Presupposition: mutation comes before adaptation - justified *how*?

[Shemjaza]

Well you like mutations at first, then you like adaptations after the fact - but you can't change them around, because you have a need to be "one-sided"? Because of an egotistic reason?

You are confused.

An adaption comes from a mutation... they are inseparable.

There are just other adaptations.

An adaptation to walk, also encourages an adaptation to run - you don't need to mutate "running", you just adapt walking until you understand running as well.

"Walking" and "Running" are not adaptions. The ability to walk and the ability to run are.

The earliest species who were able to walk were probably not particularly agile... but a few mutations to how their bones and muscles developed that allowed them to move quicker and eventually run would probably have been a pretty big advantage.

They way you adapt the ability to walk or run does not happen over the course of an individuals life time, it's all from very small changes from mutations over each generation.

You are trying to show that my adaptations are insufficient without mutations, but the style in which they are adapted inspires more like them - familiar adaptations is not a hard concept?

Adaptations come from mutations.

If you disagree or don't understand what I mean can you please give a specific example of what you think an adaptation is and how it works?

 

[Gottservant]

I said "walking" and you said "walk"

It seems to be simply up to what you say in the passive voice.

If you have a real reason that adaptations can come first, then speak up - but I am not changing my cognition (of the difference between adaptation and mutation) for your personal take on what my adaptations should be?

Unless you are trying to say "certain parts of adaptation are partly mutation" then I can't see which is more adapted or mutated? To which I would say separating adaptation from mutation is important?

 

[Shemjaza]

I said "walking" and you said "walk"

It seems to be simply up to what you say in the passive voice.

No, I said "ability to walk". That's a trait a species can posses, and would qualify as an adaption. Walking is an action, not a trait.

If you have a real reason that adaptations can come first, then speak up - but I am not changing my cognition (of the difference between adaptation and mutation) for your personal take on what my adaptations should be?

An adaptation is a variation of a species that gives an advantage.

Mutation is the source of variation.

For there to be an adaption there needs to be a variation, so there needs to be a mutation beforehand.

So, no, there isn't a reason for there to be an adaption before a mutation.

Unless you are trying to say "certain parts of adaptation are partly mutation" then I can't see which is more adapted or mutated? To which I would say separating adaptation from mutation is important?

An adaption is a variation in a species to deal with an aspect of the environment... either new or established.

In that sense it is partially the mutation adding a new variation to the species and part haw that variation interacts with the environment that defines whether it's an adaption or a negative trait.

 

[Larniavc]

In other words, if you are putting "mutation" first, you are trusting that your design will not collapse,

Not so. The ‘collapse’ is an integral part of natural selection. Without the ‘collapse’ there would be no selection.

 

[Jay Sea]

Hi there,

So I guess I am assuming you are some kind of expert on "Evolution" and that if I question the integrity of the theory, you will as an agent with a mind, be able to pull the theory apart and examine the part of it, that I think could be improved upon? For example, the presupposition that before there is "adaptation" there is "mutation" - when in fact, nowhere does it say you can't adapt without mutating?

In other words, if you are putting "mutation" first, you are trusting that your design will not collapse, if you vary it - whereas if you put adaptation first, you may commit too much the more extremely to adaptation and have no way to vary it (the adapation most in question)? Can you see how this is confusing - the Monty Hall problem would suggest you are better to bet again on adaptation, because the odds are that further adaptations will be more effective, if the initial one is discovered.

I'm not sure if you get this, but it is carried out further by the fact that a species is more able to unite around a selection pressure it responds to in concert, such that multiple ways of responding to the same selection pressure get the same uptake (when mating season comes, you might say). The presumption, should not be that there is a specific answer to a selection pressure, but a number of them - for which there is a p factor, that is, a factor that relates to the ability to respond to selection pressures in general.

