The design argument

Originally posted by RJHinds
...I could not get a picture after slapping for 10 or 15 minutes, so I went out and bought a new TV.

Perhaps if I slapped you about for 10 or 15 minutes I could knock some sense into you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So in other words, a damaged (dead, inoperable) gene can also fall under this definition, seeing as how the definition doesn't appear to distinguish between operable and inoperable genes. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Why not? The only major difference is one can be copied and carried over to the next generation and the other simply decomposes.
There are a lot more differences than that. For a start, a dead possum is not a gene.

Are you presuming perhaps the dead gene can be revived to function again?
No.

However, according to the definition you provided, in order for a gene to fall under the definition of mutation the change must be permanent... and I'm pretty sure a dead possum will stay dead, so I think it's safe to call that a permanent change as well.
A couple of similarities does not warrant using the same word for something. A red rose cannot be called a blood cell just because they are both red.
Calling a dead possum a mutation simply because the damage is permanent is not warranted.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Given that we know that beneficial mutations occur, what mechanism prevents them from resulting in large-scale changes over time? Does DNA store some information about its past composition, halting mutations after a certain number are reached? How would it work specifically?

What mechanism would allow for beneficial mutations to build upon one
another when you know the bad out number the good, and if mutations
are not designed but random why would nature allow any life form to keep
good mutations long enough to build upon one another? Any random
change in DNA would not be caused by its environment, it would just be
a random change.

You are the one with the positive claim not me, I don't think you can get
past the bad out numbering the good and the random nature of the
process. You have not shown me anything to hang your hat on outside of
stating your beliefs!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Given that we know that beneficial mutations occur, what mechanism prevents them from resulting in large-scale changes over time? Does DNA store some information about its past composition, halting mutations after a certain number are reached? How would it work specifically?

We know mutations occur and small changes can take place, we do not
know that they do over time build upon one another when any new random
bad mutations could destroy any beneficial one the next go around, and
since there are more bad than good, I just don't see it happening.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We know mutations occur and small changes can take place, we do not
know that they do over time build upon one another when any new random
bad mutations could destroy any beneficial one the next go around, and
since there are more bad than good, I just don't see it happening.

So what's the mechanism that prevents it from happening?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't anything new I already told I agree that you'd see things like dogs
getting larger or smaller, birds changing and so on, so you show me
bacteria at the start and bacteria at the end. Nothing new here!

I'm not claiming the link shows 'anything new', it's evidence that beneficial mutations happen. Something lemon lime said had never been observed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is factual, evolution we are told is so slow no one has ever seen this
slow build up of good mutations from something that went from a life
form as simple as a single cell to even a jellyfish, but it is believed. What
is seen are small tiny changes like the ones I have already brought up,
birds beaks getting larger/smaller, dogs changing breeds, but ...[text shortened]... ormation or
body parts is not the same as getting a new one. So no it was not tongue in
cheek.

The time scale for a single cell to a zebra was a few billion years. You're not going to see that sort of evolutionary change happen in a few years. I've read a few books on evolutionary biology over the years, and not once have I ever come across any scientist make the sort of claim you are making here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It hasn't been too long ago that I had a television that the picture only showed a white horizontal line on the screen until I slapped it on the side when the full picture would appear. This worked every time for a month or two until it began to require more than one slap to get the full picture. after another month or two I could not get a picture after slapping for 10 or 15 minutes, so I went out and bought a new TV.

Sounds like your TV got tired of being slapped around and decided to end its own life. That's sad, but I'm not judging you because I had a TV that needed a slap once in a while whenever it misbehaved. Now that I think about it, I had another TV that had to be slapped on one particular place on its side before it would work again.

Older TVs might have a loose connection that could be knocked back into place, but I don't think this would work for modern solid state models.


Oh good grief, two edits just to remove two apostrophes... and I probably mispelled 'apostrophe'. 😛

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not claiming the link shows 'anything new', it's evidence that beneficial mutations happen. Something lemon lime said had never been observed.

I made the mistake of assuming you were talking about mutations leading to macroevolutionary change.

It's probably a mistake for me to assume I'll ever hear an answer as to how new molecular machines and structures can be built (and become functional) before any blind process of selection can be realized.

I'll just have to be content with the idea of self organization without purpose or direction leading to machines that can build themselves...


Sky Net?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I made the mistake of assuming you were talking about mutations leading to [b]macroevolutionary change.

It's probably a mistake for me to assume I'll ever hear an answer as to how new molecular machines and structures can be built (and become functional) before any blind process of selection can be realized.

I'll just have to be content w ...[text shortened]... thout purpose or direction leading to machines that can build themselves...


Sky Net?[/b]

You said mutation, singular, and no mention of the word 'macro'.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's probably a mistake for me to assume I'll ever hear an answer as to how new molecular machines and structures can be built [...]

Here's the answer: through beneficial and/or neutral mutations of DNA combined with natural selection. In short, the mechanism is sometimes also referred to as "evolution."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So what's the mechanism that prevents it from happening?

Read what I wrote, for crying out loud!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not claiming the link shows 'anything new', it's evidence that beneficial mutations happen. Something lemon lime said had never been observed.

I may have missed your beneficial mutation the links I looked at really did
not show one. Could you point me to it? Thank you in advance!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Here's the answer: through beneficial and/or neutral mutations of DNA combined with natural selection. In short, the mechanism is sometimes also referred to as "evolution."

You are funny, trying to prove evolution you say evolution is what is used
to prove evolution? Seriously, when the bad mutations out number the
good ones, when changes in DNA are not directed towards any end, but
are random exactly how would a good mutation build upon itself and create
something as complex as cell? What would over come the randomness of
the mutations of having bad ones show up and get rid of the good ones
that are rare by comparison? There isn't anything directing the process so why
would a good one not leave when the mutations are random and more of
them and I dare say much more of them are bad than good?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Read what I wrote, for crying out loud!

Aye, I did, but "I don't see it happening" is not a mechanism, it is a lack of imagination.

I may have missed your beneficial mutation the links I looked at really did not show one. Could you point me to it? Thank you in advance!

You could try the link posted by Proper Knob, or the article I referred to. Which links did you look at?

...how would a good mutation build upon itself and create
something as complex as cell?

It relies on a concept you possibly have not heard of called "natural selection." Basically, it means that the reproductive success of organisms with beneficial mutations is increased, which results in the increase of the presence of the mutation in the overall population. Likewise, natural selection decreases the presence of negative mutations. You could try reading more about natural selection if you're curious.