Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Random mutations have nothing to do with evol

janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 8:08:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

You're contesting the "random" part, right? If so, without that part, do mutations have anything to do with evolution?
Annnaxim
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 8:17:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.
Where did you learn that nonsense?

Randomness is the lesser of the two processes in evolution. It is reponsible for generating the "raw material" for the vastly more important process of natural selection.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 8:18:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:08:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

You're contesting the "random" part, right? If so, without that part, do mutations have anything to do with evolution?

Yes organisms evolve through mutations.

They are not accidental or random. Evolution is a preprogrammed inevitable part of nature, with parameters for minor adaptations.

One line of evidence for this is convergent evolution. Thats why we get marsupial dogs and moles and mice. Ideal forms are inevitable, with multiple paths to the same forms.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:18:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:08:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

You're contesting the "random" part, right? If so, without that part, do mutations have anything to do with evolution?

Yes organisms evolve through mutations.

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

They are not accidental or random. Evolution is a preprogrammed inevitable part of nature, with parameters for minor adaptations.

I don't think science implies that there is no sentient cause. If there is and we lack any method of predicting these mutations, then we could still call it random in the spirit.

One line of evidence for this is convergent evolution.

No, convergent evolution is explainable by both an intended and unintended model of evolution. As such, it doesn't lend credence to either model. Occam's Razor would result in the latter being more reasonable because it entails fewer unnecessary assumptions, namely, the necessity of the existence of a 'being' capable of intent and that being's ability to willfully manipulate the events of the natural world, unseen.

If you believe that evolution via mutations, adaptions, and natural selection can favor a specific function (such as flight) based on environmental pressures, why is it unreasonable to say that another line of evolution, simply with a different starting point, would also tend towards that special function? Certainly, the nature of the special function might be different, but the same essential function can still still achieved (e.g. insect wings vs. feathered wings). This is oversimplified, but it's actually pretty simple and quite plausible, in general.

Thats why we get marsupial dogs and moles and mice. Ideal forms are inevitable, with multiple paths to the same forms.

Why do you call those "ideal forms"?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

What is your evidence that mutations are not random?
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 9:00:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:17:01 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.
Where did you learn that nonsense?

Randomness is the lesser of the two processes in evolution. It is reponsible for generating the "raw material" for the vastly more important process of natural selection.

It's her self made pet hypothesis
Meh!
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 9:12:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

Then how does evolution happen without mutations?
Annnaxim
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 11:23:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 9:12:59 PM, distraff wrote:

Then how does evolution happen without mutations?
It doesn't.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 1:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

Hi, Jane. Can you please reply to us? This appears to be a persistent issue that could potentially be resolved with a brief round of discourse.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 5:03:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:18:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:08:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

You're contesting the "random" part, right? If so, without that part, do mutations have anything to do with evolution?

Yes organisms evolve through mutations.

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

Maybe

They are not accidental or random. Evolution is a preprogrammed inevitable part of nature, with parameters for minor adaptations.

I don't think science implies that there is no sentient cause. If there is and we lack any method of predicting these mutations, then we could still call it random in the spirit.

One line of evidence for this is convergent evolution.

No, convergent evolution is explainable by both an intended and unintended model of evolution. As such, it doesn't lend credence to either model. Occam's Razor would result in the latter being more reasonable because it entails fewer unnecessary assumptions, namely, the necessity of the existence of a 'being' capable of intent and that being's ability to willfully manipulate the events of the natural world, unseen.

Ok then explain in detail how you can get the exact same structure through random mutations.

If you believe that evolution via mutations, adaptions, and natural selection can favor a specific function (such as flight) based on environmental pressures, why is it unreasonable to say that another line of evolution, simply with a different starting point, would also tend towards that special function? Certainly, the nature of the special function might be different, but the same essential function can still still achieved (e.g. insect wings vs. feathered wings). This is oversimplified, but it's actually pretty simple and quite plausible, in general.

I don't believe that.

Thats why we get marsupial dogs and moles and mice. Ideal forms are inevitable, with multiple paths to the same forms.

Why do you call those "ideal forms"?

Because they are preprogrammed into evolution.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 5:07:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 9/26/2016 9:12:59 PM, distraff wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

Then how does evolution happen without mutations?

It doesn't. When did I say it did?
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 5:09:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 9/26/2016 8:17:01 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.
Where did you learn that nonsense?

Randomness is the lesser of the two processes in evolution. It is reponsible for generating the "raw material" for the vastly more important process of natural selection.

Prove it.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 5:59:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 5:03:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:18:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:08:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

You're contesting the "random" part, right? If so, without that part, do mutations have anything to do with evolution?

Yes organisms evolve through mutations.

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

Maybe

Until it can be shown how, then the pattern of mutations is unpredictable and unknown. That's exactly what "random" means.

They are not accidental or random. Evolution is a preprogrammed inevitable part of nature, with parameters for minor adaptations.

