Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence of advatageous accidental mutations

janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 2:52:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

None that I can think of...

Aside from persistent lactase tolerance (Human), improved O2 function (Human), HIV Immunity (Human), Antibiotic resistance (Bacteria), Creation of Nylonase (Bacteria), Mutation for MUCH stronger bones (Human), significant muscle size and strength (Human), resistance to heart disease (Human), Cecal valve appearance (Italian Wall Lizards), Antifreeze genes (Some Fish), Increased cranial capacity (Humans), better starch digestion (Humans), Tetrachromacy (Humans), Lack of wisdom teeth (Humans), Multicellularity (Algae and Yeast), Citrate Digestion (E-Coli) adaptation to higher temperatures (E-Coli), Radiation resistance (Bacteria in Chernobyl), Adaptation from requiring light to not light (Photosynthetic Chlamydomonas), Adaptation to low phosphate Chemostat Environment (Yeast), adaptation to low sugar environments (Yeast), metabolisation of lactose (E-Coli), Metabolisation of propanediol (E-Coli), metabolisation of 5 carbon sugars (Klebsiella aerogenes), Malaria resistance (Human), cold tolerance (Humans), Prion disease resistance (Humans), Needing less sleep (Humans), and a whole host of mutations for size, shape, color, hariness and internal structure that can be beneficial depending on the environment and conditions you are in.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 2:54:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 2:52:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

None that I can think of...

Aside from persistent lactase tolerance (Human), improved O2 function (Human), HIV Immunity (Human), Antibiotic resistance (Bacteria), Creation of Nylonase (Bacteria), Mutation for MUCH stronger bones (Human), significant muscle size and strength (Human), resistance to heart disease (Human), Cecal valve appearance (Italian Wall Lizards), Antifreeze genes (Some Fish), Increased cranial capacity (Humans), better starch digestion (Humans), Tetrachromacy (Humans), Lack of wisdom teeth (Humans), Multicellularity (Algae and Yeast), Citrate Digestion (E-Coli) adaptation to higher temperatures (E-Coli), Radiation resistance (Bacteria in Chernobyl), Adaptation from requiring light to not light (Photosynthetic Chlamydomonas), Adaptation to low phosphate Chemostat Environment (Yeast), adaptation to low sugar environments (Yeast), metabolisation of lactose (E-Coli), Metabolisation of propanediol (E-Coli), metabolisation of 5 carbon sugars (Klebsiella aerogenes), Malaria resistance (Human), cold tolerance (Humans), Prion disease resistance (Humans), Needing less sleep (Humans), and a whole host of mutations for size, shape, color, hariness and internal structure that can be beneficial depending on the environment and conditions you are in.

Now prove those mutations were accidents. I say they aren't.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:18:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations.

Jane, I will assume you agree that, except where a genome is manipulated directly by human agency, all mutations are 'accidental'. So that whether they arise by radiation, chemical mutation, or reproductive anomalies, they will count, and therefore we can assume mutation has been accidental in any case where humans did not deliberately induce it. If this is not the case, you will need to define accidental in a way that can be recognised

But on that assumption, here are some famous examples of beneficial mutations found in humans. I assume you accept that if they are occurring in an apex predator that practices its own medicine and seeks to avoid the crueller side of natural selection, they are likely occurring in other species too:

A rare mutation shields people from cardivascular disease: http://www2.lbl.gov...

A rare mutation produces high bone-density, resulting in an extraordinary ability to survive a car-crash that should have proven fatal: http://www.nejm.org...

A double mutation in Burkina Faso eliminates malaria risk: http://www.newscientist.com...

A small number of women are tetrachromats: able to see vastly more colours than other humans or mammals. it's a mutation that affects women only. One such is Australian-born painter Concetta Antico: http://www.popsci.com.au...

I hope that may be useful.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:21:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 2:54:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:52:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

None that I can think of...

Aside from persistent lactase tolerance (Human), improved O2 function (Human), HIV Immunity (Human), Antibiotic resistance (Bacteria), Creation of Nylonase (Bacteria), Mutation for MUCH stronger bones (Human), significant muscle size and strength (Human), resistance to heart disease (Human), Cecal valve appearance (Italian Wall Lizards), Antifreeze genes (Some Fish), Increased cranial capacity (Humans), better starch digestion (Humans), Tetrachromacy (Humans), Lack of wisdom teeth (Humans), Multicellularity (Algae and Yeast), Citrate Digestion (E-Coli) adaptation to higher temperatures (E-Coli), Radiation resistance (Bacteria in Chernobyl), Adaptation from requiring light to not light (Photosynthetic Chlamydomonas), Adaptation to low phosphate Chemostat Environment (Yeast), adaptation to low sugar environments (Yeast), metabolisation of lactose (E-Coli), Metabolisation of propanediol (E-Coli), metabolisation of 5 carbon sugars (Klebsiella aerogenes), Malaria resistance (Human), cold tolerance (Humans), Prion disease resistance (Humans), Needing less sleep (Humans), and a whole host of mutations for size, shape, color, hariness and internal structure that can be beneficial depending on the environment and conditions you are in.

