Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're going to have to define what a 'stable system' is before we proceed.

Out of curiosity have you ever read any books on evolution written by an evolutionary biologist?

A stable system, let’s call the human circulatory system when it comes to
blood in our lives stable. We have been around in recorded history for a few
thousand years at a minimum that we can agree on at least. I'd say a system
that does all that does, and has been here for that long I'd call stable. It isn't
like the human race died off three days after it was first formed. A non-stable
system would break down and we wouldn't see it time and time again in all
humans if it were not.

I've dealt with more electronic and process systems than I have biological
ones, but my feeling on that is the biological are much more complex in
scope! I’ve some of Dawkin’s works and I have a few in the house too,
have not spent a great deal of time in them.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think you have yet answered the question regarding hair length.
Do you accept that a single mutation can result in longer hair, and that this can result in greater survivability of the animal in question?

[b]I also beg to differ on religion, there are more than a few people here to defend evolution with more passion than believers in God do. T ...[text shortened]... asking you to take up evolution as a religion, nor asking you to use it to define your life.

"Do you accept that a single mutation can result in longer hair, and that this can result in greater survivability of the animal in question? "

Yes
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A stable system, let’s call the human circulatory system when it comes to
blood in our lives stable. We have been around in recorded history for a few
thousand years at a minimum that we can agree on at least. I'd say a system
that does all that does, and has been here for that long I'd call stable. It isn't
like the human race died off three days after ...[text shortened]... rks and I have a few in the house too,
have not spent a great deal of time in them.
Kelly

The human circulatory system is the same as every other mammal. All mammals have a four chambered heart structure and mammals have had that structure for around 65 million years.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The human circulatory system is the same as every other mammal. All mammals have a four chambered heart structure and mammals have had that structure for around 65 million years.

A stable one at that no? A variety of creatures have them, you again feel that only
through random mutations this is could be a direct result? You see a lot of systems
that does all ours does being built without a plan, a purpose, or design? Seriously,
a variety of creature throughout the world have them living in a variety of different
environments with completely different body types and they share this heart design,
that sounds like a series of random mutations to you? Please answer this question!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A stable one at that no? A variety of creatures have them, you again feel that only
through random mutations this is could be a direct result? You see a lot of systems
that does all ours does being built without a plan, a purpose, or design? Seriously,
a variety of creature throughout the world have them living in a variety of different
environments wit ...[text shortened]... sign,
that sounds like a series of random mutations to you? Please answer this question!
Kelly

“...you again feel that only
through random mutations this is could be a direct result? ...”

evolution is not just “random mutation” but natural selection selecting variants generated by both mutations and gene recombinations.

“....a variety of creature throughout the world have them living in a variety of different
environments with completely different body types and they share this heart design,
that sounds like a series of random mutations to you? ...”

obviously, mammals did not all evolve with a hart independently.
Random mutations would have a part to play in the evolution of the first mammal that is the ancestor of all modern mammals and all modern mammals have the same basic anatomy of the hart BECAUSE they share that common ancestor with that same hart anatomy.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...you again feel that only
through random mutations this is could be a direct result? ...”

evolution is not just “random mutation” but natural selection selecting variants generated by both mutations and gene recombinations.

“....a variety of creature throughout the world have them living in a variety of different
environments with comple ...[text shortened]... e basic anatomy of the hart BECAUSE they share that common ancestor with that same hart anatomy.

I don't think you are thinking this through! Natural selection is like a juggler, who
can only work with what someone else hands them, in addition to that whatever
it hands them can be changed or taken away randomly. In the case of only being
given what a random mutation can produce that means natural selection will get
either something that will not harm, something that will help, or something that
will harm but not so bad to that which will kill. Since these mutations are on going
and they are ongoing EVERYWHERE throughout time, this means that even
that which does happen to be given that does no harm or will helps does not mean
that they will get to STAY THAT WAY due to the nature of change happening
randomly throughout with all the mutations. What you believe is that not only
will there be a heart formed, but at the same time other unrelated random
mutations will also create blood, arteries, veins, stop blood from flowing
with blood clotting abilities but only at the right time for the right length of
time and so on so that a circulatory system can be created and maintain!
This is what you are claiming a random mutation will do!
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...you again feel that only
through random mutations this is could be a direct result? ...”

evolution is not just “random mutation” but natural selection selecting variants generated by both mutations and gene recombinations.

“....a variety of creature throughout the world have them living in a variety of different
environments with comple ...[text shortened]... e basic anatomy of the hart BECAUSE they share that common ancestor with that same hart anatomy.

What proof do you have that all animals hearts share the same common ancestor?
That is the belief you are trying to prove with evolution, and you are claiming it is
true by simply stating your beliefs? What is it about hearts forming leads you to
believe they all started the same way, do they all develop at the same time when
life is being formed, what makes you think what you claimed is true outside of it
is part of your belief system, what evidence do you have we can see in the here
and now that does not require me to believe your connecting dots that happened
in the distant past?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't think you are thinking this through! Natural selection is like a juggler, who
can only work with what someone else hands them, in addition to that whatever
it hands them can be changed or taken away randomly. In the case of only being
given what a random mutation can produce that means natural selection will get
either something that will not ha ...[text shortened]... m can be created and maintain!
This is what you are claiming a random mutation will do!
Kelly

We're not claiming that one random mutation will do all that. The circulatory system evolved over time just like everything else and requires many genes to fulfill all those functions you described.