I don't think science implies that there is no sentient cause. If there is and we lack any method of predicting these mutations, then we could still call it random in the spirit.

One line of evidence for this is convergent evolution.

No, convergent evolution is explainable by both an intended and unintended model of evolution. As such, it doesn't lend credence to either model. Occam's Razor would result in the latter being more reasonable because it entails fewer unnecessary assumptions, namely, the necessity of the existence of a 'being' capable of intent and that being's ability to willfully manipulate the events of the natural world, unseen.

Ok then explain in detail how you can get the exact same structure through random mutations.

I'm not exactly sure of what you're asking for but before anything, do you believe that the process of natural selection is true regardless of the nature of mutations (random or not)?

If you believe that evolution via mutations, adaptions, and natural selection can favor a specific function (such as flight) based on environmental pressures, why is it unreasonable to say that another line of evolution, simply with a different starting point, would also tend towards that special function? Certainly, the nature of the special function might be different, but the same essential function can still still achieved (e.g. insect wings vs. feathered wings). This is oversimplified, but it's actually pretty simple and quite plausible, in general.

I don't believe that.

Which part(s), exactly?

Thats why we get marsupial dogs and moles and mice. Ideal forms are inevitable, with multiple paths to the same forms.

Why do you call those "ideal forms"?

Because they are preprogrammed into evolution.

(a) How have you proven this? Or at least, what makes you believe this?

(b) Then why are literally all of them still changing in different ways and increasing in diversity? If evolution was approaching some mystical ideal form, then would it be logical that diversity should be decreasing??

(c) How can it be determined which organism is programmed to follow which ideal form? For example what ideal form does a Hyena follow? Or the Pigbutt Worm (a.k.a. Flying Buttocks)?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,947
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 6:01:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It is next to impossible to know what the effect of a DNA mutation will be. The change in the DNA certainly means the protein produced will be different, but what that difference means to the whole organism is hard to know. Equally, it hard to know what mutation is equired to produce any desired effect. Perhaps it would pay a bacterium to be able to digest plastic, but how could the mutation required to bring it about be identified and achieved?

The simplest model is that mutations occur 'at random' until the right one turns up (or it doesn't turn up and the organism goes extinct!). Most 'random' mutants die very early without having descendants so they are barely noticeable - it is only the rare successful mutant forms that appear in sufficient numbers that get noticed.

Some modern research suggests that mutations are not quite as random as that. Some parts of the genome are more mutable than others so the organism (or population of organism)can try out more variations of particular mutations rather than simply changing anything anyhow. It is still a process based on trial and error (a trial being a given mutation and the errors being removed by natural selection), but it is slightly more efficient than the simple scatter-gun model.

As I see it that poses no threat to neo-Darwinism - it is neo-Darwinism. The essential feature of Darwinism is that a novel form (ie a mutant) stands or falls on the basis of how it well it competes in the struggle to live and reproduce. It may well be that DNA has evolved the abililty to mutate in such a way as to allow for more efficient evolution in times of stress. Nature is remarkably clever - I certainly wouldn't put such a thing beyond its power!
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 6:07:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 5:59:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:03:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:18:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:08:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

You're contesting the "random" part, right? If so, without that part, do mutations have anything to do with evolution?

Yes organisms evolve through mutations.

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

Maybe

Until it can be shown how, then the pattern of mutations is unpredictable and unknown. That's exactly what "random" means.

Not true. Just because WE don't know it doesn't make it random.

They are not accidental or random. Evolution is a preprogrammed inevitable part of nature, with parameters for minor adaptations.

I don't think science implies that there is no sentient cause. If there is and we lack any method of predicting these mutations, then we could still call it random in the spirit.

One line of evidence for this is convergent evolution.

No, convergent evolution is explainable by both an intended and unintended model of evolution. As such, it doesn't lend credence to either model. Occam's Razor would result in the latter being more reasonable because it entails fewer unnecessary assumptions, namely, the necessity of the existence of a 'being' capable of intent and that being's ability to willfully manipulate the events of the natural world, unseen.

Ok then explain in detail how you can get the exact same structure through random mutations.

I'm not exactly sure of what you're asking for but before anything, do you believe that the process of natural selection is true regardless of the nature of mutations (random or not)?

No

If you believe that evolution via mutations, adaptions, and natural selection can favor a specific function (such as flight) based on environmental pressures, why is it unreasonable to say that another line of evolution, simply with a different starting point, would also tend towards that special function? Certainly, the nature of the special function might be different, but the same essential function can still still achieved (e.g. insect wings vs. feathered wings). This is oversimplified, but it's actually pretty simple and quite plausible, in general.

I don't believe that.

Which part(s), exactly?

I don't believe environmental pressures has impact on anything but preprogramed adaptations.

Thats why we get marsupial dogs and moles and mice. Ideal forms are inevitable, with multiple paths to the same forms.

Why do you call those "ideal forms"?

Because they are preprogrammed into evolution.

(a) How have you proven this? Or at least, what makes you believe this?