Now prove those mutations were accidents. I say they aren't.

I'm sure you have a reason for believing what you say based on sound evidence..

Failing that observations on all known mutations show randomness and each human and indeed all life has many such random changes from generation to generation. The sequenced mutations in the above can be seen to be the same in nature as these random changes: meaning that they all can come about naturally by the very nature of how DNA changes based on basic laws of chemistry.

Your position that they are not accidents means either an external entity is watching scientific experiments and tweaking the DNA as the experiment is conducted leaving no physical trace, even though he has no need to do so as the nature of DNA means such changes would happen anyway, or is subtly tweaking all DNA each generation even though they really have no need to as such changes would occur naturally anyway.

So basically, they may not be accidents, the DNA elves maybe tweaking genes, but such a super powerful entity is sort of wasting their time; these types of changes would occur whether they interfered or not.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:23:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:18:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
If this is not the case, you will need to define accidental in a way that can be recognised

Sorry -- I was interrupted when posting. This should have read "can be recognised without begging the question."
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:18:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations.

Jane, I will assume you agree that, except where a genome is manipulated directly by human agency, all mutations are 'accidental'. So that whether they arise by radiation, chemical mutation, or reproductive anomalies, they will count, and therefore we can assume mutation has been accidental in any case where humans did not deliberately induce it. If this is not the case, you will need to define accidental in a way that can be recognised

But on that assumption, here are some famous examples of beneficial mutations found in humans. I assume you accept that if they are occurring in an apex predator that practices its own medicine and seeks to avoid the crueller side of natural selection, they are likely occurring in other species too:

A rare mutation shields people from cardivascular disease: http://www2.lbl.gov...

A rare mutation produces high bone-density, resulting in an extraordinary ability to survive a car-crash that should have proven fatal: http://www.nejm.org...

A double mutation in Burkina Faso eliminates malaria risk: http://www.newscientist.com...

A small number of women are tetrachromats: able to see vastly more colours than other humans or mammals. it's a mutation that affects women only. One such is Australian-born painter Concetta Antico: http://www.popsci.com.au...

I hope that may be useful.

I believe there are accidental mutations, but I also believe that mutations that drive avolution and adaptation aren't accidents at all. I have seen Zero proof for it.

There have been plenty of lab experiments showing that specific conditions produce specific mutations. That's not accidental to me. It shows an organism reacting directly to it's environment. It's obvious to me.

That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.

How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:45:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

The benefit of any mutation is situational, Jane. Which means that of the individuals exhibiting the mutation, some receive may benefit and some don't.

An artist might benefit from tetrachromacy, but most tetrachromats don't. The girl who survived the car-crash benefited from high bone-density, but the rest of her family likely haven't benefited much -- they just have a higher than usual body-mass and odd lumps in their upper palate. The people of Burkina Faso are mildly anaemic, and if they moved out of malarial region, their condition would be mildly inconvenient rather than significantly advantageous.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:49:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:45:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

The benefit of any mutation is situational, Jane. Which means that of the individuals exhibiting the mutation, some receive may benefit and some don't.

An artist might benefit from tetrachromacy, but most tetrachromats don't. The girl who survived the car-crash benefited from high bone-density, but the rest of her family likely haven't benefited much -- they just have a higher than usual body-mass and odd lumps in their upper palate. The people of Burkina Faso are mildly anaemic, and if they moved out of malarial region, their condition would be mildly inconvenient rather than significantly advantageous.

That has nothing to do with proof that the mutations were accidents.

You believe they are, but you have no real proof.

While at the same time, in the lab it proves to be NON accidental in many cases. With the same adaptations occuring with the same environments. How is that an accident?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:50:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?

No, but I assume you will point it out to me. Perhaps incredulity.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:53:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:50:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?

No, but I assume you will point it out to me. Perhaps incredulity.

Well, is someone justified in believing anything until that thing is proven false?

