Tropical Wilds
Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
- Oct 2, 2009
- 6,748
- 4,857
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I’ll search it.You're safe.
It's to a thread right here in christianforums I made in 2007.
There you have it
“the necessary mutations “
Every mammal seems to have gotten them!
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Tell us about how many necessary lucky sequential mutations In just the correct order it took to create an eye and integrate it with a brain, muscles, eyelashes, pupil dilation, lens focusing. I’m curious because an eye is a masterpieceOnly if the eye was expected to evolve to its present state along the shortest evolutionary pathway, and if its essential configuration was not evolved when eyes generally were of much simpler construction.
To create the eye as it is now? You ought to read up on it. The evolution of the eye has been extensively studied and is very interesting.Tell us about how many necessary lucky sequential mutations In just the correct order it took to create an eye and integrate it with a brain, muscles, eyelashes, pupil dilation, lens focusing. I’m curious because an eye is a masterpiece
So you can’t tell me about the fact that just the correct mutations had to occur in just the right order? It was just bound to happen? Only an atheist would believe such nonsense as perfect chanceTo create the eye as it is now? You ought to read up on it. The evolution of the eye has been extensively studied and is very interesting.
NS has zero creative power, relies on luck of just the right mutationsNatural selection, do you comprehend it?
You position is akin to that of a person who doesn't understand basic mathematics rejecting the conclusions from quantum mechanics.
NS has zero creative power,
relies on luck of just the right mutations
I can tell you it's not a fact and I'm not even an atheist.So you can’t tell me about the fact that just the correct mutations had to occur in just the right order? It was just bound to happen? Only an atheist would believe such nonsense as perfect chance
So you can’t tell me about the fact that just the correct mutations had to occur in just the right order?
Let’s see you keep up w this:: you need multiple mutations to create a new body plan , Any two mutations might produce no more than a mutant.Actually, the order is pretty much irrelevant. All that's required is the proper set of genes, mutation or not, natural selection will then put them in order all by itself. Isn't NS just amazing.
Your great "mystery' may be a mystery to you, but pretty much everybody else has got it figured out already... try to keep up.
Why? The body plans were laid down when the critters were all simple and pretty fluid, putting out any number of protuberances. A trait (like a body plan) has to exhibit reproductive variation before it can evolve. There need to be variants already in the population for natural selection to select from.Let’s see you keep up w this:: you need multiple mutations to create a new body plan
Show your math or cite the work it came from., Any two mutations might produce no more than a mutant.
“What about trying for four related mutations? Chances are One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely, and we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog.
The gist of your post is either that:While ignoring the gist of my post.
What about all the just right mutations that “just happened “?
Coincidence?
Probability only matters if you have a goal. If there's no goal, then you're going to end up with something. If you draw four cards, whatever four cards you draw will be a pretty unlikely combination. But you still managed to draw four cards. The chances that you're going to come up with some result is 1 in 1.“What about trying for four related mutations? Chances are One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely, and we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog.
1. You are mistaken.
2. You have certainly not sited (sic) Douglas Axe. This is how you cite a research article:
Citation: Rousselle M, Simion P, Tilak M-K, Figuet E, Nabholz B, Galtier N (2020) Is adaptation limited by mutation? A timescale-dependent effect of genetic diversity on the adaptive substitution rate in animals. PLoS Genet 16(4):
Not only are useful mutations commonplace, but the above research does a study of the extent to which adaptation is limited by the supply of mutations. Just so you are clear, to carry out the study there need to be enough useful mutations to have a positive influence on adaptation. The reality of useful proteins is implicit in the study, or do you seriously contend the researchers are just making this stuff up in order to . . . . .well what?
If you choose to continue denying the reality of positve mutations, I'll just post research examples. I realise it is highly unlikely you will read them, but others will. The more you deny reality, the more other readers will be given the opprtunity to learn how mistaken you are.
We didn't get them all separately. All mammals are descended from the same, original proto-mammal species. That species had acquired the "necessary mutations" to make a mammal.There you have it
“the necessary mutations “
Every mammal seems to have gotten them!
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Let’s see you keep up w this:: you need multiple mutations to create a new body plan ,
“What about trying for four related mutations? Chances are One in 10^28."
In addition there appears to be an assumption that only one specific gene, or one set of specific genes can produce the end result. Not so. The inhabitants of the Tibetan plateau and the high Andes have genes that enable a more efficient capture of oxygen. However, the mutations responsible for this differ between the two locales.No problem there.
This is where AIG's logic goes bonkers, because it assumes that all four of these mutations have to occur in one specific individual, in one specific generation... all at the same time. And I'll admit, the odds of that happening are extremely low. But then again that's not what genetics says happens... so who cares.
What really happens is this ingenious thing that we call sex. Wherein 8 billion people run around swapping genes with each other,and before you know it somebody who inherited one of these mutations from their parents, swaps genes with somebody who inherited a different one of these mutations from their parents. And for gosh sakes, now we've got people running around with two of these mutations. And sure as heck their offspring are gonna swap genes with somebody else's offspring. What is it with these people? Don't they realize that if they keep doing this we'll soon have people with three mutations... and then heaven forbid... four, or five, or six, or God only knows how many.
But wait, what are the odds of somebody carrying each of these mutations? Well, not that bad actually. Remember those 8 billion people running around swapping genes? Well, along with the mutations that they got from their parents, they each got about 70 new mutations. That means that along with all the old mutations, each generation gets 560 billion new ones... in a genome that's only three billion letters long. So we've got a whole lot of repetition going on. Which means that the gene pool is constantly overflowing with mutations. So yeah, the odds that somebody with three of those mutations is unknowingly gonna swap genes with somebody with the fourth one, isn't really as far fetched as AIG makes it seem like it is.
But in any case, if you're really being honest with yourself... that 10^28 number is pure lunacy.
A plan is irrelevant in this case.Probability only matters if you have a goal. If there's no goal, then you're going to end up with something. If you draw four cards, whatever four cards you draw will be a pretty unlikely combination. But you still managed to draw four cards. The chances that you're going to come up with some result is 1 in 1.
Evolution has no plan. No goal. Mutations happen, and then selection comes in to take out the traits that don't work well. Rinse and repeat. Something comes out at the end, it doesn't matter what.
Not any time soon, no. But if they had a word selection system, the way nature has a trait selection system, then they would.A plan is irrelevant in this case.
You think a billion monkeys typing a billion letters per second on a billion typewriters is going To produce even just 1 legible page?
What word selection system? Remember, no goalNot any time soon, no. But if they had a word selection system, the way nature has a trait selection system, then they would.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?