Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Belief with no evidence

janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. Thats why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 8:56:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.

I have no problem with the idea of saltation, far from it. The idea that evolution can make sudden leaps forward is appealing and would answer a lot of questions. There is absolutely no reason that i can think of why the slow process should be the only process.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:00:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 8:56:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.

I have no problem with the idea of saltation, far from it. The idea that evolution can make sudden leaps forward is appealing and would answer a lot of questions. There is absolutely no reason that i can think of why the slow process should be the only process.

That's great. I'm glad you are using your brain.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:08:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:00:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:56:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.

I have no problem with the idea of saltation, far from it. The idea that evolution can make sudden leaps forward is appealing and would answer a lot of questions. There is absolutely no reason that i can think of why the slow process should be the only process.

That's great. I'm glad you are using your brain.

I"m trying. But it does therefore mean that new species must have an origin in earlier older species and even though there may be sudden leaps forward, these leaps would remain within the confines of the DNA that they inherited from their forebears. In other words, even though a new species emerges, it would remain related to the older species just as i am related to my mother and father. And they would also be related to other species that emerged from the older species, just as i am related to my brother and sister.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:13:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:08:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:00:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:56:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.

I have no problem with the idea of saltation, far from it. The idea that evolution can make sudden leaps forward is appealing and would answer a lot of questions. There is absolutely no reason that i can think of why the slow process should be the only process.

That's great. I'm glad you are using your brain.

I"m trying. But it does therefore mean that new species must have an origin in earlier older species and even though there may be sudden leaps forward, these leaps would remain within the confines of the DNA that they inherited from their forebears. In other words, even though a new species emerges, it would remain related to the older species just as i am related to my mother and father. And they would also be related to other species that emerged from the older species, just as i am related to my brother and sister.

I agree. There is an obvious(to me) progression from less complicated to more complicated species. I think this forward progression is built into nature.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:24:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:13:56 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:08:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:00:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:56:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.

I have no problem with the idea of saltation, far from it. The idea that evolution can make sudden leaps forward is appealing and would answer a lot of questions. There is absolutely no reason that i can think of why the slow process should be the only process.

That's great. I'm glad you are using your brain.

I"m trying. But it does therefore mean that new species must have an origin in earlier older species and even though there may be sudden leaps forward, these leaps would remain within the confines of the DNA that they inherited from their forebears. In other words, even though a new species emerges, it would remain related to the older species just as i am related to my mother and father. And they would also be related to other species that emerged from the older species, just as i am related to my brother and sister.

I agree. There is an obvious(to me) progression from less complicated to more complicated species. I think this forward progression is built into nature.

I think that whenever a new species appears out of an old species and is more advanced then the old species, that it will eventually take over because the older species is unable to compete. In a way, people with Down syndrome could be seen as such except of coarse that the older species -- namely us -- has the advantage. But just as people with down appear, theoretically, the opposite could also appear.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:29:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:24:42 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:13:56 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:08:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:00:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:56:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.

I have no problem with the idea of saltation, far from it. The idea that evolution can make sudden leaps forward is appealing and would answer a lot of questions. There is absolutely no reason that i can think of why the slow process should be the only process.

That's great. I'm glad you are using your brain.

I"m trying. But it does therefore mean that new species must have an origin in earlier older species and even though there may be sudden leaps forward, these leaps would remain within the confines of the DNA that they inherited from their forebears. In other words, even though a new species emerges, it would remain related to the older species just as i am related to my mother and father. And they would also be related to other species that emerged from the older species, just as i am related to my brother and sister.

I agree. There is an obvious(to me) progression from less complicated to more complicated species. I think this forward progression is built into nature.

I think that whenever a new species appears out of an old species and is more advanced then the old species, that it will eventually take over because the older species is unable to compete. In a way, people with Down syndrome could be seen as such except of coarse that the older species -- namely us -- has the advantage. But just as people with down appear, theoretically, the opposite could also appear.

