Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

miracles of evolution

janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:59:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?

How is that proof?

You can't provide one link to a scientific study proving that mutations are random?

I've looked,and haven't found anything.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:08:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:59:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?

How is that proof?

You can't provide one link to a scientific study proving that mutations are random?

I've looked,and haven't found anything.

What you're asking is for me to prove that mutations don't have purpose. It's akin to asking for proof that Thor isn't creating lightning with his hammer.... The burden is on you to prove that there is purpose since you're claiming the affirmative.

There is no proof that adaptations are purposeful, therefore they are not purposeful. That's what the claim for random mutation would look like.

Now show me your proof that adaptations are due to intentionality.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:17:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:08:22 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:59:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?

How is that proof?

You can't provide one link to a scientific study proving that mutations are random?

I've looked,and haven't found anything.

What you're asking is for me to prove that mutations don't have purpose. It's akin to asking for proof that Thor isn't creating lightning with his hammer.... The burden is on you to prove that there is purpose since you're claiming the affirmative.

There is no proof that adaptations are purposeful, therefore they are not purposeful. That's what the claim for random mutation would look like.

Now show me your proof that adaptations are due to intentionality.

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

"But no matter who applied their fingers to the task, the result was the same. Out of 27 lines of bacteria, 27 evolved into hyperswarmers."

Each time, they find the exact adaptation they need to survive.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:22:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 12:59:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?

How is that proof?

You can't provide one link to a scientific study proving that mutations are random?

I've looked,and haven't found anything.

This is also a intellectually dishonest inquiry. You know that randomness is defined by a lack of predictability. Therefore, the proof for randomness is a lack of order. You're not able to provide proof of ordered mutations and by negating that piece, you are making an impossible request.

It's like saying show me that your random number generator is random all the while denying that that the absence of a predictable pattern is proof of randomness.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:24:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:22:03 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:59:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?

How is that proof?

You can't provide one link to a scientific study proving that mutations are random?

I've looked,and haven't found anything.

This is also a intellectually dishonest inquiry. You know that randomness is defined by a lack of predictability. Therefore, the proof for randomness is a lack of order. You're not able to provide proof of ordered mutations and by negating that piece, you are making an impossible request.

It's like saying show me that your random number generator is random all the while denying that that the absence of a predictable pattern is proof of randomness.

I just showed you one experiment that shows predictability in mutations. I have more to show you if you want.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:40:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:17:19 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:08:22 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:59:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?

How is that proof?

You can't provide one link to a scientific study proving that mutations are random?

I've looked,and haven't found anything.

What you're asking is for me to prove that mutations don't have purpose. It's akin to asking for proof that Thor isn't creating lightning with his hammer.... The burden is on you to prove that there is purpose since you're claiming the affirmative.

There is no proof that adaptations are purposeful, therefore they are not purposeful. That's what the claim for random mutation would look like.

Now show me your proof that adaptations are due to intentionality.

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

"But no matter who applied their fingers to the task, the result was the same. Out of 27 lines of bacteria, 27 evolved into hyperswarmers."

Each time, they find the exact adaptation they need to survive.

That doesn't mean that the mutations have intentionality. The article states that they don't know the mechanism which produces these changes. So, the most you can say is, there is a non random mechanism in some bacteria which causes physical adaptations.

This article however, clearly shows evolution without intentionality.
http://news.harvard.edu...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:48:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

How does a puddle know to the exact shape of the hole it's in and fill it so perfectly?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 4:06:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Notably the 'hyperswarming' bacteria could survive perfectly well in the petri dish homes. They didn't have to muate to survive - it wasn't 'needed' in any way.

The article goes on to say that in the wild - as opposed to in petri dishes - the mutant form does not survive very long because the mutation that make for multiple tails ngatively impacts the bacteria's capacity for producing a biofilm the bacteria it also needs to survive out of its cozy lab. environment.

Presumably the mutation also occurs frequently in the wild but it was never noticed seen because any mutants rapidly die out (plus no-one was really looking).

What the bacteria really wanted from God was a mutation that gives them hyperswarming but doesn't impact their biofilm production. Perhaps they needed to pray harder?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 4:41:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Something I want to add.

Its also worth pointing out that its 'amazing when just the right mutation happens', but most of the time (i.e 99.999% of the time) no such mutation happens - or the wrong mutations turn up - and the organism/colony/species dies out.

Throwing a double six is a 1 in 36 chance, but it will happen sometimes if you keep throwing dice. Throwing a double six is not amazing if most of time you don't.

