Thoughts

[Neo-Scholastic]

Lucky for god that he has You to declare his limits and preferences.  Oh what a friend he has in Thee.

 God declares who He is and I just restate them. The bold by me is your statement is backwards, I'm the one who has the greatest friend.

GC

---

How do people (and plants) get cancer?

 Mutation of DNA, something that was already present in the DNA.

GC

Or to say it another way, it is like a deleterious change in the signal to noise ratio. If you drop a letter into a puddle, the ink always smears and blurs, it never gets sharper or adds new words.

[downbeatplumb]

 God declares who He is and I just restate them. The bold by me is your statement is backwards, I'm the one who has the greatest friend.

GC

---

 Mutation of DNA, something that was already present in the DNA.

GC

Or to say it another way, it is like a deleterious change in the signal to noise ratio. If you drop a letter into a puddle, the ink always smears and blurs, it never gets sharper or adds new words.

Oh for fucks sake.

Mostly mutations are not beneficial or even have much of an effect but when they do there are processes that act on them making them.

A really potent positive mutation is fairly rare which was why initially it was slow, but these days evolution is mainly repurposing stuff that already exists. like the bones in the ear were once the jaw bones of plated fish.

https://www.livescience.com/558-human-ea...gills.html

[The Grand Nudger]

Silence heretic.   God specifically and specially created these clowns.

[Whateverist]

Lucky for god that he has You to declare his limits and preferences.  Oh what a friend he has in Thee.

 God declares who He is and I just restate them. The bold by me is your statement is backwards, I'm the one who has the greatest friend.

GC

You shouldn't sell yourself short. You're the one who pulled together all the bits you prefer to emphasize while dropping (I hope) the parts concerning the severity of beating God would have you limit yourself to when beating your slaves. You don't just aim to follow His word, you follow the parts that seem fitting to you.

[Godscreated]

Or to say it another way, it is like a deleterious change in the signal to noise ratio. If you drop a letter into a puddle, the ink always smears and blurs, it never gets sharper or adds new words.

Oh for fucks sake.

Mostly mutations are not beneficial or even have much of an effect but when they do there are processes that act on them making them.

A really potent positive mutation is fairly rare which was why initially it was slow, but these days evolution is mainly repurposing stuff that already exists. like the bones in the ear were once the jaw bones of plated fish.

https://www.livescience.com/558-human-ea...gills.html

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

[Neo-Scholastic]

Oh for fucks sake.

Mostly mutations are not beneficial or even have much of an effect but when they do there are processes that act on them making them.

A really potent positive mutation is fairly rare which was why initially it was slow, but these days evolution is mainly repurposing stuff that already exists. like the bones in the ear were once the jaw bones of plated fish.

https://www.livescience.com/558-human-ea...gills.html

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

[Whateverist]

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

So how important is evolution-no/creation-yes to your faith?  If very, I don't think you're building on solid ground.

[Jehanne]

How do people (and plants) get cancer?

 Mutation of DNA, something that was already present in the DNA.

GC

I turned 50 today, and I received my AARP membership pack yesterday.  Don't talk to me about mutations:

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

So how important is evolution-no/creation-yes to your faith?  If very, I don't think you're building on solid ground.

It's not very important to me but you probably already knew that. I just think both sides have moved beyond what the most recent science seems to be suggesting, i.e. that there is some unknown teleological component(s) to evolutionary processes. I think the ID advocates point out serious flaws in the neo-Darwin paradigm but I also don't see a clear indication of external agency directing natural selection. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinists are ignoring that the odds are so astronomically stacked against chance that the synthesis has become untenable.

[Jehanne]

So how important is evolution-no/creation-yes to your faith?  If very, I don't think you're building on solid ground.

It's not very important to me but you probably already knew that. I just think both sides have moved beyond what the most recent science seems to be suggesting, i.e. that there is some unknown teleological component(s) to evolutionary processes. I think the ID advocates point out serious flaws in the neo-Darwin paradigm but I also don't see a clear indication of external agency directing natural selection. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinists are ignoring that the odds are so astronomically  stacked against chance that the synthesis has become untenable.

They (the ID folks) also like to lie:

His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design",[28] but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[29][30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller...l_District