Originally posted by KellyJayYou are ignoring the existence of new advantageous mutations -what barrier is stopping natural selection causing such a mutation from spreading to the whole population and thus causing a new change?
I agree with you, as a filter it isn't a driving force for directing change.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“...No I don't have my eye on lots of planet, just one, this one. ...”
No I don't have my eye on lots of planet, just one, this one.
Either all the things were required were all setup properly or not, if so the window
of all things were setup properly was either a lot of time or not.
Kelly
why JUST this one?
If the probability of it happening on this one is, say, one in a billion then the 'reason' why it happened to this one is because, out of a billion suitable planets including this one, the odds of it happening to ONE of those billion is good and if it didn't happen to this one but one of the other billion then we would STILL be asking “why this one” because we would still be on ONE planet and we would refer to that planet “this one”.
“...Either all the things were required were all setup properly or not ...”
science shows that conditions for abiogenesis WERE set up as required for abiogenesis on the early-Earth so that is not even an issue.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you want to show me all the life on another planet please do.
“...No I don't have my eye on lots of planet, just one, this one. ...”
why JUST this one?
If the probability of it happening on this one is, say, one in a billion then the 'reason' why it happened to this one is because, out of a billion suitable planets including this one, the odds of it happening to ONE of those billion is good and if it didn't ...[text shortened]... sis WERE set up as required for abiogenesis on the early-Earth so that is not even an issue.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo a lot of random mutations could just happen over and over building things
You are ignoring the existence of new advantageous mutations -what barrier is stopping natural selection causing such a mutation from spreading to the whole population and thus causing a new change?
like a heart, veins, arteries, along with the makeup of the blood so it takes care
of other needs like the brain and lungs. In addition to building the parts they
must work together as a system, could just happen! As these small mutations
occur the parts are built and simultaneously they function as a system, direction
has to be programmed so that each part functions as a system properly.
The system is also going to be not only taking care of itself but needs elsewhere
making sure those requirements are met with near perfect timing requirements.
The timing of a non-stop beating of the heart, blood pressure, regulating blood
clots again all just occurred by random mutations done a little at a time one tiny
step at a time, again randomly. No directions are being given so that the proper
mutation that is required is forced to appear when it is needed or stay as long as
long as it is required, since getting a good muation does not mean a bad one can
undo it next time around.
One of the toppers for me is not only does this has to happen within each living
creature, but as soon as you introduce different sexes, it must occur in two
different lives forms male and female so that they remain compatible with each
other throughout all of the evolutionary process. if the male or female change in
such a way they don’t mesh with the other sex the race is over, splitting into two
different sexes had to be done all the while keeping each sex compatible with the
other.
All of this must seem reasonable to you, you can believe this! For me there are
too many variables over time that even with intent life are just mind boggling.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayConsider this then -
So a lot of random mutations could just happen over and over building things
like a heart, veins, arteries, along with the makeup of the blood so it takes care
of other needs like the brain and lungs. In addition to building the parts they
must work together as a system, could just happen! As these small mutations
occur the parts are built and simultane ...[text shortened]... here are
too many variables over time that even with intent life are just mind boggling.
Kelly
All mammals on this planet have the 'stable systems', as you call them. We all have a 4 chambered heart with a closed circulatory system. We have them same bone structure ie. two arms, two legs, skull, spine, pelvis, appendages. We all breath air, give live birth to your young etc etc.
All the 'stable systems' are the same. Do you accept then that all mammals share a common ancestor? If not why not?
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, a bad mutation would not undo it. Natural selection takes care of that.
No directions are being given so that the proper
mutation that is required is forced to appear when it is needed or stay as long as
long as it is required, since getting a good muation does not mean a bad one can
undo it next time around.
Mutations can be undone, but when they are, they are not 'bad mutations'. For example, some of the key differences between humans and Chimpanzees are mutations that result in certain genes not being expressed. So a gene has been undone, but it is not 'bad' because it benefits us.
One of the toppers for me is not only does this has to happen within each living
creature, but as soon as you introduce different sexes, it must occur in two
different lives forms male and female so that they remain compatible with each
other throughout all of the evolutionary process. if the male or female change in
such a way they don’t mesh with the other sex the race is over, splitting into two
different sexes had to be done all the while keeping each sex compatible with the
other.
I suspect you don't understand how the sexes work. Most of our DNA is shared between men and women. Only one strand of DNA affects the sexes.
To some extent one could thing of male and female as a symbiotic relationship - but symbiotic relationships are common place in nature.
