1.What drives any living thing to evolve and adapt?

2. Why does DNA change and what changes it?

Jenny, I added this later, but it's important and worthwhile read:

Evolution is NOT driven by a survival instinct. In fact, it is driven by two things: 1. survival and 2. canging of the species in random directions and the one direction that aids* survival will get propagated into future generations.

{(*) not because it is chosen or it is superior, but because the individuals without a particular "winning" direction of change may be less able to survive, and they indeed don't produce offspring.

In fact, there is a HUGE number of differences between members of species, but they are going to be significant only if one or more of these differences will give a distinct advantage for those who have it against those who don't. Some humans can twirl their tongues sideways, some can't; some humans can taste and smell particular tastes and smells, some can't; some humans have sticy earwax, some have the kind that easily peels off and rolls away. These are all evoltutionary differences, that are passed down from parent to offspring, but obviously they're not such that they would make a difference in survival. However, once a microbe that produces deathly poison with its metabolism, and which finds sticky earwax lovely to live in, but not the other kind, then this difference will be a suvival advantage to humans who have non-sticky earwax.}

So do you have information that can detect what a 'functioning will' is?

And is there proof that DNA is not effected by will?

Do you believe that the way a person thinks can effect their over all health? If so, how do you think that is possible?

You state: Nothing drives it by will.

I would like to know how you know this, and if this is true, then I would ask... then what drives it???

1. It's an illusion that we are driven to evolve, since "to evolve" an individual cannot do. He or she does not have power over what direction the DNA she or he gives to the new baby should change.

2. DNA changes because it is a very complex and long molecule, and to exactly replicate itself is hard, since there may be some elements that are missing, not enough, too much; or the temp is too cold or too hot; or the amount of hydrogen ions in the cell liquid is too much or too little.

Nothing changes it by "will", if that's what you're asking. It changes according to the environmental influences (ie too much or too little of somethign it needs is available, or rather, swimming around it in the cell liquid when the DNA produces as replica.)

It just happens...lol that is all.

A Random direction?

Now do we have to get into a deep discussion about if random exists and if it does, what is the cause of randomness?

How does this 'randomness' fit in with the idea of cause and effect?

Doesn't everything have a cause?

If so, then randomness does not exist.

If not, then what is randomness?

That's another trick you need to develop, mental/value-system trick: to accept that it is NOT DRIVEN. Not everything is driven. Some things are, some are not. The differences in make up between parent and child, the changes that occur to DNA molecules that are responsible for differences, are NOT DRIVEN.

If this was not so, then parents could make their child different from the parent in a way that the parent would think is better for the child. I don't think any parent or couple has been able to achieve that by somehow inluecing their own DNA's which way to split in their zygotic cells. So much so, that ten years ago we had no clue what part of what DNA in the chromosomes was responsible for what characteristic, yet evolution was certainly in effect by then.

well if you've not concluded anything then why this post of yours:



coming to a conclusions sounds as if you've concluded.




but the op asked the question. not you. he asked if anyone had evidence of a designer. he did not ask for your conclusion, temporary or otherwise. asking for evidence of a designer is not a statement that there is no designer. it's not up to me and others to offer you answers. again, the question posed in the thread askes for evidence of a designer. i don't and others here don't have such evidence so we've no reason to conclude as you have that there is such a designer.



then indeed you have not concluded that there is in fact a designer just as the rest of us here, atheist AND AGNOSTIC, hate being left out, have not come to such a conclusion. the reason? there is no credible evidence which is the topic at hand.

Jeanny, it's a big thing, internalizing, accepting, digesting this stuff; I suggest you take a break and meditate over this. You have asked all the questions I can answer; and there are really not that many components to this theory. If you want to understand it, you have all the information by now; it's time to turn to meditating over them.

My advice.

My question is why does it even change at all? So what if conditions are "different." How would the DNA know to change?



I totally disagree with that conclusion. Things change either by will or by pre-programming. Pre-programing implies (insists on) -a programmer. That is my logic.


So do you have information that can detect what a 'functioning will' is?

And is there proof that DNA is not effected by will?

Do you believe that the way a person thinks can effect their over all health? If so, how do you think that is possible?

You state: Nothing drives it by will.

I would like to know how you know this, and if this is true, then I would ask... then what drives it???

I may sound conceited, but I suggest that when you do the meditation over this, only consider my imput. The others gave you truth, too, but there may have been some degrees of belligirence, or oversimplification, or jargon, or just not being clear about it despite being good-willed about this.

So I suggest you read and re-read your and my last 10 or so posts here, meditate, re-read, meditate, and then see what happens.

(If you're successful in this, then your children will have grandchildren for you each with two heads!! Joking of course.)

So there are two big options.
"Designer"
"Naturalism"

We want something that supports one but does not support the other. If it "supports both" it doesn't really support either.

Why does the designer make so many babies with downs? Why does it never ever start a new design instead of just making small revisions? Why does it act like it just randomly tries every mutation?

Yet strangely the only ones arguing for design are heavily religious.

Not really any arguing design because things seem to be designed.



I don't believe that there's not a designer and I don't believe in evolution, I just accept those things in light of the evidence.