I believe it because the universe showed it to me. I don't have "proof". But YOU don't have proof that mutations are random, yet you believe it anyway.

(b) Then why are literally all of them still changing in different ways and increasing in diversity? If evolution was approaching some mystical ideal form, then would it be logical that diversity should be decreasing??

How do you know organisms are increasing in diversity? And how do you explain the organisms that have remained the same for millions, and hundreds of millions of years?

(c) How can it be determined which organism is programmed to follow which ideal form? For example what ideal form does a Hyena follow?
canine.

Or the Pigbutt Worm (a.k.a. Flying Buttocks)?

worm.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 6:54:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 6:07:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:59:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:03:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

Maybe

Until it can be shown how, then the pattern of mutations is unpredictable and unknown. That's exactly what "random" means.

Not true. Just because WE don't know it doesn't make it random.

But that's exactly what random means! It expresses unpredictability and unknown-ness. A die role is random because we cannot predict the result. What do you think random means?

Ok then explain in detail how you can get the exact same structure through random mutations.

I'm not exactly sure of what you're asking for but before anything, do you believe that the process of natural selection is true regardless of the nature of mutations (random or not)?

No

Really? Even most hardcore creationists believe in natural selection to a point (adaption), so that's surprising. So, you don't believe the following process is at all possible:

1. A population of lightly-furred animals exists in a temperate environment, with it gradually becoming colder as you travel north.
2. The "furriness" of the original population varies slightly from individual to individual due to genetic mutation.
3. The population is preyed upon by a predatory animal that thrives in warmer environments and kill much of their prey.
4. Those prey animals that travel northward (towards the cold) will have a better change of surviving their predators.
5. The predator animals, running low on prey, will be forced to push northward to find more, or else they will starve.
6. Continuing to be forced further north, the prey animals are subjected to greater cold.
7. Those individual who happen to have less fur have lesser chance of surviving the cold, thus, likely dying and not passing on their genetics.
8. Those individual who happen to have more fur have greater chance of surviving the cold, thus, likely surviving and passing on their genetics.
9. The offspring of those surviving individuals inherit the genetics from their parents, albeit with some minor variation.
10. Since the majority of the surviving parents will tend to be furrier, overall, the offspring will tend to be furrier as well.
11. As those offspring grow up, they are subject to the same environment and survivability parameters as their parents.
12. Due to the genetic distribution of the parents, this generation will have a slightly higher average "furriness" than the original generation.
13. The least furry of them are most likely to die while the most furry are most likely to survive, repeating the process and increasing average "furriness".
14. Over many generations, the individuals of the population will be more furry on average than the original population.

Now, this is a crude, abstract depiction of natural selection in what I see as very simple. What do you think of this?

I don't believe environmental pressures has impact on anything but preprogramed adaptations.

Interesting. This is illustrated in my example, above.

Because they are preprogrammed into evolution.

(a) How have you proven this? Or at least, what makes you believe this?

I believe it because the universe showed it to me. I don't have "proof". But YOU don't have proof that mutations are random, yet you believe it anyway.

Can you elaborate on that first part? Regarding the second, I have no means of predicting the pattern of mutations, which is exactly why it's called random.

(b) Then why are literally all of them still changing in different ways and increasing in diversity? If evolution was approaching some mystical ideal form, then would it be logical that diversity should be decreasing??

How do you know organisms are increasing in diversity? And how do you explain the organisms that have remained the same for millions, and hundreds of millions of years?

(c) How can it be determined which organism is programmed to follow which ideal form? For example what ideal form does a Hyena follow?
canine.

You didn't answer the first question. Regarding the Hyena, it's actually classified as Feliformia rather than Caniformia, so why do you say "canine" exactly? (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Or the Pigbutt Worm (a.k.a. Flying Buttocks)?

worm.

What does the ideal form look like for "worm"?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 7:14:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 6:07:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:59:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:03:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:18:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:08:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

You're contesting the "random" part, right? If so, without that part, do mutations have anything to do with evolution?

Yes organisms evolve through mutations.

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

Maybe

Until it can be shown how, then the pattern of mutations is unpredictable and unknown. That's exactly what "random" means.

Not true. Just because WE don't know it doesn't make it random.

Just to add more to this point, say I have a box that will report a sequence of numbers. Without your knowledge, I programmed it to report some specified non-patterned sequence of numbers. So, to me, the resulting sequence is obviously not random, but to you, it is because you have no knowledge or means of predicting the sequence. As soon as you learn that there's a specified sequences, then it's no longer random to you.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.

What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 8:13:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 6:54:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 6:07:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:59:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:03:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

Maybe

Until it can be shown how, then the pattern of mutations is unpredictable and unknown. That's exactly what "random" means.

Not true. Just because WE don't know it doesn't make it random.

But that's exactly what random means! It expresses unpredictability and unknown-ness. A die role is random because we cannot predict the result. What do you think random means?

Random means there is no pattern. If someone can't detect a pattern, doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.

