noah's ark

Originally posted by @kellyjay
For me it's what little I know about designing something that has to function properly to work. Mutations that are randomly placed throughout a living system would do more harm than good, I don't believe enough trial an error could produce stop starts, correct pressures, defensive mechanisms, genders, sight, hearing, and on an on.

Even getting a good mu ...[text shortened]... hings worked out. Small tweaks might alter it a little, but even with that they could still die.

Your beliefs concerning evolution don't really constitute 'evidence' in my book. I was looking for some evidence to back up those beliefs not just repeat the same thing again.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You mean I'm not at the top of your list any more. 🙁

That was aimed at RBhill. It was a idiotic video, more idiotic than the usual BS video.
Did you watch it? A guy actually think jumping up and down shows gravity to be false somehow?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
That was aimed at RBhill. It was a idiotic video, more idiotic than the usual BS video.
Did you watch it? A guy actually think jumping up and down shows gravity to be false somehow?

😉 was joking with you

Originally posted by @kellyjay
For me it's what little I know about designing something that has to function properly to work. Mutations that are randomly placed throughout a living system would do more harm than good, I don't believe enough trial an error could produce stop starts, correct pressures, defensive mechanisms, genders, sight, hearing, and on an on.

Even getting a good mu ...[text shortened]... hings worked out. Small tweaks might alter it a little, but even with that they could still die.

First of all, evolution does not depend on random mutation alone. Several mechanisms are operating simultaneously, some at the genetic level, some at the macroscopic level (e.g., an individual organism, a plant or animal specimen), some at the habitat level.

Secondly, random mutation by itself is neither functional nor dysfunctional. A given mutation is functional or dysfunctional or neutral only when considered for a given species in a given habitat subjected to given stressors (e.g., other species competing for scarce food resources) over a period of time long enough to determine whether the mutation in question is favourable for reproduction or dis-favourable for reproduction or reproductively neutral.

Originally posted by @moonbus
First of all, evolution does not depend on random mutation alone. Several mechanisms are operating simultaneously, some at the genetic level, some at the macroscopic level (e.g., an individual organism, a plant or animal specimen), some at the habitat level.

Secondly, random mutation by itself is neither functional nor dysfunctional. A given mutation is ...[text shortened]... ion is favourable for reproduction or dis-favourable for reproduction or reproductively neutral.

Yes at genetic, microscopic, macroscopic, even galactic levels all have to work together with nothing directing anything for any purpose.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes at genetic, microscopic, macroscopic, even galactic levels all have to work together with nothing directing anything for any purpose.

I thought we had established that the purpose was successful reproduction?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I thought we had established that the purpose was successful reproduction?

That might be a byproduct but there can be no goal.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Your beliefs concerning evolution don't really constitute 'evidence' in my book. I was looking for some evidence to back up those beliefs not just repeat the same thing again.

The mechanics that are used to describe Evolution can not be shown doing the necessary work. We can see very small changes which as pointed out I acknowledge. The only time you see one creature turning into another is when someone connects the dots on MAY have occurred. Show me why you think it is acceptable, that should be much easier than proving a negative. Real evidence not someone saying this could have happened!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The mechanics that are used to describe Evolution can not be shown doing the necessary work. We can see very small changes which as pointed out I acknowledge. The only time you see one creature turning into another is when someone connects the dots on MAY have occurred. Show me why you think it is acceptable, that should be much easier than proving a negative. Real evidence not someone saying this could have happened!

Evolution doesn't propose that 'one creature turns into another'.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The mechanics that are used to describe Evolution can not be shown doing the necessary work. We can see very small changes which as pointed out I acknowledge. The only time you see one creature turning into another is when someone connects the dots on MAY have occurred. Show me why you think it is acceptable, that should be much easier than proving a negative. Real evidence not someone saying this could have happened!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40890714

This is one of those discoveries which has the potential to re-write big blocks of previously accepted theory. That is science in action: the method is what matters more than any specific result or conclusion, and it is self-correcting.

All the putative evidence which biblical literalists cite to try to deny that evolution ever happened is science with an agenda: it is bad religion and pseudo-science. It is pseudo-science because it starts out from a pre-determined conclusion (the Bible must be right, no matter what the evidence to the contrary might suggest), and it is bad religion because it makes spiritual ends beholden to factual means.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
That might be a byproduct but there can be no goal.

Continuation of life sir is hardly a byproduct. (And sure sounds like a goal to me).

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Evolution doesn't propose that 'one creature turns into another'.

I agree but if it doesn't that changes a few people's world views.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Continuation of life sir is hardly a byproduct. (And sure sounds like a goal to me).

A mindless process can't have goals.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Evolution doesn't propose that 'one creature turns into another'.

You don't think evolution started with a single simple lifeform and throughout time evolved into what we see today.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
A mindless process can't have goals.

I think the mistake sir is to think of 'intelligence' in human terms.