- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayyou accept that chemicals react..yes? yes, good.
You keep saying that, but why would mutations that are random in nature
every put together such a process?
you accept that chemicals bond..yes? yes,good, we are doing well.
so it is perfectly natural and easy to understand that organisms (made of chemicals) are going to change when they come into contact with other chemicals (we wouldnt call water happening as random)
these change sometimes cause mutations. as chemicals react in very specific ways with each other the effects are not exactly 'random'.
so, chemicals react, mutations happen. we all agree, yes? yes..good.
so, as we agree, you dont have to ask that question ever again. we understand (regardless if you think it happened or not) how the process happens......awesome.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayOh no, math is against me!? Well, you've found my achilles heal. Math's never been a friend of mine. I just knew it would betray me the first chance it got. How about I let someone else answer this? David H. Bailey (he speaks about alpha-globin here, but his message applies to any complex biological feature):
There isn't a reason! Reason requires something that would actually do it,
you are pushing random changes over time. Random changes come and
they go, they don't build complex systems over time in the face of greater
chances that something bad would happen. The math is against you!
...alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context [Hardison2001]. Thus any simplistic probability calculation (whether it is arguing for or against some aspect of evolution) that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is not meaningful and can easily mislead [Bailey2000; Musgrave1998].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, self-catalyzing biomolecules such as RNA are being investigated in research into the origin of life -- see Origin. Also, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of completely "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs millions of times every day in the human body.
It is also important to keep in mind that the process of natural biological evolution is not really a "random" process. Yes, mutations are "random" events, but the all-important process of natural selection, acting under the pressure of an extremely competitive landscape involving thousands of other species as well as numerous complicated environmental pressures, is anything but random. This strongly directional nature of natural selection, which is the essence of evolution, by itself invalidates simple-minded probability calculations.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.php
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieYes I accept they react and bond, I also accept that if I require A and B
you accept that chemicals react..yes? yes, good.
you accept that chemicals bond..yes? yes,good, we are doing well.
so it is perfectly natural and easy to understand that organisms (made of chemicals) are going to change when they come into contact with other chemicals (we wouldnt call water happening as random)
these change sometimes cause muta ...[text shortened]... we understand (regardless if you think it happened or not) how the process happens......awesome.
to react and bond in a specific way and something else either inhibits that
bonding or causes them to react in a negative way I could lose all of either
A and B on hand. Therefore I don't get what I need!
You assume its all good all the time, only God is good all the time! The
universe would have to have all the proper chemicals at the right place,
at the right time, under the right conditions, in the right quantities just
to have a shot at what is needed. None of those things would matter if
anything screwed up the process! You get to much A and not enough B
you lose all the B through having it react or bond properly.
Then if you have a life form and a good mutation occurs, the next time
that happens some generation later that same good mutations could due
to the random nature of mutations just go away, nothing says you get
to keep only the good!
You have very little to stand on with chemical reacts you have just what is
there and if it react poorly you lose that completely!
15 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessYou don't get to say the process of random mutations are not random!
Oh no, math is against me!? Well, you've found my achilles heal. Math's never been a friend of mine. I just knew it would betray me the first chance it got. How about I let someone else answer this? David H. Bailey (he speaks about alpha-globin here, but his message applies to any complex biological feature):
...alpha-globin arose as the end produ ...[text shortened]... ability calculations.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.php
Natural selection only accepts what is useful, it does not get to say what
is needed or required, the mutations are random you do not get to change
the rules just to make your theory less unbelievable.
Now your throwing in extremely competitive landscapes which I have been
telling you matters a great deal in whatever time frame life finds itself in! The
mutations you are suggesting help do not get to do anything but hurt
right away until they build something useful, which robs life during that
process! The changes take to long to matter in any environment, if it takes
a million years or thousands, by then it is to late!
If a mutations helps in real time right then and there, then they are of the
nature I told you I agree with, those types are like becoming immune, it
only matters right then and there! You get a healthier dog, but in the end
you start with a dog you end with a dog!
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayYou do realise that that's not me talking?
You don't get to say the process of random mutations are not random!
