11 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Somatic mutations are not transferred on to offsprings. These type mutations occur in cells that do not form gametes, that is, these mutations do not end up being carried by eggs or sperm. For example, mutations in your skin, muscle, or liver tissue are somatic mutations.
The Instructor
Somatic mutations are not transferred on to offsprings.
here we go again -changing the subject. I was not talking about somatic mutations and didn't even mention the word “somatic”. As you obviously know, I obviously was talking about those mutation that ARE passed on to the offspring and NOT those that aren’t 😛 Would you claim that mutations to gamete cells are also NOT transferred to offspring? 😛
You just confirmed you have no answer to my question -you cannot explain to us WHY a gene for colour could NOT have come into existence via mutation.
Just as I said, without exception, ALL genes, and that obviously includes any genes for colour, are the result of mutation. This is true whether you are talking about genes from somatic mutations or any other type of mutation so “ Somatic mutations are not transferred on to offsprings” being true is totally irrelevant.
11 Jun 13
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
On the color of the bird's feathers being caused by mutations, that may be true, but I suspect that it is probably due to the mixing of the genes during breeding. Mutations are generally eliminated during future reproduction and not carried over. I think you are misstating my claim again.
The Instructor
Mutations are generally eliminated during future reproduction and not carried over.
-but not the advantageous ones. The advantage ones are generally selected by natural selection, the rest being largely irrelevant because they are generally not selected.
On the color of the bird's feathers being caused by mutations, that may be true, but I suspect that it is probably due to the mixing of the genes during breeding.
its obviously due to BOTH. ALL genes come from mutation even if they are millions of year old and the mutations occurred millions of years ago. The fact that such genes mix during breeding does not contradict them coming from mutations for some genes mixing has nothing to do with their origin of each gene. Where is the logical contradiction in two genes being cause by mutations and then mixing together via breeding? Why would these two occurrences be mutually exclusive? -explain.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyIf you are unwilling to accept instruction, then you will have to remain ignorant.Mutations are generally eliminated during future reproduction and not carried over.
-but not the advantageous ones. The advantage ones are generally selected by natural selection, the rest being largely irrelevant because they are generally not selected.
[quote] On the color of the bird's feathers being caused by mutations, that may ...[text shortened]... mixing together via breeding? Why would these two occurrences be mutually exclusive? -explain.
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay. We appear to agree that a definiton can be a description. So now tell me if I'm correct or not in this nutshell description of evolution:
No, not at all. How did you get that from anything I said? I said I am perfectly happy to have a discussion where either party convinces the other of their point of view. If you are correct, and have good reasons for thinking you are correct, you should be able to explain those reasons to me and I should be able to either explain to you why you are wrong, do with what you were talking about. Then you got upset because we didn't understand you.
1. Darwin noted variation within species.
2. He ascribed this variation to a process of natural selection.
3. He proposed a unifying link, using those two observations, to account for one species becoming another. Based on this proposed link, he developed the idea of all life progressively becoming more complex, and assumed this process branches down to a common ancestry.
4. Mutation is believed to be that unifying link.
5. If 4. is true and there is no doubt about it, then the question has been settled.
(I'm done with the description, and will now be expressing my opinion)
For me, the question has not been settled. I will not assume mutations are the unifying link until it has been proven. Physical evidence unearthed appears to point in some other direction, and chemical evolution was abandoned by most scientists during the 1970's. However, abiogenesis has been successfully divorced from the theory, which means evolutionists are not compelled to abandon the entire theory.
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeThat is not even close to what I understand by the word 'evolution'. There are two meanings to the word that I commonly use:
Okay. We appear to agree that a definiton can be a description. So now tell me if I'm correct or not in this nutshell description of evolution:
a) evolution: is the change in a species over time due to the fact that the some of genetic material in a species changes over time.
b) the Theory of Evolution, which covers everything from common ancestry, to speciation and Natural selection and all the complex dynamics of genes.
Darwin was the first to really set out some of the basic principles involved, but that was a long time ago and we have learn't a lot since then. If you are simply trying to discredit Darwin, then you will probably succeed on some points because Darwin got many things wrong, but thats because he didn't have the information available to him that we do today.
