28 Mar 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo we are done, I asked something from you and I guess I'm not
[b]….You are telling me something new happened, I have been
begging you to PROVE THAT!
..…
I already explained the evidence for the mutations coming after the application of DDT in the last post.
I just knew you wouldn’t accept such evidence because it conflicts with your particular religious dogma.
Will you answer my questions in my l ...[text shortened]... why it is believed natural selection would normally slowly weeds them out in the absence of DDT.[/b]
getting it.
Kelly
28 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….Yes I believe mutations take place; in addition, I believe changes
Yes I believe mutations take place; in addition, I believe changes
occur in life due to them as well.
Not sure about all genes being created in the beginning, but I believe
God created all life at once and from the ones he started with all other
life came from them.
Kelly
occur in life due to them as well. ..…
This above statement of yours appears to logically contradict everything you have been saying in your recent previous posts to me!
Are you expressing ONE set of beliefs X when responding to my posts but expressing ANOTHER set of beliefs Y that logically contradicts the set of beliefs X when responding to twhitehead posts?
This statement of yours also appears to imply that you DO believe evolution does take place for these two sub-statements in the above that “mutations take place” and “changes occur in life due to them as well” can crudely be substituted with the word “evolution” for that, more or less, is what evolution is!
This statement of yours also appears to inadvertently answer one of my questions in my previous posts; reminder:
“…Would you deny that NEW mutations are constantly occurring?…”
So your answer is “no” i.e. you wouldn’t deny this! -now we could be getting somewhere:
So what is your problem here? -I mean, are you implicitly denying that first a NEW mutation for, say, DDT resistance, could occur and ONLY THEN natural selection, in the right environment (which, in this case, is wherever DDT is sprayed) would select for it (this is what evolution IS by definition) -thus evolution is not simply “just a filter” but generally consists of NEW mutations that where NOT there previously followed by natural selection that selects for them? -if you do NOT implicitly deny this, then, as your statement in response to twhitehead post apparently implies, you DO believe that evolution causes changes in species of living things after all!
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, not at all, I believe in life evolving, but not into more complex
I think KellyJay begin to learn something.
He clearly gradually change his views. Perhaps he doesn't notice this for himself, but a shift in opinion it is.
life froms, change takes place. You have not seen my position change
you may now actually be reading what I've been saying for a couple
of years now, instead of just putting words into my mouth and claiming
I'm saying something I'm not.
Kelly
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo it´s not the propagation of the ¨new¨ gene through the species, or that it would be selected for, that you object to. It is the creation of a new gene you won´t allow. Have I understood what you are objecting to in the theory?
You are going to tell me that it only takes 1,250 generational chances
at getting several random mutations to over come an immediate
threat to a species, that is to over come a very specific poison? Then
once the random mutations over come this threat, it spread through
out the species to over come the poison in mass, and you think this is
more probabl ...[text shortened]... are working on cures
since it appears they will all end by themselves given enough time.
Kelly
Based on experiments with fruit flies 50 generations is enough for speciation, so I think 1250 is easily enough for one gene.
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you do not have even a ballpark figure for any of the key stats that are required to make a judgment on whether or not a mutation that provides protection to DDT in mosquitoes can arise VERY
No, not a total lack of information as I have pointed out my
experience with processes has more to do with my views on
evolution than my scriptural beliefs about God and creation.
QUICKLY. You simply made the conclusion that it was unlikely, or at least less likely than the possibility that the gene already existed. The truth is that you simply do not know the likelihood of either possibility.
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I pointed out it is not the number of generations alone but the world population times the number of generations. And the truth is we do not know what the likelihood of such a gene arising is neither do you. Presumably though people more knowledgeable in the field could make a fairly accurate calculation.
You are going to tell me that it only takes 1,250 generational chances
at getting several random mutations to over come an immediate
threat to a species, that is to over come a very specific poison?
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayCancer does not significantly affect the reproductive success of humans. Our bodies have already developed defenses against cancers that affect us in earlier life. They are not 100% perfect but they are pretty effective.
