2 edits
-Removed-I believe in accumulative changes, a change occurs it can move on. We only know what
is good or bad by what affects it has on a life form that receives it. Since that means that
good and bad can only be revealed until after it does something good or bad, everything
moves forward and does what it does. The selection occurs after the affects are revealed
not before. So how would this process stop a bad mutation from corrupting life and ending it?
Originally posted by @kellyjayThe point of natural selection is that "bad" mutations (i.e. the ones that lower reproductive success) do tend to disappear from the population precisely because those mutations lower reproductive success. Which aspect of this is unclear to you?
I believe in accumulative changes, a change occurs it can move on. We only know what
is good or bad by what affects it has on a life form that receives it. Since that means that
good and bad can only be revealed until after it does something good or bad, everything
moves forward and does what it does. The selection occurs after the affects are revealed
not before. So how would this process stop a bad mutation from corrupting life and ending it?
-Removed-Yes, mutations will accumulate over time through generations and these changes are going to alter the lives they are now part of to what ever end that happens to be. You have to explain why none of the negative affects are not treated and accepted like the good ones are. The good ones come with less frequently and in addition to that they have to continue a work already started by a previously random mutation. It is not enough to not kill or harm the life that receives a mutation it must also accomplish something already started correctly, and not screw up all previous changes that were building something. The mechanics that can blindly shift through just random mutations, whose value is totally unknown until it causes something occur, is so precise it can build eyeballs connect them to a brain it also built is unbelievable to me.