But if you think you can dispute some of the major aspects of our modern understanding understanding of Evolution, then you need to put a lot of work into it because you are going up against a body of work built up by hundreds of thousands of scientist of many many years. But as I mentioned before, if you succeed, the rewards will be significant and you may even win a Nobel prize.
For me, the question has not been settled. I will not assume mutations are the unifying link until it has been proven.
I am not really sure what you believe mutations are a supposedly a link between. Can you expand on it?
Also, are you claiming that mutations don't happen, are you claiming that they are not important in evolution, or what exactly are you claiming?
My understanding is that many mutations are well known and have been studied in detail, so if you would make a fairly concrete claim, I think it might be possible to find a counter example.
Edit:
I see Wikipedia has a similar definition to my a)
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI would say "disadvantageous genes are selected against", as opposed to the statement you make which is "advantageous genes are selected for".Mutations are generally eliminated during future reproduction and not carried over.
-but not the advantageous ones. The advantage ones are generally selected by natural selection, the rest being largely irrelevant because they are generally not selected.
[quote] On the color of the bird's feathers being caused by mutations, that may ...[text shortened]... mixing together via breeding? Why would these two occurrences be mutually exclusive? -explain.
"Natural Selection" does not know what mutations are advantageous or disadvantageous. If some event or circumstance causes some members of a species to die and not others, that is "selection". If a mutation arises that has no immediate effect on survivability, it may or may not still be passed on from generation to generation.
Take two populations of the same species in different areas:
Population A of a particular species produces a mutation that causes some members to be green.
Population B produces a different mutation that allows them to see through walls.
Population B lives next to a volcano that explodes and kills all of them.
Which mutation does "Natural Selection" consider more advantageous?
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWikipedia said it, you believe it, and that settles it? Really?
That is not even close to what I understand by the word 'evolution'. There are two meanings to the word that I commonly use:
a) evolution: is the change in a species over time due to the fact that the some of genetic material in a species changes over time.
b) the Theory of Evolution, which covers everything from common ancestry, to speciation and Natur ...[text shortened]... he inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[/quote]
Seriously, if you need to point to prescribed answers to questions and definitions, then what is the point of all this? I'm assuming you understand what it is you understand about evolution... I'm NOT assuming you need to go running to an outside source so you will know what to say.
You don't need to deal with my opinions. You can ignore those. I inserted a sentence differentiating between the five points and my opinion for a reason... so you would know the difference. Can you deal with the points one at a time in an organized and logical fashion? Or is it my job to untangle your answer, throw out the parts that aren't relevant, and then decide which parts are relevant to those five points? Those points were numbered from 1 to 5... 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, if that is all it is, then we may not have a big problem with it, unless your changes go much above adaptive changes through natural selection to produce slight variation is species. What we object to is that at one time man was not a man, but some other creature before Evil-lution took over.
That is not even close to what I understand by the word 'evolution'. There are two meanings to the word that I commonly use:
a) evolution: is the change in a species over time due to the fact that the some of genetic material in a species changes over time.
b) the Theory of Evolution, which covers everything from common ancestry, to speciation and Natur ...[text shortened]... he inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[/quote]
The Instructor
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
11 Jun 13
5 edits
Take two populations of the same species in different areas:
Population A of a particular species produces a mutation that causes some members to be green.
Population B produces a different mutation that allows them to see through walls.
Population B lives next to a volcano that explodes and kills all of them.
Which mutation does "Natural Selection" consider more advantageous?
The fittest population of cource! Fitness is not (I'm sure you already knew) as I assume, the one, which produces a more healthy population as their offspring (better at surviving and making babies, even a small number like 0.5 % better would matter greatly, consider the time perspictive). Then you also have to take into account all other factors, mostly: predators, avalability of food, the number in the population (if it grows too fast a virus or other transmittable decease can nock it out), other populations competing for the same niche (their life environments, ph, climate, special things which is needed for survival and reproducing), the genome (of course) I mean the complete number of proteins it can produce, especially those who are essential for mating, like if it leads to a greater production of hormones regulating a feature 'blue eyes', 'lots of muscles' (you name it) which females happen to fancy, they will produce more offspring. Lots to read here for people interested. (In short, one of the cornerstones of evolutionary animal biology) . I will end with two examples: Humans bodies are quite strange acctually since we only diverged from other primates not too long ago. First, we are very keen of getting holes in our teeths (because we have too many of them, or because our mouths are too small), and second we tend to have very weak wrists which tend to break if we fall. I am confident that if we had stayed in the djunge a little longer, 2 million years or so, this would be fixed. By natural selection. 😕
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI watched your video.
