Evolution Q & A

@vivify said
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.

If similar changes do not occur in a large portion of the population you get a one-off in the population. That will not create anything new either in a population, maybe degrade something.

You have yet to address the molecular issues I have brought up. Do you intend to, or are you simply going to repeat the mantra you have been saying since we began this conversation?

At the molecular level where all of the changes need to occur, exactly what do you propose that can sort out beneficial mutations from all others? Unless you can see in advance to know what would be good at some time going forward, you get them all because they would all move forward. It isn't until the consequences of a mutation take shape that any advantage could occur, and if something bad happens, that will occur too at some point.

In the meantime, every mutation that occurred before, at the same time, or afterward would also go forward, there isn't anything that knows which mutation of all of them that occurred is the one to keep. So hidden amid all kinds of mutations that if life doesn't stop them from breaking things, will at some time start breaking things.

@kellyjay said
If similar changes do not occur in a large portion of the population you get a one-off in the population.

Like I said: the process is gradual, often taking millions of years to spread through a population over generations. A handful of organisms born with a beneficial gene inherited from its parent is enough to get the process started.

This is the last time I'll respond to you in this thread if your purpose is to debate. Take this time to learn about evolution and ask questions that will help your understand instead of constantly repeating bunk.

@vivify said
LIke I said: the process is gradual, often taking millions of years.

This is the last time I'll respond to you in this thread if your purpose is to debate. Take this time to learn about evolution instead of constantly repeating bunk.

You have given me NOTHING to accept, you have only repeated your beliefs on what you think happened over millions of years. I think you are better off leaving this discussion since you cannot give the reasons for your beliefs when they are not just blindly accepted as facts.

@kellyjay said
You have given me NOTHING to accept, you have only repeated your beliefs on what you think happened over millions of years. I think you are better off leaving this discussion since you cannot give the reasons for your beliefs when they are not just blindly accepted as facts.

Bruh: this thread is neant to be a Q & A, not a debate. You don't understand evolution enough to debate it.

Read this link: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

@vivify said
Bruh: this thread is neant to be a Q & A, not a debate. You don't understand evolution enough to debate it.

Read this link: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

I've been asking you questions, but you have not provided answers. You shouldn't start threads like this without some idea of what you are going to be asked, what mechanisms are in play that can do the things you suggest can be done the way you describe them?

Do you intend to address the things brought up, or are you simply going to repeat the mantra you have been saying since we began this conversation?

@vivify said
Bruh: this thread is neant to be a Q & A, not a debate. You don't understand evolution enough to debate it.

Read this link: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

Here are some questions that require specifics not vague over simplistic assertions.

Do you intend to, or are you simply going to repeat the mantra you have been saying since we began this conversation?

Okay, if there is an established life form in which all functions and features are working, what inside that life keeps them working within the necessary tolerances, so that life maintains its forms and functions in the generations to come over time?

How would that which keeps things working, change without breaking either form or function going forward?

I am asking for your understanding of how life maintains itself keeping each life in its lane so to speak. Dogs don’t give birth to roses but to other dogs. These would need to change at a molecular level, which has to occur regardless of the environment providing a healthy environment. What drives these organisms to develop new features and forms?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

Do you intend to, or are you simply going to repeat the mantra you have been saying since we began this conversation?

At the molecular level where all of the changes need to occur, exactly what do you propose that can sort out beneficial mutations from all others?

@vivify said
Bruh: this thread is neant to be a Q & A, not a debate. You don't understand evolution enough to debate it.

Read this link: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

You should put disclaimers up in your questions and answers thread so that people know to only ask questions that promote evolution.

@kellyjay said
You should put disclaimers up in your questions and answers thread so that people know to only ask questions that promote evolution.

The goal isn't to promote evolution. It's to get you to understand what it is.

You argue against a topic you quite clearly are ignorant about.

@vivify said
The goal isn't to promote evolution. It's to get you to understand what it is.

You argue against a topic you quite clearly are ignorant about.

Well that’s good, then the nuts and bolts should be easy to explain. If your understanding doesn’t get you to the point where the specifics can be addressed in a logical manner are you sure you understand it?

@vivify said
The goal isn't to promote evolution. It's to get you to understand what it is.

You argue against a topic you quite clearly are ignorant about.

Clearly I have put more effort into this than you have, since you don’t seem to offer more than read this link, and claiming I don’t understand without ever addressing the issues I have brought up.

@vivify said
Bruh: this thread is neant to be a Q & A, not a debate. You don't understand evolution enough to debate it.

Read this link: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

If I read this link will you address my questions that I get while reading it, or find some out?

@kellyjay said
Exactly how would a random change in DNA be considered good,

If the change gives an organism some reproductive benefit. That include being able to give birth to more offspring, or beat out competition for mates.

Are you going to offer evidence and reasons why it is true

First you need to understand what evolution even is and how it works before we can even discuss evidence.

@vivify said
If the change gives an organism some reproductive benefit. That include being able to give birth to more offspring, or beat out competition for mates.

Are you going to offer evidence and reasons why it is true

First you need to understand what evolution even is and how it works before we can even discuss evidence.

I am not convinced that you have a clue!

@kellyjay said
Clearly I have put more effort into this than you have, since you don’t seem to offer more than read this link, and claiming I don’t understand without ever addressing the issues I have brought up.

Every time I've pointed out your lack of understand I've used specifics from your posts to show why.

Your very first post in this thread was about how "information" first arrived in organisms. I had to point out that's not a topic evolution is meant to deal with, then explain to you that evolution is about the divergence of life, not the origins.

Every post since your first seems to be fraught with similar displays of ignorance, each instance pointed out to you.

I don't care if you believe in evolution or not. Just stop misrepresenting what it is.

@bigdogg said
People have mechanisms for maintaining their misconceptions.

It's not easy to tear those down, as most people, understandably, don't want to admit they are there.

Some people aren't even aware they have them.

I guess you were right. Can't say I didn't try.