Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
In my example, no "recovery" is required. The organisms that receive the bad mutations don't produce any offspring, they are an evolutionary dead end. Remember that the vast majority of offspring in my example had neither good nor bad mutations, which represents a reality that is necessary for evolution to work: mutations need to be both sufficiently rare and sufficiently common.

All life are receiving mutations,they don’t just come in one at a time.

As they come in we agree that they accumulate good or bad, unless something kills the life ending all accumulations?

You aware of any mechanism that will sort the good from the bad before death?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Would you care to point out the misunderstanding in my reply to Kazet:

‘In an already existing population yes, but natural selection fails to explain how life as we know it progressed from a single cell due to the fact that bad mutations are far more prevalent than good ones.’

Firstly, most mutations are 'neutral' and secondly, bad mutations outnumbering good mutations is meaningless, for reasons already given.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
All life are receiving mutations,they don’t just come in one at a time.

As they come in we agree that they accumulate good or bad, unless something kills the life ending all accumulations?

You aware of any mechanism that will sort the good from the bad before death?

What you seem not to understand is that bad mutations resulting in death (in the worst case) is one of the mechanisms of natural selection. Nothing needs to "fix" these bad mutations - the organisms just die, and others who did not receive these mutations continue reproducing.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
In an already existing population yes, but natural selection fails to explain how life as we know it progressed from a single cell due to the fact that bad mutations are far more prevalent than good ones.

No, natural selection works in the same manner for simple organisms as it does for complex ones.

Originally posted by @kellyjay

You aware of any mechanism that will sort the good from the bad before death?

Yes sir, 'reproduction.' (That invariably happens before death).

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Well I've really been only asking a handful of questions, with the replies you have seen
answer this one.

As soon as a mutation occurs, before it does anything good or bad. Will anything react
to it to cause it to be passed along or not?

Do you still not understand that mutations are passed on through reproduction?

If you have a point, then plainly state it.

What perplexes me is that on occasion, you have made posts consisting of well-formed sentences. Yet for the most part your posts consist of poorly-formed sentences. What gives? If you have someone who occasionally posts your thoughts for you, then this would be a good time to get them to do so again. If you can get them to translate your incoherent ramblings on natural selection into a cogent argument all the better.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Lol. Oh the irony.

Just for grins. In your mind, what exactly is the "irony"?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What you seem not to understand is that bad mutations resulting in death (in the worst case) is one of the mechanisms of natural selection. Nothing needs to "fix" these bad mutations - the organisms just die, and others who did not receive these mutations continue reproducing.

Actually they accumulate I thought you established that, the good ones do when they pass on. According to the theory into very specific places. So when good ones pass on the whole ball of wax goes too, the good ones that move on as well as the bad ones that were also there but were not bad enough to kill or harm. Until the next generation’s mutations join them, making them all the more dangerous as they accumulate. This is a generational issue not just those that come from a single generational occurrence.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Actually they accumulate I thought you established that, the good ones do when they pass on. According to the theory into very specific places. So when good ones pass on the whole ball of wax goes too, the good ones that move on as well as the bad ones that were also there but were not bad enough to kill or harm. Until the next generation’s mutations join ...[text shortened]... te. This is a generational issue not just those that come from a single generational occurrence.

The good mutations accumulate over time because they enhance the reproductive success of organisms: they are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations and eventually spread throughout the population. The bad mutations do not accumulate because they reduce the reproductive success of organisms: they are less likely to be passed on to subsequent generations and eventually disappear from the population.

This phenomenon is called "natural selection."

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The good mutations accumulate over time because they enhance the reproductive success of organisms: they are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations and eventually spread throughout the population. The bad mutations do not accumulate because they reduce the reproductive success of organisms: they are less likely to be passed on to subsequ ...[text shortened]... and eventually disappear from the population.

This phenomenon is called "natural selection."

There is no mechanism for that beyond what you already described! The good ones move on because the next generation can move on, it wasn’t destroyed or harmed by mutations. As the next generation arrives it brings with it everything that the previous generation gave it, every mutation that doesn’t kill would also move on! For crying out loud, what do you think people are talking about when they say it runs in the family when discussing genetic traits?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
There is no mechanism for that beyond what you already described! The good ones move on because the next generation can move on, it wasn’t destroyed or harmed by mutations. As the next generation arrives it brings with it everything that the previous generation gave it, every mutation that doesn’t kill would also move on! For crying out loud, what do you t ...[text shortened]... ink people are talking about when they say it runs in the family when discussing genetic traits?

What I already described is sufficient for the mechanism to work. If you can articulate clearly what aspect of natural selection you find unclear or not convincing, I might help clear it up for you.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What I already described is sufficient for the mechanism to work. If you can articulate clearly what aspect of natural selection you find unclear or not convincing, I might help clear it up for you.

What you described was that the good moves on, now unless you are changing your tune that is by advancing to the next generation. Everything that can will do that, thus bringing everything they have forward into the next generation. If something is unable do to that due to bad mutations it will die off before the next generation starts or soon after.

Are you now saying before the next generation occurs that something can identify what is good and bad allowing only the good go forward? If so why does sickle cell remain an issue? Shouldn’t whatever you rely on filter that out still be working?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Fiction supporting fiction!

Whoosh

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What you described was that the good moves on, now unless you are changing your tune that is by advancing to the next generation. Everything that can will do that, thus bringing everything they have forward into the next generation. If something is unable do to that due to bad mutations it will die off before the next generation starts or soon after.

Ar ...[text shortened]... es sickle cell remain an issue? Shouldn’t whatever you rely on filter that out still be working?

The identification of what is good and bad works through the reproductive success of an organism. Good mutations enhance reproductive success, and consequently that mutation will spread throughout the population. Bad mutations, on the other hand, reduce reproductive success, and as a result of that their spread throughout the population is suppressed.

If so why does sickle cell remain an issue?

The gene that is responsible for sickle-cell anaemia historically has benefits in areas where malaria is endemic.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The identification of what is good and bad works through the reproductive success of an organism. Good mutations enhance reproductive success, and consequently that mutation will spread throughout the population. Bad mutations, on the other hand, reduce reproductive success, and as a result of that their spread throughout the population is suppressed. ...[text shortened]... responsible for sickle-cell anaemia historically has benefits in areas where malaria is endemic.

"... reproductive success of an organism."
Reproductive success isn't when a organism reproduces?
Seriously reproducing is the only thing that keeps anything going forward, good, bad, or
completely indifferent. If there is some magic decoder ring within DNA that looks at all
the code and says, take these not those so there is nothing but success, that had to be
from some grand designer! Reason being there would be nothing natural about that! Life
is always the chips will fall where they may! So life will reproduce as it is coded too with
the good, bad, and the indifferent, because what is there is there, until something finds it
and removes it (thank you God), or the lifeform dies due to bad mutations.