The point I continue to make, is that there are selective advantages in every extension of the theory of Evolution, that pertains to it identifying itself, retaining its identity and varying its strengths according to the identity that it has kept. I'm not introducing the idea of God, at all, just further probabilities and contexts and arrangements that would serve the species well - if they could be united. The idea, is naturally, if there is a possibility of them being united and a possibility of there being a "God", the juxtaposition of both, would be a worthwhile matter of faith - born out in whatever experiential way brings them together in a way that serves each other!

This may be the first OP I have ever done, where I have not pushed a specific agenda, so I will stop there: but I do want to ask again...The point being I suppose, that mutation coming beforehand, is a weaker supposition, than it needed to be?

To adapt don't you need to change???
In LOve
Jay Sea

 

[Gottservant]

No, I said "ability to walk". That's a trait a species can posses, and would qualify as an adaption. Walking is an action, not a trait.

Yes but the only thing you are changing is the voice in which it was said? "I believe by walking, you mean walk" - that's you!

An adaptation is a variation of a species that gives an advantage.

"but not an advantage with other adaptations?" You are trying to say there is no "p factor".

Mutation is the source of variation.

"I can tell what is a mutation, without looking at it"?

For there to be an adaption there needs to be a variation, so there needs to be a mutation beforehand.

So, no, there isn't a reason for there to be an adaption before a mutation.

"for it to be an adaptation, it has to have a reason that I give it"?

An adaption is a variation in a species to deal with an aspect of the environment... either new or established.

In that sense it is partially the mutation adding a new variation to the species and part haw that variation interacts with the environment that defines whether it's an adaption or a negative trait.

Indeed, and where do "negative" traits go? Is the test of corruption not expressly in favour of the "negative" becoming "more negative" - you are basically saying "I approve of corruption, nothing else" right?

 

[Gottservant]

Not so. The ‘collapse’ is an integral part of natural selection. Without the ‘collapse’ there would be no selection.

Yes but its not a gradual release; you don't collapse from total to nothing, in one step - you do gradually less, until you are evidentially doing "enough"; "enough" being room for other adaptations to do more!

 

[Gottservant]

To adapt don't you need to change???
In LOve
Jay Sea

Yes change, but what? The adaptations which come first, or the mutations that are irrelevant without the change (in principle)?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Adaptations are the result of mutations.

Once again, all this thread does is show that Gottservant does not know anything about evolution and seems to take pleasure in that fact.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not trying to take your "adaptation", I'm saying "you don't need 'my mutation' to make the most of it (your adaptation)"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not trying to take your "adaptation", I'm saying "you don't need 'my mutation' to make the most of it (your adaptation)"?

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you don't know anything about evolution. You cannot take a persons adaptation nor can you take a mutation from someone. That's not how biology works.

 

[Gottservant]

Adaptations are the result of mutations.

Once again, all this thread does is show that Gottservant does not know anything about evolution and seems to take pleasure in that fact.

Again, you are being really harsh. Moreover, you are attempting to get around qualifying something properly, to justify keeping context from changing - I presume because the possibility your adaptation is better found in another context is too much work for you? You would prefer to sit on Mountain Me, without reflecting on which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, you are being really harsh. Moreover, you are attempting to get around qualifying something properly, to justify keeping context from changing - I presume because the possibility your adaptation is better found in another context is too much work for you? You would prefer to sit on Mountain Me, without reflecting on which way the wind is blowing.

I'm being honest, which unfortunately to many people comes across as bein harsh, but it is the truth: you do not know anything about evolution or even basic biology. You keep making these very childish mistakes and incorrect comments about biology that are just laughably wrong, and you expect us to think that you're clever when all you do is make nonsensical comments.

Like "I presume because the possibility your adaptation is better found in another context is too much work for you?" What does that even mean? What are you trying to say?

 

[Gottservant]

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you don't know anything about evolution. You cannot take a persons adaptation nor can you take a mutation from someone. That's not how biology works.

Yes, but if you doubt your Evolution, your first natural reaction is to "fear that it will be taken"? That's just psychology 101.

