Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Evolution is a process, the starting point is in dispute as far as I'm concern not the process
itself. I have no issues with an established life form with all the parts required changing,
that isn't difficult to see or prove; however, beginning from scratch, not so much.

This is nonsense, you quite clearly have issues with the 'process itself'. For starters, you don't accept that small incremental changes over time can lead to bigger changes. That's one of the fundamental principles of evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
A random mutation is just that, random, if you can make it do something and mutate
to help build an eye that isn't random. The selection of what gets passed on and not has
to do with what the mutation changes do, so all of the filtering is done after the mutation
occurs not before.

Your 2nd sentence i agree with. As for your 1st, i'm not sure what you are getting at.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Your 2nd sentence i agree with. As for your 1st, i'm not sure what you are getting at.

Suggesting that random mutations are driven towards an end removes the word random
from the equation.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Suggesting that random mutations are driven towards an end removes the word random
from the equation.

No one is suggesting that random mutations are 'driven' anywhere. You are confused.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
No one is suggesting that random mutations are 'driven' anywhere. You are confused.

Really only the good moves on? I think you are over looking something here. Good mutations build on good mutations creating more complex life forms, that is all you are pushing!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Really only the good moves on? I think you are over looking something here. Good mutations build on good mutations creating more complex life forms, that is all you are pushing!

All I'm trying to understand from you is why, in your view, greater complexity and DNA changes cannot be built by small incremental changes one after the other. Every time your answer is 'death' and then when asked to elaborate your reply makes no sense, to me anyhow.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Really only the good moves on? I think you are over looking something here. Good mutations build on good mutations creating more complex life forms, that is all you are pushing!

Sorry, again i have no idea what you are getting at here.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So, is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?

This seems to have become your standard red herring and deflection when faced with a truth that you are unable to reasonably deny. It's dishonest. As is your refusal to admit your reading comprehension problems. Over the years you've shown time and again that you have difficulty comprehending the written word once it reaches a certain level of complexity. And quite frankly, the level of complexity at which you start to struggle isn't all that high.

Set aside your pride and get the help you need KJ. There's no shame in it. There is shame in your dishonesty however.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
This seems to have become your standard red herring and deflection when faced with a truth that you are unable to reasonably deny. It's dishonest. As is your refusal to admit your reading comprehension problems. Over the years you've shown time and again that you have difficulty comprehending the written word once it reaches a certain level of complexity ...[text shortened]... and get the help you need KJ. There's no shame in it. There is shame in your dishonesty however.

You forgot to respond to him in the 3rd person.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Really only the good moves on? I think you are over looking something here. Good mutations build on good mutations creating more complex life forms, that is all you are pushing!

There is a process which results in a higher likelihood of "good" mutations getting passed along to following generations, compared to "bad" mutations.

That process is called "natural selection."

Originally posted by @proper-knob
All I'm trying to understand from you is why, in your view, greater complexity and DNA changes cannot be built by small incremental changes one after the other. Every time your answer is 'death' and then when asked to elaborate your reply makes no sense, to me anyhow.

What would stop progress, the end of the life form. I fail to see how that could be misunderstood! The process I am not assuming can do what you are claiming it is capable of doing. So I do not automatically accept the notion it succeeds. Looking at the mechanics of the process is it possible for a life to have mutations occur, without them doing anything immediately good or bad then having only the good passing on?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What would stop progress, the end of the life form. I fail to see how that could be misunderstood! The process I am not assuming can do what you are claiming it is capable of doing. So I do not automatically accept the notion it succeeds. Looking at the mechanics of the process is it possible for a life to have mutations occur, without them doing anything immediately good or bad then having only the good passing on?

A scenario for you.

We have an animal which has fur, it also has a mutation within its genome which means that it has longer fur. This means the animal will be warmer. If this animal lives in a cold environment then that mutation is beneficial, ie good, as it will improve that animals chances of survival. That mutation will then be given to its children who will then will then pass it to their children and so forth. If our animal lives in a hot environment then the mutation for longer fur is not beneficial ie. bad, as it will greatly diminish that animals chances of survival. The animal will now probably die and the mutation will not be spread into future populations.

It's the same mutation, whether it's 'good' or 'bad' depends on the environment the animal lives in. Are you with me so far?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What would stop progress, the end of the life form. I fail to see how that could be misunderstood! The process I am not assuming can do what you are claiming it is capable of doing. So I do not automatically accept the notion it succeeds. Looking at the mechanics of the process is it possible for a life to have mutations occur, without them doing anything immediately good or bad then having only the good passing on?

Are you claiming that the survival of the fittest individuals through natural selection only happens through an increased fitness which is already solely contained within the individuals existing DNA? I.e. no new information?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
A scenario for you.

We have an animal which has fur, it also has a mutation within its genome which means that it has longer fur. This means the animal will be warmer. If this animal lives in a cold environment then that mutation is beneficial, ie good, as it will improve that animals chances of survival. That mutation will then be given to its chil ...[text shortened]... her it's 'good' or 'bad' depends on the environment the animal lives in. Are you with me so far?

I think what KJ is trying to say is that in your example the code for “long fur” is already present but is recessive. The animals genome contains the code for both long and short fur and where long fur is exhibited through chance of fertilisation mitosis (or mitosis, I forget) then that animal will have either an advantage if the climate is cold, or a disadvantage if it is hot.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
If life were an old watch with gears and springs, would it be a useful watch if there were
so many additional pieces inside it taking up space without doing anything useful? What
about a digital watch, what if all the extra pieces in it also affected the timing of the
watch, took power away from what was required, would those extra parts be making it
u ...[text shortened]... ents that would cause
things to occur to turn what is there into something needed, or required?

The significant difference rendering my analogy useless is that the act of storing and keeping (unused, unusable) parts in a box is a directed (not random) process. The parts did not by themselves collect and store themselves because of any perceived potential possibility of future usefulness.

This would be analogous to evolution developing (through an undirected process) this feature early on, and in so doing able to take advantage of any future potential usefulness.