Caretaker genes, or why genes don't just mutate

[Gottservant]

In violation of sound logic.

Look I need time to think, I know I shifted the conversation to mutations slightly, but in response you basically said "No, I understand random mutations" which is an oxymoron. To me that says I need to think way outside the box before I continue any further.

If you are a scientist and the evolutionary gestalt helps you with your work, then good luck to you, but if you are just a [bless and do not curse] trying to convince me that I came from an ape because [bless and do not curse] just happens, then you are going to get absolutely nowhere and have nothing to show for it.

I reject the idea that caretaker genes have no call over a cell too, as there is constant communication between a single cell and the rest of the body. Which actually is the problem here, you seem to think you can break everything down into little pieces that fit a process you have attached to the label Evolution and everything which flies in the face of that process "working" you regard as broken logic, because things die and things grow and somehow that means they must get better. If you don't see that as half-cocked, I really don't know what to say.

I mean what about the fact that even if you just know what a mutation is, it still has to be correctly guided to its natural conclusion the whole way, by information that exists solely with the parents, regardless of what the newborn organism comes to inherit or grow? Are you going to tell me that all that information just appears?

 

[gluadys]

In violation of sound logic.

Even if you are right, valid logic is not necessarily true. One can make a perfectly valid case for a conclusion given certain premises, but if there is an error in the premises the conclusion will still be incorrect.

Basically, logic cannot rule against reality; in any conflict between logic and reality, it is the logic that must change because reality won't.

So there is no point in trying to show that evolution is illogical. That doesn't stop it from being real. It only shows something is amiss with the logic.

, because things die and things grow and somehow that means they must get better. If you don't see that as half-cocked, I really don't know what to say.

Well, of course, I see that as half-cocked. So if you got that from what I said, you did not understand me.

I mean what about the fact that even if you just know what a mutation is, it still has to be correctly guided to its natural conclusion the whole way, by information that exists solely with the parents, regardless of what the newborn organism comes to inherit or grow? Are you going to tell me that all that information just appears?

The newborn organism inherits the whole genome of its parents, apart from a few new mutations. So there is not a lot of new information that just appears. Only a tiny bit. And all the rest of the information does come from the parents. All the information, old and new, has to work together, so what is inherited from the parents does guide what is new.