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergNo, you have not seen me say that, though it is heavily implied yes. What I am
Ah the good old bewilderment and naivety approach: the end product looks so complicated - ergo goddidit. 😞
saying is the process of evolutionary change is not able to build such systems as
it is describe. No where will you see such things done except with intent involved
somewhere in the process, but never with pure random inputs as it was agreed to
by all natural selection is not the driver of mutations occurs or needs to, it can
only filter out what is given, and what is given is always random. With random
changes no good mutation would be safe from change, and as changes are
thrown at even a stable system it could become unstable and the result would be
death. The number of errors in any system shows you how unstable it is, I suggest
you do a study on Lean Six Sigma to see how bad even a success rate of 99% can
become given the number of changes your speaking of.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobI do not accept they all have the same common ancestor, I accept they were built
Consider this then -
All mammals on this planet have the 'stable systems', as you call them. We all have a 4 chambered heart with a closed circulatory system. We have them same bone structure ie. two arms, two legs, skull, spine, pelvis, appendages. We all breath air, give live birth to your young etc etc.
All the 'stable systems' are the same. Do you accept then that all mammals share a common ancestor? If not why not?
with the same design since it was and is highly effectvie why bother changing it,
even if the some of the other parts of varoius creatures are different.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"No, a bad mutation would not undo it. Natural selection takes care of that."
No, a bad mutation would not undo it. Natural selection takes care of that.
Mutations can be undone, but when they are, they are not 'bad mutations'. For example, some of the key differences between humans and Chimpanzees are mutations that result in certain genes not being expressed. So a gene has been undone, but it is not 'bad' because it benefits us. emale as a symbiotic relationship - but symbiotic relationships are common place in nature.
No, you are not looking at this correctly if you say that! Random mutations are just
that, they change things randomly, there isn't anything safe from a random
change; what is why is called RANDOM! You want to stack the deck this is the part
where I don't think you are not looking at this properly. This is why the true
believers are not looking at this honestly, they stack the deck so that their random
mutations can do what they want, evolution can get there because only the good
move on, but they fail to take into account that is not the way it works in reality.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm looking for WHY all mammals can't have a common ancestor. Your objection to evolution so far has been your objections to what you call 'stable systems', yet here we have a series of animals that all have the same 'stable systems' yet you still don't accept they have a common ancestor.
I do not accept they all have the same common ancestor, I accept they were built
with the same design since it was and is highly effectvie why bother changing it,
even if the some of the other parts of varoius creatures are different.
Kelly
What is stopping mammals, in your view, from sharing a common ancestor?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe male and female life forms are not the same, so random mutations if you are
No, a bad mutation would not undo it. Natural selection takes care of that.
Mutations can be undone, but when they are, they are not 'bad mutations'. For example, some of the key differences between humans and Chimpanzees are mutations that result in certain genes not being expressed. So a gene has been undone, but it is not 'bad' because it benefits us. ...[text shortened]... emale as a symbiotic relationship - but symbiotic relationships are common place in nature.
still willing to give evolution credit for sexes would have had to start making a lot
of changes to give females the ability to have off spring, and men the ability to
help make that happen. This means the changes in each sex would be breaking
away from the other and be completely different! Once that starts and random
changes are the only thing driving this, why would the males and females ever
have to stay in snyc in such a way to have a sympiotic relationship and off spring?
I think you don't fully grasp the word random, and give far to much credit for the
term natural selection!
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe odds against a single system being built by random mutations with the filter
I'm looking for [b]WHY all mammals can't have a common ancestor. Your objection to evolution so far has been your objections to what you call 'stable systems', yet here we have a series of animals that all have the same 'stable systems' yet you still don't accept they have a common ancestor.
What is stopping mammals, in your view, from sharing a common ancestor?[/b]
of natural selection is beyond reason in my opinion, having some many with the
different types of the same design is even more beyond the pale. While seeing
common design as we do in the things we build is common place. Since when I
look at design processes life has more things in common with designed items than
it does with randomness.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry, i don't understand.
The odds against a single system being built by random mutations with the filter
of natural selection is beyond reason in my opinion, having some many with the
different types of the same design is even more beyond the pale. While seeing
common design as we do in the things we build is common place. Since when I
look at design processes life has more things in common with designed items than
it does with randomness.
Kelly
Mammals all have the same 'stable systems', you've explained to me why you think 'stable systems' can't have evolved in some technical detail, i would like the same technical detail explaining why mammals can't have a shared ancestor.
I'm looking for WHY they can't share an ancestor. What precisely is stopping the process from happening?