Ok then explain in detail how you can get the exact same structure through random mutations.

I'm not exactly sure of what you're asking for but before anything, do you believe that the process of natural selection is true regardless of the nature of mutations (random or not)?

No

Really? Even most hardcore creationists believe in natural selection to a point (adaption), so that's surprising. So, you don't believe the following process is at all possible:

1. A population of lightly-furred animals exists in a temperate environment, with it gradually becoming colder as you travel north.
2. The "furriness" of the original population varies slightly from individual to individual due to genetic mutation.
3. The population is preyed upon by a predatory animal that thrives in warmer environments and kill much of their prey.
4. Those prey animals that travel northward (towards the cold) will have a better change of surviving their predators.
5. The predator animals, running low on prey, will be forced to push northward to find more, or else they will starve.
6. Continuing to be forced further north, the prey animals are subjected to greater cold.
7. Those individual who happen to have less fur have lesser chance of surviving the cold, thus, likely dying and not passing on their genetics.
8. Those individual who happen to have more fur have greater chance of surviving the cold, thus, likely surviving and passing on their genetics.
9. The offspring of those surviving individuals inherit the genetics from their parents, albeit with some minor variation.
10. Since the majority of the surviving parents will tend to be furrier, overall, the offspring will tend to be furrier as well.
11. As those offspring grow up, they are subject to the same environment and survivability parameters as their parents.
12. Due to the genetic distribution of the parents, this generation will have a slightly higher average "furriness" than the original generation.
13. The least furry of them are most likely to die while the most furry are most likely to survive, repeating the process and increasing average "furriness".
14. Over many generations, the individuals of the population will be more furry on average than the original population.

Now, this is a crude, abstract depiction of natural selection in what I see as very simple. What do you think of this?

All possible variations are preprogrammed.

I don't believe environmental pressures has impact on anything but preprogramed adaptations.

Interesting. This is illustrated in my example, above.

Because they are preprogrammed into evolution.

(a) How have you proven this? Or at least, what makes you believe this?

I believe it because the universe showed it to me. I don't have "proof". But YOU don't have proof that mutations are random, yet you believe it anyway.

Can you elaborate on that first part? Regarding the second, I have no means of predicting the pattern of mutations, which is exactly why it's called random.

The universe showed me in a vision.

Just because you can't predict a pattern doesn't mean no one can.

(b) Then why are literally all of them still changing in different ways and increasing in diversity? If evolution was approaching some mystical ideal form, then would it be logical that diversity should be decreasing??

How do you know organisms are increasing in diversity? And how do you explain the organisms that have remained the same for millions, and hundreds of millions of years?

(c) How can it be determined which organism is programmed to follow which ideal form? For example what ideal form does a Hyena follow?
canine.

You didn't answer the first question. Regarding the Hyena, it's actually classified as Feliformia rather than Caniformia, so why do you say "canine" exactly? (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Just as a marsupial dog isn't a dog, it is still the same ideal form as a dog. Nature has plenty of ways to get the same form. jJust like nature came up with 40 different ways to get eyes.

Or the Pigbutt Worm (a.k.a. Flying Buttocks)?

worm.

What does the ideal form look like for "worm"?
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 8:17:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.


What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?

Once again, like everyone I've asked to show me any evidence at all that mutation are random, you go around the question, and once again show ZERO evidence for it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 8:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 8:17:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.


What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?

Once again, like everyone I've asked to show me any evidence at all that mutation are random, you go around the question, and once again show ZERO evidence for it.

There is a lot of evidence for random mutations, which I know you are aware of, or at least should understand.

Given that you probably don't accept this evidence, and given the tenuous, non-descript and unexplained reasons you gave for believing otherwise, any evidence I bring up, will likely be dismissed for just as tenuous reasons by you.

That's why I asked, how would YOU tell the difference between random and non random mutations, in what way would they be different, and how would you tell?

If you can't tell, why are you asking for evidence; because if you don't know what the difference is, how can you even tell whether it would be evidence or not?

I'm uninterested in your fatuous, rhetorical technique of demanding evidence, then dismissing the evidence in a couple of sentences, without reason or justification, because you neglect to discuss, understand or talk about what you consider evidence or why.

If you want a discussion, answer that question; otherwise what you seem to be doing here is just rhetorical point scoring using a method that any idiot can use, regardless of how wrong they are.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 8:41:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 8:23:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:17:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.


What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?

Once again, like everyone I've asked to show me any evidence at all that mutation are random, you go around the question, and once again show ZERO evidence for it.

There is a lot of evidence for random mutations, which I know you are aware of, or at least should understand.

Given that you probably don't accept this evidence, and given the tenuous, non-descript and unexplained reasons you gave for believing otherwise, any evidence I bring up, will likely be dismissed for just as tenuous reasons by you.

That's why I asked, how would YOU tell the difference between random and non random mutations, in what way would they be different, and how would you tell?

Non-random mutations wouldn't provide the exact adaptations an organism requires to survive.

