The design argument

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yet you still think that one random mutation will build upon an old one to
produce something as complex as a nervous system over time.

Yes. Mutations accumulate.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We look at this from opposite viewpoints. I believe what God made was right and thus a mutation error to that original would be wrong. Try to look at it from my point of view to understand what I am saying and then answer the questions, please.

How do you know that your god didn't originally create a different HBB gene all together, and it then mutated into the most common version today? You can see that mutations happen, and that under the proper circumstances these mutations can be beneficial. What makes you think that the environment's never changed to weed out previously useful versions of the gene?

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes. Mutations accumulate.

That means nothing, accumulate could mean my mole is getting larger due
to some X going on. What you are suggesting is that a random mutation in
year 2 will start the process that other random mutations will link up with
it in years 3, 5, 11, 22, 45, 66, 67, 70 and so on without anything directing
them and the next thing you know blood clots only after you get cut and
only at the source of the cut, not in the brain, just where it keeps the life
form healthy.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That means nothing, accumulate could mean my mole is getting larger due
to some X going on. What you are suggesting is that a random mutation in
year 2 will start the process that other random mutations will link up with
it in years 3, 5, 11, 22, 45, 66, 67, 70 and so on without anything directing
them and the next thing you know blood clots only after ...[text shortened]... ut and
only at the source of the cut, not in the brain just where keeps the life
form healthy.

Yes. Mutations accumulate, and only useful or neutral mutations persist, because of natural selection. You're quite right about that.

In other words, a mutation that causes the blood to clot within the body would have been immediately selected against before birth even (unless some other useful mutation can resolve clots before they cause too much harm).

Originally posted by C Hess
How do you know that your god didn't originally create a different HBB gene all together, and it then mutated into the most common version today? You can see that mutations happen, and that under the proper circumstances these mutations can be beneficial. What makes you think that the environment's never changed to weed out previously useful versions of the gene?

I don't know, I just believe God created the better one. I have faith in God and you have faith in evolution. That is the main difference.

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes. Mutations accumulate, and only useful or neutral mutations persist, because of natural selection. You're quite right about that.

In other words, a mutation that causes the blood to clot within the body would have been immediately selected against before birth even (unless some other useful mutation can resolve clots before they cause too much harm).

Then you are not talking about slow gradual change over millions and billions of years.

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes. Mutations accumulate, and only useful or neutral mutations persist, because of natural selection. You're quite right about that.

In other words, a mutation that causes the blood to clot within the body would have been immediately selected against before birth even (unless some other useful mutation can resolve clots before they cause too much harm).

You keep saying that, but why would mutations that are random in nature
every put together such a process?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know, I just believe God created the better one.

Fine, but what's to say your god doesn't create the better gene for the current circumstances using mutations? So, what was once the best version of the HBB gene is no longer, or in the future won't be, the best version, and we're looking at the process between those two best versions for different environments.

I obviously don't believe that, but then again, I don't even believe god exists. You do, and I don't see any reason why, if god exists, he wouldn't use evolution to achieve his goals (whatever they may be).

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then you are not talking about slow gradual change over millions and billions of years.

Yes, I am. That is covered by the other side of the coin, which includes the overwhelming number of mutations, the neutral ones.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You keep saying that, but why would mutations that are random in nature
every put together such a process?

I feel like we've achieved nothing in this conversation, sometimes. Why wouldn't they?

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, I am. That is covered by the other side of the coin, which includes the overwhelming number of mutations, the neutral ones.

So you need both instant change and slow gradual change to make it work. Okay, but that is still a belief and not proven science fact.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was referring to "information" in the context of copying errors when DNA replicates or is transcribed into RNA.

So how are you quantifying "information" in this context?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you need both instant change and slow gradual change to make it work. Okay, but that is still a belief and not proven science fact.

Because we can observe mutations, and we can see how past life forms developed over time, and we know how different life forms are related, evolution stands out like a flasher in the ladies room.

Originally posted by C Hess
I feel like we've achieved nothing in this conversation, sometimes. Why wouldn't they?

There isn't a reason! Reason requires something that would actually do it,
you are pushing random changes over time. Random changes come and
they go, they don't build complex systems over time in the face of greater
chances that something bad would happen. The math is against you!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Random changes come and they go, they don't build complex systems over time in the face of greater chances that something bad would happen. The math is against you!

With selection, the math is very much in our favor. It is mathematically provable - and quite easy to demonstrate with simple computer programs - that with selection, complex systems will arise. There are a few preconditions, but all of those exist in life. The math is quite clearly against you who is claiming that it is impossible. The ball is very much in your court waiting for you to prove the math wrong, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_organism