Spirituality
25 Jul 18
15 Aug 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @kellyjayIf your reading comprehension were better, you would have read the statements that follow the phrase that you quoted. They tell you what you need to know:
"... reproductive success of an organism."
Reproductive success isn't when a organism reproduces?
Seriously reproducing is the only thing that keeps anything going forward, good, bad, or
completely indifferent. If there is some magic decoder ring within DNA that looks at all
the code and says, take these not those so there is nothing but success, that ...[text shortened]... l something finds it
and removes it (thank you God), or the lifeform dies due to bad mutations.
<<Good mutations enhance reproductive success, and consequently that mutation will spread throughout the population. Bad mutations, on the other hand, reduce reproductive success, and as a result of that their spread throughout the population is suppressed.>>
Seriously KJ. Take a class in reading comprehension. Learn how to read in context.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneRepeating it doesn't make it real.
If your reading comprehension were better, you would have read the statements that follow the phrase that you quoted. They tell you what you need to know:
<<Good mutations enhance reproductive success, and consequently that mutation will spread throughout the population. Bad mutations, on the other hand, reduce reproductive success, and as a result of t ...[text shortened]... ressed.>>
Seriously KJ. Take a class in reading comprehension. Learn how to read in context.
Good mutations enhance reproductive success yea for that.
That doesn't negate that bad ones don't, and when the two are mixed, you only have
to die once to stop the whole process.
The bad far out weight the good in shear numbers suppressing something's numbers
does not negate them or their affects they can have upon a generation.
You can go to the store and read, 50% less sugar, but if the total amount of sugar was
5X what would be considered good before the reduction, who cares?
The magical shifting away of the bad affects needs to be explained, repeating that line is
not explaining it.
If one generation starts passing its DNA to the next, it passes it's DNA on to the next, it
will give whatever it has. If there are good and bad they both go, and they will be
accumulating until something bad out weights the good or indifferent in some critical
place. The next generation faces the same thing accumulation will occur, and even if
the bad are reduced and suppressed, that is not saying they are destroyed or made inert.
Pretending the there is some process abolishing all/or almost all bad mutations from
having an effect isn't realistic. There has to be some means for this to occur naturally
or it doesn't happen, unless you want to invoke the supernatural.
15 Aug 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @kellyjayYou want details. Details can be found in the following article:
Repeating it doesn't make it real.
Good mutations enhance reproductive success yea for that.
That doesn't negate that bad ones don't, and when the two are mixed, you only have
to die once to stop the whole process.
The bad far out weight the good in shear numbers suppressing something's numbers
does not negate them or their affects they can have u ...[text shortened]... s for this to occur naturally
or it doesn't happen, unless you want to invoke the supernatural.
Population Genetics Made Simple
David A. Plaisted
----------------------------------------
In order to understand discussions about evolution, even from a creationist viewpoint, it is helpful to have some background in population genetics. We give a brief survey of some of the points of population genetics most relevant for this purpose.
The characteristics of organisms are determined by their genetic material (DNA), and random mutations (changes) in the DNA can result in slight changes in organisms. As these accumulate, there can be changes in organisms, resulting in evolution. Population genetics attempts to analyze this process mathematically.
About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, and mutations there generally have no effect. The remaining 10 percent is functional, and has an influence on the properties of an organism, as it is used to direct the synthesis of proteins that guide the metabolism of the organism. Mutations to this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful. Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. (Remine, The Biotic Message, page 221.) This model is actually not realistic, because it does not take into account the interactions between various mutations. Nor does it distinguish major mutations, which change the shape of proteins, from minor mutations, which do not. Furthermore, it does not consider that the beneficial mutations observed are generally only of a restricted kind that cannot explain evolution. However, we consider the model in some detail anyway, because it is so widely used. In addition, population genetics can help to explain the rapid adaptation of organisms to their environment by changes in frequency of existing genetic material (alleles) even without mutations.
