Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
No. 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).

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, o ...[text shortened]... ce you understand this mechanism, I am happy to discuss how complex features can result from it.

Do you believe a single cell evolved into a fully functional human due to mutations that were not working towards anything without any intelligent direction?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Earlier 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?

The first time I thought you were 'playing along' with my response to KN. The second time I wasn't so sure. Evidently you weren't. Good to see that the penny dropped for you.

Do you think it will ever drop for KJ regarding how natural selection works?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
If you understood natural selection, you wouldn't make statements such as the following:
<<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 ...[text shortened]... here are bad mutations introduced, what about them highlights what is good or bad in the DNA? >>

As I said, you have no idea what my complaint is.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
No. 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).

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, o ...[text shortened]... ce you understand this mechanism, I am happy to discuss how complex features can result from it.

So natural selection play no part in the formation of the eyes and ears?
I did not use the words "work towards" and yet you are once again are dismissing this for
that reason.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Not sure what you're getting at. If you have a 'gotcha' for me, just go ahead and lay it on me.

Right now I cannot even get someone to say that mutations actually built the eyes and
ears over time. I'd like to hear you at least agree with the point you made that all the
mutations that move on the next generation become part of the process from that point
on, so we can at least have some agreement on terms moving forward.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
As I said, you have no idea what my complaint is.

Seems like it boils down to you thinking that since harmful mutations out number beneficial mutations, the "math" would not work out. If your writing skills weren't so poor, I'd know for sure. If you understood natural selection, you'd understand that the mechanics for selection is based on reproductive success rather than simply the number of harmful vs beneficial mutations. That due to this, the "math" does work out.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Seems like it boils down to you thinking that since harmful mutations out number beneficial mutations, the "math" would not work out. If your writing skills weren't so poor, I'd know for sure. If you understood natural selection, you'd understand that the mechanics for selection is based on reproductive success rather than simply the number of harmful vs beneficial mutations. That due to this, the "math" does work out.

Harmful ones do out number the good ones, everyone acknowledges (me included) that
those bad ones that are so bad they cannot move forward don't. Thereby ending the
damage they could do. Can we agree on that?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Harmful ones do out number the good ones, everyone acknowledges (me included) that
those bad ones that are so bad they cannot move forward don't. Thereby ending the
damage they could do. Can we agree on that?

If you have a point, then plainly state it. By all means, get someone to help you to craft a well-formulated response.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Harmful ones do out number the good ones, everyone acknowledges (me included) that
those bad ones that are so bad they cannot move forward don't. Thereby ending the
damage they could do. Can we agree on that?

And this, KJ, is exactly why this process takes millions of years.

A lot of lines eventually DO go 'nowhere'. But since the evolutionary 'angle' is that, yes, mutations that are beneficial DO 'keep going' because they are now part of that organism's base DNA, evolution, in general, does always 'move forward'. It cannot 'move backward' because those organisms that do, die off, usually without reproducing, because natural selection takes care of that. Healthy organisms generally do not choose unhealthy partners to reproduce because the underlying impetus is to pass on one's genes, i.e. 'evolutionary success'.

Originally posted by @suzianne
And this, KJ, is exactly why this process takes millions of years.

A lot of lines eventually DO go 'nowhere'. But since the evolutionary 'angle' is that, yes, mutations that are beneficial DO 'keep going' because they are now part of that organism's base DNA, evolution, in general, does always 'move forward'. It cannot 'move backward' because those o ...[text shortened]... reproduce because the underlying impetus is to pass on one's genes, i.e. 'evolutionary success'.

Also worth noting (yes, I'm back in this discussion) that if good mutations were more prolific, that in itself would cause evolutionary problems.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Also worth noting (yes, I'm back in this discussion) that if good mutations were more prolific, that in itself would cause evolutionary problems.

Yes, I suppose, like prey species having 12 eyes or huge ears.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The first time I thought you were 'playing along' with my response to KN. The second time I wasn't so sure. Evidently you weren't. Good to see that the penny dropped for you.

Do you think it will ever drop for KJ regarding how natural selection works?

Oh, ok, you were being very ironic. No I didn’t get it, fair play.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So natural selection play no part in the formation of the eyes and ears?
I did not use the words "work towards" and yet you are once again are dismissing this for
that reason.

Of course natural selection played a part in the evolution of eyes and ears, but I'm not in a position to explain how if you don't understand the basic mechanism.

Again, natural selection relies on two observations:
1. Mutations in DNA can occur when an organism reproduces.
2. These mutations can affect the phenotype, and hence reproductive success.

If you can point out where things become unclear to you, I can try to explain it. If you accept 1 and 2, then we can move on towards explaining the evolution of complex features in organisms such as eyes and ears.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Right now I cannot even get someone to say that mutations actually built the eyes and ears over time.

Have you once even asked this question?

The intellectual (and outright) dishonesty of the likes of you and sonship turn me off to Christianity, and I’ve been a Christian for nearly 30 years.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Have you once even asked this question?

The intellectual (and outright) dishonesty of the likes of you and sonship turn me off to Christianity, and I’ve been a Christian for nearly 30 years.

Yes. More reason not to put weight into how people label themselves.