Faith.

[miknik5]

The question is simple. Why do Christians have faith?

Because GOD has done for us what we could not do for ourselves. HE opened the eyes and ears of our heart to the TRUTH of HIS WORD

 

[dcalling]

No. A hypothesis that can't be supported by experiments, is going to be discarded.
And if it can't be supported, because the idea is unfalsifiable and thus no experiments simply can be conducted, then it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.


Then it's not a hypothesis. See, there are certain criteria. One of them is that they need to be testable / falsifiable. To use your words, you need to be able to "experiment something". Or it doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.


I did not.

In that case we have only somewhat repeatably tested/observed micro evolution (the minute change of bacteria over many years under lab conditions, or birth defects among humans/animals).

How did you make evolution of primates to humans testable? In your own word, "Then it's not a hypothesis. See, there are certain criteria. One of them is that they need to be testable / falsifiable"

Over the following 70 to 80 million years, the rate of diversification accelerated by an order of magnitude[note 3] and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.[

~Wikipedia


Complexity doesn't really have any role in this.
But no, I don't find it that strange. There's much weirder stuff in the universe, me thinks.




Life is chemistry, not "software". And your complexity argument is not correct.



Because selection pressures are dictated by the environment.

Mutation off course continues, that's pretty consistent. But a local-optimum means that 'small incremental changes' aren't able to really improve the system all that much. It means the system has reached some type of "balance".

Its appearance or even anatomy might still change a little bit. But mostly it will be in ways that have no real effect on the overall fitness of the system.

We have several examples of both sides of this in extant species. There are creatures that have changed in truelly radical ways, like whales.

Then there are creatures that stayed basically the same for long periods of time, with some relatively minor differences, like crockodiles.





lol, off course they do!!
The environment, which dictates selection pressures, is ever-changing. Species migrate. New enemies show up, or old enemies go away. Volcano's explode and radically change large area's. Ice ages freeze half the planet. Germs mutate and pose new threats.

Every time that such a thing happens, for a lot of creatures it literally is "adapt or die".

When the environment changes, potential local-optimums are also out the window.




No. Nobody or no thing needs to "know" anything.
Instead, individuals need to survive in the environment they find themselves in, find a mate and breed. Those that are biologically "best" equipped for that task, will be most succesfull at it. They'll be the ones spreading their genes, while the others won't.

Every individual will just have to manage with the set of biological equipment (the mutated DNA) that nature has given it. You either survive and breed, or you don't.

It is an inevitable process. There's no escaping it. Creatures live and die. They breed and spread mutated DNA or they don't. The fittest will be most succesfull at it.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?



Mutation is random, yes. But mutation is not evolution. It's just one aspect thereof.
Evolution, the process, is not random. It has random ingredients. It also has non-random ingredients, like natural selection. And because of that, evolution as a process, is not a random process.


Consider this as an analogy....

You have a bag of euro coins. All types of coins are in it. 1c, 2, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, 1€ and 2€. They all have different sizes.
You create a device where the coins can slide through, with holes in the bottom in the various sizes of the coins. So 1c will fall through the 1c hole, 2c through the 2c hole, etc. Beneath each hole, you place a cup.

Now poor the bag into device. The input is random. There's no telling which coin will come out of the bag next. Yet in the cups, everything is nicely sorted. Is that a random process?

Off course it isn't. Filters that are defined by certain criteria, never are.

Natural selection is such a filter. Its criteria are dictated by the environment.

First, your last example is not correct, as the coins didn't mutate at all.

Second, and most important, you agreed mutation is random (which is correct). Given that, when there is no selection (i.e. almost all mutation will remain except the ones that can't reproduce), why aren't there MORE variations? How did your so called "local-optimum" slow down evolution? Even if a mutation does not "improve", because conditon allows, it will still stay. Do you understand my question?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In that case we have only somewhat repeatably tested/observed micro evolution (the minute change of bacteria over many years under lab conditions, or birth defects among humans/animals).

No, we don't.
If you are not going to at least do the effort to find out what evolution theory is all about, then why do you think you are qualified to try and argue against it? I never get that...

Evolution theory, as explained ad naseum already, makes loads of predicts. And I do mean LOADS of predictions. All of which can be tested. All of which go WAAAY beyond a bacteria evolving the trait to being able to metabolise nylon or an immunity to anti-biotics.

You can literally take any two random creatures, look at where they are located on the phylogenetic tree (= the family tree of life according to evolution theory) and literally test the nested hierarchy pattern that is predicted by said tree.

Again:
- there will be no mammals with feathers.
- there will be no non-mammals with inner earbones
- there will be no reptiles with hair
- there will be no non-primates with wich we share more ERV's then with primates
- etc etc etc

The amount of testable predictions that evolution theory makes, is insanely ridiculous.