Harmful mutations result in organisms less likely to survive, and so these mutations tend to be eliminated from the population (group of organisms in a species). Beneficial mutations also tend to be eliminated by chance, but less often, and tend to be preserved. As these accumulate, the species can gradually adapt to its environment. Neutral mutations are generally eliminated, curiously, but sometimes can spread to the whole population. We then say that the mutation has fixed in the population. The rate of evolution is the rate at which mutations fix in the population. These can be either beneficial or neutral mutations.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html
If the above article was too simple for you, perhaps the following article will help to provide the additional detail that you may require:
Impacts of mutation effects and population size on mutation rate in asexual populations: a simulation study
Xiaoqian Jiang,1,2 Baolin Mu,3 Zhuoran Huang,1,2 Mingjing Zhang,1,2 Xiaojuan Wang,1,2 and Shiheng Taocorresponding author1,2
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ► Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
Go to:
Background
In any natural population, mutation is the primary source of genetic variation required for evolutionary novelty and adaptation. Nevertheless, most mutations, especially those with phenotypic effects, are harmful and are consequently removed by natural selection. For this reason, under natural selection, an organism will evolve to a lower mutation rate. Overall, the action of natural selection on mutation rate is related to population size and mutation effects. Although theoretical work has intensively investigated the relationship between natural selection and mutation rate, most of these studies have focused on individual competition within a population, rather than on competition among populations. The aim of the present study was to use computer simulations to investigate how natural selection adjusts mutation rate among asexually reproducing subpopulations with different mutation rates.
Go to:
Results
The competition results for the different subpopulations showed that a population could evolve to an "optimum" mutation rate during long-term evolution, and that this rate was modulated by both population size and mutation effects. A larger population could evolve to a higher optimum mutation rate than could a smaller population. The optimum mutation rate depended on both the fraction and the effects of beneficial mutations, rather than on the effects of deleterious ones. The optimum mutation rate increased with either the fraction or the effects of beneficial mutations. When strongly favored mutations appeared, the optimum mutation rate was elevated to a much higher level. The competition time among the subpopulations also substantially shortened.
Go to:
Conclusions
Competition at the population level revealed that the evolution of the mutation rate in asexual populations was determined by both population size and mutation effects. The most striking finding was that beneficial mutations, rather than deleterious mutations, were the leading force that modulated the optimum mutation rate. The initial configuration of the population appeared to have no effect on these conclusions, confirming the robustness of the simulation method developed in the present study. These findings might further explain the lower mutation rates observed in most asexual organisms, as well as the higher mutation rates in some viruses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958918/
Of course, I'm sure you'll read both articles in their entirety to see in what ways they either coincide or differ from your understanding. If they are insufficient for your needs, Google can provide more articles that you can read at your leisure.
15 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneProps to you, you at least are making an effort.
You want details. Details can be found in the following article:
[quote][b]Population Genetics Made Simple
David A. Plaisted
----------------------------------------
In order to understand discussions about evolution, even from a creationist viewpoint, it is helpful to have some background in population genetics. We give a brief survey of so ...[text shortened]... insufficient for your needs, Google can provide more articles that you can read at your leisure.[/b]
Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow.
15 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI don't agree with the universal common ancestor there is nothing disingenuous about that
C'mon KJ. Any number of people have made an effort to explain it to you - many have made multiple attempts including me. It's really disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise.
I've been quite upfront about it. Explaining something to me doesn't mean I don't grasp it
if I still disagree with it too. You can understand a position you still disagree with.
15 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayC'mon KJ. You wrote the following:
I don't agree with the universal common ancestor there is nothing disingenuous about that
I've been quite upfront about it. Explaining something to me doesn't mean I don't grasp it
if I still disagree with it too. You can understand a position you still disagree with.
<<Props to you, you at least are making an effort. "
I responded as follows:
<<Any number of people have made an effort to explain it to you - many have made multiple attempts including me. It's really disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise.>>
Based on the above, do you really think that the point of what is disingenuous has anything to do with the fact that you " don't agree with the universal common ancestor"? If you do, it's yet another example of your poor reading comprehension.
15 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayIn the context of evolution, "reproductive success" refers to the number of adult offspring an organism produces.
"... reproductive success of an organism."
Reproductive success isn't when a organism reproduces?