I'm not sure how this relates, but Humans seem to be the only species that takes care of it's problem members, like those would Downs syndrome etc.(those who can't take care of themselves). But in nature a more advanced species would probably tke over.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:36:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:29:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:24:42 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:13:56 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:08:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:00:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:56:24 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:52:03 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:46:34 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:44:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:40:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:26:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 8:15:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

It is not that I want to belief in the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations, it is simply that there is no evidence of a non-evolutionist method of how we came to be and in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I am therefore forced to think that the neo-darwinian evolutionists theory of mutations is the most likely way of how we all came to be.

You feel "forced" to believe in something with no evidence?

Well not forced-forced but like many others I do like to have atleast some foundations on which to base my worldview and not believing in anything would go against my intelligence.


Of course if you can present some verifiable evidence that life as we know it was created by a God, such as a new species being created by him and suddenly appearing out of thin air with absolutely no evidence that it ever existed before, well, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my stance.

New species appear in the fossil record multitudes of times fully formed with no precursors. That's why the made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

That is hardly evidence that they therefore popped up out of thin air. We have never seen any creature whisk into existence out of thin air and if whisking is the norm, then you would expect there to be evidence of it. We do however have plenty of evidence that life is born from earlier life, such as the fact that I was born from my mother and father and they were born from their mothers and fathers.

Of course they didn't "pop up out of thin air". That's dumb. Who thinks that?

That would be the Theists i think, they believe in something called creation in which all species supposedly popped up out of thin air.

New species arrive through saltation. That is the most logical answer.

I have no problem with the idea of saltation, far from it. The idea that evolution can make sudden leaps forward is appealing and would answer a lot of questions. There is absolutely no reason that i can think of why the slow process should be the only process.

That's great. I'm glad you are using your brain.

I"m trying. But it does therefore mean that new species must have an origin in earlier older species and even though there may be sudden leaps forward, these leaps would remain within the confines of the DNA that they inherited from their forebears. In other words, even though a new species emerges, it would remain related to the older species just as i am related to my mother and father. And they would also be related to other species that emerged from the older species, just as i am related to my brother and sister.

I agree. There is an obvious(to me) progression from less complicated to more complicated species. I think this forward progression is built into nature.

I think that whenever a new species appears out of an old species and is more advanced then the old species, that it will eventually take over because the older species is unable to compete. In a way, people with Down syndrome could be seen as such except of coarse that the older species -- namely us -- has the advantage. But just as people with down appear, theoretically, the opposite could also appear.

I'm not sure how this relates, but Humans seem to be the only species that takes care of it's problem members, like those would Downs syndrome etc.(those who can't take care of themselves). But in nature a more advanced species would probably tke over.

Our taking care of one another is not without its limits. Humans do take care of one another but mostly only those who are closest to them. The further away that someone is, the less inclined we are to share our resources.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:50:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Where is your evidence for intent? To answer your question: yes.

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:52:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:50:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Where is your evidence for intent? To answer your question: yes.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random/accidental?

The evidence for intent is all around you. Legs are for running/waling, wings are for flying. Hand are for fine manipulation. Eyes are for seeing.

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 11:13:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Because the "solutions" that nature comes up with follow the path of least resistance and are often sub-optimal. Whatever works in other words. That is random or accidental by definition.

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

No.
Looncall
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:05:59 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.

I think you have things about exactly backward. Mutations happen. If they have a beneficial effect, they are likely to persist. Simple.

All convergent evolution shows is that some traits are particularly useful. Why shouldn't eyes turn up multiple times? There has been lots of time for that to happen, and there are numerous kinds of eyes.

Intentional thinking is a bit primitive, don't you think?
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:15:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

What is the alternative to them being random / accidental?

And why is it so important to you to believe that not to be the case?

How does an argument for more dramatic / less gradual changes affect the overall debate of creationism / intelligent design vs science?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:49:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 11:13:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Because the "solutions" that nature comes up with follow the path of least resistance and are often sub-optimal. Whatever works in other words. That is random or accidental by definition.

Show me evidence that random/accidental mutations have anything to do with evolution.

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

No.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:51:59 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 12:05:59 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.

I think you have things about exactly backward. Mutations happen. If they have a beneficial effect, they are likely to persist. Simple.

All convergent evolution shows is that some traits are particularly useful. Why shouldn't eyes turn up multiple times? There has been lots of time for that to happen, and there are numerous kinds of eyes.