And if I warn you that something is corrupt, you can avoid it - again psychology 101.

I'm trying to say "I'm not the bad guy" but you don't seem to have a way to say it, in your Evolutionary lexicon.

The premise is that mutation doesn't need to be justified, but adaptation does - but I am saying there is a bigger context, even than that.

Is it possible, just possible, that certain things which are adaptive will later be realised to be corrupt and certain things which are corrupt will be revealed to be adaptive? If so, then your presumption that Evolution just started on its own, is not as clear cut as "certain creatures got what I think of Evolution, before other creatures that later had to die, because they did not".

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes but the only thing you are changing is the voice in which it was said? "I believe by walking, you mean walk" - that's you!

No, you are mistaken.

"walking" not a not a trait of a species; "walk" is not a trait of a species.

"but not an advantage with other adaptations?" You are trying to say there is no "p factor".

Explain what you mean here.

"I can tell what is a mutation, without looking at it"?

If there is a new trait in a life form then it must have new genetic structures to develop that trait... new genetic structures come from mutations.

"for it to be an adaptation, it has to have a reason that I give it"?

Adaptations are new features.

Features come from genetics.

If the feature is new, then the genetics must have changed.

Changes to genetics is called a mutation.

"Adaptations are the cause of Adaptations" just isn't coherent.

Indeed, and where do "negative" traits go? Is the test of corruption not expressly in favour of the "negative" becoming "more negative" - you are basically saying "I approve of corruption, nothing else" right?

Negative traits get in the way of successful reproduction, so they are less common in each generation. They don't get progressively worse because they tend to disappear.


I am not saying "I approve of corruption, nothing else", because that doesn't make any sense in this context.

I have repeatedly tried to be as straightforward as I can in these discussions and you continue to infer total nonsense from my statements.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, but if you doubt your Evolution, your first natural reaction is to "fear that it will be taken"? That's just psychology 101.

And if I warn you that something is corrupt, you can avoid it - again psychology 101.

I'm trying to say "I'm not the bad guy" but you don't seem to have a way to say it, in your Evolutionary lexicon.

The premise is that mutation doesn't need to be justified, but adaptation does - but I am saying there is a bigger context, even than that.

Is it possible, just possible, that certain things which are adaptive will later be realised to be corrupt and certain things which are corrupt will be revealed to be adaptive? If so, then your presumption that Evolution just started on its own, is not as clear cut as "certain creatures got what I think of Evolution, before other creatures that later had to die, because they did not".

How can I doubt a biological process? Tell me. How can I doubt a change in biology that I have no control over outside of the bare minimum?

And no, neither mutations or adaptations need to be justified. They happen in evolution no matter what, because evolution is a biological process that no being can control because it is not something that can be controlled because it's a part of nature.

 

[Gottservant]

Like "I presume because the possibility your adaptation is better found in another context is too much work for you?" What does that even mean? What are you trying to say?

I am saying "facts" do not merely subsist in the environment in which they are found, they need to resurge in other environments where they are needed. The problem for you, is that you have no way to tell, when Evolution is needed and when not. I don't just tell you different scriptures at random if I have the opportunity, I weigh carefully in the Holy Spirit, "what scripture will most help this person 'live'?".

Your position is "hey I can mutate whatever; if you need something specific, its nothing on me!"

I'm being honest, which unfortunately to many people comes across as bein harsh, but it is the truth: you do not know anything about evolution or even basic biology. You keep making these very childish mistakes and incorrect comments about biology that are just laughably wrong, and you expect us to think that you're clever when all you do is make nonsensical comments.

Basic biology is that a cell has certain abilities that manifest into something greater, if they are kept constant, in an environment that feeds them.