Originally posted by KellyJay

That is the belief you are trying to prove with evolution, and you are claiming it is
true by simply stating your beliefs? What is it about hearts forming leads you to
believe they all started the same way, do they all develop at the same time when
life is being formed, what makes you think what you claimed is true outside of it
is part of your belief ...[text shortened]... t does not require me to believe your connecting dots that happened
in the distant past?
Kelly

What proof do you have that all animals hearts share the same common ancestor?

We have the same genes. Besides Andrew didn't say all animal hearts share the same common ancestor, he said all mammals which have the same circulatory system share a common ancestor.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would that matter if it is doing well enough as a worm? If the driving
catalyst for change is random mutations; those mutations are going to
continue regardless if the worm doing well or not! So change is always
going to occur, the only thing after that would be as the worm gets changed
it has to deal with it until it cannot and dies, or it is no lo ...[text shortened]... ys life, it is
not realistic, considering all the changes that would have had to happen!
Kelly

I was kidding. See the 🙂? Sure, according to the theory, a mutation in the reproductive DNA of a member of a population can result in a change in its progeny, even if there is no reproductive advantage associated with the change. But as long the worms have a worm-friendly environment, there will be worms there, even if some of them change from the original. The offspring of a mutant that can, for example, tolerate cold soil better, might slowly migrate to the shady part of the habitat, and after further mutations, might or might not be able to successfully reproduce with the original worms. At least, that's how I understand that aspect of the theory. There is nothing "driving" evolution, as I understand it, although people do talk that way. Of course, there could be a divine plan and guiding force, but science would be silent on that. But this isn't the science forum.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
We're not claiming that one random mutation will do all that. The circulatory system evolved over time just like everything else and requires many genes to fulfill all those functions you described.

I did not say you were claiming one mutation would do that! I said that many of
them over time! So that each new one either changing something already there by
either altering it, or subtracting it, or adding something new to the mix each time
the whole living creature is being effected. You are claiming that a radom mutations
over time can build such complex system as our circulatory system and maintain
and improve it without causing it to fall apart till we get to the one we have today.
Do we see anything like random mutations that have producted things like our
circulatory system in the real world? If this isn't something we see repeated
anywhere why do you accept this as true? If this process of random change is just
between the ears of those who BELEIVE in evolution who claim its true because of
their FAITH in this process and not seen anywhere else why do you accept it as
true?
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
I was kidding. See the 🙂? Sure, according to the theory, a mutation in the reproductive DNA of a member of a population can result in a change in its progeny, even if there is no reproductive advantage associated with the change. But as long the worms have a worm-friendly environment, there will be worms there, even if some of them change from the original. T ...[text shortened]... an and guiding force, but science would be silent on that. But this isn't the science forum.

I don't even buy into if the enviroment is good for worms you'd always have them!
Reason for that is the nature of change people are claiming comes, worms do not
get to say what part of their population gets a mutation and what part does not, so
changes could just as easy cause a worm to lose their ability to stay in a good
worm enviroment as they could grow into one. The stacking of the deck that only
the good remain is just that, a card trick theory. If random change can cause some
creature to move into a new enviroment it should also cause all that get changes
to lose their abilities to stay in one. How many worms change, how many recieve
the same change at the same time, all of these things people just seem to accept
as if they are meaningless parts of the process.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I did not say you were claiming one mutation would do that! I said that many of
them over time! So that each new one either changing something already there by
either altering it, or subtracting it, or adding something new to the mix each time
the whole living creature is being effected. You are claiming that a radom mutations
over time can build such c ...[text shortened]... f
their FAITH in this process and not seen anywhere else why do you accept it as
true?
Kelly

I did not say you were claiming one mutation would do that!

You did, here's what you typed above with the important bit highlighted in bold.

What you believe is that not only will there be a heart formed, but at the same time other unrelated random mutations will also create blood, arteries, veins, stop blood from flowing with blood clotting abilities but only at the right time for the right length of time and so on so that a circulatory system can be created and maintain! This is what you are claiming a random mutation will do!

I accept evolutionary theory because i have books on the subject and analysed the evidence with my own mind, i strongly suggest you do the same thing. My views have nothing to do with faith.

As for the circulatory system, it evolved over time as you described above. We can see the stages of evolutionary development in animals that are alive today, by looking at the genomes of these animals we can see what genes are required to perform which functions in the evolutionary process.

You seem so confident that evolution didn't happen so i'm going to start a new thread where you can tell me how God did do it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't even buy into if the enviroment is good for worms you'd always have them!
Reason for that is the nature of change people are claiming comes, worms do not
get to say what part of their population gets a mutation and what part does not, so
changes could just as easy cause a worm to lose their ability to stay in a good
worm enviroment as they could ...[text shortened]... ese things people just seem to accept
as if they are meaningless parts of the process.
Kelly

I think it would be quite improbable that a genetically-based change could sweep through a large population of worms rapidly enough to wipe it out, if it is in an environment that remains hospitable to unchanged worms. But like you, I believe that under current evolution theory, it is not impossible.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I did not say you were claiming one mutation would do that!

You did, here's what you typed above with the important bit highlighted in bold.

[quote]What you believe is that not only will there be a heart formed, but at the same time other unrelated random mutations will also create blood, arteries, veins, stop blood from flowing with blood c ...[text shortened]... ion didn't happen so i'm going to start a new thread where you can tell me how God did do it.[/b]

Seriously, random mutations over time has been my theme, even in the quote
you gave you see I'm talking about random mutations.

You still are holding to the notion that random mutations can give us stable
systems that will survive for years upon years and so on?
Kelly