A second question: On what basis does one validate and become justified in believing non-falsifiable claims?
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:57:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.

How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

What proof do you need in order to be convinced? It's easy to say that mutations are predetermined by some unknown process because the unknown process can appear random. However, this is intellectually a disingenuous position to hold during a debate because the burden of proof is impossible to meet when the rebuttal is to any example/point is "I don't believe this random appearance is random". You are not describing any process which would support your claim, you're not being clear about what evidence would need to be shown to convince you, you are not being clear as to why you believe the examples given are not random (you simply state you don't believe they are, but why?) Why is HIV immunity not random, why is it that people who were immune to the black plague (a disease they've never been exposed to previously) not an example of random mutations, etc....

You're failing to explain your objections to the examples given and it's making you look stubborn and unwilling to actually engage in a debate. If you wouldn't mind simply giving us the parameters that would satisfy your objections to random mutation that would go a long way in us explaining and giving examples of random mutations. Also, please give us the reasons for rejecting the examples already given (simply stating you don't believe isn't enough; you have to give a more reasoned response. I can say I don't believe Thor creates lightning, but without a plausible alternative, someone arguing for Thor's role in lightning would win that debate...)
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:59:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:53:31 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:50:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?

No, but I assume you will point it out to me. Perhaps incredulity.

Well, is someone justified in believing anything until that thing is proven false?

A second question: On what basis does one validate and become justified in believing non-falsifiable claims?

Why should I believe something on zero evidence, just because people say it is true? Especially when there is some proof otherwise?

For intance, lab results have shown predictability in adaptation. Can I not extrapolate that the same would be true in other cases?

Why should I just believe something is an accident when there is proof otherwise?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:03:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:57:52 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.

How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

What proof do you need in order to be convinced? It's easy to say that mutations are predetermined by some unknown process because the unknown process can appear random. However, this is intellectually a disingenuous position to hold during a debate because the burden of proof is impossible to meet when the rebuttal is to any example/point is "I don't believe this random appearance is random". You are not describing any process which would support your claim, you're not being clear about what evidence would need to be shown to convince you, you are not being clear as to why you believe the examples given are not random (you simply state you don't believe they are, but why?) Why is HIV immunity not random, why is it that people who were immune to the black plague (a disease they've never been exposed to previously) not an example of random mutations, etc....

You're failing to explain your objections to the examples given and it's making you look stubborn and unwilling to actually engage in a debate. If you wouldn't mind simply giving us the parameters that would satisfy your objections to random mutation that would go a long way in us explaining and giving examples of random mutations. Also, please give us the reasons for rejecting the examples already given (simply stating you don't believe isn't enough; you have to give a more reasoned response. I can say I don't believe Thor creates lightning, but without a plausible alternative, someone arguing for Thor's role in lightning would win that debate...)

I don't know what proof of random mutations would look like. Why do YOU believe they are random?

Why do experiements show predictability if they are random? Do bacteria just get lucky each time they get a "random" mutation that enables them to consume sugar in a specific environment, every time?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:07:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:49:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:45:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?
The benefit of any mutation is situational, Jane. Which means that of the individuals exhibiting the mutation, some receive may benefit and some don't.
An artist might benefit from tetrachromacy, but most tetrachromats don't. The girl who survived the car-crash benefited from high bone-density, but the rest of her family likely haven't benefited much -- they just have a higher than usual body-mass and odd lumps in their upper palate. The people of Burkina Faso are mildly anaemic, and if they moved out of malarial region, their condition would be mildly inconvenient rather than significantly advantageous.
That has nothing to do with proof that the mutations were accidents.
You believe they are, but you have no real proof.
While at the same time, in the lab it proves to be NON accidental in many cases. With the same adaptations occuring with the same environments. How is that an accident?

Jane, I think your approach to this conversation risks tripping itself up. Here's my attempt to fix that.

It is clear that some mutations are beneficial. In fact, there has been a lot of study on how beneficial mutations can accumulate. The word 'accident' is irrelevant to this study: we know that mutations occur in species at a fairly fixed rate that depends on environment and the species itself, that they propagate at a roughly logarithmic rate (log in population size and mutation rate according to one paper I read); that some mutations can be beneficial and that they can (but may not always) accumulate.

Where the term 'accident' was used in Origin of Species, that conversation took place in an environment that was also considering Lamarckian adaptation -- the idea that species striving itself somehow produced physiological changes -- so that giraffes reaching for food in higher branches somehow grew longer necks.