Intentional thinking is a bit primitive, don't you think?

Show me the evidence that your beneficial mutations were accidents/random.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:57:21 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 12:15:27 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

What is the alternative to them being random / accidental?

That they are an intentional part of nature.

And why is it so important to you to believe that not to be the case?

I want to know the truth.

How does an argument for more dramatic / less gradual changes affect the overall debate of creationism / intelligent design vs science?

Saltation can only happen if it was intended that way. I can see no way for large scale changes to happen by accident. Especialy if those changes are irreducibly complex.
Looncall
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:11:14 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 12:51:59 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:05:59 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.

I think you have things about exactly backward. Mutations happen. If they have a beneficial effect, they are likely to persist. Simple.

All convergent evolution shows is that some traits are particularly useful. Why shouldn't eyes turn up multiple times? There has been lots of time for that to happen, and there are numerous kinds of eyes.

Intentional thinking is a bit primitive, don't you think?

Show me the evidence that your beneficial mutations were accidents/random.

Consider some cosmic ray that ricochets through the universe for eons before encountering some DNA molecule and causing a change. How is that intentional?

Other causes are similarly unplannable.

Often, stuff just happens. I encounter randomness every working day dealing with radioactivity. It is not just that humans are uncertain, reality is too at a deep level.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:12:55 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 12:49:09 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:13:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Because the "solutions" that nature comes up with follow the path of least resistance and are often sub-optimal. Whatever works in other words. That is random or accidental by definition.

Show me evidence that random/accidental mutations have anything to do with evolution.

You're not serious? Mutations are an essential part of the theory of evolution. It's an inherent element of the very definition of evolution. There could be no evolution without them. Am I misunderstanding what you are asking for?

If your real question is to ask for evidence of random or accidental mutations, then I believe I have already answered it. Do you want an example of a sub-optimal "solution" that nature has come up with thereby demonstrating the randomness? If so, they are everywhere. Your eye is sub-optimal:

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com...

Now on to the physical design of the eye. One of the all-time most famous examples of quirky designs in nature is the vertebrate retina. The photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward. A photoreceptor cells looks something like a microphone: the "hot" end has the sound receiver, and the other end terminates with the cable that carries the signal off to the amplifier. The human retina, located in the back of the eyeball, is designed such that all of the little "microphones" are facing the wrong way. The side with the cable faces forwards!

This is not an optimal design for obvious reasons. The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back. It"s as if you were speaking into the wrong end of a microphone. It can still work, provided that you turn the sensitivity of the microphone way up and you speak loudly.

Furthermore, light must travel through a thin layer of tissue and blood supply before reaching the photoreceptors.

To date, there are no working hypotheses about why the vertebrate retina is wired in backwards. It seems to have been a random development that then "stuck" because a correction of that magnitude would be very difficult to pull off with random mutations.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:13:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:11:14 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:51:59 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:05:59 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.

I think you have things about exactly backward. Mutations happen. If they have a beneficial effect, they are likely to persist. Simple.

All convergent evolution shows is that some traits are particularly useful. Why shouldn't eyes turn up multiple times? There has been lots of time for that to happen, and there are numerous kinds of eyes.

Intentional thinking is a bit primitive, don't you think?

Show me the evidence that your beneficial mutations were accidents/random.

Consider some cosmic ray that ricochets through the universe for eons before encountering some DNA molecule and causing a change. How is that intentional?

Other causes are similarly unplannable.

Often, stuff just happens. I encounter randomness every working day dealing with radioactivity. It is not just that humans are uncertain, reality is too at a deep level.
Of course there are accidents in nature, but they are not a part of evolution. Organisms have built in damage control.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:20:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:12:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:49:09 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:13:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Because the "solutions" that nature comes up with follow the path of least resistance and are often sub-optimal. Whatever works in other words. That is random or accidental by definition.

Show me evidence that random/accidental mutations have anything to do with evolution.

You're not serious? Mutations are an essential part of the theory of evolution. It's an inherent element of the very definition of evolution. There could be no evolution without them. Am I misunderstanding what you are asking for?

