Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution.

[Mystic]

The mutations are still the ones causing the system to arise, you're just invoking djinn as a cause for mutations. I have no need to do this, as mutatations do not require djinn to occur. The rest of your post honestly falls flat on it;s face right here.....but....

If so many mutations occurred that gave rise to a whole system at once, how can a sensible person attribute that to sheer chance? Even if it happened one time in evolution, for it to be happen again and again, in evolution of our species, is lunacy.

It implies a designer.

What would this achieve that ns does not by working in the reverse?

Well ns can only do that if it's advantageous at overwhelming the majority of the steps in between from my perspective.

Natural selection isn't "selecting" any type of mutations in particular to achieve any sort of specific system, nor are the mutations that express themselves as evolution random in any sense of the word (many mutations occur - not all of them are expressed as adaptations or advantage), I've been trying to explain this to you from the very beginning...so whether or not you can see how it might be doing that is entirely irrelevant, isn't it?

I know but the reverse is true. Just because you don't see it as impossible, doesn't mean others don't or are not justified in that perception.

Mutations are not totally random, but over all, are random in nature. There is some structure to them, and some get more repetitive then others, due to natural selection and how genes are structured, but this doesn't mean they aren't random.

[The Grand Nudger]

If so many mutations occurred that gave rise to a whole system at once, how can a sensible person attribute that to sheer chance? Even if it happened one time in evolution, for it to be happen again and again, in evolution of our species, is lunacy.

It's not "sheer chance" so I wouldn't know how to answer that question. Find someone who thinks it's "sheer chance" and ask them? What do you think happened in the evoltuion of our species? Here again I think you're assuming that we're some kind of goal.....

It implies a designer.

What does?

Well ns can only do that if it's advantageous at overwhelming the majority of the steps in between from my perspective.

No, ns doesn't actually care (can't care) whether or not something is advantageous, it's simply the measure of what survives to reproduce.

I know but the reverse is true. Just because you don't see it as impossible, doesn't mean others don't or are not justified in that perception.

Unfortunately, we see it happening - this is the position in evidence, so regardless of whether I saw it as possible, or you did not, it is happening. Again, you aren't arguing any of this, and you aren't arguing any direct interference with any of the associated processes - you're content to let them operate-, you're just tacking on djinn without any requirement or evidence for them.

Mutations are not totally random, but over all, are random in nature. There is some structure to them, and some get more repetitive then others, due to natural selection and how genes are structured, but this doesn't mean they aren't random.

The ones that persist in populations are in no way random. There are limits, one important limit being that they do not kill the possessor. Others being their deviation from source material. We don't expect, for example, for the genes that code human arms to code bat wings onto human arms from one generation to the next.

[Mystic]

Evolution teaches small changes over time. A designer can do significant large changes at a given moment that cannot be explained by chance. If small changes over time cannot lead from A to B, because natural selection doesn't lead from A to B, neither do mutations without natural selection given the blind watchmaker impression, you would not get from A to B.

It naturally follows, either A to B occurs all once via designer or that a designer guides mutations from A to B by a certain method (it can be that he selects the most advantageous one's to carry these mutations until the non-advantageous system turns to an advantage or he can make it something the whole population in general get's and it's massively distributed in the population over and over again or other methods).

[The Grand Nudger]

Evolution teaches small changes over time.

In most cases, yes, though theres a thing called punctuated equilibrium and cladogenesis in population genetics.

A designer can do significant large changes at a given moment. If small changes over time cannot lead from A to B, because natural selection doesn't lead from A to B,

Give me an example of where you cannot get from a to b by taking small steps? Natural selection doesn't "lead anywhere".....for fucks sake Mystic.....

neither do mutations without natural selection given the blind watchmaker impression, you would not get from A to B.

Rephrase?

It naturally follows, either A to B occurs all once via designer or that a designer guides mutations from A to B by a certain method

Follows from what?

(it can be that he selects the most advantageous one's to carry these mutations until the non-advantageous system turns to an advantage

wasn't this something you were just attributing to ns a few posts back?

or he can make it something the whole population in general get's and it's massively distributed in the population over and over again or other methods).

He can do this, he can do that.

Where, how, when?

[Mystic]

If I'm right, you go to hell, if I'm wrong, no loss *angerily asserts pascal's wager*

I kid I kid

I think we are getting repetitive. I will do more research on the issue, specially, this whole you don't need to factor in natural selection for direction of A system to B system.

I'm not sure about this issue.

It's in fact very hard to present, because generalizations usually are not true.

While Michael Behe argues it's not an argument from ignorance, I will say on my end, it is an argument from ignorance, hence not reliable or 100%.

Michael Behe of course maybe doing it out of knowledge of biology, because he is very well aware of the counter arguments out there.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not that you don't need to factor in natural selection Mystic, it's that natural selection is not what you seem to think it is. Your language drips with references to things that display your notion that there is some sort of sentience and plan behind it (directions, selecting, etc). I don't think I could have come up with a better explanation for how genetic material can be passed on in the absence of any particular advantage than my cold-frame example. I suprised myself with that one......

I thought of another along those lines too.

There's an anthill with two genetically identical populations of ant's living in it, genetically identical save for one single mutation - which does not express itself as any adaptation or anatomical difference. Since they live and work together they all prosper equally. Population a lives on the right side of the hill, population b on the left side. One day I come along with a hose and drown the right side of the hill.

Natural selection at work.

[popeyespappy]

Mystic I'm going to give you a documented example of something you don't seem to understand. It shows an organism building on a previous non beneficial mutation to produce a useful trait only after another mutation is added on top of the first. It happened during the E. coli long-term evolution experiment conducted by Richard Lenski.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...population

[Mystic]

Mystic I'm going to give you a documented example of something you don't seem to understand.

I have no problem with this example. My problem is when there is a huge amount of mutations over and over again leading from system A to System B, and the majority of these are not said to be advantageous but rather are neutral.

---

Or rather, that over all, each stage between system A and system B, is not advantageous, till you get to system B, and that somehow system A will get to system B.

[Minimalist]

Try this real-world example and see if you can follow it.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal...nakes.html

Steve Reaves, owner of Tucson Rattlesnake Removal, said rattlers have stopped rattling in recent years in order to avoid being killed.

"Normally when a rattlesnake announces its presence, people kill it," Reaves said. "The snakes that aren't genetically predisposed to rattling are the ones that are left to breed. They rely on their natural camouflage and stay still so predators won't notice them. Basically what's happening is we're breeding a rattlesnake that doesn't intend to rattle."

But even in this story, the reporter does not get it.

"Snakes alongside the trails have learned that rattling gets them in trouble."

Wrong. The snakes haven't "learned" shit. The ones which rattle are killed....remember most of the assholes out here walk around with guns.. and the ones which do not rattle survive to breed.

THAT is all the advantage that evolution gives. It doesn't think. It doesn't teach. It doesn't learn lessons. What works survives to pass its genes along to the next generation and what does not work dies out.

No gods. No direction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or rather, that over all, each stage between system A and system B, is not advantageous, till you get to system B, and that somehow system A will get to system B.

-Bolded bit-
It doesn't have to be, it can be, but it doesn't have to be. The only thing that it -has- to be..is non-deleterious.

-Ital bit-
Not, not "somehow", very simply -a combination of descent with modification and natural selection. "Somehows" are the territory of the djinn explanation.