So the distinction regarding spontaneous, unpremeditated change was important in that original conversation: the idea that change wasn't occurring in consequence of species struggling to survive -- rather, mutation was occurring to the species regardless, and only some was beneficial.

I think the term 'accident' isn't needed by evolutionary theory beyond that. In particular, any source of mutation can be moderated by natural selection, regardless of the source. So in cases where humans engineer species (say) and release them into the wild, they are subject to the same competitive pressures for food, survival and reproduction. But even when mutation isn't induced, it occurs at a steady background rate, and some of those changes may be beneficial -- and often, the beneficial ones may be retained.

Finally, you haven't yourself defined what you mean by accident, and shown how it can be recognised, and how your definition doesn't beg the question. I think you need to do this before you pursue a position on it.

I hope this may be useful.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:13:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:07:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:49:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:45:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?
The benefit of any mutation is situational, Jane. Which means that of the individuals exhibiting the mutation, some receive may benefit and some don't.
An artist might benefit from tetrachromacy, but most tetrachromats don't. The girl who survived the car-crash benefited from high bone-density, but the rest of her family likely haven't benefited much -- they just have a higher than usual body-mass and odd lumps in their upper palate. The people of Burkina Faso are mildly anaemic, and if they moved out of malarial region, their condition would be mildly inconvenient rather than significantly advantageous.
That has nothing to do with proof that the mutations were accidents.
You believe they are, but you have no real proof.
While at the same time, in the lab it proves to be NON accidental in many cases. With the same adaptations occuring with the same environments. How is that an accident?

Jane, I think your approach to this conversation risks tripping itself up. Here's my attempt to fix that.

It is clear that some mutations are beneficial. In fact, there has been a lot of study on how beneficial mutations can accumulate. The word 'accident' is irrelevant to this study: we know that mutations occur in species at a fairly fixed rate that depends on environment and the species itself, that they propagate at a roughly logarithmic rate (log in population size and mutation rate according to one paper I read); that some mutations can be beneficial and that they can (but may not always) accumulate.

Where the term 'accident' was used in Origin of Species, that conversation took place in an environment that was also considering Lamarckian adaptation -- the idea that species striving itself somehow produced physiological changes -- so that giraffes reaching for food in higher branches somehow grew longer necks.

So the distinction regarding spontaneous, unpremeditated change was important in that original conversation: the idea that change wasn't occurring in consequence of species struggling to survive -- rather, mutation was occurring to the species regardless, and only some was beneficial.

I think the term 'accident' isn't needed by evolutionary theory beyond that. In particular, any source of mutation can be moderated by natural selection, regardless of the source. So in cases where humans engineer species (say) and release them into the wild, they are subject to the same competitive pressures for food, survival and reproduction. But even when mutation isn't induced, it occurs at a steady background rate, and some of those changes may be beneficial -- and often, the beneficial ones may be retained.

Finally, you haven't yourself defined what you mean by accident, and shown how it can be recognised, and how your definition doesn't beg the question. I think you need to do this before you pursue a position on it.

I hope this may be useful.

Everyone knows what accidental means. It means not on purpose. I say most mutations are purposeful.

Evolutionists say mutations are not purposeful. I disagree with that. I think it is top-driven,and with an ultimate direction.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:03:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:57:52 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.

How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

What proof do you need in order to be convinced? It's easy to say that mutations are predetermined by some unknown process because the unknown process can appear random. However, this is intellectually a disingenuous position to hold during a debate because the burden of proof is impossible to meet when the rebuttal is to any example/point is "I don't believe this random appearance is random". You are not describing any process which would support your claim, you're not being clear about what evidence would need to be shown to convince you, you are not being clear as to why you believe the examples given are not random (you simply state you don't believe they are, but why?) Why is HIV immunity not random, why is it that people who were immune to the black plague (a disease they've never been exposed to previously) not an example of random mutations, etc....

You're failing to explain your objections to the examples given and it's making you look stubborn and unwilling to actually engage in a debate. If you wouldn't mind simply giving us the parameters that would satisfy your objections to random mutation that would go a long way in us explaining and giving examples of random mutations. Also, please give us the reasons for rejecting the examples already given (simply stating you don't believe isn't enough; you have to give a more reasoned response. I can say I don't believe Thor creates lightning, but without a plausible alternative, someone arguing for Thor's role in lightning would win that debate...)

I don't know what proof of random mutations would look like. Why do YOU believe they are random?

