Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Mutations that do not cause "an affect (sic) that will cause the whole creature to be effected (sic)" are neither negative nor beneficial. The latter, by definition, affect the reproductive success of the organism.

You know it is only when the results matter will natural selection kill off a life. The building
of bad meaningless mutations would accumulate until the bulk of them became something
that was negative.

AGAIN everything moves forward until there is a reason not to.

The starting place again in this thread is creation, where all life began fully formed and
with that all of the required systems and organs were already built into life. From there
it is much easier to die off than improve for all the reasons I have gone over with you,
the odds on something breaking is a lot greater when there are a lot of things at risk.

Without creation you have so many things to over come in this negative or beneficial
mutations reproduction success or failures theory. As I pointed out negative effects could
hurt life right away, or weaken it over time till it dies off. The beneficial mutations going
forward not only have to contend with not breaking something already required *making a
better eye while losing a heart* type of thing. They have to hope all the other mutations
that are there don't stop this building whatever they are building, or cause the benefit to
just leave as fast as it came. After all a random mutation does mean in a simplified
example if there are six steps to make a wing and we get steps 1, 2, and 3 random means
that we could then lose 3 and 1 and are left with nothing but now a negative result that
at one time could have helped, but now hurts.

Originally posted by sonship
So "Evolution has nothing to do with origins" is contrary to arch Athiest Richard Dawkins' definition of Evolution.

Let me try and explain it to you once again, but I have little hope that you will listen given that it has been explained many times in the past and you appear to have forgotten:
1. Evolution is about how replicating entities that mutate change over time.
2. Evolution may have preceded life in that there may have been something replicating that we would not call life, which evolved and became life.
3. The evolution of life happens all the time. How life started is irrelevant to how life evolves in the present day. When discussing natural selection, it is irrelevant how life started. Natural selection works and is observable and understandable whether life arose naturally or was created or was put here by aliens or fairies.
Nobody as far as I am aware has said that 'evolution has nothing to do with origins'. I would however say that origins has nothing to do with understanding evolution, and nothing to do with evolution as it is today (and for most of life's history).

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know it is only when the results matter will natural selection kill off a life. The building
of bad meaningless mutations would accumulate until the bulk of them became something
that was negative.

AGAIN everything moves forward until there is a reason not to.

The starting place again in this thread is creation, where all life began fully formed ...[text shortened]... left with nothing but now a negative result that
at one time could have helped, but now hurts.

It's possible that a new mutation interacts with some old ones and the net effect is negative. It's also possible that, in the same situation, the net effect is positive. The principle of natural selection remains unchanged.

Originally posted by KellyJay
After all a random mutation does mean in a simplified example if there are six steps to make a wing and we get steps 1, 2, and 3 random means that we could then lose 3 and 1 and are left with nothing but now a negative result that at one time could have helped, but now hurts.

And for this very reason we rarely see whole new organs come into existence suddenly. Instead we see a progression of steps all of which are beneficial to the organism. In the case of wings we can actually find animals with different 'stages' of wing development all of which make use of what they have to their benefit. And we don't know whether they will in future evolve fully formed wings or loose what they have, or stay the same.

Interestingly this also means that there must be a large number of theoretically possible life forms that will never actually evolve because there is no useful path to particular structures or organs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's possible that a new mutation interacts with some old ones and the net effect is negative. It's also possible that, in the same situation, the net effect is positive. The principle of natural selection remains unchanged.

Okay, I see we will just repeat ourselves. I do thank you for your thoughtful responses and
how you conducted yourself. I found you impressive on both counts.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, I see we will just repeat ourselves. I do thank you for your thoughtful responses and how you conducted yourself. I found you impressive on both counts.

So why is it impossible to come to agreement on this issue? Did you have difficulty understanding his thoughtful responses? Was he wrong about something? Or do you have difficulty explaining your position? The issue in question (how natural selection works) is not a matter of faith, but a testable, discusable issue. It should never end with an agreement to disagree.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Little Tyke's behaviour is understandable given she was brought up with other animals on a ranch. Cats brought up with mice as pets do not regard the mice as prey - something similar happened with Little Tyke. Her unwillingness to eat meat may be explainable by incorrect weaning. The animals on the Ark were reported as being adults and there is no rea ...[text shortened]... Edit: [ * ] produces bullet points in the preview but seems to mess up when not in preview mode.

There is no evidence for the flood story outside the Bible.

Obviously none that you would accept.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]There is no evidence for the flood story outside the Bible.

Obviously none that you would accept.[/b]

Do you have any evidence to offer for a global flood?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Do you have any evidence to offer for a global flood?

What do you think would be evidence, fossils on mountain tops?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What do you think would be evidence, fossils on mountain tops?

Anything whose best explanation is a global flood. Fossils on mountain tops (I assume you mean fish fossils) wouldn't do, as the fossilisation process takes too long. Anything left by a global flood (per Biblical dates) would not yet be fossilised.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Anything whose best explanation is a global flood. Fossils on mountain tops (I assume you mean fish fossils) wouldn't do, as the fossilisation process takes too long. Anything left by a global flood (per Biblical dates) would not yet be fossilised.

Assuming you believe in uniformatarianism.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Assuming you believe in uniformatarianism.

I am not religious, nor do I believe in made up religions. If you have evidence present it. If you have anything sensible to say, say it. Cryptic nonsense is just a waste of everybody's time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not religious, nor do I believe in made up religions. If you have evidence present it. If you have anything sensible to say, say it. Cryptic nonsense is just a waste of everybody's time.

Uniformatarianism is not a religion genius. Like most religious people atheists also believe certain unprovable presuppositions.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Uniformatarianism is not a religion genius. Like most religious people atheists also believe certain unprovable presuppositions.

Well I do not. Now do you have any actual objections to what I posted earlier or are you going to keep arguing with people who aren't here?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Uniformatarianism is not a religion genius. Like most religious people atheists also believe certain unprovable presuppositions.

For example?