No, i am asking for evidence that the mutations responsible for evolution are accidents. There have been experiments to check for this. These experiments, like the luria experiment, failed to prove this.

If your real question is to ask for evidence of random or accidental mutations, then I believe I have already answered it. Do you want an example of a sub-optimal "solution" that nature has come up with thereby demonstrating the randomness? If so, they are everywhere. Your eye is sub-optimal:

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com...

Now on to the physical design of the eye. One of the all-time most famous examples of quirky designs in nature is the vertebrate retina. The photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward. A photoreceptor cells looks something like a microphone: the "hot" end has the sound receiver, and the other end terminates with the cable that carries the signal off to the amplifier. The human retina, located in the back of the eyeball, is designed such that all of the little "microphones" are facing the wrong way. The side with the cable faces forwards!

This is not an optimal design for obvious reasons. The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back. It"s as if you were speaking into the wrong end of a microphone. It can still work, provided that you turn the sensitivity of the microphone way up and you speak loudly.

Furthermore, light must travel through a thin layer of tissue and blood supply before reaching the photoreceptors.

To date, there are no working hypotheses about why the vertebrate retina is wired in backwards. It seems to have been a random development that then "stuck" because a correction of that magnitude would be very difficult to pull off with random mutations.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:30:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:20:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/23/2016 1:12:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:49:09 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:13:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Because the "solutions" that nature comes up with follow the path of least resistance and are often sub-optimal. Whatever works in other words. That is random or accidental by definition.

Show me evidence that random/accidental mutations have anything to do with evolution.

You're not serious? Mutations are an essential part of the theory of evolution. It's an inherent element of the very definition of evolution. There could be no evolution without them. Am I misunderstanding what you are asking for?

No, i am asking for evidence that the mutations responsible for evolution are accidents. There have been experiments to check for this. These experiments, like the luria experiment, failed to prove this.

That's not my reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Luria and Delbruck proposed that these results could be explained by the occurrence of a constant rate of random mutations in each generation of bacteria growing in the initial culture tubes. Based on these assumptions Delbruck derived a probability distribution (now called the Luria-Delbruck distribution[2][3]) that gives a relationship between moments consistent with the experimentally obtained values. The distribution that follows from the directed adaptation hypothesis (the Poisson distribution) predicted moments inconsistent with the data. Therefore, the conclusion was that mutations in bacteria, as in other organisms, are random rather than directed.[4]
Looncall
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:50:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:13:49 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/23/2016 1:11:14 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:51:59 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:05:59 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:44:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:42:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:59:37 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do neo-darwinian evolutionists believe that mutations are random/accidental when there is no evidence to support it?

Beneficial, benign, and harmful mutations are seen in nature with no apparent purpose attached to them. (That is random by definition) Are you suggesting that all of these are intentional?

Sure there is purpose attached to mutations. The mutations that form an eye have the purpose of vision. You think it's an accident that eyes have evolved 40 separate times?

Is it because it would upset your world-view if you believed differently?

Nope, it is simply a description of reality. If reality were different, then I would describe it that way.

I think you have things about exactly backward. Mutations happen. If they have a beneficial effect, they are likely to persist. Simple.

All convergent evolution shows is that some traits are particularly useful. Why shouldn't eyes turn up multiple times? There has been lots of time for that to happen, and there are numerous kinds of eyes.

Intentional thinking is a bit primitive, don't you think?

Show me the evidence that your beneficial mutations were accidents/random.

Consider some cosmic ray that ricochets through the universe for eons before encountering some DNA molecule and causing a change. How is that intentional?

Other causes are similarly unplannable.

Often, stuff just happens. I encounter randomness every working day dealing with radioactivity. It is not just that humans are uncertain, reality is too at a deep level.
Of course there are accidents in nature, but they are not a part of evolution. Organisms have built in damage control.

Yes, they are. The damage control is not 100% efficient.

Now,it's your turn. By what mechanism does your supposed intention act? What is your evidence that any such acts at all?

Since by far most of the species that have occurred are now extinct, your intender seems rather inefficient. However, if needed mutations turn up accidentally, when they turn up at all, these extinctions are what one would expect.

I don't think you can sneak your god in through this back door.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.