The design argument

Originally posted by lemon lime
Maybe I would, if he dropped using BS invitations to read up on the subject from his act. Intimidation through an implication of superiority is an insincere and lame approach for getting someone to go away.

Objectively speaking, I said:

"The way he phrases the question indicates that he doesn't get evolution. He demands that we explain how the need to adapt to change drives genetic variation, whereas it doesn't do that. It only selects for genes that have already varied in accordance with natural processes that may appear to be random."

I'll add: Genetic mutations are happening all the time and can get established in part of a population even though they offer no current advantage, as long as they offer no fatal disadvantage. Then if the environment changes in a way that the mutation handles well, the part of the population that has that mutation will thrive compared to the part of the population that lacks it. Eventually the entire population may exhibit this result of variation followed by environmental change followed by natural selection.

In nature, genetic mutations don't happen in reaction to environmental pressures, they have already happened to some part of a population, as if by chance, and then the environmental change comes along.

I say as if by chance because the mutation might be by the hand of God. So I'm not arguing against ID here, I'm just trying to clear up what seems to be a point of resistance to the argument in you that seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I'm suggesting it because I find it somewhat peculiar that you seem to have a genuine interest in this topic, yet your elementary mistakes in comprehending what the theory of evolution is (regardless of whether you agree with it or not) betray that you have never bothered to read up on what the theory of evolution is and the experimental evidence ...[text shortened]... learning about and understanding evolution you might start to doubt your superstitious beliefs?

So I guess this means you think I'm lying when I say I began studying evolution 50 years ago.

You demonstrated your own ignorance almost from the beginning, when we were talking about information. You told me there was no theory of information that dealt with systems like DNA, and even after I posted a link to a famous evolutionist who did discuss what you say was never discussed, you continued to insist it never happened. It amazes me how you and your cohorts can make such stupid assertions without flinching or missing a beat, and even after you've been proven wrong.

I had no intention of calling your bluff, but since you insist on keeping up with this act....

Originally posted by lemon lime
So I guess this means you think I'm lying when I say I began studying evolution 50 years ago.

You demonstrated your own ignorance almost from the beginning, when we were talking about information. You told me there was no theory of information that dealt with systems like DNA, and even after I posted a link to a famous evolutionist who did discuss what ...[text shortened]...
I had no intention of calling your bluff, but since you insist on keeping up with this act....

You must be reading about a page per decade...

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not at the beginning, the first things on Earth were bacteria like forms and not like we have now with organelles, much simpler creatures.

Plants were created first, then animals beginning with sea creatures. But what I am referring to is each kind of creature at the beginning of its creation.

That is, each kind of creature was created with all its complex features from its beginning. The Cambrian Explosion is proof of that. All the fossils found show that the creatures of each kind appeared suddenly with all its complex features of that kind in its beginning and no evidence of inbetween fossils with less complex features before that.

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.

LOL, just stay in your belief system if you are unwilling to look at reality
as it is then just stay that way. I've explained it to you, you don't deal with
that you just ignore it. I suppose like evolution if you only look at that
which proves your point and dismiss that which does not it is easy to see
how your theory advances.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
😴

Your response here is how evolution works! You ignore the bad and only
look at that which supports your views. Not hard to see how the theory
moves forward when something bad occurs bypass it, don't look at it, do
not engage it, just dismiss it. So like evolution life can just move forward
and it gets better.

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

Not random, so someone put it there by design?

Originally posted by lemon lime
So I guess this means you think I'm lying when I say I began studying evolution 50 years ago.

You demonstrated your own ignorance almost from the beginning, when we were talking about information. You told me there was no theory of information that dealt with systems like DNA, and even after I posted a link to a famous evolutionist who did discuss what ...[text shortened]...
I had no intention of calling your bluff, but since you insist on keeping up with this act....

I don't think you are lying, but you do not appear to have made much progress in those 50 years. It took me about two minutes to find a study reporting the experimental detection of beneficial mutations, yet it seemed to be news to you. Perhaps you have been reading about evolution in the wrong places? I would recommend starting with some work by people who actually know what evolution is, rather than witch doctors or shamans. Do you want me to recommend some reading?

I don't recall any "stupid assertions" I made regarding "information" in connection to DNA. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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.

Natural selection was addressed, it does not guide changes it can only take
changes that occur randomly and allow them to fit in the environment the
life form was already in. That does not at all mean that those changes in
any life form in any environment would now have its mutations directed
to only allow the good ones to build upon one another, the bad mutations
would still out number the good by a large number. So any good mutation
would go away just as fast as it showed up.

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, just stay in your belief system if you are unwilling to look at reality
as it is then just stay that way. I've explained it to you, you don't deal with
that you just ignore it. I suppose like evolution if you only look at that
which proves your point and dismiss that which does not it is easy to see
how your theory advances.

It's unclear to me what you mean. What aspect of reality am I "unwilling to look at?"

Originally posted by lemon lime
LOL Okay, I get it. A pathological liar can be someone who asks a question you can't answer... and apparently this also means I'm insincere.

You guys crack me up.

This is how evolution is progressed, ignore or dismiss the bad. You do that
than the only thing that matters that is left is that which promotes your
views so the good which supports your views can only build upon the good
views that support your view. Evolution in action!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural selection was addressed, it does not guide changes it can only take
changes that occur randomly and allow them to fit in the environment the
life form was already in. That does not at all mean that those changes in
any life form in any environment would now have its mutations directed
to only allow the good ones to build upon one another, the ba ...[text shortened]... er the good by a large number. So any good mutation
would go away just as fast as it showed up.

The idea of natural selection, in a nutshell, is that beneficial mutations (by definition) enhance the reproductive success of an organism. Hence, the frequency of those mutations in the population will increase. You would probably know this already if you had followed my suggestion and did some reading about what natural selection is. Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's unclear to me what you mean. What aspect of reality am I "unwilling to look at?"

I doubt you'd see it or acknowledge it if I again pointed it out to you. You
have yet addressed the points you've only shown the ability like your views
on what happens to bad mutations. Ignore them so that only that which
supports your views is allowed to be acceptable.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I doubt you'd see it or acknowledge it if I again pointed it out to you. You
have yet addressed the points you've only shown the ability like your views
on what happens to bad mutations. Ignore them so that only that which
supports your views is allowed to be acceptable.

Detrimental mutations reduce the reproductive success of an organism. Hence, the relative frequency of these mutations will decrease over time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your response here is how evolution works! You ignore the bad and only
look at that which supports your views. Not hard to see how the theory
moves forward when something bad occurs bypass it, don't look at it, do
not engage it, just dismiss it. So like evolution life can just move forward
and it gets better.

I'm more than happy to discuss topics with you.

So the Lenski experiment, are you up to speed with it?