Non-random mutations wouldn't give us precise optical instruments, 40 different times, through different pathways.

Non-random mutations would give organisms useful things, what they need. That is what we find in nature.

If mutations were random, functioning organisms wouldn't even exist. It would take forever just to get one useful adaptation, and how would that organism survive in the interim?


If you can't tell, why are you asking for evidence; because if you don't know what the difference is, how can you even tell whether it would be evidence or not?

I'm uninterested in your fatuous, rhetorical technique of demanding evidence, then dismissing the evidence in a couple of sentences, without reason or justification, because you neglect to discuss, understand or talk about what you consider evidence or why.

If you want a discussion, answer that question; otherwise what you seem to be doing here is just rhetorical point scoring using a method that any idiot can use, regardless of how wrong they are.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 9:24:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 8:41:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:23:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:17:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.


What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?

Once again, like everyone I've asked to show me any evidence at all that mutation are random, you go around the question, and once again show ZERO evidence for it.

There is a lot of evidence for random mutations, which I know you are aware of, or at least should understand.

Given that you probably don't accept this evidence, and given the tenuous, non-descript and unexplained reasons you gave for believing otherwise, any evidence I bring up, will likely be dismissed for just as tenuous reasons by you.

That's why I asked, how would YOU tell the difference between random and non random mutations, in what way would they be different, and how would you tell?

Non-random mutations wouldn't provide the exact adaptations an organism requires to survive.

Because.... ?

Non-random mutations wouldn't give us precise optical instruments, 40 different times, through different pathways.

Because .... ?

Non-random mutations would give organisms useful things, what they need. That is what we find in nature.

Why would they? Non-random mutations simply means that particular area's of DNA always change in predictable, non random ways. Being non-random doesn't mean it will do anything, it just means where it occurs, and how it occurs is not random.

For example, point mutations only occurring on the first codon of a gene, and only changing a T to a G, would be a non-random mutation.

You see, even here you're being vague, as you're not being entirely clear as to what a non random mutation even is.

Random mutations, FYI: are a set of ways in which DNA can be modified before, during or after copying which change the nature of the DNA and what it does; the random element comes from the location, position and nature of the mutation that occurs is stochastic: in that you can't predict in any copying phase, which gene, where or how will be modified.

If mutations were random, functioning organisms wouldn't even exist. It would take forever just to get one useful adaptation, and how would that organism survive in the interim?

How have you come to this conclusion? What justifications for this? This is basically a two sentence assertion that stands directly against everything we know about biological evolution.

Because, fundamentally, if mutations were random, the time it takes to get one useful adaptation depends on:

a.) How many possible useful "adaptions" there are that can be achieved by a mutation.

b.) How many organisms there are in which a mutation to that adaptation can occur.

c.) The value and size of the mutation rate.

d.) The number of generations over which the adaptation could be acheived.

You see. You have simply asserted that it can't happen; but do some maths.

If an organism could have 1000 possible adaptations caused by a gene mutation, the changes of any one gene changing in that way is 1 in 10,000,0000. The size of the population is 10,000; and the generation rate is 2 years.

How many years would it take to have a 75% chance of one of those mutations expressing itself in one of those organisms?

Can you do the maths?

I can.

Hell, why not calculate how long it will take if every single one of those adaptation is a Billion to one shot?

You see, I don't think you understand the nature of the probabilities involve, and you are simply asserting the argument you are because it "feels" impossible, but you have no ability to quantify how impossible it actually is.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 9:29:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 9:24:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:41:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:23:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:17:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.


What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?

Once again, like everyone I've asked to show me any evidence at all that mutation are random, you go around the question, and once again show ZERO evidence for it.

There is a lot of evidence for random mutations, which I know you are aware of, or at least should understand.

Given that you probably don't accept this evidence, and given the tenuous, non-descript and unexplained reasons you gave for believing otherwise, any evidence I bring up, will likely be dismissed for just as tenuous reasons by you.

That's why I asked, how would YOU tell the difference between random and non random mutations, in what way would they be different, and how would you tell?

Non-random mutations wouldn't provide the exact adaptations an organism requires to survive.

Because.... ?

Non-random mutations wouldn't give us precise optical instruments, 40 different times, through different pathways.

Because .... ?

Non-random mutations would give organisms useful things, what they need. That is what we find in nature.

Why would they? Non-random mutations simply means that particular area's of DNA always change in predictable, non random ways. Being non-random doesn't mean it will do anything, it just means where it occurs, and how it occurs is not random.

For example, point mutations only occurring on the first codon of a gene, and only changing a T to a G, would be a non-random mutation.

You see, even here you're being vague, as you're not being entirely clear as to what a non random mutation even is.

Random mutations, FYI: are a set of ways in which DNA can be modified before, during or after copying which change the nature of the DNA and what it does; the random element comes from the location, position and nature of the mutation that occurs is stochastic: in that you can't predict in any copying phase, which gene, where or how will be modified.

