Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Do you agree or disagree with quantum chromodynamics? Neither, because you don't know what it is. The same applies to the theory of evolution. If you want to form an opinion on it, you first need to learn what it is.

There are still plenty of people publishing on topics related to evolution. So it's not like there is nothing left to learn and nothing to disagree about.

Well as I said what is clearly proclaimed as truth by you is not as clear as you make it out to be. So suggesting if I only had your knowledge doesn’t address concerns, it only suggests arrogance. Because now it is not the concerns, but other people’s understanding you attempting to make this all about! Ignoring all concerns is doing nothing but the suppression of concerns treating only the acceptable ideas as the only ones that can be entertained. Not much different than what you think natural selection does, just talk about what agrees with you and all will arrive where you are.

I imagine if you taught this the way you talk about it, you would never address issues but demand complying or failure.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
C'mon KJ. KN hasn't been asking you to agree with what the results of natural selection may or may not be. Rather KN has been trying to help you to understand the basic mechanics of natural selection. You've shown time and again that you don't understand the basic mechanics.

Yes, agree or you don’t understand, it is not possible to both understand and disagree, right?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Well as I said what is clearly proclaimed as truth by you is not as clear as you make it out to be. So suggesting if I only had your knowledge doesn’t address concerns, it only suggests arrogance. Because now it is not the concerns, but other people’s understanding you attempting to make this all about! Ignoring all concerns is doing nothing but the suppre ...[text shortened]... this the way you talk about it, you would never address issues but demand complying or failure.

It's a pity you don't find my explanation of natural selection sufficiently clear. Perhaps you can try this article instead, and the references therein:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
It's a pity you don't find my explanation of natural selection sufficiently clear. Perhaps you can try this article instead, and the references therein:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I find your explanation clear, I just don't believe it to be a reflection of reality, or to put it
another way, not a good explanation for the life from a simple to highly complex.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes, agree or you don’t understand, it is not possible to both understand and disagree, right?

Of course it's possible to "both understand and disagree". The problem is that what you write shows that you don't understand.

Tell you what. Why don't you post a detailed explanation of the basic mechanics of natural selection and show everyone once and for all that you understand it?

For the sake clarity and brevity, leave out your objections and stick to the basic mechanics as you understand it.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Of course it's possible to "both understand and disagree". The problem is that what you write shows that you don't understand.

Tell you what. Why don't you post a detailed explanation of the basic mechanics of natural selection and show everyone once and for all that you understand it?

For the sake clarity and brevity, leave out your objections and stick to the basic mechanics as you understand it.

What I write doesn’t agree with the theory because I don’t. The process doesn’t have the ability to do the things it is given credit for. From dead molecules to a life form, to the various life forms we see today nothing about it could compile and arrange the complexity that life has today.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What I write doesn’t agree with the theory because I don’t. The process doesn’t have the ability to do the things it is given credit for. From dead molecules to a life form, to the various life forms we see today nothing about it could compile and arrange the complexity that life has today.

I'm not asking you for a critique of natural selection. I'm not asking you to agree with natural selection.

I'm asking you to post a detailed explanation of the basic mechanics of natural selection.

Maybe an analogy will help.

Do you think an engineer could post a detailed explanation of the basic mechanics of a new type of aircraft without agreeing that it would be able to fly? Can you understand how he could do so with the question of whether or not it would be able to fly as a different topic?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The earliest lifeforms were in fact even simpler than single-celled organisms.

Cool, so is that a 'yes' or a 'no' ?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I find your explanation clear, I just don't believe it to be a reflection of reality, or to put it
another way, not a good explanation for the life from a simple to highly complex.

If it's true that my explanation was clear to you, that's great. So then you now understand how good mutations can proliferate through a population, allowing for a small benefit to be passed on to the next generation and spread, while the spread of bad mutations is suppressed.

By repeated application of this process, small changes accumulate into potentially large ones. After all, DNA has no memory of the DNA of its ancestors. What aspect of this is unclear to you?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If it's true that my explanation was clear to you, that's great. So then you now understand how good mutations can proliferate through a population, allowing for a small benefit to be passed on to the next generation and spread, while the spread of bad mutations is suppressed.

By repeated application of this process, small changes accumulate into po ...[text shortened]... After all, DNA has no memory of the DNA of its ancestors. What aspect of this is unclear to you?

The fact that you think it’s true. Suppressing dissent doesn’t mean it isn’t there, any more than suggesting bad mutations are eliminated in favor of the good ones. So the good and bad would have to go forward in each life form, moreover due to the complexity of life even the good ones reacting with each new generation would not be able to accumulate in such a fashion to evolve into more complex life with all the bells and whistles life has.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If it's true that my explanation was clear to you, that's great. So then you now understand how good mutations can proliferate through a population, allowing for a small benefit to be passed on to the next generation and spread, while the spread of bad mutations is suppressed.

By repeated application of this process, small changes accumulate into po ...[text shortened]... After all, DNA has no memory of the DNA of its ancestors. What aspect of this is unclear to you?

Have beneficial mutations ever been observed in life forms simpler than single celled organisms for example?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Have beneficial mutations ever been observed in life forms simpler than single celled organisms for example?

Never mind

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Have beneficial mutations ever been observed in life forms simpler than single celled organisms for example?

Can you give an example of what kind of life form that would be? Virus? Prion? You do realize even bacteria are single cell organisms, right? Anything simpler would not be a single cell organism, would be more like a virus which has to depend on invading those single cell organisms to survive since they cannot reproduce without that invasion which takes over the DNA and RNA replication process for its own benefit. Is that what you are talking about?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Can you give an example of what kind of life form that would be? Virus? Prion? You do realize even bacteria are single cell organisms, right? Anything simpler would not be a single cell organism, would be more like a virus which has to depend on invading those single cell organisms to survive since they cannot reproduce without that invasion which takes over the DNA and RNA replication process for its own benefit. Is that what you are talking about?

Cell structures are a big deal, on top of just a reproduction and eating.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Can you give an example of what kind of life form that would be? Virus? Prion? You do realize even bacteria are single cell organisms, right? Anything simpler would not be a single cell organism, would be more like a virus which has to depend on invading those single cell organisms to survive since they cannot reproduce without that invasion which takes over the DNA and RNA replication process for its own benefit. Is that what you are talking about?

Kazet is claimaing that complex organisms can occasionally undergo beneficial mutations. This does not prove that the same applies to simple organisms. (never mind that those simple organisms can change into complex ones) Since he believes that complex life as we know it evolved from material even simpler than single celled organisms he should surely have loads of evidence to back up his claim. Surely he isn't imagining this is he?