Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

You guys still the evo devo stands for random muations? You still think all mutations are random?

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all

Checkmate!!

notto · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
You guys still the evo devo stands for random muations? You still think all mutations are random?

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all

Checkmate!!

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance after your year of research.

Evolution has never said that the outome of selection is random or that all variation in a population is the result of random mutation alone. By definition, it is not. The mutations are still random but their preservation is not.

You are putting forward a strawman based on ignorance.

You are a great creationist.

JedPerkins · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
You guys still the evo devo stands for random muations? You still think all mutations are random?

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all

That clearly says the mutations themselves are random.

supersport said:
Checkmate!!

Yeah, your king is dead, time to start a new game.

astroweezer · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
You guys still the evo devo stands for random muations? You still think all mutations are random?

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all

Checkmate!!

Not to mention that you have been completely dishonest about your link. You didn't finish the rest of the sentence. You also apparently didn't read the rest of the article. This is completely dishonest, and you know it. Is this what Jesus would do? Consciously lie to fit the argument to his side (not that it is his side) as you have obviously done? You really need to stop linking to sites that totally flat out disagree with your arguments. At least post a link to a creationist website so you don't look so silly when these things are pointed out to you. At least it wouldn't make it so easy to prove you wrong.

=w=

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
You guys still the evo devo stands for random muations? You still think all mutations are random?

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all

Checkmate!!

Yes, that's what your quote says. Mutations are random, selection is not. Hence, mutation + selection is not random. I'm not sure how you missed that, since it is in the part you quoted. So, yes, mutations are completely random. The quote agrees with that.

Very honest question on my part. Do you have a reading disability?

Opethian · Aug 13, 2006

I'm pretty sure this guy is just an evolutionist attempting to make anti-evolutionists look even worse, and doing a good job at it.

fromdownunder · Aug 13, 2006

First of all you post:

supersport said:
Not only that but neodarwinism has it backwards....they say the mutations are random and natural selection is nonrandom... but it's the opposite.....mutations are nonrandom and NS is random. I'll prove that statement later tonight.

(emphasis mine)

Then you post an article which says this:

supersport said:
it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell)

(emphasis mine)

One of you is wrong.

Norm

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

Anyone care to show me a neodarwin site that will say what this guy just said?? I'll be waiting.

astroweezer · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
Anyone care to show me a neodarwin site that will say what this guy just said?? I'll be waiting.

Try these scientific articles (Maybe you can find a copy doing a Google Scholar search):

Crow, JF (2000) "The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation." Nat.Rev.Genet. 1, 40-47.

Drake, JW, et al. (1998) "Rates of spontaneous mutation." Genetics. 148, 1667-1686.

Ohta, T, et al. (1971) "Functional organization of genetic material as a product of molecular evolution." Nature. 233, 118-119.

Wilson, AC, et al. (1987) "Molecular time scale for evolution." Trends Genet. 3, 241-247.

=w=

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

talkorigins article of interest:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

See you evolutionists simply have your heads stuck in the sand.....What's happening here is you realize that your blessed theory is in big trouble....and your only way out of it is to simply deny it (which you do) -- or to call me stupid/uninformed (which you also do). But the reason your theory is in big trouble is because the classic neodarwin mechanisms are as follows: natural selection, random mutation, migration, and genetic drift. These are the only genetically based mechanisms that I'm aware of that can affect gene pools. I have read nothing in any neodarwin book or at any neodarwin site to state otherwise. I have also seen no indication from Mayr or Dawkins that microevolutionary processes do not operate completely and totally at the populational level. Yet, as we have learned on here....animals evolve by individuals, as proven by the Atheist, Mr. Carrol.

Thus....your little theory has just about taken its last breath. The only thing it has going for it is the vast number of brainwashed people who still put their blind faith in it. S

astroweezer · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
Thus....your little theory has just about taken its last breath. The only thing it has going for it is the vast number of brainwashed people who still put their blind faith in it. S

Methinks you'll be saying that for the rest of your life. Evolutionary theory has been gaining evidence since it's inception. It's not going to die out all of a sudden.

I think it's interesting that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree with evolution yet every creationist will suggest that it's a conspiracy. It's almost like they think we are the Illuminati. Paranoid much?

=w=

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

It's not just me, astro

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLetter/E/Evolution.html

Evolution is a strange mechanism.
When we say "animals adapt to their environment" what we really mean is:

an animal produces offspring or "replicates"
the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies
some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate
which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment
inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

CHECKMATE!!

you guys are so fun to play with!!

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
See you evolutionists simply have your heads stuck in the sand.....What's happening here is you realize that your blessed theory is in big trouble....