If mutations were random, functioning organisms wouldn't even exist. It would take forever just to get one useful adaptation, and how would that organism survive in the interim?

How have you come to this conclusion? What justifications for this? This is basically a two sentence assertion that stands directly against everything we know about biological evolution.

Because, fundamentally, if mutations were random, the time it takes to get one useful adaptation depends on:

a.) How many possible useful "adaptions" there are that can be achieved by a mutation.

b.) How many organisms there are in which a mutation to that adaptation can occur.

c.) The value and size of the mutation rate.

d.) The number of generations over which the adaptation could be acheived.

You see. You have simply asserted that it can't happen; but do some maths.

If an organism could have 1000 possible adaptations caused by a gene mutation, the changes of any one gene changing in that way is 1 in 10,000,0000. The size of the population is 10,000; and the generation rate is 2 years.

How many years would it take to have a 75% chance of one of those mutations expressing itself in one of those organisms?

Can you do the maths?

I can.

Hell, why not calculate how long it will take if every single one of those adaptation is a Billion to one shot?

You see, I don't think you understand the nature of the probabilities involve, and you are simply asserting the argument you are because it "feels" impossible, but you have no ability to quantify how impossible it actually is.

I agree.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 9:37:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 8:13:47 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 6:54:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 6:07:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:59:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:03:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:32:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Is the rate or pattern of these mutations predictable?

Maybe

Until it can be shown how, then the pattern of mutations is unpredictable and unknown. That's exactly what "random" means.

Not true. Just because WE don't know it doesn't make it random.

But that's exactly what random means! It expresses unpredictability and unknown-ness. A die role is random because we cannot predict the result. What do you think random means?

Random means there is no pattern. If someone can't detect a pattern, doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.

Random is intended to describe a lack of predictability in the nature and emergence of mutations. There is no perceivable pattern which is necessary for prediction to be possible. This is not to say that some unseen pattern positively does not exist. As I analogously described in my other reply, random is a description that we give something based on our knowledge of it. I don't think that there is literally no pattern behind mutations either (e.g. they follow natural/chemical laws), but since we lack the knowledge to make predictions, it's random. Consider the term a placeholder for ignorance, if you will.

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Really? Even most hardcore creationists believe in natural selection to a point (adaption), so that's surprising. So, you don't believe the following process is at all possible:

1. A population of lightly-furred animals exists in a temperate environment, with it gradually becoming colder as you travel north.
2. The "furriness" of the original population varies slightly from individual to individual due to genetic mutation.
3. The population is preyed upon by a predatory animal that thrives in warmer environments and kill much of their prey.
4. Those prey animals that travel northward (towards the cold) will have a better change of surviving their predators.
5. The predator animals, running low on prey, will be forced to push northward to find more, or else they will starve.
6. Continuing to be forced further north, the prey animals are subjected to greater cold.
7. Those individual who happen to have less fur have lesser chance of surviving the cold, thus, likely dying and not passing on their genetics.
8. Those individual who happen to have more fur have greater chance of surviving the cold, thus, likely surviving and passing on their genetics.
9. The offspring of those surviving individuals inherit the genetics from their parents, albeit with some minor variation.
10. Since the majority of the surviving parents will tend to be furrier, overall, the offspring will tend to be furrier as well.
11. As those offspring grow up, they are subject to the same environment and survivability parameters as their parents.
12. Due to the genetic distribution of the parents, this generation will have a slightly higher average "furriness" than the original generation.
13. The least furry of them are most likely to die while the most furry are most likely to survive, repeating the process and increasing average "furriness".
14. Over many generations, the individuals of the population will be more furry on average than the original population.

Now, this is a crude, abstract depiction of natural selection in what I see as very simple. What do you think of this?

All possible variations are preprogrammed.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Is what I wrote impossible?

Because they are preprogrammed into evolution.

(a) How have you proven this? Or at least, what makes you believe this?

I believe it because the universe showed it to me. I don't have "proof". But YOU don't have proof that mutations are random, yet you believe it anyway.

Can you elaborate on that first part? Regarding the second, I have no means of predicting the pattern of mutations, which is exactly why it's called random.

The universe showed me in a vision.

OK, but keep in mind you're talking to people who can't relate to that experience.

Just because you can't predict a pattern doesn't mean no one can.

I didn't say otherwise.

(b) Then why are literally all of them still changing in different ways and increasing in diversity? If evolution was approaching some mystical ideal form, then would it be logical that diversity should be decreasing??

How do you know organisms are increasing in diversity? And how do you explain the organisms that have remained the same for millions, and hundreds of millions of years?

Sorry, missed this. The fossil record alone shows that species (in their great variety) didn't always exist. Follow the lineages and watch them split.

You didn't answer the first question. Regarding the Hyena, it's actually classified as Feliformia rather than Caniformia, so why do you say "canine" exactly? (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Just as a marsupial dog isn't a dog, it is still the same ideal form as a dog. Nature has plenty of ways to get the same form. jJust like nature came up with 40 different ways to get eyes.

