Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
If you can formulate a cogent response, by all means post it.

Still waiting for you to quote my exact words. Do you have anything to say about DNA sequencing? Since you don't believe Natural selection is random, do you believe it is directed? (By the way I believe it is directed by the systems already put in place by God so no I don't believe it is entirely random).

Originally posted by @dj2becker
😴 Case in point. Quote my exact words where I said "natural selection is entirely random". You can't because I didn't say it.

'Randomly picking letters of the alphabet and throwing them in a hat for millions of years cannot reproduce Shakespeare's work.'


The above is not a question. The above is an awkward and poorly conceived comparison by you between natural selection and random letters thrown from a hat.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
'Randomly picking letters of the alphabet and throwing them in a hat for millions of years cannot reproduce Shakespeare's work.'


The above is not a question. The above is an awkward and poorly conceived comparison by you between natural selection and random letters thrown from a hat.

I was actually referring to DNA sequencing and not natural selection per se.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Say we reach a complicated position in a chess game and I have no idea what move to play next. Now, say we replicate that position over 100 boards and on each one I play a random move.

Many of those moves will be neutral (have no impact on the position) and some will undoubtedly be 'bad' (moves that are progressively weak and game ending). Now, ...[text shortened]... random move that proved successful was the result of forward thinking or intelligent guidance?!

Most mutations are harmless. One harmless mutation can be copied and passed on to next generation without any apparent harm to the organism. It doesn't take one 'bad' mutation to gum up the works, because accumulating enough duds (over several generations) can eventually have the same result as one or two deadly mutations. To say one 'bad' mutation is all it takes to impact an organism's ability to reproduce is a gross over simplification of how natural selection theoretically works for macro-e.

'Micro-e' is (and always has been) natural selection. Evolution theorizes this (NS) to also be the mechanism involved in the gradual rise and complexity of organisms from single cell to life as we see it today. No one disputes NS/micro-e as being the mechanism for change within groups. The question is if NS can also work for life progressing on its own from simple to complex.

Calling NS 'micro-e' presumes that a known mechanism for change within kind is the same mechanism for accomplishing evolution. This has yet to be proven, but the distinction between NS (change within kind) and evolution (the theory) has been cleverly concealed by assigning the word "evolution" to both. For this reason it's pointless to argue with anyone who, when confronted with facts, will claim I don't know anything about the theory. I am not gullible enough to believe that simply taking NS (a known fact) and assigning to it the words micro-e and macro-e (e=evolution) has the power to 'make it so'.

By the way, chess doesn't allow for do-overs. However, it is just a game people invented and we can do whatever we want with it.
Such as making and taking back moves until hitting on something that works.
The problem with applying this to a 'hit and miss' process of evolution is in keeping the organism alive long enough until something just happens to work for (instead of against) the organism.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Still waiting for you to quote my exact words. Do you have anything to say about DNA sequencing? Since you don't believe Natural selection is random, do you believe it is directed? (By the way I believe it is directed by the systems already put in place by God so no I don't believe it is entirely random).

'Randomness' is introduced through genetic drift.

Viewing natural selection itself as random occurrences is a fundamental failure to understand the process.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
'Randomness' is introduced through genetic drift.

Viewing natural selection itself as random occurrences is a fundamental failure to understand the process.

Would you agree that NS relies on predetermined systems and codes such as DNA that are already in place?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Would you agree that NS relies on predetermined systems and codes such as DNA that are already in place?

'The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.'


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Most mutations are harmless. One harmless mutation can be copied and passed on to next generation without any apparent harm to the organism. It doesn't take one 'bad' mutation to gum up the works, because accumulating enough duds (over several generations) can eventually have the same result as one or two deadly mutations. To say one 'bad' mutation is al ...[text shortened]... sm alive long enough until something just happens to work for (instead of against) the organism.

'Hit and miss' is perfectly acceptable in a process that has taken millions of years.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Your concerns sir are eliminated by the fact that the game in question is played over millions of years and that the beneficial moves are passed on in proliferation.

No!

You don’t get that as a given that is a statement of faith!

There wasn’t an infinite number of life forms that started. Instead a finite number was, when it supposedly began.

Which means time was never an answer to any issue instead it had to be the number of lives.

The amount of time only really adds one thing to the equation and that would be how much time things could go right or wrong to a finite number of lives.

You really think only good things occured with random mutations anywhere in a code, genetic or otherwise?

Repeating a statement of faith is ignoring how screwed up that theory really is! Unless you are a true believer, than only what supports the theory is acceptable nothing else is!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No!

You don’t get that as a given that is a statement of faith!

There wasn’t an infinite number of life forms that started. Instead a finite number was when it supposedly began.

Which means time was never an answer to any issue instead it had to be the number of lives.

The amount of time only really adds one thing to the equation and that woul ...[text shortened]... lly think only good things occur with random mutations anywhere in a code, genetic or otherwise?

Reproduction isn't a singular chain that can be broken if one link goes bad. Beneficial mutations proliferate through reproduction.

It's not a case of Bob gives birth to Clive, and Clive gives birth to Dave, and Oh dear Dave gets hit by a truck (end of the good mutation). It's a case of Bob gives birth to Clive who gives birth to Dave, Sally and Donald. In this sense, the good mutation can survive the untimely demise of Dave.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Reproduction isn't a singular chain that can be broken if one link goes bad. Beneficial mutations proliferate through reproduction.

It's not a case of Bob gives birth to Clive, and Clive gives birth to Dave, and Oh dear Dave gets hit by a truck (end of the good mutation). It's a case of Bob gives birth to Clive who gives birth to Dave, Sally and Donald. In this sense, the good mutation can survive the untimely demise of Dave.

Obviously GoaD hasn't "[done] the math" as KJ has. If he had read and understood KJ's mathematical proof, he would see his folly.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Obviously GoaD hasn't "[done] the math" as KJ has. If he had read and understood KJ's mathematical proof, he would see his folly.

Perhaps my calculator has a bad mutation...

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Perhaps my calculator has a bad mutation...

Of course it might help if KJ actually provided a mathematical proof instead of just pretending that "the math" is on his side.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No!

You don’t get that as a given that is a statement of faith!

There wasn’t an infinite number of life forms that started. Instead a finite number was, when it supposedly began.

Which means time was never an answer to any issue instead it had to be the number of lives.

The amount of time only really adds one thing to the equation and that wou ...[text shortened]... nless you are a true believer, than only what supports the theory is acceptable nothing else is!

You really think only good things occured with random mutations anywhere in a code, genetic or otherwise?

You repeatedly ask questions such as this even though not only hasn't anyone made this claim, multiple people have repeatedly corrected you on this.

Why do you keep doing this?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Of course it might help if KJ actually provided a mathematical proof instead of just pretending that "the math" is on his side.

No offense to either, but I think Lemon Lime and Kelly both fail to fully comprehend the time scale we are dealing with which renders bad mutations unproblematic.