Here's one thing I accept as evidence of design: a "made in china" label.
I've got a load of others I usually bring up but they only apply to design arguments that oppose common descent. Because you're saying "yes, I'm fine with evolution, I just think God is doing it," I'm not inclined to argue against you as much. I still think your methodology stinks but at least you're sort of on the right track.

There are countless apples on Earth. Does that mean there must be apples in other places?

Now when I hear design I think engineering. "Just look around you and you'll see that no engineer could be stupid enough to design things this way" sounds like the kind of argument you've been using (except against design instead of for it :O ,) and when I think of naturalism and selection and so forth I think tinkering. Maybe you saw a chair in half (front back) it turns into a useful spot to clamp things to and maybe a screwdriver handle makes a decent hammer etc.

The people that founded the design idea started it on ideas like "this is too complex and cannot be explained by evolution." When ALL of the things they claimed were too complex were actually studied we found how they could come about in steps just like they should and it looked like there were no reasons left to support design. This tinkering idea doesn't actually need a tinkerer though- changes in our DNA just happen and if they are harmful they get filtered out over time or if they're the other sort they stick around and spread to everyone in the population after long enough.

Cell differentiation. Because different sections of your body would be more or less prone to dispersing your body heat and because different places on your body are better at bearing loads (imagine if you had a beer belly hanging off of your forehead and how many neck problems you would get from that.)

Yes.
In the DNA prior to our genes there are "promoter regions" that proteins can bind to to increase or decrease how often that gene gets translated into proteins. These sequences actually do just straight up show up in unrestrained DNA (not the coding gene,) by pure random statistics quickly. Thing is you can have a whole bunch of these triggered by different things. If you've got the second, third, and fifth trigger at the stomach but just the second and third trigger you can set the fat cells to behave differently, and because the fat on your stomach has obviously different uses and drawbacks than in your breasts it's useful to be able to have control how the cells act independently.

But just to make sure the point gets through: imagine if you only had one type of fat cell all over your body. If there was fat somewhere it would have to be the same thickness as everywhere else. In order to have enough fat in the breasts for milk production (and whatever other purposes it serves) you'd have to have a lot of fat on your ankles, cheeks, and neck. That would be pretty ok if your body was shaped more like a worm or something but even something like a fish would want some variety in it's fat.

It's mainly a variety of molecules bound to certain stretches of DNA that shut down some genes and permanently enhance others. Sometimes those genes make sure to keep pumping out the proteins that do that to make sure they stay in place and sometimes other molecules just stay in place permanently.

I'm sorry you've never met someone that could explain genetics to you better than that...
This argument doesn't make any sense to me in light of your recent claim that butterflies don't design their wings...


Well you're actually better off with the "the cells are the ones that make themselves how they are" thing you seem to have built up to reject here.

The only remaining problem is how evolution has no foresight. These don't design complex systems and then build them- they just try everything and as you pile up single step upon single step eventually you get a complicated staircase.

...the big biology stuff is probably another point I should stop at.

Very good point. No foresight, no willed direction, no driven direction.

That's the paradigm you need to accept, Jeanny, if you wish to know how evolution works.

jrbogie

Do you pick and choose what to read of my statements?

My conclusions are simply the 'best ones I have so far' and they are not permanent. I await new information. I have not gotten it yet.

I am not attached to my "conclusions."

You may think I am, but you are wrong about that. I am begging for you or anyone to give me an answer that makes better sense.

Wouldn't it be great if we could will changes?

The driven direction is LIFE.

My question is why does it even change at all? So what if conditions are "different." How would the DNA know to change?

Everything responds to outer and/or inner changes. It is a part of being alive.

I think if we have a preconcieved idea then we tend to see the proof everywhere we look.

I see the wonder of a natural event in all that I see. It just happened just right and we are here

"Everything responds to outer and/or inner changes" does not exactly answer the question "Why does it even change at all?"

"It is part of being alive" does not answer any question either.

Are you implying that I have a "preconceived idea?"

Preconceived means conceived before something else. Before what?

All I have done is take everything I have observed and learned and thought about and attempted to imagine a solution to the puzzle and I have come up with a temporary solution or conclusion.

If any new information is found that completes the puzzle any better then I am anxious to change my "preconceived idea" or temporary conclusion to what ever IS THE TRUTH.

I wish people would stop trying to evaluate me and just address the questions I am asking.

Oh well... I give up. I'm tired.

Goodnight. Good afternoon.

your statements are your statements bean. i read all of your statements and commented on two that seem to contradict each other.



i can only repeat myself. the topic question of this particular thread asks for evidence of a designer. neither i nor anyone else here has an answer to the "off topic" question "does a designer exist?" the answer to which everybody keeps saying is that "there is no credible evidence to suggest that a designer exists". so as we do not conclude that a designer exists, we cannot answer your questions about a designer can we? without evidence there are no answers and yet you continue to offer your conclusion whether temporary or otherwise that a designer exists and offer butterflys and elephants standing with mice as evidence to support your temporary conclusion which nobody seems to find credible. you're offering the "not in concrete" conclusions and answers, not us so why do you keep asking us for "an answer that makes better sense"? we don't have any answers. reason? we have no evidence to conclude such an answer.

You have no answers. Thank you.

Then I am left with my current temporary conclusion/opinion which makes the most sense to me.

As for the O.P. ... he does not accept my evidence. So be it. He has no answers either.