Seriously reproducing is the only thing that keeps anything going forward, good, bad, or
completely indifferent. If there is some magic decoder ring within DNA that looks at all
the code and says, take these not those so there is nothing but success, that ...[text shortened]... l something finds it
and removes it (thank you God), or the lifeform dies due to bad mutations.
The point is that mutations that enhance reproductive success will spread more throughout a population, to the detriment of other organisms' offspring which did not receive those beneficial mutations. So, no, no one has to "look" at the DNA - the effect of mutations presents itself in their effect on reproductive success without intervention. And no, organisms will not always reproduce - after all, the reproductive success of organisms varies. This is how natural selection works.
Originally posted by @kellyjayI’m sorry but simply don’t agree with any of this waffle from you KellyJay.
I don't agree with the universal common ancestor there is nothing disingenuous about that I've been quite upfront about it. Explaining something to me doesn't mean I don't grasp it if I still disagree with it too. You can understand a position you still disagree with.
You have demonstrated in all matters that (like many Christians in here) you have concrete fixed beliefs and you won’t budge on any of them no matter what rational, scripture, science or moral argument is put before you.
Your mind is absolutely closed to all new ideas, knowledge and wisdom and this thread has shown you up as being a petty, dishonest head-in-the-sand religionist.
15 Aug 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterzzzz
I’m sorry but simply don’t agree with any of this waffle from you KellyJay.
You have demonstrated in all matters that (like many Christians in here) you have concrete fixed beliefs and you won’t budge on any of them no matter what rational, scripture, science or moral argument is put before you.
Your mind is absolutely closed to all new ideas, k ...[text shortened]... isdom and this thread has shown you up as being a petty, dishonest head-in-the-sand religionist.
Originally posted by @divegeesterYou are not a caring person or loving person, all you seem to live for are insults, and
Haha, ok fair.
No real hard feelings I hope; do feel free to tell me what you truly think of me as that only what I’m doing.
informing others how they don't live up to your standards as if that is supposed to be
important to us.
Can we keep this on "Creation and Evolution", if you want to talk about each other start
another thread, I may or may not join you.
Originally posted by @thinkofone"Harmful mutations result in organisms less likely to survive, and so these mutations tend to be eliminated from the population (group of organisms in a species). Beneficial mutations also tend to be eliminated by chance, but less often, and tend to be preserved. "
You want details. Details can be found in the following article:
[quote][b]Population Genetics Made Simple
David A. Plaisted
----------------------------------------
In order to understand discussions about evolution, even from a creationist viewpoint, it is helpful to have some background in population genetics. We give a brief survey of so ...[text shortened]... insufficient for your needs, Google can provide more articles that you can read at your leisure.[/b]
You are mixing topics here. If you look at living species you are not talking about
mutations from abio-genesis in the early forms through time. Instead observation are all
fully developed life forms that have built into them systems to survive and so they are going
to do just that, in my opinion because they were designed to do just that.
The piece also touched on the mutations speaking to the numbers, which showed two
things, for one a large number of mutations don't come across to us as harmful, but what
will they do later when in generations to come as they interact with others is a mystery
to us, then the vast majority of the other remaining 10% are harmful. There was nothing
in that that spoke about removing the affects of the harmful mutations outside of them
dying off. So my take away, you have rose colored glasses on seeing what you want to
see.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIf we introduce an agent to kill off some germ, and the vast majority of them die off that
In the context of evolution, "reproductive success" refers to the number of adult offspring an organism produces.
The point is that mutations that enhance reproductive success will spread more throughout a population, to the detriment of other organisms' offspring which did not receive those beneficial mutations. So, no, no one has to "look" at the ...[text shortened]... - after all, the reproductive success of organisms varies. This is how natural selection works.
can be explained away two different ways when speaking of those who lived.
1. They developed an immunity evolving towards the good, yea team.
2. There was a small population within that group of germs that had the immunity already
now they are dominate.
We can explain away many things, promote many things without thinking them through.
You didn't say why bad mutations couldn't accumulate if they are there, they are there
no different than any other type. I grant to you it doesn't fit you model, but if your model
isn't taking into account all possible outcomes, what good it is outside of only showing
you what you want to see.