The design argument

Originally posted by KellyJay
I may have missed your beneficial mutation the links I looked at really did
not show one. Could you point me to it? Thank you in advance!

The links didn't show one? Really?? The second link is a 5 part detailed discussion specifically on a beneficial mutation in the Lenski ecoli experiment.

Do you know what the Lenski long term ecoli experiment is?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have just gone over reasons "evidence" for pages in this thread I didn't
see you dispute them. Go back over the discussion about how the universe
has to be properly setup for life or there isn't any from the micro or sub
atomic level to the placement of stars and planets, and all the forces that
come into play. Look at the quote I took from KazetNago ...[text shortened]... e deleterious mutation rate in different organisms, data are lacking
for beneficial mutations"

I don't know if you are aware of this or not. your arguments with others in this thread are not evidence of intelligent design.

your argument to them is that there maybe mistakes and errors in some of the science that supports evolution.

proving evolution is wrong does not therefore make intelligent design correct. do you understand this simple point?

to scientifically prove intelligent design then you need prove specifically that it was designed and then prove specifically who or what it was that did the designing.


now once again.....can you provide me (as you initially claimed) with some scientific evidence?????

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Aye, I did, but "I don't see it happening" is not a mechanism, it is a lack of imagination.

[b]I may have missed your beneficial mutation the links I looked at really did not show one. Could you point me to it? Thank you in advance!

You could try the link posted by Proper Knob, or the article I referred to. Which links did you look at?

. ...[text shortened]... nce of negative mutations. You could try reading more about natural selection if you're curious.

What one can imagine has become science to the evolutionists. 😏

But what the creationists or "intelligent designers" imagine has become religion. Fancy that. 😏

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You said mutation, singular, and no mention of the word 'macro'.

Seriously? So even after all of the times I've tried to get someone to explain how selection can work long before a benefit can ever be realized, you still don't know what I'm talking about? Do you seriously think I'm concerned over examples of a few gene mutations?

I've been talking about the successive accumulation of changes over a long period of time, that can eventually lead to the existence of molecular machines or structures or body types, or anything else that can be called a selectable benefit. There is (supposedly) no intelligent guidance at work, so it's impossible for a selection to be made before something proves to be a benefit... anticipation is an act of intelligence so no fair peeking around the corner, because a blind process can't see anything.

Believe it or not, there is no known blind process of selection that can occur before something shows up as a benefit... because you cannot presume any intelligent guidance is at work in this process. You can look at a blind process of selection among existing genes (within a species) and extrapolate from that a selection process as a possible vehicle for macroevolution. But extrapolation alone isn't good enough. You need to explain how an event can occur before there is a cause... and by that I mean how can an organism build any new useful feature that proves to be a benefit before it can actually function as a benefit?

If we are forbidden to presume intelligent guidance in the construction of a complex mechanism, then you need to explain how a functional and beneficial and complex (many more changes than can be explained by two or three random mutations) mechanism came into existence before its function could be realized as a benefit... a benefit that can ONLY be chosen through a blind process. Again, you cannot allow even the slightest hint or presumption of intelligence in this process... unless you want God in the picture. Is that what you want? Do you want God back in the picture?

So if the debate is really closed, and evolution is an established fact, then why is it no one here can explain this? If there is no proof that's fine with me... I don't care, it doesn't matter anymore. I would be satisfied just to hear how it could have happened.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Seriously? So even after all of the times I've tried to get someone to explain how selection can work long [b]before a benefit can ever be realized, you still don't know what I'm talking about? Do you seriously think I'm concerned over examples of a few gene mutations?

I've been talking about the successive accumulation of changes over a lon ...[text shortened]... it doesn't matter anymore. I would be satisfied just to hear how it could have happened.[/b]

It seems to me that anyone with common sense would know by now that when creationists are expressing disbelief in evolution that they are referring to "macroevolution" and not "microevolution" a.k.a variation within species. I believe, as Dasa says, most of them, are just being "dishonest" when they pretend not to know this. 😏

Originally posted by lemon lime
Seriously? So even after all of the times I've tried to get someone to explain how selection can work long [b]before a benefit can ever be realized, you still don't know what I'm talking about? Do you seriously think I'm concerned over examples of a few gene mutations?

I've been talking about the successive accumulation of changes over a lon ...[text shortened]... it doesn't matter anymore. I would be satisfied just to hear how it could have happened.[/b]

😴

Originally posted by lemon lime
Seriously? So even after all of the times I've tried to get someone to explain how selection can work long [b]before a benefit can ever be realized, you still don't know what I'm talking about? Do you seriously think I'm concerned over examples of a few gene mutations?

I've been talking about the successive accumulation of changes over a lon ...[text shortened]... it doesn't matter anymore. I would be satisfied just to hear how it could have happened.[/b]

The transition to "complex" features does not go through steps which are significantly harmful mutations. Am I really the first one to explain this to you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are funny, trying to prove evolution you say evolution is what is used
to prove evolution? Seriously, when the bad mutations out number the
good ones, when changes in DNA are not directed towards any end, but
are random exactly how would a good mutation build upon itself and create
something as complex as cell? What would over come the randomness of ...[text shortened]... n the mutations are random and more of
them and I dare say much more of them are bad than good?

Bingo!

And now, if we can just get someone to explain how an apparent self guided process can work through nothing more than the magic of randomness, with no hint or presumption of intelligence lurking within the explanation, we will finally have our answer... and the debate will be over forever and evermore... amen.

But don't hold your breath... and watch out for those little telltale signs of intelligent guidance.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The transition to "complex" features does not go through steps which are significantly harmful mutations. Am I really the first one to explain this to you?

I don't recall talking about harmful mutations. But I'll go back to see what (if anything) I might have said... about harmful mutations.

And no, you are definitely not the first one to explain something that has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. In fact, I have yet to see any genuine answer to what I have been talking about... so no, you are no where close to being first.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Bingo!

And now, if we can just get someone to explain how an apparent self guided process can work through nothing more than the magic of randomness, with no hint or presumption of intelligence lurking within the explanation, we will finally have our answer... and the debate will be over forever and evermore... amen.

But don't hold your breath... and watch out for those little telltale signs of intelligent guidance.

who said it was random???

Originally posted by Proper Knob
😴

LOL

I've tried the dumbed down version of this several times now... and pretty much got the same response.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Seriously? So even after all of the times I've tried to get someone to explain how selection can work long [b]before a benefit can ever be realized, you still don't know what I'm talking about? Do you seriously think I'm concerned over examples of a few gene mutations?

I've been talking about the successive accumulation of changes over a lon ...[text shortened]... it doesn't matter anymore. I would be satisfied just to hear how it could have happened.[/b]

"Seriously? So even after all of the times I've tried to get someone to explain how selection can work long before a benefit ever be realized, you still don't know what I'm talking about?"

I have done so but your request is insincere.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
who said it was random???

What else could it be? Do you think God had anything to do with it?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't recall talking about harmful mutations. But I'll go back to see what (if anything) I might have said... about harmful mutations.

And no, you are definitely [b]not the first one to explain something that has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. In fact, I have yet to see any genuine answer to what I have been talking about... so no, you are no where close to being first.[/b]

I see. Well, there is a process called "evolution" which explains how such complex features might arise. You could consider reading a bit about it, it's quite a neat concept.

Originally posted by lemon lime
LOL

I've tried the dumbed down version of this several times now... and pretty much got the same response.

I've read numerous posts of yours and have come to the conclusion you're a pathological liar, hence the 😴 . I genuinely have no time or inclination for your drivel ridden monologues. I tell you this so you won't make the same mistake twice, it is after all the season of goodwill and festive cheer.