Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhen you post something like this which could be complimentary or could be irony or just a desire to say something when you have nothing useful to say, it is impossible to know what you really wanted to say.
This post certainly demonstrates that you do.
If you have something to say, try and be a bit clearer.
KJ: "Having small changes taking place everywhere, at all times is a matter of time before something key breaks or is wounded. You asked me why I think evolution and theistic creation could be both true and this is why. I acknowledge the change very small changes but none of them will reach the point of making it a huge difference in anything. What I believe would happen is that with all the changes taking place something key would be ruined first and that will end it. The base type remains intact only because if it does not it will not go forward.
Beneficial mutations are not sorted into one life and kept away from the next all mutations are done everywhere at all times, the notion that only the good ones goes forward does not even make sense to me they all go forward until something stops the process. There isn't a filter that says all the good mutations in creating a heart stay in these creatures and all of the bad ones die. The reality is all the changes continue to go forward until some thing breaks then the changes stop keeping the base type intact."
I think you don't quite understand what most of the changes are which constitute gradual evolution. Obviously, if a four-chambered heart looses one of its chambers through genetic mutation from one parent to its immediate offspring, the result won't be viable. But I rather doubt there is a gene for 'four-chambered heart' which could mutate into 'three-chambered heart' in a single generation. Most of the mutations at the genetic level are much smaller than that and not immediately fatal. Furthermore, mutations are not binary, as you seem to suggest; they don't either break or improve the organism. Most mutations do nothing at all. It is the accumulation of many small ones, over many generations over long periods of time, which is telling.
Furthermore, life is tremendously resilient. There is a massive amount of redundancy in the genetic code, and this allows some creatures to adapt to and live with some disadvantageous mutations. Think of Byron: he was born with a club foot; as a lone hunter-gatherer, he'd have starved to death, but in a society which was socially and culturally advanced enough support him, he achieved his own measure of greatness. In a society of hunter-gatherers, living at subsistence level and without the resources to carry club-footed poets over the rough patches of life, club-footedness might not die out entirely (since it is not immediately fatal), but it would not become dominant.
In other words, genetics sets only a lower limit on what is viable, but not an upward limit on what is achievable.
Originally posted by moonbusI think you are refusing to think through the process your describing to tell you the truth. It
KJ: "Having small changes taking place everywhere, at all times is a matter of time before something key breaks or is wounded. You asked me why I think evolution and theistic creation could be both true and this is why. I acknowledge the change very small changes but none of them will reach the point of making it a huge difference in anything. What I believe ...[text shortened]... netics sets only a lower limit on what is viable, but not an upward limit on what is achievable.
does not matter if a fatal flaw is introduced abruptly or gradually, once it is there it is fatal.
You admit there isn't anything stopping just the good mutations to go forward leaving
behind all the bad so they don't effect bad change, yet you only look at the possibility of
what good changes do going forward! The process doesn't call one change good or bad
they are just change, they will affect everything they touch. Those that feel that only the
good go forward stop acknowledging all the bad there too and the damage they do. Well
if you are only going to look at that which says this will work, why sure it will work in
theory; however, in practical matters or reality all the changes go forward there isn't a
lets keep all the good changes for the changing of a 'four-chambered heart' moving
forward and let drop off all the changes that put holes in the heart or remove values, or
whatever else that could go wrong.
What is it about thinking well if the pace of change is slow it will be okay? Again getting
back to my point of abruptly or gradually if you damage some part of a living system that
is required to the point of it stops functioning or stops it from being useful to fulfill the
job it had you have a dead end product.
Originally posted by KellyJaySuppose that a beneficial mutation occurs. This mutation (by definition) will make the organism more likely to reproduce compared to its peers, so over time, you would expect it to proliferate through the population.
I acknowledge that; however, the process does not lend itself to disrupting an established
complex system over time while keeping the life form alive through that type of change!
The base type is only the complete creatures DNA, what makes a dog a dog or rose bush
a rose bush, nothing special about that other than it is the completed code. What you are ...[text shortened]... breaks then the changes stop keeping the base type intact.
You wanted my opinion you have it.
Take instead a harmful mutation. This kind of mutation may very well be more common than beneficial ones, but since organisms who experience it are less likely to reproduce, said mutations will not proliferate through the population. This is, in a nutshell, how natural selection works.
Now, if the micro-evolution hypothesis is correct, there must be some kind of mechanism or a "brake" preventing too many beneficial mutations from accumulating over time, which would cause large deviations from the original organism. What is this mechanism?
Originally posted by KellyJayLets see, we have had hundreds of thousands of scientists studying this topic for over a hundred and fifty years and they have built up their findings into the science of biology which is taught all over the world in universities etc and you come along, with practically no science education to speak of, and disagree with that body of work and tell everyone that they are all wrong and 'are refusing to think through the process'?
I think you are refusing to think through the process your describing to tell you the truth.
Seriously?