You want to tell me, "no give up on your adaptation, I have got a mutation that's better" and as I have kept trying to tell you, I need to see evidence of. The way I came to believe in Jesus, is that I realized there was a difference between what the preacher was saying and what I was guilty of not understanding regardless of how I might want to interpret it - the fact that you tell me it doesn't matter how you interpret "Evolution" tells me that you are 'sinning', the way I was. It may take all manner of words to get the point across, but fundamentally it is a way of interpreting Evolution "safely", that is with respect to that which will never be an invitation to "evolve again" ever again (the end, finish, fin, no more, nothing, nada, zip, no more "Evolution" of a different kind, no more "Evolution" of the same kind, gone)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am saying "facts" do not merely subsist in the environment in which they are found, they need to resurge in other environments where they are needed. The problem for you, is that you have no way to tell, when Evolution is needed and when not. I don't just tell you different scriptures at random if I have the opportunity, I weigh carefully in the Holy Spirit, "what scripture will most help this person 'live'?".

Your position is "hey I can mutate whatever; if you need something specific, its nothing on me!"

Basic biology is that a cell has certain abilities that manifest into something greater, if they are kept constant, in an environment that feeds them.

You want to tell me, "no give up on your adaptation, I have got a mutation that's better" and as I have kept trying to tell you, I need to see evidence of. The way I came to believe in Jesus, is that I realized there was a difference between what the preacher was saying and what I was guilty of not understanding regardless of how I might want to interpret it - the fact that you tell me it doesn't matter how you interpret "Evolution" tells me that you are 'sinning', the way I was. It may take all manner of words to get the point across, but fundamentally it is a way of interpreting Evolution "safely", that is with respect to that which will never be an invitation to "evolve again" ever again (the end, finish, fin, no more, nothing, nada, zip, no more "Evolution" of a different kind, no more "Evolution" of the same kind, gone)

Both of these comments show that you don't know anything about science.

A fact is a simply something that has been proven and shown to be true. It doesn't need to resurge in another environment, it just needs to be shown to be right and it's a fact.

And no, I do not want to tell you to 'give up on your adaptation' or that 'I have a better mutation'. That's not how biology or evolution works. Seriously: do you not pay attention to what anyone tells you on these threads you start? An adaptation cannot be taken or given from an individual to another like it's a sandwich to be handed about.

Do you honestly even want to learn anything? Because you've never once shown any interest in doing so.

 

[Gottservant]

No, you are mistaken.

"walking" not a not a trait of a species; "walk" is not a trait of a species.

The problem for you, is that you are reattributing adaptation on the basis of an adaptation of understanding, that you say has your approval.

Explain what you mean here.

The p factor, is the idea that being good at certain things, makes you good at other things, by virtue of the good you initially develop.

If there is a new trait in a life form then it must have new genetic structures to develop that trait... new genetic structures come from mutations.

"Adaptations are the cause of Adaptations" just isn't coherent.

It is the same word, how can it not be "coherent"? "Coherence only comes from other words"?

I have repeatedly tried to be as straightforward as I can in these discussions and you continue to infer total nonsense from my statements.

There is no subtext to your comments; a good book brings context and meaning into view, using subtext to help you tell what is important and what not - as Evolutionists you have really been failing on this front. Jesus told me to "Watch" what you consider "sinless interpretation" (as you call "legitimate scientific understanding) and I have been keeping His Word.

 

[Gottservant]

How can I doubt a biological process? Tell me. How can I doubt a change in biology that I have no control over outside of the bare minimum?

And no, neither mutations or adaptations need to be justified. They happen in evolution no matter what, because evolution is a biological process that no being can control because it is not something that can be controlled because it's a part of nature.

Your control is that you have been shown certain things that are good interpretations of what is possible and that what you share of them with your young, is up to you.

Jacob did this with goats in the Bible.

Believing you have an answer, for one particular interpretation in one particular environment, is not enough - you must keep interpreting the difference between what you have been shown and will show, until your young see the difference.

This cannot be possible, as long as you are refusing a qualified difference from being interpreted another way: it's not wrong to keep something being interpreted another way, if you continue to show strength for what it was, to your God - but you are not doing that!