There are also interesting cases of mutation causing a great deal of damage. A case was found in mice in which a mutation resulted in 'meiotic drive' that in turn resulted in many male mice being sterile and a consequent poplulation crash.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

There is nothing that makes beneficial mutation more likely that deleterious ones. It is only that it is usually only the beneficial ones that have any chance of having any observable long term effect. Typically bad mutations are only represented by a few individuals in a few generations before they die out, so we only ever get to see the 'amazing' success stories, never the 100 and 1000s of other mutations that weren't so amazing.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:43:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

Why are there people who miraculously chose all the exactly correct numbers in the lottery? There is normally at least one such person who does this every single week!

How lucky they all are!
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:54:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

They don't. That is why more than 99% of the species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Evolution has a terrible track record for developing the exact mutations that a species needs. So yes we are indeed very lucky. The chances of us ever having evolved are incredibly tiny.

But occasionally a mutation hits it just right. Like winning the lottery. If enough people are playing, somebody is eventually going to hit that jackpot. The mutation only needs to happen just once, and then it can take off and be reproduced in offspring.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 9:41:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The chances of us ever having evolved are incredibly tiny.

Interesting - I suppose the chances of humans evolving in exactly our form is tiny, but isn't it fairly likely that some sort of large, intelligent biped would evolve filing a similar niche?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:00:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

Think about all the dead ends as evolution goes about it's business spitting out various outcomes leaving it to the environment to select which will continue on and which will not.

Many things have been said about evolution................with a straight face "miracle" is not one of them.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:59:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 9:41:24 AM, kp98 wrote:
The chances of us ever having evolved are incredibly tiny.

Interesting - I suppose the chances of humans evolving in exactly our form is tiny, but isn't it fairly likely that some sort of large, intelligent biped would evolve filing a similar niche?

I don't know. But I'd be very interested in doing some reading on the topic. It would make for a good article.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:01:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

They don't. That's why almost every species has gone extinct.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:57:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:40:09 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:17:19 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:08:22 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:59:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:55:18 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:45:10 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:43:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:36:58 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:35:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:31:48 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:28:58 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:24:37 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/15/2015 12:18:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

why do you ascribe a value of miraculous to it? it seems statistically very likely that over the course of generations at least some mutations will be beneficial.

Take humans for example; we (as a species and a population of about 6 billion) will undergo about 7.2x10^11 mutations in our genome in the next 20 years.....Seems only likely that at least one of those will be beneficial.....So not really luck, just statistical probability coupled with the other selective pressures and there you have it.

We always get the ones needed for adaptation. Milk drinkers get mutations needed to digest lactose. Runners get stronger muscles and the right shaped bones for running. Bacteria get the right mutations enabling them to digest the right kind of sugars when there is a change in the environment.

So you're saying the theory of evolution explains beneficial mutations (i.e. mutations which increase the organisms fitness)? I don't quite get what you're advocating here ....

I am saying adaptations aren't due to accidental mutations.

you're right, adaptations are due to random mutations, selective breeding, bottleneck effects, founder effects, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and of course natural selection.

So you say. I say adaptation has purpose. It is obvious.

Oh, I see, you would like to make assertions without evidence. You can assert all you like, aliens did it, crab people from the center of the earth did it, the galactic overlord Xenu is responsible....you're claim has the same truth value as any of those claims. Since you asserted it without evidence, I can dismiss it just the same; I assert you're wrong.

Prove that mutations that cause adaptations are random. Where is your evidence?

Zingg, Jean-Marc, and Peter A. Jones. "Genetic and epigenetic aspects of DNA methylation on genome expression, evolution, mutation and carcinogenesis." Carcinogenesis 18.5 (1997): 869-882.

WenHsiung, Li. Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1997.

Wright, Sewall. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Vol. 1. na, 1932.

Sniegowski, Paul D., Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. "Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli." Nature 387.6634 (1997): 703-705.

Hansen, Nikolaus, and Andreas Ostermeier. "Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation." Evolutionary Computation, 1996., Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1996.

MacIntyre, Ross. "Mutation Driven Evolution." Journal of Heredity 106.4 (2015): 420-420.

Leiby, Nicholas, and Christopher J. Marx. "Metabolic erosion primarily through mutation accumulation, and not tradeoffs, drives limited evolution of substrate specificity in Escherichia coli." PLoS Biol 12.2 (2014): 001789.

would you like more?

How is that proof?

You can't provide one link to a scientific study proving that mutations are random?

