How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[sfs]

You do know there is a big diffeence between selecting from...natural or not..an already established genome as opposed to natural selection developing a new genome.

And you do know that we're talking about new mutations here, since that's been explained to you multiple times. Right?

 

[sfs]

Nope. Natural selection does just the opposite of evolution.

Incorrect.

It works to maintain the status quo of the genes.

Incorrect.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about evolution to criticize it.

 

[-57]

I am not sure that even makes sense.

I figured you wouldn't. It means the small incremental changes supposedly caused by the so-called beneficial mutation would be out of the resolution of natural selection.

 

[-57]

And you do know that we're talking about new mutations here, since that's been explained to you multiple times. Right?

When will you demonstrate how "new mutations" can add up and form something such as the dolphins echo-location system???

Hint: use real numbers.

 

[-57]

I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about evolution to criticize it.

Considering how you can't defend your position and demonstrate how mutations add up...I would have to conclude you don't have enough understanding of evolutionism.

 

[sfs]

When will you demonstrate how "new mutations" can add up and form something such as the dolphins echo-location system???

And, yet again you change the subject when challenged on one of your statements.

As for the dolphins, why don't you start by showing that there's a problem with new mutations adding up and forming something new? Be sure to use real numbers.

 

[sfs]

bad post

 

[-57]

And, yet again you change the subject when challenged on one of your statements.

As for the dolphins, why don't you start by showing that there's a problem with new mutations adding up and forming something new? Be sure to use real numbers.

In a previous post I mentioned the odds of a so-called rare beneficial mutation occurring at just the right place in an evolving species DNA at just the right time over and over again many, many times...to the point that something like the dolphins echo location is derived pretty much from scratch...kills evolutionism.

Now, to help you out...I even asked for your numbers....and YOU MADE THEM UP.
You realized you were caught so your next strategy was HERE.....go read these links. Now, either you have the numbers or you don't. Which is is? Where are they?

 

[lasthero]

Nope. Natural selection does just the opposite of evolution.
It works to maintain the status quo of the genes. Adaptation,
the other supposed source of evolution cannot pass the kind
barrier. Dogs will always breed dogs of some sort.

What's the 'kind barrier'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mutations really can't create a change big enough to be naturally selected.

Prove it. The evidence disagrees with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In a previous post I mentioned the odds of a so-called rare beneficial mutation occurring at just the right place in an evolving species DNA at just the right time over and over again many, many times...to the point that something like the dolphins echo location is derived pretty much from scratch...kills evolutionism.

Now, to help you out...I even asked for your numbers....and YOU MADE THEM UP.
You realized you were caught so your next strategy was HERE.....go read these links. Now, either you have the numbers or you don't. Which is is? Where are they?

That is only because you don't understand evolution at all. The dolphins echo location ability was not a goal, it was a result. When you are ready to learn there are people here that are ready to help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since there is no evolution, nothing is part of it. Adaptation is
observable and repeatable, so is natural selection. Evolution is
neither. It is a hoax.

Don't be silly. People are here to help you understand reality. Evolution has been observed several different ways.

Here is a suggestion, when you don't understand ask questions. Politely. You clearly do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if I had a machine, dropping a tennis ball totally at random [the "random event"] and I had another machine trying to hit the dropping balls with a cricket bat say once every 15 seconds [the "nonrandom force"], you are saying that the amount of times the machine hit the ball would not be random? Can you explain that, because it makes no sense to me?

That is a very poor analogy. Try again. Try to engage your brain when you make an analogy.

 

[-57]

Prove it. The evidence disagrees with you.

What evidence?

 

[-57]

That is only because you don't understand evolution at all. The dolphins echo location ability was not a goal, it was a result. When you are ready to learn there are people here that are ready to help you.

It's not about a goal...it's about the odds, to many location, lack of so-called beneficial mutations, the reqirement for many mutations, etc

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence?

All of the scientific evidence. Unfortunately you probably do not even understand the concept of evidence. I can help you with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not about a goal...it's about the odds, to many location, lack of so-called beneficial mutations, the reqirement for many mutations, etc

Yes, but you are calculating the odds incorrectly. We don't need those specific mutations in that specific order. Look at eyesight that trait has evolved independently on the order of a dozen times. You are making the mistake of calculating the odds of one particular winner. Let me use a simple analogy. The odds of Tony down the block of winning the Powerball lottery may be on the order of 200 million to one. The odds that someone will win the lottery eventually is roughly one. Or in other words, someone somewhere is going to win the lottery.

There are no goals, as in Tony winning the lottery, there are only results, as in someone is going to win the lottery.

I have yet to see a valid odds argument against evolution. Most make the same mistake that you did.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I figured you wouldn't. It means the small incremental changes supposedly caused by the so-called beneficial mutation would be out of the resolution of natural selection.

That's just more word salad.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

That's just more word salad.

Hungry?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So if I had a machine, dropping a tennis ball totally at random [the "random event"] and I had another machine trying to hit the dropping balls with a cricket bat say once every 15 seconds [the "nonrandom force"], you are saying that the amount of times the machine hit the ball would not be random?

SZ said that "the result is not random."

In this case, if the batting machine was aimed a particular direction (a nonrandom force), more balls would be hit that direction (a nonrandom result). QED.