How did you make evolution of primates to humans testable?

See above. It's not limited to just primates and humans. The same type of predictions works for ALL species, ALL creatures, ALL plants.

You can take any 2 random creatures and test the hierarchical pattern from front to back, from many many different angles.

You can look for individual genes, sequences of genes, geographic distribution, anatomy, specific genetic markers,...

In your own word, "Then it's not a hypothesis. See, there are certain criteria. One of them is that they need to be testable / falsifiable"

Just because you choose to remain ignorant about the subject matter, doesn't mean you get to make such sweeping (false) statements.

I just explained to you how it is very much testable.

First, your last example is not correct, as the coins didn't mutate at all.

It's not an example. It's an analogy concerning the "random" part of the theory.
The point being made is that simply because the input is random (mutation, in the case of evolution; coins in the case of the analogy), doesn't mean that the output is equally random. If you have a non-random filter (the coin sorting device; natural selection), then the output is not random at all.

Second, and most important, you agreed mutation is random (which is correct). Given that, when there is no selection (i.e. almost all mutation will remain except the ones that can't reproduce), why aren't there MORE variations?

But there IS selection. I don't see the point of this hypothetical.
If there was no selection, all life would probably mutate to extinction pretty fast.
Natural selection prevents that from happening. On top of that, it pushes species in ever-more specialisation for the niche they inhabbit.

How did your so called "local-optimum" slow down evolution?

It's not "my" thing, nore is it a "so called" thing. It is an actual thing that happens in such a process, as is easily demonstrable when using genetic algorithms.

It simply means that given the selection pressures and the current "state" of the organism, there is no more room for much better "fitness" that can be achieved through gradual changes. Hence the local in "local-optimum".
It doesn't mean that there is no room at all for more efficient niche-filling. It rather means that there is no gradual path by which that "improvement" can be achieved.

That is how certain species can go a very long time without much evolutionary change.

Even if a mutation does not "improve", because conditon allows, it will still stay. Do you understand my question?

Your question is rather senseless, because it requires assuming that "no selection" is happening, which simply is not the case. Selection is always happening.

 

[dcalling]

No, we don't.
If you are not going to at least do the effort to find out what evolution theory is all about, then why do you think you are qualified to try and argue against it? I never get that...

I already did, and I think you got some misconceptions. We will see

Evolution theory, as explained ad naseum already, makes loads of predicts. And I do mean LOADS of predictions. All of which can be tested. All of which go WAAAY beyond a bacteria evolving the trait to being able to metabolise nylon or an immunity to anti-biotics.

You can literally take any two random creatures, look at where they are located on the phylogenetic tree (= the family tree of life according to evolution theory) and literally test the nested hierarchy pattern that is predicted by said tree.

Again:
- there will be no mammals with feathers.
- there will be no non-mammals with inner earbones
- there will be no reptiles with hair
- there will be no non-primates with wich we share more ERV's then with primates
- etc etc etc

This is not testing. This is observation only. By saying since something's gene looks alike, or looks like evolved, and they must be related (or evolved from), is not testing, it is observation. I hope you understand the difference between testing and observation.

The hypothesis is, since A and B looks alike, B might be evolved from A. And your argument is, since A and B looks alike, B must be evolved from A. Do you see that?

But there IS selection. I don't see the point of this hypothetical.
If there was no selection, all life would probably mutate to extinction pretty fast.
Natural selection prevents that from happening. On top of that, it pushes species in ever-more specialisation for the niche they inhabbit.

I am not arguing about selection at all.

It's not "my" thing, nore is it a "so called" thing. It is an actual thing that happens in such a process, as is easily demonstrable when using genetic algorithms.

It simply means that given the selection pressures and the current "state" of the organism, there is no more room for much better "fitness" that can be achieved through gradual changes. Hence the local in "local-optimum".
It doesn't mean that there is no room at all for more efficient niche-filling. It rather means that there is no gradual path by which that "improvement" can be achieved.

That is how certain species can go a very long time without much evolutionary change.

Your question is rather senseless, because it requires assuming that "no selection" is happening, which simply is not the case. Selection is always happening.

I hope you understand my question. As you said, mutation always happens, slowly, NO MATTER WHAT. So if environment is suitable (i.e. food is abundant), shouldn't you see all sorts of mutations manifest since everything fits now, no natural selection any more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is not testing. This is observation only.

It is a test. The prediction is about what you should and shouldn't be able to observe.

By saying since something's gene looks alike

How many times must it be repeated that it's not about mere similarities, but about the pattern of the similarities? The nested hierarchy?

, or looks like evolved, and they must be related (or evolved from), is not testing, it is observation

Repeat that, next time you are involved in a DNA test to determine kinship or ancestry.

I hope you understand the difference between testing and observation.

