RJHinds evolution thread

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

Quote from

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127

Are Mutations Random?

The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.

However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution.

unquote

Originally posted by JS357
Quote from

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127

Are Mutations Random?

The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on ...[text shortened]... ly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution.

unquote

So non-random mutations are called what, deliberate ones?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So non-random mutations are called what, deliberate ones?
Kelly

They are mutations that the surviving organisms have randomly had happen, that they pass on to their offspring, and that immunize their offspring from the latest threat. The ones that don't have this random immunity mutation won't have offspring that survive. That's the idea you have to defeat, and it won't be defeated by "Gosh how unlikely is that?" because over billions of years, things that are unlikely to happen on one coin toss, are almost certain to happen eventually.

So that's the rebuttal of the evolution fan. I'm only trying to help in your debate position. Are you arguing for ID, or for literal Genesis, or what? Please state the position you seek to defend.

Originally posted by JS357
They are mutations that the surviving organisms have randomly had happen, that they pass on to their offspring, and that immunize their offspring from the latest threat. The ones that don't have this random immunity mutation won't have offspring that survive. That's the idea you have to defeat, and it won't be defeated by "Gosh how unlikely is that?" because o ...[text shortened]... g for ID, or for literal Genesis, or what? Please state the position you seek to defend.

I'm attacking evolution, I don't have to defend a position to not agree with
evolution. I also will freely admit even if I get everyone here to disagree with
evolution that does not by default mean what I believe about creation is true.
The thing about random mutation, what if they are not random, what if they are
simply the means by which when creatures fall into a new niche that is how they
grow to fit in rather nicely, except that would mean that is it by design, due
to the fact those mutations are there?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

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?

Yep. I'm still confused as to why you don't think that complexity can't be built up by one layer at a time very slowly.

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

Nope, I am saying evolution can do this and not "a mutation".

Originally posted by KellyJay
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 ...[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? ...”

where did I suggest that “ all animals hearts share the same common ancestor”?
Why would I rule out the possibility that hearts could have evolved independently in several evolutionary lineages in animals? I am not suggesting that is true but it is at least plausible.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm attacking evolution, I don't have to defend a position to not agree with
evolution. I also will freely admit even if I get everyone here to disagree with
evolution that does not by default mean what I believe about creation is true.
The thing about random mutation, what if they are not random, what if they are
simply the means by which when creature ...[text shortened]... xcept that would mean that is it by design, due
to the fact those mutations are there?
Kelly

A designer could use random changes to fill available niches, if that's what you mean. This is why evolution theory does not rule out divine design. Lots of people seem to think that evolution rules out divine design, but they are wrong. And lots of people think divine design rules out evolution, but they are wrong. What rule each other out, are evolution and literal Genesis.

If you are only trying to attack evolution, it is true that you don't have to defend design. So unless you want to defend design, you and I can stop talking about design here in this thread. In fact, we might be done.

I think it pays for both sides to understand the other side's arguments. But we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Lots of stuff is on the web.

Here is a collection of some commonly used non-religious arguments against evolution.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

On the other side there is the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I think there is little reason to argue about these claims, if you have no interest in teaching divine creation (direct or by design) such as in the public K-12 schools, -- reference the Kitzmiller V Dover case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Originally posted by KellyJay
The thing about random mutation, what if they are not random, what if they are
simply the means by which when creatures fall into a new niche that is how they
grow to fit in rather nicely, except that would mean that is it by design, due
to the fact those mutations are there?
Kelly

There is fairly good evidence that mutations in DNA that is not affected by natural selected happen randomly at a predictable rate. This fact is used in modern genetics to determine how important a piece of DNA is. If we see mutations happening at the natural random rate, then we know that piece of DNA is not subject to natural selection. This helps us to differentiate active genes from inactive parts of the DNA sequence.

I think I must also note here that mutations come in many different forms. There are single base changes, and there are more complicated situations such as whole genes being copied or moved around even whole sections being copied or moved around. Occasionally a whole DNA pair gets lost or an extra copy gets included.

I must also add that some mutations even happen during your life time. The cells you have as an adult are different from the ones you had as a baby.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]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?

