Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Possibility of errors where what occurs destroys something required for life to continue as is, even without improving. A death of a thousand errors would occur long before one random mutation works in unison with a previous random mutation to construct a system with timing requirements, stop start, and so on. Simply repeating only the good moves on doesn’t address the issues that would be In countered.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
There is a process which allows beneficial mutations to accumulate, while harmful ones gradually disappear from the population.

That process is called "natural selection."

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Maybe you could clarify for me, with an example or two, how what you are describing would work and how natural selection wouldn’t counteract this process.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The loon is the one that believes the umbrella will evolve into a helicopter.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
There is a process which allows beneficial mutations to accumulate, while harmful ones gradually disappear from the population.

That process is called "natural selection."

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Possibility of errors where what occurs destroys something required for life to continue as is, even without improving. A death of a thousand errors would occur long before one random mutation works in unison with a previous random mutation to construct a system with timing requirements, stop start, and so on. Simply repeating only the good moves on doesn’t address the issues that would be In countered.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Organisms don't know the difference between a good (or potentially good) mutation and a bad one. They can't because it's a blind process unable to recognize the concept of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no internal 'peer review' process before DNA coding is copied and passed along to a next generation, because it's a strictly mechanical (blind) process.
Thi ...[text shortened]... utweigh the bad (instead of the other way around) saves evolution from a self defeating process.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
As per Kelly, you don't seem to understand how 'natural selection' works.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Organisms don't know the difference between a good (or potentially good) mutation and a bad one. They can't because it's a blind process unable to recognize the concept of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no internal 'peer review' process before DNA coding is copied and passed along to a next generation, because it's a strictly mechanical (blind) process.
Thi ...[text shortened]... utweigh the bad (instead of the other way around) saves evolution from a self defeating process.

I'm impressed by how any argument can be countered by uttering "No, it ain't so!"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Who_Say_Ni

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You have said that, and I don’t believe that it would. Suggesting I don’t understand because I don’t agree with your assumptions doesn’t address the complaints I have, instead it simply suggests, you smart, me stupid, not a thoughtful retort.

That also stops any thoughtful discussion by reducing it to something personal. Giving you an out from addressing any controversy surrounding the theory you hold cannot fail.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Organisms don't know the difference between a good (or potentially good) mutation and a bad one. They can't because it's a blind process unable to recognize the concept of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no internal 'peer review' process before DNA coding is copied and passed along to a next generation, because it's a strictly mechanical (blind) process.
Thi ...[text shortened]... utweigh the bad (instead of the other way around) saves evolution from a self defeating process.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
As per Kelly, you don't seem to understand how 'natural selection' works.

Originally posted by @divegeester
You should read a primary school book on natural selection, how the notion of survival of the fittest works over time and through environmental changes. It would stop you embarrassing yourself.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I think he nailed it.

This means innefective and harmful mutations can be passed along and accumulate from one generation to the next. And at some point along succeeding generational lines, whatever good changes that may have occurred would eventually be overwhemed by the accumulative toxic changes.