Natural selection only accepts what is useful, it does not get to say what
is needed or required, the mutations are random you do not get to change
the rules just to make your theory less unbelievable.
Now your throwing in extremely competitive landscapes which I have been
telling ...[text shortened]... hen and there! You get a healthier dog, but in the end
you start with a dog you end with a dog!
Natural selection has been considered non-random since Darwin's days. It's what made Darwin's version of evolution plausible in the first place. Mutations are random, selection is not.
As for your argument that a mutation must be useful at once, consider your own example with the rabbits. How long do you suppose the alleles were there for making both light and dark coloured rabbits? Do you think that these mutations happen only when needed?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJaykelly, please. you have been told by myself and other poster several times......not all mutations are beneficial
Yes I accept they react and bond, I also accept that if I require A and B
to react and bond in a specific way and something else either inhibits that
bonding or causes them to react in a negative way I could lose all of either
A and B on hand. Therefore I don't get what I need!
You assume its all good all the time, only God is good all the time! The
...[text shortened]... th chemical reacts you have just what is
there and if it react poorly you lose that completely!
the point of my post was purely to point out that its perfectly natural for organisms to mutate. there is no 'purpose' there is no 'planning' the organism doest 'know what it needs'.
we all accept that their are lots of negative mutations. but the law of the jungle is that those with negative mutations tend to die (not always).
bonding or causes them to react in a negative way I could lose all of either
A and B on hand. Therefore I don't get what I need!
so, just to reiterate, hopefully for the last time. lots of organism dont 'get what they need' (they dont actually know what they need) and the vast majority of them die out.
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessSelection isn't with purpose, it isn't random or specific, it is a filter that has
You do realise that that's not me talking?
Natural selection has been considered non-random since Darwin's days. It's what made Darwin's version of evolution plausible in the first place. Mutations are random, selection is not.
As for your argument that a mutation must be useful at once, consider your own example with the rabbits. How long do you suppos ...[text shortened]... both light and dark coloured rabbits? Do you think that these mutations happen only when needed?
those that live in their environment will, and those that cannot will not. Not
a single thing that will direct any mutation to occur or stay in place with
that system. There is nothing about that system that would deal with short
term changes in environment which are very real and immediate. The only
things that will move forward in natural selection are what we see around
us today, if you can hang in your current setting you will till you cannot.
Nothing about that picks what random mutation will stay or go, nor will it
direct one random mutation to build upon an older one. Random I hate
repeating myself, but it means just what it says "random" there is nothing
that says you can keep any mutation you may like and be helpful let alone
that a later change will start a building process that would produce some
other new body part.
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessA random mutation will come as it comes, I was speaking about natural
You do realise that that's not me talking?
Natural selection has been considered non-random since Darwin's days. It's what made Darwin's version of evolution plausible in the first place. Mutations are random, selection is not.
As for your argument that a mutation must be useful at once, consider your own example with the rabbits. How long do you suppos ...[text shortened]... both light and dark coloured rabbits? Do you think that these mutations happen only when needed?
selection with the rabbits. The filter will clean up those that can stay where
we are and get rid of those that cannot. Mutations are meaningless when
it comes to natural selection, that process always weed out that which can
or cannot stay alive, and would be true even if evolution is proven
completely false.
16 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI get the feeling that they think natural selection has an intelligent brain like the human breeders doing selective breeding. Natural selection used to be referred to as survival of the fittest for a reason.
A random mutation will come as it comes, I was speaking about natural
selection with the rabbits. The filter will clean up those that can stay where
we are and get rid of those that cannot. Mutations are meaningless when
it comes to natural selection, that process always weed out that which can
or cannot stay alive, and would be true even if evolution is proven
completely false.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessThis is more of a religious belief than real science.
Oh no, math is against me!? Well, you've found my achilles heal. Math's never been a friend of mine. I just knew it would betray me the first chance it got. How about I let someone else answer this? David H. Bailey (he speaks about alpha-globin here, but his message applies to any complex biological feature):
...alpha-globin arose as the end produ ...[text shortened]... ability calculations.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.php