Well, if that is all it is, then we may not have a big problem with it, unless your changes go much above adaptive changes through natural selection to produce slight variation is species. What we object to is that at one time man was not a man, but some other creature before Evil-lution took over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W763lQR0tU
The Instructor
I will admit that the program consistently uses language that suggest that something ( some conscious force, or even the animals themselves ) is deciding what to evolve and why. This is the same type of language that I have argued against twice in this thread.
Fortunately, I found this video, covering many of the same topics as this thread, discussed in a much more interesting fashion than most of this thread:
Notice: No argument against the concept of evolution, the age of the universe, or the principles of science and physics.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingTrue enough. I find many of the conversations and notions that humans are "devolving" rather interesting. I have even tried to make that argument myself at one time. It is the concept that Natural Selection is blind, that there are no inherently "good" or "bad" mutations. There are mutations, and there is survival, which selects some mutations while others die off.
[b]
Take two populations of the same species in different areas:
Population A of a particular species produces a mutation that causes some members to be green.
Population B produces a different mutation that allows them to see through walls.
Population B lives next to a volcano that explodes and kills all of them.
Which mutation does "Natural Sel ...[text shortened]... nge a little longer, 2 million years or so, this would be fixed. By natural selection. 😕
Advantage and Disadvantage are only apparent in hindsight.
12 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wasn't defining the 'word' evolution. I was describing the evolution of evolution, and asking you to confirm or deny it... one point at a time, if that's okay with you.
That is not even close to what I understand by the word 'evolution'. There are two meanings to the word that I commonly use:
a) evolution: is the change in a species over time due to the fact that the some of genetic material in a species changes over time.
b) the Theory of Evolution, which covers everything from common ancestry, to speciation and Natur he inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[/quote]
1. Darwin noted variation within species.
(So did he, or didn't he?)
2. He ascribed this variation to a process of natural selection.
(I think he did, but I'm still waiting to hear from you if he did or not)
3. He proposed a unifying link, using those two observations, to account for one species becoming another. Based on this proposed link, he developed the idea of all life progressively becoming more complex, and assumed this process branches down to a common ancestry.
(I don't know if he used the word 'mutation' or not, but the above statement seems to be self explanatory)
4. Mutation is believed to be that unifying link.
If it's not mutation, then what is it... what allows animals to evolve? Either you've been saying mutations can account for evolution, or you haven't yet said what it is. If there is no mechanism for one species to evolve into another, or mutations don't factor into that mechanism, then what does? What makes it possible for an organism to evolve into a different organism?
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"If you are simply trying to discredit Darwin, then you will probably succeed on some points because Darwin got many things wrong, but thats because he didn't have the information available to him that we do today.
That is not even close to what I understand by the word 'evolution'. There are two meanings to the word that I commonly use:
a) evolution: is the change in a species over time due to the fact that the some of genetic material in a species changes over time.
b) the Theory of Evolution, which covers everything from common ancestry, to speciation and Natur ...[text shortened]... he inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[/quote]
But if you think you can dispute some of the major aspects of our modern understanding understanding of Evolution, then you need to put a lot of work into it because you are going up against a body of work built up by hundreds of thousands of scientist of many many years"
How can I discredit Darwin when he didn't have the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have today? Even he recognised the limitation of the science of his time. So if anyone needs to put more work into this it would you, because we DO know more than was known then.
If evolution has evolved beyond Darwins understanding of it it's because evolution has necessarily needed to do that.... to explain the inconsistencies we now know to exist in regard to this theory. It's for this reason evolution needed to divorce itself from abiogenesis.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat makes it possible for an organism to evolve into a different organism?
I wasn't defining the 'word' evolution. I was describing the evolution of evolution, and asking you to confirm or deny it... one point at a time, if that's okay with you.
1. Darwin noted variation within species.
(So did he, or didn't he?)
2. He ascribed this variation to a process of natural selection.
(I think he did, but I'm still waiting ...[text shortened]... t does? What makes it possible for an organism to evolve into a different organism?
Nothing. That would be Evil-lution, which does not happen.
The Instructor