Originally posted by @thinkofoneFor you if I am not in agreement I am flawed. You don’t even entertain the possibility that you could hold the flawed views on this topic. I don’t think anyone is less than for disagreeing with me it isn’t a measure of intelligence or lack there of it is only a point of disagreement.
C'mon KJ. You wrote the following:
<<Props to you, you at least are making an effort. "
I responded as follows:
<<Any number of people have made an effort to explain it to you - many have made multiple attempts including me. It's really disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise.>>
Based on the above, do you really think that the point of what is ...[text shortened]... versal common ancestor"? If you do, it's yet another example of your poor reading comprehension.
Originally posted by @kellyjayThe bad mutations do not accumulate like the good mutations do, because bad mutations - by definition - reduce reproductive success. The descendants of those organisms with bad mutations are out-competed for resources by the organisms which did not receive the bad mutations. This is called "natural selection".
If we introduce an agent to kill off some germ, and the vast majority of them die off that
can be explained away two different ways when speaking of those who lived.
1. They developed an immunity evolving towards the good, yea team.
2. There was a small population within that group of germs that had the immunity already
now they are dominate.
We can e ...[text shortened]... ccount all possible outcomes, what good it is outside of only showing
you what you want to see.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIf a life form received mutations and the next generation starts because of reproduction, that next generation receives what the previous generation hands off. If there were failures in being able to reproduce, due to bad mutations there is your limitations. There isn’t any spot check scanning the next generation for weaknesses in DNA, the ability to reproduce does that.
The bad mutations do not accumulate like the good mutations do, because bad mutations - by definition - reduce reproductive success. The descendants of those organisms with bad mutations are out-competed for resources by the organisms which did not receive the bad mutations. This is called "natural selection".
Originally posted by @kellyjayThe point is that bad mutations cause an organism to have fewer offspring that survive until adulthood. If this isn't the case, then the mutation is not bad in the context of evolution.
If a life form received mutations and the next generation starts because of reproduction, that next generation receives what the previous generation hands off. If there were failures in being able to reproduce, due to bad mutations there is your limitations. There isn’t any spot check scanning the next generation for weaknesses in DNA, the ability to reproduce does that.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYes never once disagreed with that.
The point is that bad mutations cause an organism to have fewer offspring that survive until adulthood. If this isn't the case, then the mutation is not bad in the context of evolution.
You added a twist which is that if something reproduces only the good mutations get to accumulate after the reproduction and the next generation arrives.