You can't test anyting, without observations.

The hypothesis is, since A and B looks alike, B might be evolved from A.

Not even close.

I'll rephrase:
"If A evolved from B, then we expect to see this and this trait as that is consistent with the nested hierarchy. In addition, we should NOT see that and that trait, as those belong to another branch and would break the hierarchy".


See, the statement is NOT "If this and this, then A evolved from B"
It's the other way round... it is rather "if A evolved from B, then we should see this and that, but not those"

And your argument is, since A and B looks alike, B must be evolved from A. Do you see that?

Do you see how intellectually dishonest this misrepresentation is?
I get to call it dishonest, because it's been explained ad nauseaum already how it actually works. Nested Hierarchies. Print it out and hang it over your bed, so that you will be reminded of the misrepresentation every time you pretend in the future that evolution is about mere "similarity" instead of the pattern of similarity.

I hope you understand my question. As you said, mutation always happens, slowly, NO MATTER WHAT. So if environment is suitable (i.e. food is abundant), shouldn't you see all sorts of mutations manifest since everything fits now, no natural selection any more.

No.
Natural selection doesn't stop either.
It is always at work. Selection pressures always exist. Even in paradise islands with no natural enemies and an abundance of food.

I'm sorry that you apparantly aren't able to understand this 2nd grade concept.

 

[dcalling]

It is a test. The prediction is about what you should and shouldn't be able to observe.
How many times must it be repeated that it's not about mere similarities, but about the pattern of the similarities? The nested hierarchy?

Repeat that, next time you are involved in a DNA test to determine kinship or ancestry.

You can't test anyting, without observations.
Not even close.

I'll rephrase:
"If A evolved from B, then we expect to see this and this trait as that is consistent with the nested hierarchy. In addition, we should NOT see that and that trait, as those belong to another branch and would break the hierarchy".


See, the statement is NOT "If this and this, then A evolved from B"
It's the other way round... it is rather "if A evolved from B, then we should see this and that, but not those"



Do you see how intellectually dishonest this misrepresentation is?
I get to call it dishonest, because it's been explained ad nauseaum already how it actually works. Nested Hierarchies. Print it out and hang it over your bed, so that you will be reminded of the misrepresentation every time you pretend in the future that evolution is about mere "similarity" instead of the pattern of similarity.

I think you are right on the first part. observations can be used as evidences.

However the second part on nested hierarchies is not that convincing at all, because observations/predications alone is only a weak test at best. Base on your point I should be able to predict that DNA of animals should be closer to human DNA than insects, since we are closer on the hierarchy. But fruit flies has more DNA in common to humans than dogs, since it actually have human DNA.

No.
Natural selection doesn't stop either.
It is always at work. Selection pressures always exist. Even in paradise islands with no natural enemies and an abundance of food.

I'm sorry that you apparantly aren't able to understand this 2nd grade concept.

Seems you can't understand my question, let me try this. What predication will you make, base on the following criteria. Will a population have more DNA diversification with less selection pressure based on TOE?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However the second part on nested hierarchies is not that convincing at all, because observations/predications alone is only a weak test at best.

It is the only test in scientific theories.
It is always about having models that make testable predictions.

And then you design an experiment to show how the model is incorrect.
ie, you try to find things that do NOT working according to the predictions.

That's science for ya.

Base on your point I should be able to predict that DNA of animals should be closer to human DNA than insects, since we are closer on the hierarchy. But fruit flies has more DNA in common to humans than dogs, since it actually have human DNA.

LOL!!! Who told you that lie?

Fruit flies share 60% with humans.
Dogs share 82%...

Seems you can't understand my question, let me try this. What predication will you make, base on the following criteria. Will a population have more DNA diversification with less selection pressure based on TOE?

There is no such thing as "less selection pressure". There is only different selection pressures.

And more diversification will take place, when selection pressures CHANGE.
They never seize to exist. They are always present. An animal must always survive to find a mate and produce off spring.

Selection is not just finding food and having sex.

As I said, if everything stays roughly the same and the eco-system is stable (local optimum), then nothing much will change. Some things will, but there won't be any radical changes.

See, natural selection is like a filter. The shape of the filter is dictated by the environment. If the environment stays the same, then so does the filter. After some time, all species "fit" the filter as best they can and as a result it will stay rather stable.

Now change the environment. This changes the filter. Now, species that were in a local optimum, likely no longer are. There'll be 2 possible outcomes: adapt or go extinct.


Seriously, it's not hard.

 

[dcalling]

It is the only test in scientific theories.
It is always about having models that make testable predictions.

And then you design an experiment to show how the model is incorrect.
ie, you try to find things that do NOT working according to the predictions.

That's science for ya.

I will go with you, where is the experiment that is designed to show TOE is incorrect?

LOL!!! