Me:
I don't ignore mutations. I just have beef with the "selection" process.
Doesn't selecting something infer intelligence?
You:
Not at all.
Me:
That's a bold statement. I'd like to see some philosophical musings on how you think this is possible.
You:
The environmental conditions into which an organism is born consists of selective pressures that act upon those organisms. For example, in a cold environment, an individual born with a slightly thicker undercoat is likely to reproduce more successfully than other individuals in that population with a thinner undercoat. If more of the thicher coated individuals survive to also reproduce, then a thicker coat tends to spread throughout the population. The thinner coats will become less numerous. And so on.
By the way, the thin coat can become an advantage if the environment becomes warmer, so the entire process can, and has been observed to go the other way if the environmental pressures push it thus.
Me:
What does telling me a fantasy story have anything to do with my question? Selective pressures? Again selecting needs a selector, i.e, God, Buddha, Mother Earth, etc. Do you mean natural pressures? like heat or cold? I assure you , heat and cold don't select anything. You allude to environmental pressures, but these in themselves are unobserved. Let me clarify before the Clergy hounds attack.
The earth has been the same since darwin's time, relatively. Not too ;much environmental change. add a couple millions of years, then who knows maybe mexico was ice? Do you understand why I disagree?
Me:
If mutations were random then there would be no need for a selection process.
You:
Huh? This doesn't make any sense to me.
Me:
I wouldn't expect a slave to question the master. Anyways, randomness means purposelessness. No divine purpose, just chance, or "natural processes."
Everyone on the planet is born with at least several mutations.
Yes, because Adam sinned and everything went wild. I haven't heard nor read of any positive mutations. Maybe you could provide a link? Or suggested reading material? I suspect it's probably a red herring.
It seems to me that you don't really understand much about what Biologists, rather than anti-science religious people, consider the ToE to actually be.
Why does it always resort to name calling? If i'm so stupid then enlighten me, don't parade my ignorance. Your obviously not so sure of your position if your attacking me through inference. I'm not anti science as you surmise, I really like science. The only "science" that effects my religion is the non operational origins "science." Which is really religion. To many clouded assumptions to even begin to resemble facts.
ForbiddenReligion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Furthermore, if you think the ToE is bunk, then what do you think of the hundreds of thousands of Biologists and other scientists over the last 150 or so years who have used the ToE as the foundational theory of their fields?
Appeal to authority? is this necessary? Hitler killed millions of people because he was trying to actualize evolution. Nobody in Germany could stop him, so he must have been right. You seem to think everyone was simultaneously enlightened by this old dogma in the past 150 years. It was only in the past 150 years that America slowly lost it's freedom and was imposed an education system controlled by the state so a minority could eventually push it's totalitarian minded regime starting with crushing individualism and the authority of God.