Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Divide]

No I don't see any contradiction.

Survival of the fittest is feedback from the environment. This can guide (not intelligently) changes in the balance of alleles present in a population, which is evolution.

So, can you explain what you believe the contraction to be?

You see it just fine because you defended it. If we have random evolutionary mutations...there is no guidance. To guide is to know is to intelligently...so there you have a glaring contradiction, and if you claim not to see it as a contradiction, then you're either lying or don't care or have been totally bamboozled?

 

[HitchSlap]

... you're either lying or don't care or have been totally bamboozled?

There’s a third option here... maybe you don’t understand how natural and sexual selection work.

 

[Speedwell]

There’s a third option here... maybe you don’t understand how natural and sexual selection work.

Creationists don't want to know things like that. They want an evolutionary theory which is comprehensible to a person with little or no science education, and so easy to disprove that it is possible to sneer while doing it. The real thing is too scary even to contemplate.

 

[USincognito]

Survival of the fittest only operates on mutations that have already occurred. I agree this process weeds out poorly designed or non-adaptive mutations.

Mutations occur by random processes. Examples:

1. The weak force randomly triggers radiation which travels in a random direction to hit a random DNA molecule causing a random mutation.
2. The random bouncing around of chemical biological molecules can occasionally function incorrectly resulting in a mutation.
3. Each radioactive event in the sun results in a gamma ray aimed in a random direction which randomly hits a DNA molecule resulting in a random mutation.

I have trouble believing that all this randomness would generate the needed mutations to construct the incredibly intricate and complex molecular chemical machinery that operates within the cell. Seems there must be an intelligent and powerful entity guiding the process to increase the odds. (Yes, this is intelligent design.)

You know most mutations are due to copying errors, not gamma radiation, right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You see it just fine because you defended it. If we have random evolutionary mutations...there is no guidance. To guide is to know is to intelligently...so there you have a glaring contradiction, and if you claim not to see it as a contradiction, then you're either lying or don't care or have been totally bamboozled?

Or perhaps, and here's the most likely answer: you don't understand what is being talked about here.

 

[tas8831]

Yes. Chemical biological life is based on the electrostatic force and quantum mechanics. If an electron appears on one side of an atom instead of the other at a key instant, it could have significant effects into the future.

And yet, this is irrelevant to mutations, specifically the use of the term 'random mutations.'

Do you understand biology much?

 

[tas8831]

My objection to randomness as the mechanism for generating mutations for natural selection to operate upon is that it is too improbable that all the needed mutations occurred in exactly the right sequence.

And how is this 'right sequence' determined? Are you familiar with the degeneracy of the genetic code? Know what synonymous mutations are?

 

[tas8831]

My objection to randomness as the mechanism for generating mutations for natural selection to operate upon is that it is too improbable that all the needed mutations occurred in exactly the right sequence.

Randomness is not, and has never been claimed to be, a "mechanism" for generating mutation.

You are getting your information from incompetent (or dishonest) sources.

 

[tas8831]

And you "know" for a fact that it could not affect our DNA? Exactly how?

Curious - did you bother to read and understand the context?

You see, Jesus had written :

"I doubt that randomness is a sufficient cause to result in all the spectacular chemical biological structures and functions.."

I asked what he meant by "randomness".

He replied:

"Quantum mechanical randomness. The position of an electron (for example) is random when the wave function collapses. "

And then I asked how that works.

And here you are implying that I claimed that I "know" that this will not work.

So not only do you show an inability to understand context, you 'accuse' me of making assertions when I actually asked a question.

Try again?

 

[tas8831]

Survival of the fittest only operates on mutations that have already occurred. I agree this process weeds out poorly designed or non-adaptive mutations.

Mutations occur by random processes. Examples:

1. The weak force randomly triggers radiation which travels in a random direction to hit a random DNA molecule causing a random mutation.
2. The random bouncing around of chemical biological molecules can occasionally function incorrectly resulting in a mutation.
3. Each radioactive event in the sun results in a gamma ray aimed in a random direction which randomly hits a DNA molecule resulting in a random mutation.

I have trouble believing that all this randomness would generate the needed mutations to construct the incredibly intricate and complex molecular chemical machinery that operates within the cell. Seems there must be an intelligent and powerful entity guiding the process to increase the odds. (Yes, this is intelligent design.)

I appreciate that you have, in effect, admitted that you do not understand how mutations actually occur.

While ionizing radiation can cause mutations, such mutations are far outnumbered by mere replication errors.