OK. Wo what exactly is the ideal form of "dog", then, if you know it exists? What does it look like?

Or the Pigbutt Worm (a.k.a. Flying Buttocks)?

worm.

What does the ideal form look like for "worm"?

No answer, here?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 10:06:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 9:29:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 9:24:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:41:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:23:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:17:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.


What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?

Once again, like everyone I've asked to show me any evidence at all that mutation are random, you go around the question, and once again show ZERO evidence for it.

There is a lot of evidence for random mutations, which I know you are aware of, or at least should understand.

Given that you probably don't accept this evidence, and given the tenuous, non-descript and unexplained reasons you gave for believing otherwise, any evidence I bring up, will likely be dismissed for just as tenuous reasons by you.

That's why I asked, how would YOU tell the difference between random and non random mutations, in what way would they be different, and how would you tell?

Non-random mutations wouldn't provide the exact adaptations an organism requires to survive.

Because.... ?

Non-random mutations wouldn't give us precise optical instruments, 40 different times, through different pathways.

Because .... ?

Non-random mutations would give organisms useful things, what they need. That is what we find in nature.

Why would they? Non-random mutations simply means that particular area's of DNA always change in predictable, non random ways. Being non-random doesn't mean it will do anything, it just means where it occurs, and how it occurs is not random.

For example, point mutations only occurring on the first codon of a gene, and only changing a T to a G, would be a non-random mutation.

You see, even here you're being vague, as you're not being entirely clear as to what a non random mutation even is.

Random mutations, FYI: are a set of ways in which DNA can be modified before, during or after copying which change the nature of the DNA and what it does; the random element comes from the location, position and nature of the mutation that occurs is stochastic: in that you can't predict in any copying phase, which gene, where or how will be modified.

If mutations were random, functioning organisms wouldn't even exist. It would take forever just to get one useful adaptation, and how would that organism survive in the interim?

How have you come to this conclusion? What justifications for this? This is basically a two sentence assertion that stands directly against everything we know about biological evolution.

Because, fundamentally, if mutations were random, the time it takes to get one useful adaptation depends on:

a.) How many possible useful "adaptions" there are that can be achieved by a mutation.

b.) How many organisms there are in which a mutation to that adaptation can occur.

c.) The value and size of the mutation rate.

d.) The number of generations over which the adaptation could be acheived.

You see. You have simply asserted that it can't happen; but do some maths.

If an organism could have 1000 possible adaptations caused by a gene mutation, the changes of any one gene changing in that way is 1 in 10,000,0000. The size of the population is 10,000; and the generation rate is 2 years.

How many years would it take to have a 75% chance of one of those mutations expressing itself in one of those organisms?

Can you do the maths?

I can.

Hell, why not calculate how long it will take if every single one of those adaptation is a Billion to one shot?

You see, I don't think you understand the nature of the probabilities involve, and you are simply asserting the argument you are because it "feels" impossible, but you have no ability to quantify how impossible it actually is.

I agree.

You agree that you are simply asserting a number of things you think are true; claiming they are true, and providing no justification for any of them?
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 10:10:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 10:06:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 9:29:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 9:24:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:41:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:23:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 8:17:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2016 7:29:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2016 5:07:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:45:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/26/2016 8:03:46 PM, janesix wrote:
Random mutations have nothing to do with evolution. There has never been one ounce of evidence that shows this is so.

The modern synthesis/ neodarwinian theory is fatally flawed.

How can you tell mutations that are random for those that are not random?

How can you? What evidence is there that mutations are random? I have found no evidence of this. Have you? Why do you assume mutations are random?

I asked, how you can tell the difference between mutations that are random, and ones that are not random. As you seem to be adamament that they are non random; how can you tell, what method do you use, and what is the rationale behind it.

If you cannot tell me how DNA, and the fundamental mutation patterns can be used to tell the difference between random mutations, and non random mutations, then you cannot tell me that they are either random or non-random; because you cannot tell them apart.


What is your evidence that mutations are not random?

Convergent evolution, experiments showing predictability.

Oh come on, Jane.

How? Why? What is your rationale? How can you tell? How can you discount randomness?

How do these show that mutations are random? Does convergent evolution require the same mutations in the same locations? Where is your evidence for this? Please cite the genome analysis from which you've gathered this "evidence".

Also, please show your working with experiments showing predictability. Do the same mutations happen in the same place? What is the probability of such mutations happening again randomly? Is it low? Where is your working and evidence for such probability?

Is everything predictable? Even in humans? Can you predict the most common mutations in most humans? Can you tell what is going to evolve next?

In order to be able to claim mutations are not random; this is the information and evidence you need to be able to claim it.

If you do not have that information; then you have no evidence to support your contentions, but are pretending as if you have. You're quoting "Convergent evolution", and "predictability", as if saying those words is evidence; it isn't. Show you're working, because we both know you don't have the evidence to make the claim.

Where is your evidence that mutations are random?