Why do experiements show predictability if they are random? Do bacteria just get lucky each time they get a "random" mutation that enables them to consume sugar in a specific environment, every time?

obviously that's not the case since traits can build on each other and evolve to become more refined and specialized, so no, random mutations are not responsible for bacteria getting lucky each time they develop a method for energy production. That's just a really ignorant way of looking at evolution.

First, though, I have to ask, what do you believe constitutes random? Under what circumstance would you accept a genetic mutation to be random at all? How is an innate immunity to something like HIV driven by non-random mutations when it's a unique disease that hasn't been around long enough nor is it wide spread enough to really drive non-random evolution?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the The Lederberg experiment, but it proved that random mutations occur and are not directed. How would you refute their study?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:36:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:13:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:07:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Everyone knows what accidental means. It means not on purpose.
Jane what you need to define is how you'd recognise when a mutation wasn't purposeful.

Evolutionists say mutations are not purposeful.
What they're saying is that mutations occur at a pretty steady rate, depending on species and environmental effects (for example, I recall reading somewhere that humans have an average of about fifteen mutations.) Most of these are ignorable. Some are inconvenient to life-threatening, and some are beneficial.

The rate of propagation of these mutations depends on population-size, environmental conditions and the mutations themselves. We can inherit all three kinds of mutations, but the beneficial ones tend to accumulate preferentially over time.

I think it is top-driven,and with an ultimate direction.
I think there's nothing in mutation or natural selection itself to stop you from believing that, however there are some quite ugly facts you should take into account:

* About 98% of species that have ever existed are extinct;
* The rate of spontaneous abortions, dead births and unviable live births in nature (and in humans) is quite high;
* More mutations are either neutral or harmful than beneficial (from memory I think only about one in six is ever beneficial at all, as measured by improving its own reproduction);
* Harmful mutations can be retained in the species too (for example, haemophilia, or the reduced lifespan of men);
* The development of species itself does not show signs of intelligence or purpose -- in that (for example) there's no sign of 'streaming' -- accumulating benefits to preferred species or individuals -- while eliminating disadvantages early; and finally
* Such beliefs are known to be prone to confirmation bias, evasion of falsifiability and similar fallacies.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:53:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:59:28 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:53:31 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:50:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?

No, but I assume you will point it out to me. Perhaps incredulity.

Well, is someone justified in believing anything until that thing is proven false?

A second question: On what basis does one validate and become justified in believing non-falsifiable claims?

Why should I believe something on zero evidence, just because people say it is true? Especially when there is some proof otherwise?

I think you missed the point. Should someone believe in leprauchans because there is no proof that they don't exist?

For intance, lab results have shown predictability in adaptation. Can I not extrapolate that the same would be true in other cases?

Yes, adaptation, not mutation, can be predicted by discrepancies between the environment a group exists in and the environment to which they were adapted.

Why should I just believe something is an accident when there is proof otherwise?
Do you have proof (evidence) that no mutations are accidental?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 5:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:34:29 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:03:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:57:52 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.

How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

What proof do you need in order to be convinced? It's easy to say that mutations are predetermined by some unknown process because the unknown process can appear random. However, this is intellectually a disingenuous position to hold during a debate because the burden of proof is impossible to meet when the rebuttal is to any example/point is "I don't believe this random appearance is random". You are not describing any process which would support your claim, you're not being clear about what evidence would need to be shown to convince you, you are not being clear as to why you believe the examples given are not random (you simply state you don't believe they are, but why?) Why is HIV immunity not random, why is it that people who were immune to the black plague (a disease they've never been exposed to previously) not an example of random mutations, etc....

You're failing to explain your objections to the examples given and it's making you look stubborn and unwilling to actually engage in a debate. If you wouldn't mind simply giving us the parameters that would satisfy your objections to random mutation that would go a long way in us explaining and giving examples of random mutations. Also, please give us the reasons for rejecting the examples already given (simply stating you don't believe isn't enough; you have to give a more reasoned response. I can say I don't believe Thor creates lightning, but without a plausible alternative, someone arguing for Thor's role in lightning would win that debate...)

I don't know what proof of random mutations would look like. Why do YOU believe they are random?

Why do experiements show predictability if they are random? Do bacteria just get lucky each time they get a "random" mutation that enables them to consume sugar in a specific environment, every time?

obviously that's not the case since traits can build on each other and evolve to become more refined and specialized, so no, random mutations are not responsible for bacteria getting lucky each time they develop a method for energy production. That's just a really ignorant way of looking at evolution.

