A code needs a coder.

[-57]

No you don't, thats just the thing, bad are weeded out by death mostly before birth,neutral stay in the DNA, beneficial have pressures for them, heck most beneficial mutations are going to be netural at the start, untill there is a pressure for them. There is nothing in evolution that requires some imaginary massive change, again most differences between other apes and humans are minor and allow for slow progression, nothing structurally between humans and apes that requires new genes or things, just changes to existing ones, changing how the bones and skin form and for how long and so on. Okay except maybe the knee about it heh :>

Most changes even things like venom, is just changes to existing things, snake venom is found in lizards, and is secreted by saliva glands where there was a gene duplication that inserted a copy of a gene that later mutated, for snakes it was part of the ciculartory system, platypus it was the imune system. We know these things because we can examine and compare the DNA and see where it leads. The scientists doing the studies know that it's the case that enough beneficial mutations happen to allow for evolution. You have around 14 mutations in your DNA, and you are likly fine, most if not all of those changes were neutral with small chance for beneficial that won't be noticed. But some day could be beneficial, maybe if you got the bublonic plague you be better suited to survive it and so on.

This is elementary school level genetics here.

Once again you're assuming....you see similarities and automatically assume evolutionism through small steps hidden within neutral mutations.

Your one step to completion process is simply wrong as multiple mutations in the animals progeny would be required to evolve into something. You still have not shown how this works considering the rarity of beneficial mutations, the amount of DNA to occur in and the multiple steps required.

 

[-57]

Also what counts as beneficial, is sickle celled anemia beneficial or harmful? In africa it benefits, jsut about anywhere else it's harmful, what about white skin, it's beneficial in northern regions, but less in africa and so on.

You take the wheels off of a skate board board and it goes down a snow covered hill easier....was this loss of information beneficial or harmful?

You see, your problem arises when you need to string together mutations to create some sort of new appendage, organ, system etc.

 

[Jimmy D]

Once again you're assuming....you see similarities and automatically assume evolutionism through small steps hidden within neutral mutations.

Your one step to completion process is simply wrong as multiple mutations in the animals progeny would be required to evolve into something. You still have not shown how this works considering the rarity of beneficial mutations, the amount of DNA to occur in and the multiple steps required.

So you do know about the rate of beneficial mutations? I wonder why you feel the need to repeatedly pretend you don't?

 

[Speedwell]

If you really wanted to know, you could easily find out. This isn't the place for an introductory course in genetics.

I don't think he wants one. Like many creationists, he appears to have his own personal theory of evolution he expects you to prove to him, one that obviously won't work. He's not interested in the real thing.

 

[-57]

There is nothing to "admit". It's not a secret that beneficial mutations are not that common. Nore is it a problem.

That very much is a problem. To complicate the process of evolutionism even more is the need for a so-called beneficial mutation to occur again and again in an animals progeny and add to the trait. This you have not shown to be possible.

 

[Speedwell]

That very much is a problem. To complicate the process of evolutionism even more is the need for a so-called beneficial mutation to occur again and again in an animals progeny and add to the trait. This you have not shown to be possible.

But think how many ways there are to add to the trait, and how many individuals in which the addition can occur.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once again you're assuming....you see similarities and automatically assume evolutionism through small steps hidden within neutral mutations.

First, not mere "similarities", but nested hierarchies.
Second, that's not an assumption. Just like it's not based on assumption that we can pick your dad's DNA from 100 different samples, 99 of which are from random people.

We can do this, because we understand the hierarchical nature of DNA. We can compare DNA and determine kinship and ancestry.

Again, this is not based on assumption. This is based on actual understanding and knowledge of genetics.

Your one step to completion process is simply wrong as multiple mutations in the animals progeny would be required to evolve into something.

DNA is inhertiable. Which means that mutations accumulate over generations.

You still have not shown how this works considering the rarity of beneficial mutations, the amount of DNA to occur in and the multiple steps required.

Mutate, survive, breed, repeat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That very much is a problem.

It's not.

To complicate the process of evolutionism even more is the need for a so-called beneficial mutation to occur again and again in an animals progeny and add to the trait. This you have not shown to be possible.

Why would that be impossible?

That's like saying that you could walk 2 miles, but not 3.

 

[loveofourlord]

You take the wheels off of a skate board board and it goes down a snow covered hill easier....was this loss of information beneficial or harmful?

You see, your problem arises when you need to string together mutations to create some sort of new appendage, organ, system etc.

okay explain the new organs, systems, apendages, between mouse like creature and humans, go ahead, I will wait here a few years for you to name some.

 

[Speedwell]

okay explain the new organs, systems, apendages, between mouse like creature and humans, go ahead, I will wait here a few years for you to name some.

There aren't any. A "mouse-like creature" is a mammal and has all of the same organs, systems and appendages we do. They are just shaped and arranged somewhat differently.

 

[loveofourlord]

Once again you're assuming....you see similarities and automatically assume evolutionism through small steps hidden within neutral mutations.

