1 edit
With life you do not get to many of those either, because more mutations can be harmful than can be helpful too, ending a species can be easier than improving one.This is incorrect. The majority of mutations (heritable alterations in the primary nucleotide sequence) are silent and have no consequence as the genetic code is redundant and the majority of the human genome does not encode proteins. Some 8% of the human genome is actually virus material.
Kelly[/b]
So, KellyJay, are you yet conceding that the intelligent designer gave humans an eye which is
less well suited for sight than an octopus'?
I mean, either that, or you have to explain why you think the nerve fibers moved from behind the
retina and provide some evidence for holding that belief.
So which is it? Are you conceding or are you going to step up and address your claim.
Nemesio
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry, that was a misprint;
You are saying natural selection acts before mutations?
Kelly
I am trying to suggested the exact opposite;
my previous post should have said:
What you “just made up” is the implied suggestion that Nemesio does NOT believe:
“natural selection acts BEFORE the mutation”
-after all, that was the absurdity you suggested.
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay… Nope impossible, you can filter out what can live in an environment
"Correct -but is often does more than that -it often makes a species BETTER suited for the changing/new environment it is in and not keeping it merely “suited”. "
Nope impossible, you can filter out what can live in an environment
by killing off what isn’t suited for it, but you do not get to say it is
playing an active roll in the mutation process harmful than
can be helpful too, ending a species can be easier than improving
one.
Kelly[/b]
by killing off what isn’t suited for it, but you do not get to say it is
playing an active roll in the mutation process for improvement! ..…
So, if I am deciphering what you mean by this, it is that natural selection is not the same as the mutation process -so what? Nobody is suggesting nor implying they are the same! And the fact that the two are different doesn’t change the fact that sometimes totally new and original and beneficial mutations will by chance occur and THEN and only then natural selection will select for those beneficial mutations.
…Mutations again do not have a PLAN, a PURPOSE, or design to them
they are not there to make things better or worse they simply are
what they are….(my emphasis)
Dirr. Nobody is suggesting nor implying this.
… You seem to WANT to infuse into the process a GOAL
of sorts where none can exist BECAUSE their is a filter screening life
in natural selection. .…(my emphasis)
There are no less than three flaws in that statement:
1, what I “WANT” has nothing to do with what I believe.
2, I do not “WANT to infuse into the process a GOAL of sorts” and I obviously do not believe the process has a “GOAL”.
3, how does it logically follow from “their is a filter screening life in natural selection” that “I WANT to infuse into the process a GOAL of sorts” ? -it obviously doesn’t.
… With life you do not get to many of those either, because more mutations can be harmful than can be helpful too, ending a species can be easier than improving one. …
It does not logically follow from:
1, “more mutations can be harmful than can be helpful”
That:
2, “ending a species can be easier than improving one”
-because, obviously, natural selection would select out those mutations that reduce the chances of an individual surviving in favour of those that increases reduce the chances of an individual surviving regardless of the ratio of one to the other: -even if the harmful mutations outnumber the useful ones a million-to-one it would make no difference -natural selection would over time simply eliminate a million harmful mutations while selecting for just the one helpful one.
Originally posted by NemesioI said just what I meant to say, the octopus got what it should have,
So, KellyJay, are you yet conceding that the intelligent designer gave humans an eye which is
less well suited for sight than an octopus'?
I mean, either that, or you have to explain why you think the nerve fibers moved from behind the
retina and provide some evidence for holding that belief.
So which is it? Are you conceding or are you going to step up and address your claim.
Nemesio
we got what we should have. You can run with that any way you want.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry, that was a slight misprint;
[b]… Nope impossible, you can filter out what can live in an environment
by killing off what isn’t suited for it, but you do not get to say it is
playing an active roll in the mutation process for improvement! ..…
So, if I am deciphering what you mean by this, it is that natural selection is not the same as the mutation process -so what? N ...[text shortened]... time simply eliminate a million harmful mutations while selecting for just the one helpful one.[/b]
… individual surviving in favour of those that increases reduce the chances of an individual surviving regardless ..…
-the word “reduce” isn’t supposed to be in the above -damn nuisance not being able to correct edit mistakes that you don’t spot straight away.
Originally posted by KellyJayI read what I wrote and I put some thought into it before I wrote it. You simply do not understand what I am saying.
I think you need to read what you wrote
You can write a program and cause it to make random choices,
based on a random number generator. I imagine when you get
random numbers it isn't what you programmed your program to do?
Kelly
If my random number generator program produces the number 7, then that is decidedly not a choice that I instructed it to make.
Your claim that computers only "do what we tell them to do" is decidedly false.
As for your initial argument which was that because computer programs follow certain patterns and that those patterns are man made then they are not equivalent to non-man made natural patterns, I think you have to do better if you are to show that a computer simulation of known natural laws cannot be taken as proof.
Originally posted by KellyJayI still want to you back up that claim.
I see more things wearing down than I do see them getting more complex so it stands to reason for me any way that makes more sense looking at the universe around us.
Kelly
I personally think that you have not really thought about it, and that the evidence contradicts your claim.
Do you honestly believe that the ratio of worn out things to unworn out things in the world today is greater than than say 10 years ago?
Are you even able to give a scientific definition of wear? Is it measurable?
It just seems to me that you have based an awful lot of philosophical conclusions on a false premise.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't worry, KJ has an infinite capacity to rationalize.
I still want to you back up that claim.
I personally think that you have not really thought about it, and that the evidence contradicts your claim.
Do you honestly believe that the ratio of worn out things to unworn out things in the world today is greater than than say 10 years ago?
Are you even able to give a scientific definition of wear? Is it meas ...[text shortened]... st seems to me that you have based an awful lot of philosophical conclusions on a false premise.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are asking me intent? I don't know why, all I know is what we
That doesn’t answer Nemesio’s question.
got and if you think a mistake was made I would suggest you prove
that point. Our eyes and the oct's eyes seem to serve us both well,
so if you see advantages in one over the other, great.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou instructed the number generated number to generate a number
I read what I wrote and I put some thought into it before I wrote it. You simply do not understand what I am saying.
If my random number generator program produces the number 7, then that is decidedly [b]not a choice that I instructed it to make.
Your claim that computers only "do what we tell them to do" is decidedly false.
As for your initial arg ...[text shortened]... if you are to show that a computer simulation of known natural laws cannot be taken as proof.[/b]
did you not? I did not suggest you selected every event that took place
in your program, only that you programmed your software to do just
what it is doing.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat evidence contradicts my claim, your belief that life is getting
I still want to you back up that claim.
I personally think that you have not really thought about it, and that the evidence contradicts your claim.
Do you honestly believe that the ratio of worn out things to unworn out things in the world today is greater than than say 10 years ago?
Are you even able to give a scientific definition of wear? Is it meas ...[text shortened]... st seems to me that you have based an awful lot of philosophical conclusions on a false premise.
more comlex over time?
Kelly