Evolution Q & A

@vivify said
You're aware mutations are constantly occurring in every single species, right?

Why do you think breeding animals like horses is possible? Mutations that create stronger, faster horses. Mutations are the reason why we can cultivate plants to enhance certain traits or why bacteria develop resistance to products meant to kill germs.

Some mutations can be harmful, some have are beneficial others can be neutral. But mutations occur all the time.

Yes, but unless you are telling me that they show up and do it in such a way that they build new forms and features without interfering with normal operations. You are only telling me mutations are constantly accumulating randomly and are going to what in the long run?

@kellyjay said
you are telling me that they show up and do it in such a way that they build new forms and features without interfering with normal operations

Mutations that "interfere with normal operations" happen all the time. I just explained that some mutations are beneficial, some, harmful, some neither. That's regardless of whether a "new" feature develops or not.

@kellyjay said
That is an overly generic statement considering the risks involved in altering the code in place.

Have you ever read a book about natural selection?

@vivify said
Mutations that "interfere with normal operations" happen all the time. I just explained that some mutations are beneficial, some, harmful, some neither. That's regardless of whether a "new" feature develops or not.

We are talking about genetic code, and any code that is interfered with randomly doesn't end up improving, instead degrading, and sometimes breaking down completely. So your beneficial versus harmful declaration needs some examples to give advantages.

Exactly how would a random change in DNA be considered good, could a single previously unrelated mutation to the code improve something already there, how? Information drives processes, information removes uncertainty, and gets very specific results, jumbling up established code with mutation removes the certainty in results, and the more alterations there are, the more uncertain the results.

People tend to simply speak of these types of things but do it while speaking about wholesale alterations where something new was completed, and how this brand new additional feature or form, gives an advantage, but to get to those types of changes, new code is required to be incorporated into the current system without breaking anything.

@kellyjay said
We are talking about genetic code, and any code that is interfered with randomly doesn't end up improving, instead degrading, and sometimes breaking down completely. So your beneficial versus harmful declaration needs some examples to give advantages.

Exactly how would a random change in DNA be considered good, could a single previously unrelated mutation to the code impr ...[text shortened]... changes, new code is required to be incorporated into the current system without breaking anything.

This post by you is embarrassing ignorance about how natural selection works in the here and now.

@kellyjay said
We are talking about genetic code, and any code that is interfered with randomly doesn't end up improving, instead degrading, and sometimes breaking down completely.

Again, mutations happen naturally that "interfere" in both beneficial and harmful ways (or are neutral). They're a natural part of existence for organisms.

@vivify said
Again, mutations happen naturally that "interfere" in both beneficial and harmful ways (or are neutral). They're a natural part of existence for organisms.

Very broad assertion, repeating it does not show any reason, why, that would be true let alone do no harm, that is not an obvious truism! Are you going to offer evidence and reasons why it is true, outside of repeating your belief, that you can alter a code randomly and get all neutral, good, and harmful results if allowed to accumulate continually? Life has correction mechanisms that can deal with some changes, but what is suggested, evolution with the accumulation of mutations would build something new in both forms and features.

Can you offer up reasons why you think mutations can occur and why going beyond simply surviving them is possible that over time new features and forms would come so that new species would appear? Do have any reason that speaks to the molecular level that you believe it to be true? Have you any experience in writing code what you are suggesting is that the information in code that we can read, we can read it because it has semantic information in it that can randomly be changed and still work?

What you are suggesting mutation that happens could alter the code as if that is no big deal. You cannot even do that without a written sentence adding or taking away letters randomly would alter the meaning or take away all meaning, and with genetic instruction, you break that things do not happen as they should or when they should.

@kellyjay said
Very broad assertion

That's a verifiable fact and easy to confirm with a 2 second Google search.

@vivify said
That's a verifiable fact and easy to confirm with a 2 second Google search.

I'm asking about changes that if allowed to accumulate bad things will not happen by changing the features in life that control the forms and features in life. I have no question that mutations occur, life deals with them, but those changes must be dealt with before they break things. You are pushing not just survival of mutations, but you are giving the blind watchmaker evolution creative powers by making drastic life changes not just surviving them which goes far beyond survival.

@kellyjay said
I have no question that mutations occur, life deals with them, but those changes must be dealt with before they break things.

Changes from mutations don't always "break things". That's why breeding animals and cultivating plants can occur. And why evolution happens.

you are giving the blind watchmaker evolution creative powers by making drastic life changes

Evolution is a gradual process, not "drastic".

@vivify said
Changes from mutations don't always "break things". That's why breeding animals and cultivating plants can occur. And why evolution happens.

you are giving the blind watchmaker evolution creative powers by making drastic life changes

Evolution is a gradual process, not "drastic".

Breeding animals is a painstaking process keeping desirable offspring only occurs if the undesirable parents are not allowed to mate with the ones we are breeding. Animals are not willing participants in this process, in the wild it’s simply not going to happen accept with massive environmental alterations keeping them apart, have you noticed the variety of species today, you think that has occurred frequently enough to account for them all?

Evolution must take place at a molecular level for a given species would require the same mutation in one animal to also occur in another and every subsequent mutation build upon that random mutation in a very large population of any given species. You can not account for this in one animal let alone a population of them, the math is not on your side.

@vivify said
Changes from mutations don't always "break things". That's why breeding animals and cultivating plants can occur. And why evolution happens.

you are giving the blind watchmaker evolution creative powers by making drastic life changes

Evolution is a gradual process, not "drastic".

If it cannot happen then how fast you think it occurs is irrelevant.

@kellyjay said
Breeding animals is a painstaking process keeping desirable offspring only occurs if the undesirable parents are not allowed to mate with the ones we are breeding. Animals are not willing participants in this process, in the wild it’s simply not going to happen accept with massive environmental alterations keeping them apart, have you noticed the variety of species today, y ...[text shortened]... can not account for this in one animal let alone a population of them, the math is not on your side.

Do you deny that natural selection occurs?

@kellyjay said
Evolution must take place at a molecular level for a given species would require the same mutation in one animal to also occur in another

You have fundamental misunderstand of how evolution works.

Evolution involves mutations being passed on to offspring; it doesn't require the other members of a population also developing that mutation.

If that mutation gives the offspring a reproductive benefit then those genes will eventually spread among the species as long as the mutation remains beneficial.

@kellyjay said
If it cannot happen then how fast you think it occurs is irrelevant.

I was just correcting your false statement of "drastic" changes.

Kelly: the purpose of this thread isn't to debate you; you don't yet have enough of an understand of how evolution works to debate in the first place.

This is a Q & A where any questions you may have can be answered. Do you have any questions or need anything cleared up?