Your one step to completion process is simply wrong as multiple mutations in the animals progeny would be required to evolve into something. You still have not shown how this works considering the rarity of beneficial mutations, the amount of DNA to occur in and the multiple steps required.

you keep repeating this as if it matters, or even means what you think it means, funny how those that you say claim beneficial mutations are rare don't see that as a problem for evolution. Again, the mutations that might turn a dog more aquatic arn't knew things, the mutations from pakisetus to modern whales isn't requiring alot of new things, just modifying of what was already there. Heck pakisetus already has many of the preliminary things for a whale, start of the ear, nostrel placement and so on. About the only majour shift is from air to water smelling as they use different methods.


Think of it as a progression of the group, pakisetus spends enough time near water, there will be mutations in the population that allow it to spend more time in the water, making hunting there easier, so it spends more time hunting there, as it spends more time there there is more benefits to the species, those better adapted to surviving in the water are more likly to survive, avoid predators and such so over all those less adapted to the water are more likly to die, while those more suited are more likly to survive, creating a forward progression towards water survival.

 

[loveofourlord]

There aren't any. A "mouse-like creature" is a mammal and has all of the same organs, systems and appendages we do. They are just shaped and arranged somewhat differently.

hehe thats my point *well I'm sure there might be minor differences* I was responding to his request to show that small processes can produce such things :> And I'm asking him even just going from mammal evolution to show where what he asks for is required.

 

[Jimmy D]

There aren't any. A "mouse-like creature" is a mammal and has all of the same organs, systems and appendages we do. They are just shaped and arranged somewhat differently.

I think that's what he meant.

Edit: LOL you beat me to the reply button.

 

[loveofourlord]

I think that's what he meant.

Edit: LOL you beat me to the reply button.

hehe yeah :> And I even pointed out majour beneficial mutations like snake and platypus venom wich he ignored hehe.

 

[-57]

you keep repeating this as if it matters, or even means what you think it means, funny how those that you say claim beneficial mutations are rare don't see that as a problem for evolution. Again, the mutations that might turn a dog more aquatic arn't knew things, the mutations from pakisetus to modern whales isn't requiring alot of new things, just modifying of what was already there. Heck pakisetus already has many of the preliminary things for a whale, start of the ear, nostrel placement and so on. About the only majour shift is from air to water smelling as they use different methods.


Think of it as a progression of the group, pakisetus spends enough time near water, there will be mutations in the population that allow it to spend more time in the water, making hunting there easier, so it spends more time hunting there, as it spends more time there there is more benefits to the species, those better adapted to surviving in the water are more likly to survive, avoid predators and such so over all those less adapted to the water are more likly to die, while those more suited are more likly to survive, creating a forward progression towards water survival.

Will you please stop with the coloring book version. Stop with the assumption that so-called beneficial mutations can repeat in an animals DNA to the point that they accumulate and form new organs, appendages, systems and so on.

 

[Speedwell]

Will you please stop with the coloring book version. Stop with the assumption that so-called beneficial mutations can repeat in an animals DNA to the point that they accumulate and form new organs, appendages, systems and so on.

Why should they not? If one beneficial mutation can occur, what's to stop a second beneficial mutation from occurring? Is there a law that says that if one beneficial mutation occurs then all subsequent mutations have to be deleterious?

 

[-57]

Why should they not? If one beneficial mutation can occur, what's to stop a second beneficial mutation from occurring? Is there a law that says that if one beneficial mutation occurs then all subsequent mutations have to be deleterious?

I asked you to show how multiple extremely rare and random "beneficial mutation" could occur over and over again, many, many times in the vast amount of DNA effecting the small amount of DNA responsible for evolving a trait.
Your own ratio's of beneficial to harmful mutations would strongly suggest a harmful mutation would occur long before a beneficial mutation would occur and shut down the process.

 

[Speedwell]

I asked you to show how multiple extremely rare and random "beneficial mutation" could occur over and over again, many, many times in the vast amount of DNA effecting the small amount of DNA responsible for evolving a trait.
Your own ratio's of beneficial to harmful mutations would strongly suggest a harmful mutation would occur long before a beneficial mutation would occur and shut down the process.

Then the next beneficial mutation would merely lead to a different evolutionary opportunity. Evolution doesn't have a plan in mind which needs to be followed; it is contingent. For example, if you started with proto-dolphins and ran the evolutionary scenario over again in much the same environment you would very likely not get the echo-location system we see today. The step-by-step process of evolution could just as easily go in some other direction entirely.

 

[-57]

Then the next beneficial mutation would merely lead to a different evolutionary opportunity. Evolution doesn't have a plan in mind which needs to be followed; it is contingent. For example, if you started with proto-dolphins and ran the evolutionary scenario over again in much the same environment you would very likely not get the echo-location system we see today. The step-by-step process of evolution could just as easily go in some other direction entirely.

What you are telling me is that a mutation to the flute will effect the organs that make the dolphins clicking sound.

 

[Speedwell]

What you are telling me is that a mutation to the flute will effect the organs that make the dolphins clicking sound.

You seem to think that nothing happens in evolution until a point mutation occurs. Evolution depends on random variation. That is, in each generation a trait varies from individual to individual. Some have more, some have less but most are about average. In fact, the distribution of variation of a trait in the population will approach a random (that is, a "bell-curve") distribution. That is why the theory is called "evolution by random variation and selection." What it means is that if the environment is stable, most of the population will survive, but the outliers won't fare so well. On the other hand, if the environment changes, there will be already in the population outliers to take advantage of it. Mutations contribute to the production of random variation, but are not the sole or direct cause of it.