Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How does DNA "know" that it ought not change beyond the "base type"?

There is no "ought not change" if that happens death follows.

Originally posted by finnegan

but major system changes require that there are things being altered as they are
being used and this done without any regard to will this work or not.

What will not work will not survive.

I said this, "Tweaking that means you run the risk of not allowing blood to clot as it should,
your auto immune system to act as it should, the list goes on and on."

With a fully functional system there are parts that are required, you lose one you lose the
life form. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp!

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is no "ought not change" if that happens death follows.

How does DNA "know" that it ought not accumulate too many beneficial changes and thus deviate too far from the "base type"?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I said this, "Tweaking that means you run the risk of not allowing blood to clot as it should,
your auto immune system to act as it should, the list goes on and on."

With a fully functional system there are parts that are required, you lose one you lose the
life form. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp!

Yes, such mutations are strongly selected against. The organism dies before reproducing. Other mutations do not kill the organism quickly and they may be passed on to later generations. In the event that the mutation is beneficial the individuals carrying it will be slightly more likely to survive to pass on their genome than individuals without the beneficial mutation.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Dawkins's brilliant, inventive approach allows us to view the connections between ourselves and all other life in a bracingly novel way. It also lets him shed bright new light on the most compelling aspects of evolutionary history and theory: sexual selection, speciation, convergent evolution, extinction, genetics, plate tectonics, geographical disp ...[text shortened]... they were in fact designed for a purpose? Would that be an [b]"infantile" idea ?[/b]

Yes.

Dawkins chooses his words carefully because he has debated so often with Creationists and he knows very well how to wind you up. Other scientists enjoy the same sort of word play at your collective expense.

Charles Darwin himself in his writings often used the language of Paley's "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature", first published in 1802, which introduced the famous metaphor of the blind watchmaker. That is because he was deeply familiar with the book, having been heavily influenced by it. Darwin was far more respectful than Dawkins - but Darwin was less inclined to be political and preferred to allow others to enter the debates forums of his day.

The point in both cases is that there is a dialogue taking place, in which the ideas of intelligent design are evaluated and found wanting. That is why they use the language they do and sure enough Creationists, who seem utterly devoid of all sense of irony, get all in a fury over it.

Originally posted by finnegan

Yes.

If this is pertaining to my question about the appearance of design manifesting design is indeed present, I disagree that the thought is infantile.

In all your supposed relative maturity, I doubt that you could tell us why you are here if a purposely process caused you to tumble out of the mix.

If your process had no goal I don't see why you should have any for existing.
What then does your comparative maturity to the "infantile" recognition of design tell you about why you are here ?

I hope you will not just say something like "To reproduce" or worst still "Why do I have to have a purpose anyway ?"

Dawkins chooses his words carefully because he has debated so often with Creationists and he knows very well how to wind you up. Other scientists enjoy the same sort of word play at your collective expense.

That's interesting. He chickened out from debating William Lane Craig. He said he didn't have time and was too busy.

Charles Darwin himself in his writings often used the language of Paley's "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature", first published in 1802, which introduced the famous metaphor of the blind watchmaker. That is because he was deeply familiar with the book, having been heavily influenced by it. Darwin was far more respectful than Dawkins - but Darwin was less inclined to be political and preferred to allow others to enter the debates forums of his day.

That's a nice history. But the bottom line is that I am certain the appearance of design that Dawkins wants to say is an illusion (Buddhist style perhaps) is actually design.

You can completely forget about convincing me that the appearance of design is an illusion.

The point in both cases is that there is a dialogue taking place, in which the ideas of intelligent design are evaluated and found wanting. That is why they use the language they do and sure enough Creationists, who seem utterly devoid of all sense of irony, get all in a fury over it.

World class Atheist Anthony Flew, author of 30 books, a pace setter in philosophical discourse, decided to change his mind about design. I don't think he was infantile to do so. I think it showed rather human maturity, even if it was a mere Deist view of a Creator.

World's Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God because of Science
YouTube

But your next post to me, I hope, will garner your comparative adult maturity and explain why you are here because of no design, no goal, no purpose. Tell us.

Why are you here in the universe finnegan ? Give me a mature adult's explanation then.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How does DNA "know" that it ought not accumulate too many beneficial changes and thus deviate too far from the "base type"?

Since the majority of changes are not beneficial the bad ones will do damage. You seem
to think that you can just alter systems with immunity allowing anything to happen
anywhere and the good ones will always win out. They are all in play, and if something
vital gets damaged the whole thing is damaged. Reality not your faith in natural selection
should be your looking glass with modifications over time.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, such mutations are strongly selected against. The organism dies before reproducing. Other mutations do not kill the organism quickly and they may be passed on to later generations. In the event that the mutation is beneficial the individuals carrying it will be slightly more likely to survive to pass on their genome than individuals without the beneficial mutation.