No it isn't. And the articles you give us agree with us, as we have to continuously point out to you.

and your only way out of it is to simply deny it (which you do) --

Of course. If it's not true, it would be dishonest to say you are right, right?

or to call me stupid/uninformed (which you also do).

I have not called you stupid. I have called you ignorant on the theory of evolution, because that is what you are, and you show it in all your posts. And I've asked whether you have a reading comprehension, but I think that is only fair after you post a quote that states mutations are completely random and immediately say that the quote states that mutations are not random.

But the reason your theory is in big trouble is because the classic neodarwin mechanisms are as follows: natural selection, random mutation, migration, and genetic drift. These are the only genetically based mechanisms that I'm aware of that can affect gene pools. I have read nothing in any neodarwin book or at any neodarwin site to state otherwise. I have also seen no indication from Mayr or Dawkins that microevolutionary processes do not operate completely and totally at the populational level. Yet, as we have learned on here....animals evolve by individuals, as proven by the Atheist, Mr. Carrol.

He said nothing of the sort. He said that many of the important changes in evolution are changes that influence that influence animals directly in the developmental state, like changes in regulatory regions. As everything in evolution, changes happen on individuals and will, through the spread in individuals, propagate through the entire population. In Carrol's mechanisms, changes are still the result of random mutation. Only the regions in the DNA of the mutations is specifically different from what was thought before evodevo.

Thus....your little theory has just about taken its last breath. The only thing it has going for it is the vast number of brainwashed people who still put their blind faith in it. S

You'll be saying this to the end of your days, sorry. The theory of evolution has not taken it's last breath. With Carrol's work, it has gained enormous evidential support in that it better explains certain changes we see. Truly, why don't you first spend a few years studying biology and then try again?

LightHorseman · Aug 13, 2006

Supersport...

Is that a defence of evolutionary theory? Cos it reads like the best 5 point description of how evolution works that I have ever seen. I hope you don't mind me using it to debate further.

I_Love_Cheese · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
It's not just me, astro

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLetter/E/Evolution.html

Evolution is a strange mechanism.
When we say "animals adapt to their environment" what we really mean is:

an animal produces offspring or "replicates"

the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies

some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate

which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment

inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

CHECKMATE!!

you guys are so fun to play with!!

The next paragraph:

Selection acts mainly by preventing some copies to reach replication age. Useless variations may come into existence for which there is not much negative selection before replication age. These traits then do replicate, perhaps for a long time. Sometimes a new trait may give such an advantage that other, negative traits are not removed. For example, mammals have eyes whose receptors are "inside-out": the nerves have to carry the visual signal from the front of the retina and then go back out in a bundle through the rear of the eye (the reason for the "blind spot", which is where all those nerves traverse the retina). Therefore mammal eyes are not as good as they could be. Their retinas are also prone to becoming unstuck, but this happens usually only after reproduction time hence this eye-disadvantage does get reproduced. Mammals survived despite relatively bad eyes.

BTW, made any converts on your other threads?

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
It's not just me, astro

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLetter/E/Evolution.html

Evolution is a strange mechanism.
When we say "animals adapt to their environment" what we really mean is:

an animal produces offspring or "replicates"

the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies

some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate

which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment

inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

CHECKMATE!!

you guys are so fun to play with!!

Nobody ever said individuals change genetically during their lifetime, certainly not evolution. That's what is also in the quote, supersport. He explains what is important for evolution in your very quote, namely: "the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies"

You see, a mutation that will affect the fitness of the individual will occur before it is born. It will occur in the egg or seed cells or the mother and father of the animal. Than, that animal will have a number of mutations during in his or her seed or egg-cells, those will form a new animal which also will have some mutations in the egg or seed cells.

So the genetic changes important for evolution do, indeed, almost never take place during the animals life, but before it is born. In evolution, individuals do indeed not change genetically during their lifetime, as your quote says.

Was that what you were thinking, that this happened? Do you understand now that that is not the theory of evolution?

Hydra009 · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
Evolution is a strange mechanism.
When we say "animals adapt to their environment" what we really mean is:

* an animal produces offspring or "replicates"
* the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies
* some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate
* which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment
* inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

Ummm...you just basically posted the definition of differential reproductive success. That's not against evolution, that is evolution.

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

I_Love_Cheese said:
The next paragraph:

BTW, made any converts on your other threads?

It strikes me as extremely odd, that all of rebuttals to the points he supersport makes are already explained quite well in his own quotes. It makes me think he is indeed a parody, were it not that he seems to be all over the message boards with this.

jamie4418 · Aug 13, 2006

The idea that we came from apes, and amoeba before that is simply insane.

May God help us to see what truth really is.

Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

Well-Known Member

Legend

Active Member

Member

Titleless

Big Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Titleless

bel esprit

Titleless

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency