05 May 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou know it is only when the results matter will natural selection kill off a life. The building
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.
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 sonshipLet 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:
So "Evolution has nothing to do with origins" is contrary to arch Athiest Richard Dawkins' definition of Evolution.
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).
05 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayIt'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.
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.
05 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd 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.
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.
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.
05 May 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOkay, I see we will just repeat ourselves. I do thank you for your thoughtful responses and
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.
how you conducted yourself. I found you impressive on both counts.
06 May 16
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo 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.
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.
06 May 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere is no evidence for the flood story outside the Bible.
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.
Obviously none that you would accept.
06 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAnything 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.
What do you think would be evidence, fossils on mountain tops?
06 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadAssuming you believe in uniformatarianism.
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.
06 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadUniformatarianism is not a religion genius. Like most religious people atheists also believe certain unprovable presuppositions.
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 FetchmyjunkWell 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?
Uniformatarianism is not a religion genius. Like most religious people atheists also believe certain unprovable presuppositions.