Spirituality
25 Jul 18
Originally posted by @proper-knobDeath
If you accept small changes in DNA can occur, what’s stopping those same small changes building incrementally one after the other to create bigger changes?
Originally posted by @proper-knobI have a box where I keep odds and ends, things that by themselves serve no particular purpose. The reason for keeping (not discarding) these 'useless' bits and pieces is the off chance of possibly needing one (or some) of them at some future date.
If you accept small changes in DNA can occur, what’s stopping those same small changes building incrementally one after the other to create bigger changes?
Originally posted by @kellyjay
Death
Accumulating bits and pieces of useless genetic material (mutations) until they might prove useful hundreds (or thousands) of years later could be analogous to what my purpose is for saving parts, except for one significant difference rendering the analogy itself useless...
Originally posted by @proper-knobSmall changes can occur, they can also change something that is required, damage something needful, if so it doesn’t advance let alone build upon some previous mutations.
Elaborate.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Aug 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeIf you want to call something science you have to utilize the scientific method. If you are able to replicate something in the lab multiple times you are putting the scientific method to good use. Is there any part of evolutionary theory that has been replicated in the lab?
If all your knowledge is based on things you've witnessed then you have my deepest sympathy.
Most of us stand on the shoulders of giants.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYes.
If you want to call something science you have to utilize the scientific method. If you are able to replicate something in the lab multiple times you are putting the scientific method to good use. Is there any part of evolutionary theory that has been replicated in the lab?
08 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayI really don’t see how that answers my original question. You accept small changes which are beneficial can occur. Why can’t they happen, again and again?
Small changes can occur, they can also change something that is required, damage something needful, if so it doesn’t advance let alone build upon some previous mutations.
Originally posted by @proper-knobI can write a program to sort values into specific buckets advantages, no affect, or harm/death. What is being suggested through natural selection and mutations that good mutations are passed along and the bad ones die off so that the good ones can build upon one another. So that in some number of generations we could get a liver, heart, eyes, and so on where before there weren’t any.
I really don’t see how that answers my original question. You accept small changes which are beneficial can occur. Why can’t they happen, again and again?
The shifting of natural selection takes place once these mutational changes have taken place, there is no mechanism directing a new mutation to build upon the old to construct anything. There isn’t something looking at what is needed and asking for it pulling it in, neither is there any there anything driving towards a specific end to fulfill a requirement pushing for it.
I don’t believe many want to be acknowledging needs are being met by some outside director. Please note that this is different than a established life form moving into a different environment so it adapts, like rabbits moving into an area with snow so white rabbits become dominant. Strictly DNA changes!
The high volume of bad mutations far outweigh any good, and if mutations are indeed random then even getting a good one doesn’t mean the next one doesn’t cancel it out or reverts back. It is a fluid random process without directions or guides.
This process built the human body?
08 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayThere is something that drives the proliferation of beneficial mutations, while suppressing the proliferation of harmful mutations.
There isn’t something looking at what is needed and asking for it pulling it in, neither is there any there anything driving towards a specific end to fulfill a requirement pushing for it.
It's called "natural selection."
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYou are suggesting mutations are not random that there is indeed something holding back the bad, and promoting the good. This requires being able to foretell what is beneficial before it can become either a benefit or a deprament. You believe there is some foreknowledge in play, that it is not advantages or disadvantages that determines out outcomes?
There is something that drives the proliferation of beneficial mutations, while suppressing the proliferation of harmful mutations.
It's called "natural selection."
08 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjaylol. You've demonstrated once again that you don't understand natural selection.
You are suggesting mutations are not random that there is indeed something holding back the bad, and promoting the good. This requires being able to foretell what is beneficial before it can become either a benefit or a deprament. You believe there is some foreknowledge in play, that it is not advantages or disadvantages that determines out outcomes?
If you were able to understand the following, you'd understand the mechanism by which the "good" is selected rather than the "bad":
Please reread the following:
<<If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproducing. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutated organism survives to reproduce, and the mutation gets passed on to its offspring.>>
In other words, if a given mutation is harmful, it is less likely to be passed on to it's offspring. If it is extremely harmful, it is very unlikely to be passed on to it's offspring since the organism would likely die prior to it having offspring. If it is beneficial the organism is more likely to survive long enough to have offspring. It has nothing to do with "foreknowledge".
You continue to demonstrate beyond all doubt that you don't understand natural selection. You continue to allow your pride to get the better of you.
08 Aug 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @kellyjaySee if you can understand the following:
You are suggesting mutations are not random that there is indeed something holding back the bad, and promoting the good. This requires being able to foretell what is beneficial before it can become either a benefit or a deprament. You believe there is some foreknowledge in play, that it is not advantages or disadvantages that determines out outcomes?
Misconceptions about natural selection
Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress — but this is not what natural selection is like at all.
First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32