Originally posted by KellyJayYes, a sufficiently harmful mutation may indeed prevent reproduction.
Yes, and if you followed along you'd see I had acknowledge that. The bad will kill off any
lifeform where something vital is damaged, and those that are not that damaged moved
on. The sorting out of good and bad by any other means isn't there.
A sufficiently beneficial one may enhance it, hence allowing this beneficial mutation to spread through the population. What part of this concept is troublesome for you?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes only it isn't until after the effects are felt in the passing from one generation to
Yes, a sufficiently harmful mutation may indeed prevent reproduction.
A sufficiently beneficial one may enhance it, hence allowing this beneficial mutation to spread through the population. What part of this concept is troublesome for you?
the next reveal what is good or bad. Unless an adverse effect of a bad mutation ends the
life right away there is nothing inside each lifeform sorting out good and bad before
reproduction takes place. So all mutations are going to move from one generation to the
next and what they do will either end, weaken, or enhance.
What we do know is that there are more bad than good, so they too will be accumulating
just as the good are up to the point the life will not be able to handle what is going on. How
the lifeform survives is the only measure of good and bad, this will not stop a string of bad
ones from moving on until they make themselves felt in how they harm what has them.
You I guess are assuming only the good mutations go into some lifeforms and they
can build upon one another to make a brain, a liver, and so on without interrupting the
current process in any living system while building within it. I assume also in your thinking
at the same time none of the bad do go forward to do any damage to slow or stop the
good's progress?
The theory has us only looking at what could happen if just the good go forward and all of
this while all life is also in an environment of ever changing conditions, and our life finds
itself in either plentiful and spare food supplies.
A single sufficiently beneficial one may enhance a really small tiny lifeform, but it has to
take a huge number of 'good ones' to build things, build things that have no meaning to
the life form so there is nothing directing the construction.
I think creation hands down makes more sense to me, the huge amount of faith you have
is impressive to believe one small change could be added to another change, to another,
to another so that a brain can form. All the while not robbing the life that is receiving these
changes of anything required, or having a misstep and creating an error that ends if while
something required is malformed.
Originally posted by KellyJayHmm, but the thing is, the negative mutations will not accumulate because those organisms that have them will be at a reproductive disadvantage. We call this "natural selection."
Yes only it isn't until after the effects are felt in the passing from one generation to
the next reveal what is good or bad. Unless an adverse effect of a bad mutation ends the
life right away there is nothing inside each lifeform sorting out good and bad before
reproduction takes place. So all mutations are going to move from one generation to the
nex ...[text shortened]... , or having a misstep and creating an error that ends if while
something required is malformed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Something that is sorely missing from this discussion is that mutations are RARE [particularly in complex
life forms].
A population of organisms, [of whatever type] has a range of genes that produce the variations
in that organism, and during reproduction [for the majority that reproduce sexually] a mix of the
genes [more properly allele] from the parents gets inherited by the offspring. That mix determines
the traits the offspring possesses, and natural selection acts on those variations to increase the
odds of beneficial allele combinations being passed on to the next generation.
None of which requires or includes mutations of genes. Which are rare as DNA has lots of copy and
error correction mechanisms built in specifically because too frequent mutations would be harmful.
By which I mean, through a process of natural selection [Evolution] and Horizontal Gene Transfer
early life rapidly converged on DNA with lots of copy and error protection because DNA that had
less was less likely to survive than DNA with more, up to the nearly perfectly optimised maximum.
Now mutations [copying errors] do occasionally occur, and these provide the fuel for new genes that
can provide new traits that were not previously present. A common copying error is to copy a part of
the genetic code twice. As having two of a particular segment of code will result in over or under producing
whatever is regulated by that segment what normally happens is the duplicated segment gets de-activated
so it isn't read and isn't used to produce enzymes. And this can happen many times, and we all have
numerous segments of DNA that have multiple de-activated copies.
As those copies are deactivated, further errors in copying those have no ill effects on the organism as
they are not being expressed [whereas errors in expressed genes often lead to death or some other
bad outcome] and so over time these segments of DNA can change. Sometimes these segments get
accidentally reactivated and then either kill the host [often before birth], or provide some new feature for
natural selection to work on.
It seems to me to be that this discussion is being held in terms of every variation in every generation
being caused by unending mutations.
This is not the case, variations between generations are largely driven by variations in the frequency
in the population of particular genes/allele already present in the population. And only occasionally does a
new variation get added through mutation. THAT is why it's possible for beneficial mutations to accrue
because they are rare. In general the bad mutations bump off an unnoticed few and the population is unaffected,
but good mutations can hold on and spread via natural selection.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe limitations of your imagination (your "issue" ) are your personal problem and not a reasoned position. Primarily they reflect a lack of the relevant education, since so many of your arguments are based on ignorance and misrepresentation, but I think the primary problem is that you have a fixed opinion which is not amenable to reasoned debate. In short you are a waste of space and time.
I've no issue imagining dinosaurs, I do have an issue thinking they evolved after the leap
from non-living material turning into life, then going through the evolutionary process.
Originally posted by finneganI think ,in this instance, your last sentence was a waste of space and time.