The default position, is to neither believe that mutations are random, or non random; it's "I don't know".

But, as you refused to actually acknowledge my first question; there is no point explaining what the evidence is.

Because if you don't know, don't understand, or can't think of a way of telling random mutations from non random mutations; how will you recognize what the evidence for either one actually looks like?

Once again, like everyone I've asked to show me any evidence at all that mutation are random, you go around the question, and once again show ZERO evidence for it.

There is a lot of evidence for random mutations, which I know you are aware of, or at least should understand.

Given that you probably don't accept this evidence, and given the tenuous, non-descript and unexplained reasons you gave for believing otherwise, any evidence I bring up, will likely be dismissed for just as tenuous reasons by you.

That's why I asked, how would YOU tell the difference between random and non random mutations, in what way would they be different, and how would you tell?

Non-random mutations wouldn't provide the exact adaptations an organism requires to survive.

Because.... ?

Non-random mutations wouldn't give us precise optical instruments, 40 different times, through different pathways.

Because .... ?

Non-random mutations would give organisms useful things, what they need. That is what we find in nature.

Why would they? Non-random mutations simply means that particular area's of DNA always change in predictable, non random ways. Being non-random doesn't mean it will do anything, it just means where it occurs, and how it occurs is not random.

For example, point mutations only occurring on the first codon of a gene, and only changing a T to a G, would be a non-random mutation.

You see, even here you're being vague, as you're not being entirely clear as to what a non random mutation even is.

Random mutations, FYI: are a set of ways in which DNA can be modified before, during or after copying which change the nature of the DNA and what it does; the random element comes from the location, position and nature of the mutation that occurs is stochastic: in that you can't predict in any copying phase, which gene, where or how will be modified.

If mutations were random, functioning organisms wouldn't even exist. It would take forever just to get one useful adaptation, and how would that organism survive in the interim?

How have you come to this conclusion? What justifications for this? This is basically a two sentence assertion that stands directly against everything we know about biological evolution.

Because, fundamentally, if mutations were random, the time it takes to get one useful adaptation depends on:

a.) How many possible useful "adaptions" there are that can be achieved by a mutation.

b.) How many organisms there are in which a mutation to that adaptation can occur.

c.) The value and size of the mutation rate.

d.) The number of generations over which the adaptation could be acheived.

You see. You have simply asserted that it can't happen; but do some maths.

If an organism could have 1000 possible adaptations caused by a gene mutation, the changes of any one gene changing in that way is 1 in 10,000,0000. The size of the population is 10,000; and the generation rate is 2 years.

How many years would it take to have a 75% chance of one of those mutations expressing itself in one of those organisms?

Can you do the maths?

I can.

Hell, why not calculate how long it will take if every single one of those adaptation is a Billion to one shot?

You see, I don't think you understand the nature of the probabilities involve, and you are simply asserting the argument you are because it "feels" impossible, but you have no ability to quantify how impossible it actually is.

I agree.

You agree that you are simply asserting a number of things you think are true; claiming they are true, and providing no justification for any of them?

Yes.
Archaholic
Posts: 250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 3:10:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 6:01:33 PM, keithprosser wrote:
It is next to impossible to know what the effect of a DNA mutation will be. The change in the DNA certainly means the protein produced will be different, but what that difference means to the whole organism is hard to know. Equally, it hard to know what mutation is equired to produce any desired effect. Perhaps it would pay a bacterium to be able to digest plastic, but how could the mutation required to bring it about be identified and achieved?

The simplest model is that mutations occur 'at random' until the right one turns up (or it doesn't turn up and the organism goes extinct!). Most 'random' mutants die very early without having descendants so they are barely noticeable - it is only the rare successful mutant forms that appear in sufficient numbers that get noticed.

Some modern research suggests that mutations are not quite as random as that. Some parts of the genome are more mutable than others so the organism (or population of organism)can try out more variations of particular mutations rather than simply changing anything anyhow. It is still a process based on trial and error (a trial being a given mutation and the errors being removed by natural selection), but it is slightly more efficient than the simple scatter-gun model.

As I see it that poses no threat to neo-Darwinism - it is neo-Darwinism. The essential feature of Darwinism is that a novel form (ie a mutant) stands or falls on the basis of how it well it competes in the struggle to live and reproduce. It may well be that DNA has evolved the abililty to mutate in such a way as to allow for more efficient evolution in times of stress. Nature is remarkably clever - I certainly wouldn't put such a thing beyond its power!

The trial and error process is more likely to happen, but it doesn't mean anyhow randomness. I don't know why scientists still call it a random process, this is just silly, so silly that we mock them.

In the other hand, a trial and error process would involve a certain level of conciousness, or intelligence (as you said, nature is clever). Because deciding when to mutate, what to mutate, and what mutation to discard is certainly a complex decision. If the mutation were random, the evolution of a simple organism would last an eternity. It just doen't make any sense.

I would focus on the DNA, there is a lot to discover in that.

BR