My 3 Year Old Is Praying, What Do I Do? + How to stop the atheist infighting

[Syne]

Nomogenesis (evolution according to fixed law) is one version of theistic evolution compatible with a non-intervening deist god that postulates mutation as the primary cause of speciation.

And even your own link says: "Even if the environments are not very different, the populations may differentiate because different mutations and genetic combinations occur by chance in each. Thus, selection will have different raw material to act upon in each population."

[Magical Realist]

Nomogenesis (evolution according to fixed law) is one version of theistic evolution compatible with a non-intervening deist god that postulates mutation as the primary cause of speciation.  

And even your own link says: "Even if the environments are not very different, the populations may differentiate because different mutations and genetic combinations occur by chance in each. Thus, selection will have different raw material to act upon in each population."

Mutation occurs in nature. It's part of the evolutionary process. No God required. And certainly nothing to do with creation.

[Syne]

"This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!" - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

And before you say anything as trivial as "random is random":

"While we can't say mutations are random, we can say there is a large chaotic component, just as there is in the throw of a loaded dice. But loaded dice should not be confused with randomness because over the long run—which is the time frame of evolution—the weighted bias will have noticeable consequences. So to be clear: the evidence shows that chance plays a primary role in mutations, and there would be no natural selection without chance. But it is not random chance. It is loaded chance, with multiple constraints, multi-point biases, numerous clustering effects, and skewed distributions." - https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25264

And there are conflicting findings on directed mutagenesis.

[Magical Realist]

"This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!" - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

And before you say anything as trivial as "random is random":

"While we can't say mutations are random, we can say there is a large chaotic component, just as there is in the throw of a loaded dice. But loaded dice should not be confused with randomness because over the long run—which is the time frame of evolution—the weighted bias will have noticeable consequences. So to be clear: the evidence shows that chance plays a primary role in mutations, and there would be no natural selection without chance. But it is not random chance. It is loaded chance, with multiple constraints, multi-point biases, numerous clustering effects, and skewed distributions." - https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25264

And there are conflicting findings on directed mutagenesis.

Still occurs in nature and is part of evolution. No God required. And certainly not a "creation" event.

[Syne]

"This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!" - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

And before you say anything as trivial as "random is random":

"While we can't say mutations are random, we can say there is a large chaotic component, just as there is in the throw of a loaded dice. But loaded dice should not be confused with randomness because over the long run—which is the time frame of evolution—the weighted bias will have noticeable consequences. So to be clear: the evidence shows that chance plays a primary role in mutations, and there would be no natural selection without chance. But it is not random chance. It is loaded chance, with multiple constraints, multi-point biases, numerous clustering effects, and skewed distributions." - https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25264

And there are conflicting findings on directed mutagenesis.

Still occurs in nature and is part of evolution. No God required. And certainly not a "creation" event.

Where did I say it occurred at a "creation event"?

And where was your evidence of natural speciation? O_o

Claiming it "could" is not the same as saying it "does". But I really don't expect you to understand the difference.

[Magical Realist]

"This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!" - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

And before you say anything as trivial as "random is random":

"While we can't say mutations are random, we can say there is a large chaotic component, just as there is in the throw of a loaded dice. But loaded dice should not be confused with randomness because over the long run—which is the time frame of evolution—the weighted bias will have noticeable consequences. So to be clear: the evidence shows that chance plays a primary role in mutations, and there would be no natural selection without chance. But it is not random chance. It is loaded chance, with multiple constraints, multi-point biases, numerous clustering effects, and skewed distributions." - https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25264

And there are conflicting findings on directed mutagenesis.

Still occurs in nature and is part of evolution. No God required. And certainly not a "creation" event.

Where did I say it occurred at a "creation event"?

And where was your evidence of natural speciation? O_o

Claiming it "could" is not the same as saying it "does". But I really don't expect you to understand the difference.

I already showed you how speciation occurs. Now spare me your horseshit about mutation being some sort of divine process that occurs outside of nature. It's evolution and it occurs in nature and it isn't creation of anything.

[Syne]

I already showed you how speciation occurs.

No, you didn't. What you did was link to mostly descriptions of theories and models without any supporting evidence. Again, not surprised you don't understand what constitutes evidence. I'd be surprised if you even knew that the term of art "reproductive isolation" doesn't even necessarily imply speciation. That link has to conflate two different definitions of "species", so they can justify the use of one that can't test the fossil record to stretch the one that readily applies to living organisms. By the definition of your link, any organism that simply doesn't have the opportunity to interbreed due to geographic isolation is a separate species...even if they could actually interbreed.

But...I'm sure that's way beyond your capacity for critical thinking.

Now spare me your horseshit about mutation being some sort of divine process that occurs outside of nature. It's evolution and it occurs in nature and it isn't creation of anything.

More flaccid straw men?
In nomogenesis, or even just deism, the only creation occurs in the initial rules, not intervening in the process.

[Magical Realist]

I already showed you how speciation occurs.

No, you didn't. What you did was link to mostly descriptions of theories and models without any supporting evidence. Again, not surprised you don't understand what constitutes evidence. I'd be surprised if you even knew that the term of art "reproductive isolation" doesn't even necessarily imply speciation. That link has to conflate two different definitions of "species", so they can justify the use of one that can't test the fossil record to stretch the one that readily applies to living organisms. By the definition of your link, any organism that simply doesn't have the opportunity to interbreed due to geographic isolation is a separate species...even if they could actually interbreed.

But...I'm sure that's way beyond your capacity for critical thinking.

Now spare me your horseshit about mutation being some sort of divine process that occurs outside of nature. It's evolution and it occurs in nature and it isn't creation of anything.

More flaccid straw men?  
In nomogenesis, or even just deism, the only creation occurs in the initial rules, not intervening in the process.

There is no need for any explanation for speciation beyond the one I gave. And mutation is all part of it. It's all evolution and has nothing to do with God. You've essentially proven my point. No God is required to explain evolution. EOS.

[Syne]

You've given no evidence of natural speciation. All you've given amounts to nothing more than an appeal to authority. No different from a Christian appealing to the Bible as authority. If your standards are no higher than a Christian's, and you're okay with that, so be it.

[Magical Realist]

Look. Evolution is solid fact. The evidence for it is so overwhelming you'd have to be delusional to deny it. And since we know evolution occurred, that is how species came to be. Thru natural selection and isolation. There is no other explanation and no need for one either, spurious mutating god forces notwithstanding.