This assertion needs evidence to back it up. From where I am sitting, you only need changes that do something to emerge once in a long while, and then have them selected for.
We’ve come a long ways since Darwin though.
You are arguing this whole thing backwards. The point of this discussion is to show that things YECs call Irreducible Complexity are instantly NOT a problem … as long as there is SOME kind of benefit that an incomplete mutation/function provides any kind of other benefits!
I don’t understand why you are having such a problem grasping this.
And as far as your statement here:
So, let me get this straight… you show up at @swamidass’s house… and he’s here talking aboug Genealogical Adam and God-guided evolution …
and you refuse to talk with us about EITHER topic… you just want to talk about Godless Evolution …
Do you understand how confusing that is for newcomers? They will read your postings and think this is a site talking about Godless evolution… not to mention, your whole INTENDED approach is rather rude to the founder of the list, and the one who pays the light bills.
You DO understand that if you NEVER talk about God-Guided Evolution, there would be no loss to this group if you were suspended. You understand suspension, right?
Assuming you are not asking this question of @scd,
Guided Evolution, per Behe, is actually completely natural.
Guided Evolution per others is more like an “express train” of natural processes, with or without puffs of smoke to indicate where the miraculous events of divine assistance occur.
Behe proposes all the divine assistance happens at the very moment of creation (based on how God configured the start of everything).
Others see God-Guided evolution as studded with occasional miraculous or super-natural events.
BioLogos provides for either type of God-Guided evolution in its Mission Statements or Statements of “What We Believe”.
There is no definitive statement about how much of what God does looks natural and how much looks supernatural.
I asked @scd my two questions because he posted the two sentences.
Indeed. We now know that neutral mutations in one environment or genetic background can be functional if those conditions change.
I think Darwin knew that too.
Then you think wrong. Darwin knew nothing of DNA, nor did he know about intra and intermolecular epistasis.
a natural evolution for instance cant evolve an ic system. as i tried to explain at this thread.
ok. remember that your first step is a paper weight. do you agree that basically any shape can be use as a paper weight?
why not actually? there is any law against it? what about those here who believes in a godless evolution? are you saying that to believe in a godless evolution is better then to believe in a special creation for instance? im not sure what is your position.
only a guided evolution can explain complex systems. not a natural one.
Because it confuses our audience. I know you will be shocked to hear this, but Joshua didn’t set up this site, at his own expense, in order for you to hammer Godless Evolution. He set it up to facilitate conversations about God-Guided evolution. So your continued insistence to ignore the topic is rather impolite, and a distraction.
Because there is no resolution between Creationists and Godless Evolution. Why don’t you start up a daily argument on Perpetual Motion machines as well?
Because you put yourself at risk at being 100% expendable should the list adopt more strict policies.
As big a fan as I am for guided evolution, you have jumped into the abyss with that sentence.
You are making a HUGE generalization when you say unguided processes can’t explain complex systems. How do you define a complex system?
For some people a towering storm cloud is pretty complex.
For some people, the conversion of bio-matter into coal is pretty complex.
For some people, the creation of 10 billion years of nuclear fusion, all from what was once just an incoherent cloud of hydrogen is pretty complex too.
So even when you try to be right (by mentioning guided processes), you still go overboard.
No, I checked. Darwin definitely was aware of variation that was neither beneficial or detrimental in the current environment.
I also agree that one of those shapes could be the start of a pathway towards a cell phone.
what do you mean by that? if i will write here about god-less evolution its ok?
a system that cant evolve by a natural process. like a watch/car/robot etc.
you should try with this one:
If you’re just going to define the evolution of complex systems as impossible your whole argument is fallacious and worthless.