Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Have you once even asked this question?

The intellectual (and outright) dishonesty of the likes of you and sonship turn me off to Christianity, and I’ve been a Christian for nearly 30 years.

zzz

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Of course natural selection played a part in the evolution of eyes and ears, but I'm not in a position to explain how if you don't understand the basic mechanism.

Again, natural selection relies on two observations:
1. Mutations in DNA can occur when an organism reproduces.
2. These mutations can affect the phenotype, and hence reproductive succes ...[text shortened]... move on towards explaining the evolution of complex features in organisms such as eyes and ears.

I'll remind you no one has observed any life form over time acquiring new systems,
organs, and so on that were never there before. All of that is pure speculation and
nothing more when referring to what may have occurred millions of years ago. All
observations are in the here and now. When addressing what might have happen to
living systems that supposedly just started on a sterile world, you and everyone else are
only offering best guesses.

DNA mutations during reproduction do not come with little name tags saying good one,
bad one, indifferent for the time being they just are. We may label one good or bad as we
see the immediate affects caused by one, and be completely wrong because of what may
occur later on because we don't have foresight. There is nothing within any lifeforms
DNA has that type of foresight either.

So a limited number of life altering mutations could come during a few generations, and
your claim to fame is only the good ones will survive. The reason they are good is they
can affect the phenotype and hence reproductive success. Unless you want to claim
knowledge here, I have to remind you nothing in DNA has a clue what is good or bad,
what is normal or abnormal. If you want to claim there is a built in feature that can both
identify and weed out specifics abnormalities I have to ask when did that begin, and how
do you know? Today's lifeforms all have a specific trait that they all reproduce after their
kinds, I've heard that before, I think I've seen it written down in a book. When life first
started after abio-genesis when would that feature get added to the already impressive
list of things life could do from the onset like, reproduce, find food.

All living systems got really fortunate that the coding for eating and reproduction were
part of the first features life had at its beginning in a sterile world, just imagine what would
not have happen if those features were not there!?

Originally posted by @suzianne
And this, KJ, is exactly why this process takes millions of years.

A lot of lines eventually DO go 'nowhere'. But since the evolutionary 'angle' is that, yes, mutations that are beneficial DO 'keep going' because they are now part of that organism's base DNA, evolution, in general, does always 'move forward'. It cannot 'move backward' because those o ...[text shortened]... reproduce because the underlying impetus is to pass on one's genes, i.e. 'evolutionary success'.

Moving forward or backward is defined how by random mutations, wouldn't moving
any direction simply be moving in the direction your heading, if it is toward improvement
or getting ready for the long goodbye? Why would you think it must only work one way?

Why would the whole all move one way and not the other, which is easier to do fall off
the life wagon because of some feature was added that ruined all of the other features,
or over time have a visual ability added without a plan, purpose, or design for the process?

After all random changes can do random things, only the good surviving is nice sounding
trait, but unless you can simply not have things go sideways, its nothing more than a
pretty sounding slogan. Say changes were introduced through mutations and they get
passed the only the good ones move on filter, and this happens over and over without fail,
because the only the good ones move on filter doesn't filter out all bad mutations and
each time a few do get through. As you say they are now part of the lifeforms DNA, and
they now are not helping where ever it is they end up in the DNA. Each generation has
a few more here and there until the whole DNA is simply full of bad DNA throughout.

Without a feature that cleans it up flawlessly, even if only one gets through every three
generations over millions of years, you have a very corrupt DNA strand.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I'll remind you no one has [b]observed any life form over time acquiring new systems,
organs, and so on that were never there before. All of that is pure speculation and
nothing more when referring to what may have occurred millions of years ago. All
observations are in the here and now. When addressing what might have happen to
living systems that ...[text shortened]... in a sterile world, just imagine what would
not have happen if those features were not there!?[/b]

Once again, there is nothing in DNA that needs to "know" whether a mutation is good or bad (i.e. helping or hurting reproductive success). All that is required is for mutations to occur, and for these mutations to be able to affect reproductive success.

Once you accept these two aspects and their implication (i.e. natural selection), we can move on to the consequences.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Once again, there is nothing in DNA that needs to "know" whether a mutation is good or bad (i.e. helping or hurting reproductive success). All that is required is for mutations to occur, and for these mutations to be able to affect reproductive success.

Once you accept these two aspects and their implication (i.e. natural selection), we can move on to the consequences.

Move on we have beat this one to death, disagreeing over the same things isn't going to
advance anything.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Once again, there is nothing in DNA that needs to "know" whether a mutation is good or bad (i.e. helping or hurting reproductive success). All that is required is for mutations to occur, and for these mutations to be able to affect reproductive success.

Once you accept these two aspects and their implication (i.e. natural selection), we can move on to the consequences.