First, though, I have to ask, what do you believe constitutes random? Under what circumstance would you accept a genetic mutation to be random at all? How is an innate immunity to something like HIV driven by non-random mutations when it's a unique disease that hasn't been around long enough nor is it wide spread enough to really drive non-random evolution?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the The Lederberg experiment, but it proved that random mutations occur and are not directed. How would you refute their study?

I have not heard of the Lederberg experiment, but I will look it up.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 5:18:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:53:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:59:28 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:53:31 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:50:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?

No, but I assume you will point it out to me. Perhaps incredulity.

Well, is someone justified in believing anything until that thing is proven false?

A second question: On what basis does one validate and become justified in believing non-falsifiable claims?

Why should I believe something on zero evidence, just because people say it is true? Especially when there is some proof otherwise?

I think you missed the point. Should someone believe in leprauchans because there is no proof that they don't exist?

For intance, lab results have shown predictability in adaptation. Can I not extrapolate that the same would be true in other cases?

Yes, adaptation, not mutation, can be predicted by discrepancies between the environment a group exists in and the environment to which they were adapted.

Why should I just believe something is an accident when there is proof otherwise?
Do you have proof (evidence) that no mutations are accidental?

No, but there is evidence that suggests to me that mutations are non random. Such as experiments where the same mutation occures repeatedly in the same situation.

Also, convergence shows me that adaptation goes along lines that are pre-determined.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 5:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 5:18:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:53:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:59:28 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:53:31 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:50:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?

No, but I assume you will point it out to me. Perhaps incredulity.

Well, is someone justified in believing anything until that thing is proven false?

A second question: On what basis does one validate and become justified in believing non-falsifiable claims?

Why should I believe something on zero evidence, just because people say it is true? Especially when there is some proof otherwise?

I think you missed the point. Should someone believe in leprauchans because there is no proof that they don't exist?

For intance, lab results have shown predictability in adaptation. Can I not extrapolate that the same would be true in other cases?

Yes, adaptation, not mutation, can be predicted by discrepancies between the environment a group exists in and the environment to which they were adapted.

Why should I just believe something is an accident when there is proof otherwise?
Do you have proof (evidence) that no mutations are accidental?

No, but there is evidence that suggests to me that mutations are non random. Such as experiments where the same mutation occures repeatedly in the same situation.

Can you send me some? That's interesting. I know that can happen when something is causing a specific mutation, so hopefully that's not what you're talking about.

Also, you're suggesting that some mutations are non-random, not that all beneficial mutations are non-random.

Also, convergence shows me that adaptation goes along lines that are pre-determined.

Can you differentiate that from natural selection?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 5:28:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 5:20:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 5:18:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:53:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:59:28 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:53:31 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:50:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:49:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 2:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Can you spot the fallacy you're making?

No, but I assume you will point it out to me. Perhaps incredulity.

Well, is someone justified in believing anything until that thing is proven false?

A second question: On what basis does one validate and become justified in believing non-falsifiable claims?

Why should I believe something on zero evidence, just because people say it is true? Especially when there is some proof otherwise?

I think you missed the point. Should someone believe in leprauchans because there is no proof that they don't exist?

For intance, lab results have shown predictability in adaptation. Can I not extrapolate that the same would be true in other cases?

Yes, adaptation, not mutation, can be predicted by discrepancies between the environment a group exists in and the environment to which they were adapted.

Why should I just believe something is an accident when there is proof otherwise?
Do you have proof (evidence) that no mutations are accidental?

No, but there is evidence that suggests to me that mutations are non random. Such as experiments where the same mutation occures repeatedly in the same situation.

Can you send me some? That's interesting. I know that can happen when something is causing a specific mutation, so hopefully that's not what you're talking about.

Also, you're suggesting that some mutations are non-random, not that all beneficial mutations are non-random.

Also, convergence shows me that adaptation goes along lines that are pre-determined.

Can you differentiate that from natural selection?

http://www.nature.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

About convergence. I am suggesting there are "forms" that some organisms are predetermined to take,. like the way placental and marsupial mammals tend to find the same shapes(like flying squirrels, moles and dogs).
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 6:08:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:34:29 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:03:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:57:52 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.

How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

What proof do you need in order to be convinced? It's easy to say that mutations are predetermined by some unknown process because the unknown process can appear random. However, this is intellectually a disingenuous position to hold during a debate because the burden of proof is impossible to meet when the rebuttal is to any example/point is "I don't believe this random appearance is random". You are not describing any process which would support your claim, you're not being clear about what evidence would need to be shown to convince you, you are not being clear as to why you believe the examples given are not random (you simply state you don't believe they are, but why?) Why is HIV immunity not random, why is it that people who were immune to the black plague (a disease they've never been exposed to previously) not an example of random mutations, etc....