With mutations occurring everywhere during all time, you don't get one species getting
all the good ones and another all the bad. That said once something no matter what it is
become necessary for a lifeform to go on, you screw with that it can and will die off. The
trouble you and others true believers have is that you put on blinders to suggest to
selves that it will just be the good ones that make through time as if those are always
the types that move forward. At best you get a strong mix of both, and a strong mix of
both means you have a lot of bad mutations affecting a life form all over the place making
it weaker not stronger.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Since the majority of changes are not beneficial the bad ones will do damage. You seem
to think that you can just alter systems with immunity allowing anything to happen
anywhere and the good ones will always win out. They are all in play, and if something
vital gets damaged the whole thing is damaged. Reality not your faith in natural selection
should be your looking glass with modifications over time.

But you seem to recognize that beneficial mutations can and do occur. What's the mechanism stopping too many of these beneficial mutations spreading through a population, which would cause deviations beyond the "base type"?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The trouble you and others true believers have is that you put on blinders to suggest to
selves that it will just be the good ones that make through time as if those are always
the types that move forward.

Do you know what the term 'natural selection' means? You appear not to.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With mutations occurring everywhere during all time, you don't get one species getting all the good ones and another all the bad. That said once something no matter what it is become necessary for a lifeform to go on, you screw with that it can and will die off. The trouble you and others true believers have is that you put on blinders to suggest to selves ...[text shortened]... e a lot of bad mutations affecting a life form all over the place making it weaker not stronger.

Some mutations which occur are neither a strengthening nor a weakening of the genus (not at the time they occur, anyway), but merely represent bio-diversity. Bio-diversity helps to ensure the survival of a species over long periods of time by broadening the range of possible responses to potential environmental changes later on.

'Good ones are the types always moving forward' -- oops. There is no 'forward' in evolution -- 'forward' is simply another way smuggling the idea of goal or purpose into a purely natural (goal-less) process. Some mutations remove a feature which had evolved earlier -- that is, a return to a simpler state is also possible ('backwards' if you want to call it that). There are examples of this, such as mammals which returned to the sea. What matters is not 'moving forward' -- what matters is adapting to environmental changes, and if loosing hair or feet or fingers is what constitutes being better adapted to a new (e.g. wetter, muddier) environment, then the creatures with that particular mutation have a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass that mutation along to the next generation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you know what the term 'natural selection' means? You appear not to.

This post certainly demonstrates that you do.

Originally posted by moonbus
Some mutations which occur are neither a strengthening nor a weakening of the genus (not at the time they occur, anyway), but merely represent bio-diversity. Bio-diversity helps to ensure the survival of a species over long periods of time by broadening the range of possible responses to potential environmental changes later on.

'Good ones are the types a ...[text shortened]... hance of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass that mutation along to the next generation.

Has this actually been observed or are we supposed to imagine this?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But you seem to recognize that beneficial mutations can and do occur. What's the mechanism stopping too many of these beneficial mutations spreading through a population, which would cause deviations beyond the "base type"?

I acknowledge that; however, the process does not lend itself to disrupting an established
complex system over time while keeping the life form alive through that type of change!

The base type is only the complete creatures DNA, what makes a dog a dog or rose bush
a rose bush, nothing special about that other than it is the completed code. What you are
suggesting is that the evolutionary process of small changes anywhere, and everywhere,
at all times without a plan, purpose, and design is going to be able to build good changes
to the point of altering a heart, or immune system while not damaging the life and being
able to turn it into another type of creature with other features. The mechanism for this
is random mutations keeping the good, but the process has nothing but mutations going
on all the time everywhere, they come they go, they alter this than that.

The base system will remain alive until something alters its ability to remain alive than it
will not be. The process is a crap shoot of change, the wrongs thing changes death right
away or through other processes.

As I told you through creation all of the lifeforms were established, there were immune
systems, hearts, livers, pancreas, veins, and so on. You screw with these bad things can
and will happen. You start throwing mutations here and there and everywhere as long as
they do not interfere with what is required it will remain whatever that creature is with
some small changes. Disrupt the function of something key, blood pressure could become
an issue, Insulin could be an issue.

Having small changes taking place everywhere, at all times is a matter of time before
something key breaks or is wounded. You asked me why I think evolution and theistic
creation could be both true and this is why. I acknowledge the change very small changes
but none of them will reach the point of making it a huge difference in anything. What
I believe would happen is that with all the changes taking place something key would
be ruined first and that will end it. The base type remains intact only because if it does
not it will not go forward.

Beneficial mutations are not sorted into one life and kept away from the next all mutations
are done everywhere at all times, the notion that only the good ones goes forward does
not even make sense to me they all go forward until something stops the process. There
isn't a filter that says all the good mutations in creating a heart stay in these creatures and
all of the bad ones die. The reality is all the changes continue to go forward until some
thing breaks then the changes stop keeping the base type intact.

You wanted my opinion you have it.

Originally posted by moonbus
Some mutations which occur are neither a strengthening nor a weakening of the genus (not at the time they occur, anyway), but merely represent bio-diversity. Bio-diversity helps to ensure the survival of a species over long periods of time by broadening the range of possible responses to potential environmental changes later on.

'Good ones are the types a ...[text shortened]... hance of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass that mutation along to the next generation.

I answered this in another post.