mutations will proliferate, and bad ones will not?
You have second thoughts on this?
You agree that the good ones did those things right, so you were just hung up on verbage that suggests I was implying a goal? I very firmly committed to never giving a blind thoughtless process credit it doesn’t deserve.
Do you agree that a mindless, thoughtless, goalless, aimless, without regard to success or failure process with good mutations accumulated DNA into very complex organs and systems?
16 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNever said that the eye was formed that fast.
We're losing track a bit here. An eye is not the result of any single mutation, that's not how it works. I am still trying to understand where you get lost in understanding the concept of natural selection. Do you understand why good mutations will proliferate, and bad ones will not?
16 Aug 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAgain you accept the good mutations through time and generations formed eyes, ears,
No, that's not how it works. Mutations don't "work towards" anything. Either they are beneficial to reproductive success, in which case they will proliferate, or they are neutral, or they are detrimental to reproductive success, in which case they will eventually disappear from populations due to natural selection.
Once you understand this mechanism, I am happy to go into how complex features might result from it.
and so on? Which means a mutation in one generation would have to add to what was
done in a previous generation, correct? Requiring specific mutations types in specific
locations! It would not be a good thing to enhance the eyes ability to taste or smell now
would it, so eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, taste buds for taste.
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneSupposedly the good go on, and the bad ones are stopped where and when, is it only
Of course I understand it. The problem is that no one can explain why good mutations go on and bad ones don't.
after they fail to reproduce, or some other thing is at play?