You're failing to explain your objections to the examples given and it's making you look stubborn and unwilling to actually engage in a debate. If you wouldn't mind simply giving us the parameters that would satisfy your objections to random mutation that would go a long way in us explaining and giving examples of random mutations. Also, please give us the reasons for rejecting the examples already given (simply stating you don't believe isn't enough; you have to give a more reasoned response. I can say I don't believe Thor creates lightning, but without a plausible alternative, someone arguing for Thor's role in lightning would win that debate...)

I don't know what proof of random mutations would look like. Why do YOU believe they are random?

Why do experiements show predictability if they are random? Do bacteria just get lucky each time they get a "random" mutation that enables them to consume sugar in a specific environment, every time?

obviously that's not the case since traits can build on each other and evolve to become more refined and specialized, so no, random mutations are not responsible for bacteria getting lucky each time they develop a method for energy production. That's just a really ignorant way of looking at evolution.

First, though, I have to ask, what do you believe constitutes random? Under what circumstance would you accept a genetic mutation to be random at all? How is an innate immunity to something like HIV driven by non-random mutations when it's a unique disease that hasn't been around long enough nor is it wide spread enough to really drive non-random evolution?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the The Lederberg experiment, but it proved that random mutations occur and are not directed. How would you refute their study?

I looked at the Lederberg experiment. It didn't prove mutations are random. It only showed mutations were already present, not where they came from. Or whether or not the original mutations were random or not.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 6:41:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 6:08:09 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:34:29 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:03:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:57:52 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:36:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:33:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:23:50 PM, janesix wrote:
That evolution is a direct result of accidental mutations is only dogma and belief. There is no real proof for it.

We know that these mutations are rare and spontaneous (spontaneous meaning sudden and without premeditation; i.e. the species isn't 'struggling' to produce this outcome.) That is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I'm unclear what more needs to be shown.

How do you know they are spontaneous and not premeditated? What evidence proves this to you?

What proof do you need in order to be convinced? It's easy to say that mutations are predetermined by some unknown process because the unknown process can appear random. However, this is intellectually a disingenuous position to hold during a debate because the burden of proof is impossible to meet when the rebuttal is to any example/point is "I don't believe this random appearance is random". You are not describing any process which would support your claim, you're not being clear about what evidence would need to be shown to convince you, you are not being clear as to why you believe the examples given are not random (you simply state you don't believe they are, but why?) Why is HIV immunity not random, why is it that people who were immune to the black plague (a disease they've never been exposed to previously) not an example of random mutations, etc....

You're failing to explain your objections to the examples given and it's making you look stubborn and unwilling to actually engage in a debate. If you wouldn't mind simply giving us the parameters that would satisfy your objections to random mutation that would go a long way in us explaining and giving examples of random mutations. Also, please give us the reasons for rejecting the examples already given (simply stating you don't believe isn't enough; you have to give a more reasoned response. I can say I don't believe Thor creates lightning, but without a plausible alternative, someone arguing for Thor's role in lightning would win that debate...)

I don't know what proof of random mutations would look like. Why do YOU believe they are random?

Why do experiements show predictability if they are random? Do bacteria just get lucky each time they get a "random" mutation that enables them to consume sugar in a specific environment, every time?

obviously that's not the case since traits can build on each other and evolve to become more refined and specialized, so no, random mutations are not responsible for bacteria getting lucky each time they develop a method for energy production. That's just a really ignorant way of looking at evolution.

First, though, I have to ask, what do you believe constitutes random? Under what circumstance would you accept a genetic mutation to be random at all? How is an innate immunity to something like HIV driven by non-random mutations when it's a unique disease that hasn't been around long enough nor is it wide spread enough to really drive non-random evolution?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the The Lederberg experiment, but it proved that random mutations occur and are not directed. How would you refute their study?

I looked at the Lederberg experiment. It didn't prove mutations are random. It only showed mutations were already present, not where they came from. Or whether or not the original mutations were random or not.

it absolutely does. I don't think you understood the experiment. I'll try and break it down for you.

