Spirituality
25 Jul 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterNo a key piece keeps getting missed.
It’s been explained in this thread about 16,000,000,000 times.
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterWhen it comes to explaining why good mutations go on and bad ones don't - all 16,000,000,000 have said, "...blah, blah, 'magic', blah, blah, blah, 'faith', blah, blah...".
It’s been explained in this thread about 16,000,000,000 times.
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneSo no answer forthcoming from you.
When it comes to explaining why good mutations go on and bad ones don't - all 16,000,000,000 have said, "...blah, blah, 'magic', blah, blah, blah, 'faith', blah, blah...".
Originally posted by @kellyjayNothing that you've been able to wrap your mind around.
So no answer forthcoming from you.
Though you deny it. It's clear that you still do not understand how natural selection works. From what I gather, that's why GoaD dropped out of the discussion with you and I did too.
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneAgreeing with it and understanding it are two different things.
Nothing that you've been able to wrap your mind around.
Though you deny it. It's clear that you do not understand how natural selection works.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYou don't grasp my objections, you have only been suggesting I don't understand the theory.
If you actually understood it, you'd frame your objections and questions very differently than you do.
You have any idea why I'm objecting, why I am saying the process is flawed?
It isn't a religious reason, its a design issue.
If you don't know my reasons for objecting you certainly don't know how they should be presented.
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayDon't you understand that once a gene mutation changes the DNA and gets passed on to a new generation, it is no longer a mutation, but now a part of that organism's DNA and reproduction will always pass it on unless there is a new mutation? Do you get that?
Again you accept the good mutations through time and generations formed eyes, ears,
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 @suzianneIs that true with everything passed on to the new generation?
Don't you understand that once a gene mutation changes the DNA and gets passed on to a new generation, it is no longer a mutation, but now a part of that organism's DNA and reproduction will always pass it on unless there is a new mutation? Do you get that?
Important question, I hope you get it.
Originally posted by @kellyjayIf you understood natural selection, you wouldn't make statements such as the following:
You don't grasp my objections, you have only been suggesting I don't understand the theory.
You have any idea why I'm objecting, why I am saying the process is flawed?
It isn't a religious reason, its a design issue.
If you don't know my reasons for objecting you certainly don't know how they should be presented.
<<There needs to be a method (explain this sorting) in how one is pushed aside and
another is embraced. If this isn't clearly defined all you have is a statement of faith
nothing more. >>
If you understood natural selection, you wouldn't ask questions such as the following:
<<If there are bad mutations introduced, what about them highlights what is good or bad in the DNA? >>
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayNo. Again, mutations don't "work towards" anything. Natural selection only requires mutations to occur and to be able to affect the phenotype (and hence reproductive success).
Again you accept the good mutations through time and generations formed eyes, ears,
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.
When a mutation occurs, it is either beneficial for reproductive success, in which case it will spread throughout the population due to the competitive advantage it confers, or it can be neutral (not affecting reproductive success), or it can be harmful, in which case it is selected against because the organisms that carry them have reduced reproductive success compared to their competitors. It really is quite a simple mechanism, so simple in fact that we noticed it a hundred years before we even knew what DNA is.
Once you understand this mechanism, I am happy to discuss how complex features can result from it.
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayReally, which piece is that?
No a key piece keeps getting missed.
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneEarlier in this thread you were chastising KellyJay for not getting it after having it explained over and over again, now you have changed tune, why is that?
When it comes to explaining why good mutations go on and bad ones don't - all 16,000,000,000 have said, "...blah, blah, 'magic', blah, blah, blah, 'faith', blah, blah...".
17 Aug 18
Originally posted by @suzianneKellyJay is caught in a pincer movement of 1950s religious brainwashing and a dire lack of basic biological education.
Don't you understand that once a gene mutation changes the DNA and gets passed on to a new generation, it is no longer a mutation, but now a part of that organism's DNA and reproduction will always pass it on unless there is a new mutation? Do you get that?