I have no problem with someone coming up with a reasoned argument against evolution. But let us be absolutely clear here. The established, well researched, scientific position is in favour of evolution and has been for over 150 years. If you wish to counter this position, you need to:
1. Understand the position at least as well as its proponents.
2. Have a well thought out, clearly argued counter position, dotting all your 'i's and crossing all your 't's.
Sitting back and mumbling 'you haven't thought it through' just isn't going to cut it.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSuppose a beneficial mutation does occur is it the only one that can and will occur, is it
Suppose that a beneficial mutation occurs. This mutation (by definition) will make the organism more likely to reproduce compared to its peers, so over time, you would expect it to proliferate through the population.
Take instead a harmful mutation. This kind of mutation may very well be more common than beneficial ones, but since organisms who exper ...[text shortened]... ver time, which would cause large deviations from the original organism. What is this mechanism?
the only one that will be retained? What if along with that one beneficial one are a few that
are harmless, and a couple that are also harmful. Do they all go on to the next
generation?
If so then you are gaining nothing but a time bomb on when the harmful will do damage
and that could wipe out anything gained from the beneficial ones don't you think? I'm not
clear on why you'd think the any mutation would be more likely to reproduce than the
next, unless there is some filtering out good from bad as if it could know which was which.
Improving over time by the way you are describing it has something knowing which is
good or bad and not allowing the bad to be bad. They both show up at the same time and
yet only the good seems to be able to move along to the next generation, why?
In a nut shell you've have this good and not the bad filter that can only work after the fact
so after the fact if a good one comes along with a bad one the results of both will be in
play. There isn't a filter taking away the bad from the good you either get both or none.
You realize that you were harping on me about not changing the base code and yet you
feel justified is making this claim? We only look at the good the bad doesn't move on, and
you just accept that as possible. Again, they all show up at the same time, they affect the
lifeform they took place in at the same time, there isn't a means to pull away the good from
the bad if they are both in the same lifeform, so the odds on a system breaking down is
much better than one being built.
Originally posted by KellyJayAlthough you probably don't read my posts, I will explain it for anyone else reading who doesn't get it.
What if along with that one beneficial one are a few that are harmless, and a couple that are also harmful. Do they all go on to the next generation?
There are mutations that are very deadly and kill very early on. These more or less get filtered out immediately. In the case of humans many of these would result in early stage abortions or death at a very young age and would not significantly affect the reproductive capacity of the mother.
There are mutations that are less deadly but still result in death prior to reproduction. These are also filtered out by death of the organism and of course take with them any good mutations that may have happened at the same time.
There are mutations that are bad, but do not universally kill prior to reproduction. When these occur along with good mutations, they spread, just as the good mutations into the offspring. Let us take a case of an individual born with one good mutation and one bad one who manages to reproduce. Sexual reproduction mixes and matches genes, so the offspring will have different combinations with some offspring having only the good mutation and some having only the bad one, some with neither and some with both. (assuming the individual had lots of offspring.).
The offspring with the bad mutation will be more likely to die and the offspring with the good mutation will be more likely to survive. After several generations of mixing and matching and dying and living, most of the resulting offspring will have the good mutation but not the bad one.
The above mechanism works even if bad mutations occur much more frequently than good mutations.
Real life is of course a bit more complicated with many mutations being good in some circumstances and bad in others and neutral in still others. Quite often there are genes which find a balance point where a lower frequency is bad for the species and a higher frequency is bad for the species. There are also genes that work well in conjunction with others but badly when those others are not present. All sorts of complex scenarios arise. All this stuff is actually observed in nature.
Originally posted by KellyJayHmm, well it's unfortunate you don't understand what natural selection is. If I didn't explain it well enough in my post, try this link:
Suppose a beneficial mutation does occur is it the only one that can and will occur, is it
the only one that will be retained? What if along with that one beneficial one are a few that
are harmless, and a couple that are also harmful. Do they all go on to the next
generation?
If so then you are gaining nothing but a time bomb on when the harmful will ...[text shortened]... n the same lifeform, so the odds on a system breaking down is
much better than one being built.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Meanwhile, have you thought about which mechanism is responsible for preventing the proliferation of many beneficial mutations, thus changing the "base type" into something else?
KJ: "What is it about thinking well if the pace of change is slow it will be okay? Again getting back to my point of abruptly or gradually if you damage some part of a living system that is required to the point of it stops functioning or stops it from being useful to fulfill the job it had you have a dead end product."
Nothing whatever says that a change will be okay. The proof is in the pudding, that is to say, in the survival rate. Some animals die before reproducing and some species become extinct; their changes, or their inability to adapt to a changed environment, proved to be not okay. A blind process tends to run into some blind alleys. That's life.