Yep. I'm still confused as to why you don't think that complexity can't be built up by one layer at a time very slowly.[/b]

I've not doubt complexity can be built both rapidly or slowly over time, that is not
at all in doubt. What is in doubt that you can limit you inputs into a system to just
random entries that may occur anywhere within a system and believe with a
straight face that you will not only get a complex system, but one that will improve
over time as well. That is what I'm harping about, it is the only thing I've been
complaining about, I believe a small change within a system can occur and it can
alter the system and maybe make it even better. That was never a question with
me, I've been around enough software where myself or real programmers can
come in and add some features to a program. Depending on the program or script
that needs altered, whatever needs done, has to be done carefully else things
break down.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
"....What proof do you have that all animals hearts share the same common ancestor? ...”

where did I suggest that “ all animals hearts share the same common ancestor”?
Why would I rule out the possibility that hearts could have evolved independently in several evolutionary lineages in animals? I am not suggesting that is true but it is at least plausible.

"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."

You know it feels like every time I try to talk to you, we end up doing this, playing
back each others posts because of issues we have grasping what we think the
other said and meant. I'm not going to do that with you again. I'm not saying
I'm not going to respond to you or stop reading your posts, but I'm not doing this
again.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is fairly good evidence that mutations in DNA that is not affected by natural selected happen randomly at a predictable rate. This fact is used in modern genetics to determine how important a piece of DNA is. If we see mutations happening at the natural random rate, then we know that piece of DNA is not subject to natural selection. This helps us to ...[text shortened]... ng your life time. The cells you have as an adult are different from the ones you had as a baby.

I've never really given this much thought until now, but what if these mutations
are not random, but a natural part of a design. I think than the purpose of them
and the scope of their effects will simply be limited to the nature of the design.
For me I'd have to say those mutations are the reason all life can if they settle
into an area specialize to a degree their bodies to best suit that area. This would
explain why we don’t see a lot of transition life forms in the fossil record, and
why it may be possible build up an immunity given enough time as well in any
life form. I suppose if true, that'd make life's design even better than I've been
giving it credit for already.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've never really given this much thought until now, but what if these mutations
are not random, but a natural part of a design.

Well it would be worth asking I suppose, but then one would want to start looking for evidence that that was the case. I personally think the evidence points the other way. As I already pointed out, the mutations in the non-active parts of DNA show a statistically random pattern indicating they are, in fact, random.

This would explain why we don’t see a lot of transition life forms in the fossil record,
No, it wouldn't because we do see a lot of transitional life forms in the fossil record so no such explanation is required.

and why it may be possible build up an immunity given enough time as well in any
life form.
Again, no such explanation is required, because the theory of Evolution already gives a satisfactory explanation without resorting to a requirement for non-random mutations.

I suppose if true, that'd make life's design even better than I've been
giving it credit for already.
Kelly
What if life is even better designed than that and is capable of achieving all those things even with random mutations? Wouldn't that be something!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well it would be worth asking I suppose, but then one would want to start looking for evidence that that was the case. I personally think the evidence points the other way. As I already pointed out, the mutations in the non-active parts of DNA show a statistically random pattern indicating they are, in fact, random.

[b]This would explain why we don’t s pable of achieving all those things even with random mutations? Wouldn't that be something!

[/b]I suppose if true, that'd make life's design even better than I've been
giving it credit for already.
Kelly
What if life is even better designed than that and is capable of achieving all those things even with random mutations? Wouldn't that be something!

[/b]🙂 Isn't that what I said? The randomness of mutations are indeed random, but
are mutating randomly by design so that they are able to interact with whatever
environment the life forms find themselves in by the choice of the life form or the
place it finds itself for whatever reason. I suppose it would be no different than
a random number generator limited to just those numbers that are sound for that
life form to evolve into.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well it would be worth asking I suppose, but then one would want to start looking for evidence that that was the case. I personally think the evidence points the other way. As I already pointed out, the mutations in the non-active parts of DNA show a statistically random pattern indicating they are, in fact, random.

[b]This would explain why we don’t s pable of achieving all those things even with random mutations? Wouldn't that be something!

"No, it wouldn't because we do see a lot of transitional life forms in the fossil record so no such explanation is required. "

[/b]Not in the number or form's I believe we should see.
Kelly