Most mutations do not occur in regions of the genome that affect phenotype. Many of those that do occur in regions of the genome that can alter phenotype do not (i.e., they are neutral with regard to fitness).

 

[tas8831]

No one has demonstrated it can happen via randomness. It is merely assumed. This, because of the assumption of materialism.

In reality, the genomes (or parts of genomes) have been sequenced from parent to offspring, and the resulting mutations are not in a planned or coordinated distribution.

Mutation rate analysis via parent–progeny sequencing of the perennial peach. I. A low rate in woody perennials and a higher mutagenicity in hybrids

Direct estimation of <i>de novo</i> mutation rates in a chimpanzee parent-offspring trio by ultra-deep whole genome sequencing

I suggest that instead of just simply assuming that you non-biological arguments have merit that you take the time to search for possible confounding or falsifying evidence.

Google Scholar is an easy to use search engine.

 

[Tayla]

Mutations occur by random processes. Examples:

1. The weak force randomly triggers radiation which travels in a random direction to hit a random DNA molecule causing a random mutation.
2. The random bouncing around of chemical biological molecules can occasionally function incorrectly resulting in a mutation.
3. Each radioactive event in the sun results in a gamma ray aimed in a random direction which randomly hits a DNA molecule resulting in a random mutation.

You know most mutations are due to copying errors, not gamma radiation, right?

Thank you for the clarification. I used gamma radiation as example #3. Example #2 includes copying errors.

 

[Tayla]

And yet, this is irrelevant to mutations, specifically the use of the term 'random mutations.'

Do you understand biology much?

I study college biology from a 3 inch thick 10 pound textbook.

Why are random mutations not relevant? Aren't they one way that organisms change and which provides something for natural selection to work upon?

 

[Tayla]

My objection to randomness as the mechanism for generating mutations for natural selection to operate upon is that it is too improbable that all the needed mutations occurred in exactly the right sequence.

And how is this 'right sequence' determined? Are you familiar with the degeneracy of the genetic code? Know what synonymous mutations are?

I'm trying to not be too technical, partially because I want to zero in on the essential ingredients and partially because I don't have a PhD on these topics.

The point is whether randomness is sufficient to generate the raw material (mutations) which natural selection operates upon. So far in my research, science answers, "of course it is, because materialism requires it." Not a very convincing argument.

 

[Tayla]

My objection to randomness as the mechanism for generating mutations for natural selection to operate upon is that it is too improbable that all the needed mutations occurred in exactly the right sequence.

Randomness is not, and has never been claimed to be, a "mechanism" for generating mutation.

All I'm saying is that, according to materialism, mutations are random, as opposed to being directed by an intelligent and powerful entity (God).

 

[Speedwell]

I'm trying to not be too technical, partially because I want to zero in on the essential ingredients and partially because I don't have a PhD on these topics.

The point is whether randomness is sufficient to generate the raw material (mutations) which natural selection operates upon. So far in my research, science answers, "of course it is, because materialism requires it." Not a very convincing argument.

Natural selection does not operate on genetic mutations. It operates on phenotypic variation. It operates on, selects from, physical variations in size, shape, arrangement of body parts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All I'm saying is that, according to materialism, mutations are random, as opposed to being directed by an intelligent and powerful entity (God).

And yet there are those who take the position that evolution is guided by God. There is a middle ground with this issue.
I have to ask: do you take issue with the use of the word random?

 

[Speedwell]

All I'm saying is that, according to materialism, mutations are random, as opposed to being directed by an intelligent and powerful entity (God).

In science, "random" merely means "unpredictable." The term does not imply anything other than that. It certainly does not imply metaphysical materialism.

 

[Tayla]

While ionizing radiation can cause mutations, such mutations are far outnumbered by mere replication errors.

Most mutations do not occur in regions of the genome that affect phenotype. Many of those that do occur in regions of the genome that can alter phenotype do not (i.e., they are neutral with regard to fitness).

It doesn't matter the specific mechanism by which mutations occur (and I know there are various of these). The point is that, according to materialism, these mutations are not directed by an intelligent and powerful entity (God). In other words, they are random, meaning, they are not directed. Natural selection filters out which have survival value.

 

[tas8831]

I study college biology from a 3 inch thick 10 pound textbook.

Study more.

Why are random mutations not relevant?

Never said any such thing.

Aren't they one way that organisms change and which provides something for natural selection to work upon?

Yes.

My concerns are with the manner in which you think they occur.