The limitations of your imagination (your "issue" ) are your personal problem and not a reasoned position. Primarily they reflect a lack of the relevant education, since so many of your arguments are based on ignorance and misrepresentation, but I think the primary problem is that you have a fixed opinion which is not amenable to reasoned debate. In short you are a waste of space and time.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe truth is they will reproduce them there is nothing stopping that until there is an affect
Hmm, but the thing is, the negative mutations will not accumulate because those organisms that have them will be at a reproductive disadvantage. We call this "natural selection."
that will cause the whole creature to be effected. Natural selection only works when the
affect is there to end the life or cause it to be ended through other means. Accumulation
of bad mutations may not reach that level for some time and until it does so there nothing
preventing them from reproducing as well until that time.
This also means that all of the accumulation of both good and bad would still be in the
generations that have not died off. I know it makes a pretty theory only looking at the
things that make your views valid, but if you think about it there is no working way in life
that could ever happen.
Originally posted by finneganStrong argument, oh no sorry all you did was insult, my bad. I think you and I can part
The limitations of your imagination (your "issue" ) are your personal problem and not a reasoned position. Primarily they reflect a lack of the relevant education, since so many of your arguments are based on ignorance and misrepresentation, but I think the primary problem is that you have a fixed opinion which is not amenable to reasoned debate. In short you are a waste of space and time.
company don't worry I'll not waste your space or time from here on out.
Originally posted by finneganAd hominem strikes again.
The limitations of your imagination (your "issue" ) are your personal problem and not a reasoned position. Primarily they reflect a lack of the relevant education, since so many of your arguments are based on ignorance and misrepresentation, but I think the primary problem is that you have a fixed opinion which is not amenable to reasoned debate. In short you are a waste of space and time.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAlso missing from the discussion is how DNA code could form by random processes to start off with. These mutations require an existing DNA sequence to start off with.
Something that is sorely missing from this discussion is that mutations are RARE [particularly in complex
life forms].
A population of organisms, [of whatever type] has a range of genes that produce the variations
in that organism, and during reproduction [for the majority that reproduce sexually] a mix of the
genes [more properly allele] from t ...[text shortened]... the population is unaffected,
but good mutations can hold on and spread via natural selection.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf you're going to complain about ad hominem arguments you might think about not playing games with people's names.
All you ever do is pretend that you are smart and everyone else is stupid. Classic twithead response: "No it isn't." Copy a link. Fail to explain anything...
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkLittle Tyke's behaviour is understandable given she was brought up with other animals on a ranch. Cats brought up with mice as pets do not regard the mice as prey - something similar happened with Little Tyke. Her unwillingness to eat meat may be explainable by incorrect weaning. The animals on the Ark were reported as being adults and there is no reason to believe that without divine intervention it would have been anything other than complete bedlam. There is no evidence for the flood story outside the Bible. If you wish to believe in the literal truth of the Bible that is no great concern to me, but it does require significant intervention to:
[b]Edit: I found the story on the internet. Little Tyke died at the age of 4 of pneumonia probably due to her inappropriate diet.
You do know that the animals did not spend 4 years on the ark?[/b]
1) Cause the flood in the first place.
2) Cover all traces so it is not detectable to modern science.
3) Get rid of a truly vast excess of water.
4) Prevent the carnivores on the ark eating the other animals.
5) Fit quite that many species onto a relatively small boat.
6) Compensate for the genetic bottlenecks in every species.
Edit: [ * ] produces bullet points in the preview but seems to mess up when not in preview mode.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt is missing because it is not necessary for evolution and is already being covered in another thread. DNA exists That is an undeniable fact.
Also missing from the discussion is how DNA code could form by random processes to start off with. These mutations require an existing DNA sequence to start off with.
Originally posted by KellyJayMutations that do not cause "an affect (sic) that will cause the whole creature to be effected (sic)" are neither negative nor beneficial. The latter, by definition, affect the reproductive success of the organism.
The truth is they will reproduce them there is nothing stopping that until there is an affect
that will cause the whole creature to be effected. Natural selection only works when the
affect is there to end the life or cause it to be ended through other means. Accumulation
of bad mutations may not reach that level for some time and until it does so there ...[text shortened]... views valid, but if you think about it there is no working way in life
that could ever happen.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
John Lennox fields a question and explains the replicator, the cell itself,
The mechanism of mutation and natural selection DOES SOMETHING, Lennox agrees.
The mutation of itself is not known if Evolution is true.
Richard Dawkins did limit Evolution and an explanation for the varying of life. He said it was the mechanism for the very EXISTENCE of life. So "Evolution has nothing to do with origins" is contrary to arch Athiest Richard Dawkins' definition of Evolution.
He says its responsible, sorry, for the existence of life as well as its variation.
The cell is the replicator. The cell is the micro miniaturized factory "of unbelievable sophistication". I know we moderns don't want to admit anything is of such sophistication that we cannot understand it. Whether we understand it or not is not the main point here. How this miniaturized factory, the replicator itself is subject to mutation and natural selection, I have not yet seen explained.
How could the language of life itself, which is extremely ancient and hasn't changed much, could have itself been developed.
John Lennox, the mathematician, says that Evolution does not explain the "mutating replicator" upon which it depends. 1:58. This frames a question that I have had in mind for the last few days as I have been reading both the posts here and about Evolution.
Real Mathmatician : Type of information DNA is and probability ( Ignorance of atheist exposed ) I am not responsible for what someone entitled the video when uploading it. It may sound offensive.
The answer given to a student here only lasts 6 minutes plus. Die hard evolutionists are invited to see if they can stay awake for the first minute and a half without slipping off to sleep from boredom.