1. You have a culture of bacteria on a plate.
---one strain only of course, no exposure to PCN

2. The bacteria is placed on a new plate and allowed to grow in colonies
---no exposure to PCN, DNA only from the original plate, isolated colonies of that strain

3. Colonies are grown and then stamped into a plate with PCN
----exposure to PCN

4. Some colonies are resistant to PCN and grow on the new plate
----random colonies display resistance to PCN

So the mutation occurred during step 2 in random colonies. The colonies are all from the original strain of bacteria, in the beginning of step 2, they were genetically identical. So the mutation wasn't present in the original colony that all the bacteria came from, otherwise every colony on the plate in step 2 would have a PCN resistance. There was no mutagen added to the colonies in step 2, and the plate in step 2 was a simple agar plate. The bacteria had no environmental need nor any environmental pressures to adapt a PCN resistance in step step 2.

In step 3, we clearly see that some of the colonies have developed a PCN resistance prior to being exposed to PCN however. This proves that the mutation occurred in random colonies, without environmental pressures, without external mutagens, and thus without any intentionality, if this isn't random mutation, what is?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 7:00:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 6:08:09 PM, janesix wrote:
I looked at the Lederberg experiment. It didn't prove mutations are random. It only showed mutations were already present, not where they came from. Or whether or not the original mutations were random or not.

Yes. It showed they were already present, and not a result of adaptation to circumstance. In other words (similar to UR's comments on adaptation above), selection is a separate process to mutation.

But more broadly, I suspect we may need to be careful about confirmation bias here, Jane. A large number of mutations can be harmful or irrelevant to both individuals and species in their current circumstance. Of those that are beneficial, because we're trying to construct a story, the ones we tend to notice most are both tactically beneficial for individual reproduction, and strategically beneficial for species -- so they connect individual benefit with long-term species survival.

Yet for a specific species in a particular environment, there may be only a small number of solutions meeting those criteria: being good for individuals and good for the species in its current form. Others may result in important cases we ignore -- e.g. individuals that don't out-compete, but manage to pass on beneficial mutations anyway (like Lederbergs' bacteria having a mutation they couldn't use -- until they could); or speciation where many branches don't survive, but only one branch does.

So suitably filtered, 'natural engineering' -- solutions to a problems heavily constrained -- may look a lot like elegant intelligence. But that may be because we single out surviving species, and apply a sort of 'Great Man' theory to it -- imagining that the species is carried forward by its paragons, rather than seeing (as is more likely) paragons emerging from a soup of ordinary and sub-ordinary individuals carrying the right genes.

And when we zoom in and see how many individuals die despite carrying some (but not all) beneficial mutations; or zoom out and see how many species die because they became too fragile, too hyperspecialised, or just couldn't adapt fast enough -- then what looks like elegance can actually look amoral, cruel, and purposeless.

And while I'm not a biologist, that's the picture I have -- too many stillbirths; too much teratogeny; too many extinct species; too many failing individuals with some but not all of the right genes; too slow a rate of development from simple to more complex life-forms; too many dead-ends and repeated failed designs -- to suggest any notion of intelligent or moral purpose.

But sure... pretty much every animal from a fish up has a plan based on a modified fish-face and four-limbed design. And pretty much all the flowering plants work much the same way. But that speaks to me more of a narrow solution-space exploding into diverse refinements than a clever shot through the eye of a needle -- especially when you look at what came before it, and how very late these innovations occurred.

And we ought to take into account our known difficulties in reasoning here. Our probability-intuitions are notoriously faulty. We're great at constructing post-hoc justifications for exceptionalism. Doubtless, ancient Mesopotamians had some story about how their culture alone was destined to survive and thrive, because most cultures do. Yet they didn't -- other cultures without their advantages adapted key ideas and key technologies and went their own ways.

I think the refutational evidence is quite strong, but we have define what it should look like. I've invited you to do that twice, and you've ignored it.

That's why I think you shouldn't trust your intuitions here, Jane -- they're loaded.

I hope that may be useful.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 10:35:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:13:50 PM, janesix wrote:

Everyone knows what accidental means. It means not on purpose. I say most mutations are purposeful.

Evolutionists say mutations are not purposeful. I disagree with that. I think it is top-driven,and with an ultimate direction.

How do you reconcile that with what you wrote in the OP?

I would like to see evidence that accidental mutations create advantageous adaptations. I have seen evidence that mutations can create disadvantageous problems.

If you can't, I will keep assuming accidental mutations only lead to disadvantages,and not advantageous adaptations.

Your position:
1. Mutations are purposeful, top-driven with an ultimate direction
2. Mutations can create disadvantageous problems

Are you saying that all advantageous mutations are deliberate and purposeful and all deleterious mutations are accidental? If so, what prevents whatever agency which is driving the beneficial mutations from deleting the harmful ones?