The design argument

Originally posted by JS357
Answer to last two questions: yes, intelligently guided and yes, naturally caused.

Yes, mutation errors are now occurring naturally in DNA replication because Jesus is not preventing it because disobedience by man has brought on that curse from God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It would be fine with me if you evolutionists would stop making claims that you know what happened in the past. 😏

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85SW3A3XVwQ

It would be fine by me if you creationists would stop wearing your ignorance with pride.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
At 8:30
Evolutionists cannot explain how a giraffe knows the difference between a lion and a zebra!!!

😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't seem to understand that mutations are like a random error occurring in a DNA program nor do you understand computer programming. Just because an error in a computer program does not cause it to crash does not mean it becomes a better program than that of the original designed computer program. It would be stupid to suggest that random errors occu ...[text shortened]... ng itself to make improvements. That just doesn't happen nor does it happen in DNA programming.

Your whole rant is rendered moot by the fact that beneficial mutations are documented facts by now.

Originally posted by C Hess
Your whole rant is rendered moot by the fact that beneficial mutations are documented facts by now.

If you only focus on what is supposed to be good, you'll never see how bad
the bad really is! Much like your theory you reject all the bad and just look
at the good it seems like a very solid theory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you only focus on what is supposed to be good, you'll never see how bad
the bad really is! Much like your theory you reject all the bad and just look
at the good it seems like a very solid theory.

Give me an example of the "bad" then.

Originally posted by C Hess
Give me an example of the "bad" then.

An example? I spent pages going over how all of the negative mutations
out number the positive ones and still you want to believe that not only
will the good keep the life form going over time they will also build upon
each other as if they were meant to. You still don't see that as an issue?

If that is you than you have evolution eyes, you only see what makes your
case good and like your theory you just ignore that which could prove your
theory bad.

Originally posted by KellyJay
An example? I spent pages going over how all of the negative mutations
out number the positive ones and still you want to believe that not only
will the good keep the life form going over time they will also build upon
each other as if they were meant to. You still don't see that as an issue?

If that is you than you have evolution eyes, you only see w ...[text shortened]... es your
case good and like your theory you just ignore that which could prove your
theory bad.

Maybe I missed those pages, or misunderstood them.

Essentially, you have three types of mutations: bad, neutral and good. It's also possible for neutral mutations to turn good or bad later down the road (and for good ones to turn bad), as they find themselves paired with other mutations, or in genes that weren't activated up until a point.

A bad mutation would be one that prevents the organism from reproducing, as it would stop all the genes of that organism dead in its tracks.

A neutral mutation would be one that neither prevents nor promotes reproduction. It can be built upon by later mutations, and is by far the most common form of mutation.

A good (beneficial) mutation would be one that increases the reproductive success.

The fact that bad and neutral mutations far outnumber good ones, in no way implies that accumulation of beneficial mutations can't happen. It only means that mutations accumulate slowly (relatively speaking). We already knew that evolution is slow (even the cambrian explosion took millions of years), so exactly what about this fact you think is so damaging to evolutionary theory escapes me.

Originally posted by C Hess
Essentially, you have three types of mutations: bad, neutral and good.

Actually it is more of a whole range from bad to good with many mutations having both bad and good attributes. Only those mutations that completely stop reproduction are truly bad. For all the rest, their 'goodness' is relative to other genotypes as well as dependent quite significantly on the environment.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If that is you than you have evolution eyes, you only see what makes your
case good and like your theory you just ignore that which could prove your
theory bad.

It is you that is ignoring natural selection.

The thing is, it is trivial to show via a simple computer program that with selection, good mutations can and do accumulate essentially proving you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. This doesn't require religious belief. Don't just take my word for it, write a program for yourself and you verify it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it is more of a whole range from bad to good with many mutations having both bad and good attributes. Only those mutations that completely stop reproduction are truly bad. For all the rest, their 'goodness' is relative to other genotypes as well as dependent quite significantly on the environment.

Yes, hence the use of the word essentially. I did point out that mutations can move across this range with time. Or did I miss your point?

Originally posted by C Hess
Maybe I missed those pages, or misunderstood them.

Essentially, you have three types of mutations: bad, neutral and good. It's also possible for neutral mutations to turn good or bad later down the road (and for good ones to turn bad), as they find themselves paired with other mutations, or in genes that weren't activated up until a point.

A bad mutatio ...[text shortened]... rs), so exactly what about this fact you think is so damaging to evolutionary theory escapes me.

As I said, you have to reject the idea that the bad and neutral could take
place until all that they build ends all possible life forms going forward. So
you just accept only the good will go forward without ever looking at if that
could really happen given the numbers alone.

This also is just the first issue, the 2nd is that those that are not going to
harm it over time or kill it off right away will just build upon themselves
things over time as functionally complex as a life which would have several
systems in it that all work as they should on their own but support other
systems. None of these changes are brought about through a plan or need,
but filtered through natural selection.

In your computer if it grew pieces of hardware like a life form it would have
to not only get the hardware made it would have the software to make it
work with the other pieces. Within life getting it wrong can end all 2nd
chances, but you think that all of the changes over time will not only
produce positive outcomes like eyes and with them eye sight it is as easy
as having rain fall on the ground, it will just happen.

Evolution eyes, you only see what makes your theory do what you want it
to, anything that doesn't fit your theory, any excuse to ignore it will do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said, you have to reject the idea that the bad and neutral could take
place...

No, I acknowledge that there are bad and neutral mutations, and also note that they don't seem to have a negative effect on evolution at large. As twitehead said, you can easily test this with a computer simulation. It is you who refuse to acknowledge that bad and neutral mutations don't stop evolution dead in its tracks, because you so desperately wants to believe that it does.

Originally posted by KellyJay
This also is just the first issue, the 2nd is that those that are not going to
harm it over time or kill it off right away will just build upon themselves
things over time as functionally complex as a life which would have several
systems in it that all work as they should on their own but support other
systems. None of these changes are brought about through a plan or need,
but filtered through natural selection.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because some organs are interdependent (like the heart, lungs and the rest of the circulatory system), they must have evolved at the same time, and they must have evolved in leaps (because half a heart is not a heart at all), something evolution cannot do, therefore you assume that evolution can't explain something as complex as the circulatory system. Is that correct?

Originally posted by C Hess
Your whole rant is rendered moot by the fact that beneficial mutations are documented facts by now.

The people that call the mutant sickle cell a benefit are idiots in my opinion. 😏