I've looked,and haven't found anything.

What you're asking is for me to prove that mutations don't have purpose. It's akin to asking for proof that Thor isn't creating lightning with his hammer.... The burden is on you to prove that there is purpose since you're claiming the affirmative.

There is no proof that adaptations are purposeful, therefore they are not purposeful. That's what the claim for random mutation would look like.

Now show me your proof that adaptations are due to intentionality.

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

"But no matter who applied their fingers to the task, the result was the same. Out of 27 lines of bacteria, 27 evolved into hyperswarmers."

Each time, they find the exact adaptation they need to survive.

That doesn't mean that the mutations have intentionality. The article states that they don't know the mechanism which produces these changes. So, the most you can say is, there is a non random mechanism in some bacteria which causes physical adaptations.


This article however, clearly shows evolution without intentionality.
http://news.harvard.edu...

Not surprising. They developed the ability to eat sugar in a sugar environment.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:32:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

How lucky we all are.

Well, most of those organisms do NOT acquire advantageous genetic mutations. Those that did not are no with us any longer. LOL

Do you know that 99% of ALL the species of life--fauna and flora--that have ever lived on our planet since life began some 3 billion years ago are now extinct? Gone forever.

The vast majority of genetic mutations are not advantageous. They are either deleterious or "non-factors." But when an organism DOES acquire, over time, a mutation that enables it to thrive and prosper in it current environment--say, growing fur in a cold climate--then after many generations that organism will prosper and outlive the other organisms that were not so lucky as to acquire that mutation.

After awhile, the "genetically enhanced" organisms live longer and produce progeny until they are the only ones left. So this once random and minority genetic trait becomes the new norm.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:35:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your post is fine, SoM but why should it be necessary? I don't think for a minute that Janesix hasn't been told the same thing before, many, many times. It's basic 'evolution 101' stuff, the sort of thing that everyone should know, at least everyone who wants to have their opinion taken even slightly seriously.

I have no problem with people who make genuine mistakes from honest ignorance, as long as they show some flexibility, some desire to learn something. But that isn't the case with janesix and their ilk - they don't want to learn, or change. Why should they, when they already have the "ultimate truth"?

Tu quoque, do I hear? Not really. I do know how science works, what a theory is, how natural selection and mutation interact and all the other elementary and basic things needed to have an informed opinion about this issue. But these are elementatry concepts - not rocket science. It is self evident that the anti-evolutionists don't have the even basics - or SoM wouldn't have to patiently try to explain it to them... over and over again.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:37:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:35:19 AM, kp98 wrote:
Your post is fine, SoM but why should it be necessary? I don't think for a minute that Janesix hasn't been told the same thing before, many, many times. It's basic 'evolution 101' stuff, the sort of thing that everyone should know, at least everyone who wants to have their opinion taken even slightly seriously.

I have no problem with people who make genuine mistakes from honest ignorance, as long as they show some flexibility, some desire to learn something. But that isn't the case with janesix and their ilk - they don't want to learn, or change. Why should they, when they already have the "ultimate truth"?

Tu quoque, do I hear? Not really. I do know how science works, what a theory is, how natural selection and mutation interact and all the other elementary and basic things needed to have an informed opinion about this issue. But these are elementatry concepts - not rocket science. It is self evident that the anti-evolutionists don't have the even basics - or SoM wouldn't have to patiently try to explain it to them... over and over again.

It has become clear with janesix that they are not really interested in learning. They will ignore the arguments that they are unable to provide a response for and act as if they never happened, choosing instead to respond only to silly comments and weak pseudo-arguments.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 4:15:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:57:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do organisms miraculously evolve the exact mutations they need to adapt to their environment?

They don't, Jane. More than 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct.

How lucky we all are.
Not kids with cystic fibrosis, a genetically-acquired, life-shortening chronic illness. Nor human males, who've inherited some DNA that shortens their lives with no benefit to the species, but which has never been bred out since it only affects them after their breeding years.

Though commonly believed through the 19th century, the idea that nature creates perfect species perfectly adapted was contested with Darwin. He realised that species were not perfectly fit, that they were constantly competing to occupy crowded niches, and that such competition was changing them.

That the idea continues today is survivor's bias: because one survived, one might falsely conclude that one has done so on special merit.

But Neanderthals had much the same organs and behaviours humans do today. They were cooperative primate tool-users, with abstract thought and language, just as we are.

Where are they?

Biology is not survival of the fittest, Jane; the fit just get to renew their lease until things change too fast, or they get unlucky.