To be clear I seem to recall you had other thoughts about good and bad earlier,
"reproductive success" is successfully being reproductive correct?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
To be clear I seem to recall you had other thoughts about good and bad earlier,
"reproductive success" is successfully being reproductive correct?

I didn't have "other thoughts."

Reproductive success is measured by the number of adult, fertile offspring an organism produces. For natural selection to work, it is required that mutations can affect reproductive success, and that such effects are at least some of the time beneficial. I am still trying to ascertain which aspect of natural selection confuses you. Is it that:

A. you don't think mutations can occur?
or
B. you don't think that mutations can affect reproductive success?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I didn't have "other thoughts."

Reproductive success is measured by the number of adult, fertile offspring an organism produces. For natural selection to work, it is required that mutations can affect reproductive success, and that such effects are at least some of the time beneficial. I am still trying to ascertain which aspect of natural selection ...[text shortened]... nk mutations can occur?
or
B. you don't think that mutations can affect reproductive success?

Earlier when I said good and bad move forward if they reproduced and that both would
accumulate you disagreed. You agree now that if something moves forward into the next
generation it doesn't matter if it was good or bad or anything else, it made it into the next
generation. From there what happens will affect that life and if possible the next
generation too, or do you have filters in mind that would prohibit that?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I didn't have "other thoughts."

Reproductive success is measured by the number of adult, fertile offspring an organism produces. For natural selection to work, it is required that mutations can affect reproductive success, and that such effects are at least some of the time beneficial. I am still trying to ascertain which aspect of natural selection ...[text shortened]... nk mutations can occur?
or
B. you don't think that mutations can affect reproductive success?

Yes, they occur.
Don't like the way you worded the question, but I do think that everything that occurs could
affect the reproductive success, and how life would interact with the universe too.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes, they occur.
Don't like the way you worded the question, but I do think that everything that occurs could
affect the reproductive success, and how life would interact with the universe too.

Excellent, we're making progress. So what's unclear to you is how natural selection results from the occurrence of mutations. The mechanism is quite simple: when an organism has descendants with good mutations, those descendants will be at a competitive advantage compared to others who lacked the mutation in question. Hence, they will reproduce more than others, and the mutation will spread throughout the population. Conversely, when a bad mutation occurs, the descendants receiving this mutation will reproduce less compared to their peers without the bad mutation, causing the mutation to eventually disappear from the population.

Is there anything still unclear about this mechanism?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Excellent, we're making progress. So what's unclear to you is how natural selection results from the occurrence of mutations. The mechanism is quite simple: when an organism has descendants with good mutations, those descendants will be at a competitive advantage compared to others who lacked the mutation in question. Hence, they will reproduce more th ...[text shortened]... entually disappear from the population.

Is there anything still unclear about this mechanism?

Yes, you separating the good and bad as if they were on separated evolutionary paths
when they arrive in the next generation at the same time into the same lifeform's DNA.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes, you separating the good and bad as if they were on separated evolutionary paths
when they arrive in the next generation at the same time into the same lifeform's DNA.

Indeed, that's because they are separate. Since mutations are rare, the good and bad mutations do not, in general, occur for the same organisms, so natural selection can act on them separately.

Anything else I need to clear up?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Anything else I need to clear up?

You’re not explaining how the bad mutations which are more numerous than the good mutations and which cause death and harm don’t overpower the good mutations with their powers and while the good ones try to mould a brain or an eye the bad ones tear it down and destroy it but the whole ball of wax is why the accumulation of bad ones don’t just highlight every line of code as being like every other line of code in that before a mutation can do anything good of bad You also must keep in mind after abio-genesis that the number of lifeforms would have been limited, and concentrated into the area they were formed in. A small or large population that started to get bad mutations, would have greatly reduced numbers as these mutations come in. Having just a good mutation along with no bad showing up, well that would be an historically rare event. Yet to not be harmed that is what is required so the good one could continue a good work, making that even more rare, then even the next generation would face a new batch that could be good or bad.

Originally posted by @divegeester
You’re not explaining how the bad mutations which are more numerous than the good mutations and which cause death and harm don’t overpower the good mutations with their powers and while the good ones try to mould a brain or an eye the bad ones tear it down and destroy it but the whole ball of wax is why the accumulation of bad ones don’t just highlight ...[text shortened]... even more rare, then even the next generation would face a new batch that could be good or bad.

Not bad as far as imitations go, but you're lacking some hard enters in your post. 5/7 overall.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Not bad as far as imitations go, but you're lacking some hard enters in your post. 5/7 overall.

Thx.

The first half was part composite part creative; the second half was a straight copy paste of one of KJ’s “furballs” from somewhere in the page 30s.