Spirituality
25 Jul 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraReally, are you sure?
Indeed, that's because they are separate. Since mutations are rare, the good and bad mutations do not, in general, occur for the same organisms, so natural selection can act on them separately.
Anything else I need to clear up?
Originally posted by @kellyjayI really am. Mutation rates can be measured, so we know that they are low. Natural selection won't function effectively unless mutations are sufficiently rare. For example, in humans the mutation rate is approximately one in 2 billion per base pair per year:
Really, are you sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraFrom what I read it said it varies, so where did you get your numbers? I may have missed
I really am. Mutation rates can be measured, so we know that they are low. Natural selection won't function effectively unless mutations are sufficiently rare. For example, in humans the mutation rate is approximately one in 2 billion per base pair per year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
your portion that supports your statement.
19 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjay
From what I read it said it varies, so where did you get your numbers? I may have missed
your portion that supports your statement.
The human germline mutation rate is approximately 0.5×10−9 per basepair per year.[1]
In any case, it hardly matters for the purposes of our discussion whether the mutation rate is 1 in 2 billion or 1 in 20 billion, it just has to be low enough.
Let's get back to natural selection. So you've accepted that mutations can occur and can affect reproductive success - now you know mutations are sufficiently rare so that natural selection results in a proliferation of good mutations and a suppression of bad ones, as they generally affect different organisms. Is anything still unclear?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIt doesn't matter how rare they are, what matters is if good ones and bad one's mix. EvenThe human germline mutation rate is approximately 0.5×10−9 per basepair per year.[1]
In any case, it hardly matters for the purposes of our discussion whether the mutation rate is 1 in 2 billion or 1 in 20 billion, it just has to be low enough.
Let's get back to natural selection. So you've accepted that mutations can occur and can ...[text shortened]... uppression of bad ones, as they generally affect different organisms. Is anything still unclear?
if they come through one at a time which I don't think is true, it is still good, bad, bad,
bad, good. The nothing would be sacred nothing out of bounds so that once a positive
changes occurs it wouldn't or couldn't be altered later by some new change.
Go on however, I'll let that drop so you can make your point.
Originally posted by @kellyjaySince mutations are rare, it is exceedingly unlikely that good and bad mutations occur simultaneously in the same organism, compared to the situation that they occur in different organisms at different times. Hence, natural selection has sufficient time to weed out the bad mutations and proliferate the good ones.
It doesn't matter how rare they are, what matters is if good ones and bad one's mix. Even
if they come through one at a time which I don't think is true, it is still good, bad, bad,
bad, good. The nothing would be sacred nothing out of bounds so that once a positive
changes occurs it wouldn't or couldn't be altered later by some new change.
Go on however, I'll let that drop so you can make your point.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWe can agree to disagree.
Since mutations are rare, it is exceedingly unlikely that good and bad mutations occur simultaneously in the same organism, compared to the situation that they occur in different organisms at different times. Hence, natural selection has sufficient time to weed out the bad mutations and proliferate the good ones.
Originally posted by @kellyjaySure, but what is it you disagree with, specifically? If you explain what part gives you problems, I can help clear it up. Your last objection to natural selection has now been discarded, as I explained that the rate of mutations is typically very low, and you haven't presented any new objections.
We can agree to disagree.
Once you understand how natural selection works, I can move on to explaining the evolution of complex features.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraPage 47, and you want to know what my issues are. You think if I repeat them you'll get
Sure, but what is it you disagree with, specifically? If you explain what part gives you problems, I can help clear it up. Your last objection to natural selection has now been discarded, as I explained that the rate of mutations is typically very low, and you haven't presented any new objections.
Once you understand how natural selection works, I can move on to explaining the evolution of complex features.
what I've been saying?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThe vast majority of your rebuttals was just repeating your beliefs, they didn't touch the
You should repeat it in a way that addresses my rebuttal of your concerns.
things I was saying. (the same beliefs)
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraJust a reminder from the point of abio-genesis on life was supposedly very simple and
I really am. Mutation rates can be measured, so we know that they are low. Natural selection won't function effectively unless mutations are sufficiently rare. For example, in humans the mutation rate is approximately one in 2 billion per base pair per year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
became much more complex. Life today would be nothing like that, many systems today
have several built in systems for protection and redundancy, they all breed after their own
kinds, the list is great and so you cannot look at todays living systems and declare they
would all act the same way as early life during reproduction. There would be nothing
within the systems causing them to so many things, because those things wouldn't be a
part of their normal processes unless it is coded in the DNA it isn't there.
What traits do you think the first life forms had besides being able to reproduce, and
eat?
20 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayYou were claiming that good mutations are at risk of being overwritten by bad mutations. However, the very low chance for a mutation to occur means that a typical base pair will reproduce a huge number of times before a new mutation occurs in that base pair. That's not a "belief," it is empirical data we can measure directly. Hence, your objection is inconsistent with how DNA mutations work in practice.
The vast majority of your rebuttals was just repeating your beliefs, they didn't touch the
things I was saying. (the same beliefs)