Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“-because, obviously, natural selection would select out those mutations that reduce the chances of an individual surviving in favour of those that increases reduce the chances of an individual surviving regardless of the ratio of one to the other: -even if the harmful mutations outnumber the useful ones a million-to-one it would make no difference -natural selection would over time simply eliminate a million harmful mutations while selecting for just the one helpful one.”
[b]… Nope impossible, you can filter out what can live in an environment
by killing off what isn’t suited for it, but you do not get to say it is
playing an active roll in the mutation process for improvement! ..…
So, if I am deciphering what you mean by this, it is that natural selection is not the same as the mutation process -so what? N ...[text shortened]... time simply eliminate a million harmful mutations while selecting for just the one helpful one.[/b]
Natural selection isn’t selecting anything, and if the truth be
told it really isn’t even a filter it is just life playing out and
what lives, lives, and what dies, die, and that is what we call
natural selection. You can have more than a few so called
good mutations, but with that there isn’t anything stopping
them from mutating their way back out of existence too, or
being followed up with several bad ones. As I pointed out
before and seem to have gotten agreement with everyone
here there isn’t a plan, purpose, or design to what is called
evolution today. People want to it setup the scenario of
evolution so that their version of it true, just like that
computer program people are telling us about.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadEntropy
I still want to you back up that claim.
I personally think that you have not really thought about it, and that the evidence contradicts your claim.
Do you honestly believe that the ratio of worn out things to unworn out things in the world today is greater than than say 10 years ago?
Are you even able to give a scientific definition of wear? Is it meas ...[text shortened]... st seems to me that you have based an awful lot of philosophical conclusions on a false premise.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay… Natural selection isn’t selecting anything..…[/b]
[b]“-because, obviously, natural selection would select out those mutations that reduce the chances of an individual surviving in favour of those that increases reduce the chances of an individual surviving regardless of the ratio of one to the other: -even if the harmful mutations outnumber the useful ones a million-to-one it would make no difference -natu ...[text shortened]... t their version of it true, just like that
computer program people are telling us about.
Kelly
?
What do you mean? Natural selection selects those individuals best able to survive in their current environment -do you deny that this is what the theory of evolution says?
… You can have more than a few so called
good mutations, but with that there isn’t anything stopping
them from mutating their way back out of existence too,.. .…
Any mutations that remove the beneficial mutations in individuals would be gradually and continually selected out of existence from the population in favour for the original beneficial mutations that other individuals within the same population still have.
…or being followed up with several bad ones. . ….
There is nothing stopping the occasional bad mutation occurring in some of the individuals within the population just as there is nothing stopping these occasional bad mutation being continually selected out by natural selection after they occur but well before they are given a chance to spread to all individuals within the population.
… As I pointed out
before and seem to have gotten agreement with everyone
here there isn’t a plan, purpose, or design to what is called
evolution today.
…
-and nobody here including myself said nor implied that evolution has a “plan” or a “purpose”.
…People WANT to it set-up the scenario of
evolution so that their version of it true,
…
People’s “WANTS” have nothing to do with scientific truths (-unless you are talking about psychology)
People’s “WANTS” have nothing to do with scientific truths
Scientific truths are things that can be observed and recreated.
As for the eye, I simply do not see who specialized parts of the eye would evolve at different times when each piece requires the other to be useful. Natural selection says that useful things continue. If something is useless without something else, why would natural selection explain why it survived without its other pieces?
Originally posted by Eladar… I simply do not see who specialized parts of the eye would evolve at different times when each piece requires the other to be useful. ..…
[b]People’s “WANTS” have nothing to do with scientific truths
Scientific truths are things that can be observed and recreated.
As for the eye, I simply do not see who specialized parts of the eye would evolve at different times when each piece requires the other to be useful. Natural selection says that useful things continue. If something is ...[text shortened]... ut something else, why would natural selection explain why it survived without its other pieces?[/b]
That is simply not true. A light sensitive patch (the possible beginning of the evolution of a retina) would at least give an animal the ability to tell light from dark which can be of some help in survival -after all, there are some animals that have just that (e.g. certain species of sea worms etc). also, we would have a functional eye without the lens -not very good without the lens because the picture would be blurred but good enough for it be better than no eye at all thus natural selection would select those individuals with eyes with no lens in favour of those individuals with no eyes at all.
Originally posted by KellyJay… You are asking me intent? . ..…
You are asking me intent? I don't know why, all I know is what we
got and if you think a mistake was made I would suggest you prove
that point. Our eyes and the oct's eyes seem to serve us both well,
so if you see advantages in one over the other, great.
Kelly
No.
… Our eyes and the oct's eyes seem to serve us both well,
so if you see advantages in one over the other, great.
.…
But do YOU concede one is better than the other? That was Nemesio’s question:
Reminder: Nemesio’s said:
“So, KellyJay, are you yet conceding that the intelligent designer gave humans an eye which is
less well suited for sight than an octopus'? ”
And in one of his other posts he asked:
“
1) What explanation can you offer for why the eye underwent a physiological
change in which the retina moves behind the nerve fibers rather than remaining
in front of it and thus creating a blind spot?
2) What evidence can you offer for holding this position?
“
-I would also like to know exactly what your position is on this.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, you believe that the 'intelligent designer' gave humans a sufficiently good eye, but admit that
You are asking me intent? I don't know why, all I know is what we
got and if you think a mistake was made I would suggest you prove
that point. Our eyes and the oct's eyes seem to serve us both well,
so if you see advantages in one over the other, great.
for some reason, this 'designer' gave him an eye inferior to what humans could have received,
and octopodes did receive. That is, the 'designer' gave humans a blind spot that octopodes and
squids don't have, a blind spot which poses an impediment to sight at times.
Right?
Nemesio
4 edits
Originally posted by EladarThere are two ways I can think of just at the top of my head how the optic nerve and the retina could have evolved: either:
[b]That is simply not true. A light sensitive patch (the possible beginning of the evolution of a retina) would at least give an animal the ability to tell light from dark which can be of some help in survival
What is a retina without an optic nerve?[/b]
1, the retina came first but was initially attached to the brain of a very primitive worm-like animal (many worms are transparent or semi transparent so that light can directly reach the brain) and then the optic nerve could have evolved later allowing the retina to move away from the brain.
Or:
2, the nerve that would later become the optic nerve evolved first but initially didn’t function as an “optic” nerve but, instead functioned as a motor nerve or perhaps a nerve to transmit some other kind of sensory information such as tactile info and THEN the light-sensitive patch (the retina) evolved on the end of it giving that nerve two functions and then later it lost its original function totally and become fully specialised for only transmitting sensory info from the retina.
Your guess would be as good as mine which one of the above is the most probable and there may be, of course, other ways it could have happened that I have not thought of.
Originally posted by EladarWhy don't you reply with quote, eladar? In this case, who do you refer to when you say "you"?
You'll have to forgive me, but I think you are just talking out of your butt. You haven't a clue, so you are making things up to fit your world view.
Whos butt are you thinking of?
Use "Reply & quote" ðŸ˜