You honestly believe that some how life will just mutate in such a
way that a specific poison can be over come? Exactly how long
before cancer is over come and things like that? Make a prediction,
when should we send the doctors homes who are working on cures
since it appears they will all end by themselves given enough time.
Kelly
The comment on doctors merely shows your lack of understanding of the whole situation.
28 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….No, not at all, I believe in life evolving, but NOT into more complex
No, not at all, I believe in life evolving, but not into more complex
life froms, change takes place. You have not seen my position change
you may now actually be reading what I've been saying for a couple
of years now, instead of just putting words into my mouth and claiming
I'm saying something I'm not.
Kelly
life forms, CHANGE takes place. ..…(my emphasis)
What is stopping mutations from occurring that BOTH making a CHANGE take place AND that change being an increase in complexity?
-after all, it is a proven observable fact that some mutations that natural selection could potentially act on DO increase compexity; just one example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6371901.stm
Isn’t having a mutation that gives extra legs an increase in “complexity” ?
And, given the right change in the natural environment to make just such a mutation advantageous, why couldn’t a NEW mutation that increases “complexity” be advantageous and then be selected by natural selection?
I am now just wondering:
As your above comment clearly indicates you would not deny that evolution (which is just natural selection working IN CONJUNCTION WITH mutations -often NEW mutations) makes “CHANGE” take place, does this mean you wouldn’t deny that there is no reason why such a “CHANGE” couldn’t be a “CHANGE” to the design of a living thing (by, for example, giving it extra legs) thus evolution CAN design living things?
-is this what you are implying here?
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe process to pull this off is described as being driven by a blind,
But you do not have even a ballpark figure for any of the key stats that are required to make a judgment on whether or not a mutation that provides protection to DDT in mosquitoes can arise VERY
QUICKLY. You simply made the conclusion that it was unlikely, or at least less likely than the possibility that the gene already existed. The truth is that you simply do not know the likelihood of either possibility.
goalless, random mutation, one without intent. You are now telling
me in a very short amount of time, it can overcome a very specific
poison that was never introduced before, so it had to manufacture
a resistance that previously didn't exist. I do not call the small amount
of generations that have been presented significant enough to
accomplish such a task unless there was sometime directing the
process along asking for and getting the right mutations to cause
the strain of resistance to be built. Either there was something
already present actively seeking out that answer because it was
preprogrammed to do that, or it already had to have that immunity
within a small population, neither of those to are random acts of
evolution building up something through random mutation, so I
would not credit natural selection or any other part of that theory
credit for such an act.
Kelly
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYea, that is an assumption isn't it, someone must know! We don't but
As I pointed out it is not the number of generations alone but the world population times the number of generations. And the truth is we do not know what the likelihood of such a gene arising is neither do you. Presumably though people more knowledgeable in the field could make a fairly accurate calculation.
odds are someone else does! So it is than safe to say maybe
someone does not too isn't it? Could be the assumption is wrong!
Kelly
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadOur bodies heal themselves that is quite a feet not a small one. The
Cancer does not significantly affect the reproductive success of humans. Our bodies have already developed defenses against cancers that affect us in earlier life. They are not 100% perfect but they are pretty effective.
The comment on doctors merely shows your lack of understanding of the whole situation.
body is an incredible feet of biological engineering, yet you deny
that, instead you suggest it was thrown together by a random
mutation generator in the midst of harsh environments over time.
Seems to me you are the one that doesn’t think these things through
in my opinion. The difference between cancer and a poison is
nothing to a process that doesn’t have a goal when it causes
mutations to occur, both are just pitfalls to life, life ending ones.
Kelly
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasHow many years back you want me to go to show you a post that has
Oh, you already believe in evolution. Nice! Then you are not so ignorant as you once were!
said this already? It again isn't a change in theory for me, it maybe
a moment of enlightenment for you, you may have accidently read one
of my posts and saw what it was I was actually saying instead of just
glancing at my posts and filling in the blanks yourself on the parts you
didn't read or understand.
Kelly