The design argument

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

I have written many simple programs and every time I just made one little typing error in the programs the damn programs would not work right until I finally found the error and corrected it. It can be very frustrating.

I have never made an error and the program worked better than I planned. But in your case I might even believe it could happen to you. But I would still have to see it to believe it.

Originally posted by C Hess
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?

Many mutations have both good and bad aspects. For example, they may be good in childhood but bad in adulthood. They may protect against one disease but increase the likelihood of another etc. Mutations that cause devastating results typically result in the death of the foetus prior to birth and thus are of little interest anyway. The vast majority of the mutations that we see day to day that account for the variation between human beings are either totally neutral ie they have no phenotype effects whatsoever, or they fall in a range from good to bad that is so complex that it is often impossible to accurately place them. Are blue eyes vs brown eyes good or bad?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have written many simple programs and every time I just made one little typing error in the programs the damn programs would not work right until I finally found the error and corrected it. It can be very frustrating.

I have never made an error and the program worked better than I planned. But in your case I might even believe it could happen to you. But I would still have to see it to believe it.

Oh, so you do understand that computer programs are very different from DNA? Why do you insist on using the analogy then?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have written many simple programs and every time I just made one little typing error in the programs the damn programs would not work right until I finally found the error and corrected it. It can be very frustrating.

I have never made an error and the program worked better than I planned. But in your case I might even believe it could happen to you. But I would still have to see it to believe it.

You clearly don't do a lot of programming. So tell us, did the overwhelming number of bad typing mistakes result in all your programming dying off as Kelly would have us believe, or did you select the working programs and end up having working programs surviving?

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

You have probably never had malaria or known anyone who has died from it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Many mutations have both good and bad aspects. For example, they may be good in childhood but bad in adulthood. They may protect against one disease but increase the likelihood of another etc. Mutations that cause devastating results typically result in the death of the foetus prior to birth and thus are of little interest anyway. The vast majority of the ...[text shortened]... x that it is often impossible to accurately place them. Are blue eyes vs brown eyes good or bad?

From an evolutionary standpoint, surely the only "bad" mutations are the ones that prevents reproduction, one way or the other? If the organism survives long enough to reproduce, it doesn't carry any bad mutations (from an evolutionary standpoint). It's true that one and the same mutation can prove to be bad under some circumstances and good or neutral under others, that's what natural selection relies on. I made that point in the first post you replied to.

Your posts have proven useful to me in that you're often right and I'm wrong, so I must admit to feeling a bit confused right now. I will reread your posts to see if I'm missing something, or if we're really talking past each other.

Originally posted by C Hess
From an evolutionary standpoint, surely the only "bad" mutations are the ones that prevents reproduction, one way or the other? If the organism survives long enough to reproduce, it doesn't carry any bad mutations (from an evolutionary standpoint).

Not necessarily. A mutation may be 'relatively bad' in that it results in fewer offspring, or even results in fewer offspring in later generations, or in relatives.

It's true that one and the same mutation can prove to be bad under some circumstances and good or neutral under others, that's what natural selection relies on.
And I am saying that this can make it very difficult to really put them on a scale. Many mutations have both good and bad aspects much of the time.

I will reread your posts to see if I'm missing something, or if we're really talking past each other.
I am not really disagreeing with you completely, I merely thought your initial classification of 'good', 'neutral' and 'bad' was a bit simplistic and it was worth explaining to other readers that the reality is far more complex. The only truly neutral mutation is one that does not change the amino acid that is coded for, or does not reside in an active gene. The only truly bad mutation is one that results in almost certain failure to reproduce. All other mutations live in a grey area of relative goodness or badness depending on a very complicated environment.

I suspect that the creationists in this thread do not realize just how much variation in genes exists in the population without causing serious damage.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not really disagreeing with you completely, I merely thought your initial classification of 'good', 'neutral' and 'bad' was a bit simplistic and it was worth explaining to other readers that the reality is far more complex. The only truly neutral mutation is one that does not change the amino acid that is coded for, or does not reside in an active ge ...[text shortened]... live in a grey area of relative goodness or badness depending on a very complicated environment.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by C Hess
If by complexity you mean a lot of non-interacting marbles thrown on a floor and what geometric forms you can describe by connecting the marble dots, pretty much anything in the world is complex. Is there a point to this experiment?

Is there a point to this experiment?

Yes.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You have already shown yourself to be foolish - don't make it worse! 😏

Make it worse than what? Can I make it worse than suggesting there is no distinct line between proven and unproven, or fact and speculation? Or worse than saying something like a refrigerator is more complex (in function and design) than a living organism?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Is there a point to this experiment?

Yes.[/b]

Yes?

Originally posted by lemon lime
...something like a refrigerator is more complex (in function and design) than a living organism?

Is it?

Originally posted by C Hess
Is it?

You tell me. I said less, you said more.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You tell me. I said less, you said more.

It's more complex in both design and function? I wrote that? Why, I must be positively mad. 🙄

Originally posted by C Hess
It's more complex in both design and function? I wrote that? Why, I must be positively mad. 🙄

Not in so many words. You said:

... comparing inanimate objects that consists of literally hundreds of different parts in different materials, to living organisms which basically consist of one or two basic types of cells (depending on the organism), using the same building blocks across all variations.

You and I talked more about this in other messages, but is it really necessary for me to copy and paste what has already been said?