EDIT: Nothing whatever says that staying the same will be okay either. In a changing environment, staying the same may prove to be the fatality. The available evidence indicates that this was the reason why dinosaurs became extinct: their environment changed, they didn't and could not survive in the changed conditions.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNatural selection comes in after the mutation does not before, neither does natural
Hmm, well it's unfortunate you don't understand what natural selection is. If I didn't explain it well enough in my post, try this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Meanwhile, have you thought about which mechanism is responsible for preventing the proliferation of many beneficial mutations, thus changing the "base type" into something else?
selection actually select anything either. If something survives it survives if it doesn't well
it doesn't. There is no mechanism responsible to making a judgment call on which
mutations are good or bad, it is can they live with it or not. So as I pointed out to you there
is no filter hiding or removing bad mutations when they show up at the same time as
the good ones so you will always get both until something bad enough happens to end
the process before a change in the base type is possible.
Originally posted by moonbusYet you believe that when ages ago according to the theory there was no living creatures
KJ: "What is it about thinking well if the pace of change is slow it will be okay? Again getting back to my point of abruptly or gradually if you damage some part of a living system that is required to the point of it stops functioning or stops it from being useful to fulfill the job it had you have a dead end product."
Nothing whatever says that a change ...[text shortened]... extinct: their environment changed, they didn't and could not survive in the changed conditions.
with the ability to see that some how this blind process was able to give life that ability?
You had to over come quite a few things to get to a living dinosaur through evolution, but
you just accept it as true?
Originally posted by moonbusI hate to dispute the importance of genetic mutations because they patently do arise even now. Before modern medicine folklore was replete with tales of odd offspring born to humans and animals, frequently interpreted as magically significant.
KJ: "What is it about thinking well if the pace of change is slow it will be okay? Again getting back to my point of abruptly or gradually if you damage some part of a living system that is required to the point of it stops functioning or stops it from being useful to fulfill the job it had you have a dead end product."
Nothing whatever says that a change ...[text shortened]... extinct: their environment changed, they didn't and could not survive in the changed conditions.
However, I do not agree that evolution needs to depend quite so heavily on weird [**] mutations that survive. For much of the process it is perfectly sufficient to point out that living species are just about never made up of perfectly replicated clones and nearly always there is a range of values for any feature you can measure: shorter / taller, more hair or less, faster / slower, and so on forever. Someone with a stronger heart will have better chances of surviving to reproduce. Someone with slightly different digestion may enjoy healthier food. The list is infinitely long and does not require mutations, just normal variation.
In a stable, unchanging environment, the species will probably just carry on producing the normal distribution of these values. However, when the environment starts to change, then conditions may become more favourable to the owners of one attribute and less favourable for the owners of a different one. If this is relevant to reproduction, then over a number of generations, the distribution of the population may start to drift away from the unfavourable attribute and towards the favourable one. This is not a product of mutation, but simply the result of variability and the advantage of individuals with the favourable attributes.
A common phenomenon is for a species to have two populations separated by a physical barrier, such as a mountain, so that one population evolves to become a distinct species from the other, despite sharing common ancestors quite recently. A similar process happens when land is divided into separate islands, or a species manages to reach different islands but cannot make the return trip, thus setting up separate lineages which evolve into separate species, sharing common ancestors but no longer able to interbreed.
Another mechanism for speciation is sexual attraction, when possession of an attribute makes an individual more sexually attractive. Over generations, that attribute can become quite prominent and the process of exaggerating it does not depend so much on "mutation" in any striking way, but rather just on the prevalence of normal variation, such that some individuals will have a more prominent feature than others; quite simply the long term effect of "selecting" (ie choosing to breed with) individuals possessing the best examples of the favoured attribute.
I am rambling in order to make the point that mutation need not really be all that dramatic. It might consist in an especially prominent limb or an unusually coloured feature - and that may be biologically trivial (hence not really much different in functional terms) and yet turn out, one way or another, to affect the prospects of survival or reproduction.
I have come across scientists arguing in favour of occasional dramatic mutations producing exceptional evolutionary step changes. I seem to recall that Gould has been a proponent of this in some of his essays (I can be corrected if wrong). I am agnostic, as I am no scientist, but I am sceptical and prefer to avoid such proposals since they are simply not necessary or relevant for most of what we encounter. Putting that more firmly, I am open to the idea that there may be evidence of specific rapid changes where the idea of a major mutation is considered plausible, but if so - and I am dubious - it would not be typical and is not necessary to the theory of evolution by natural selection.
This thread is getting too hung up about mutations. I would say - never mind mutations, focus on natural variation which is blindingly obvious and readily observed. For most of evolution it is more than sufficient to explain the process of speciation.
**Weird: [what happened to i before e except after c? http://alt-usage-english.org/I_before_E.html ]
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy is it hard to imagine dinosaurs? They are there in the fossil record. Not at all hard to imagine. They are not there in the bible however and you know it.
Yet you believe that when ages ago according to the theory there was no living creatures
with the ability to see that some how this blind process was able to give life that ability?
You had to over come quite a few things to get to a living dinosaur through evolution, but
you just accept it as true?
The evolution of vision is not complicated at all which is why it has evolved a number of times independently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye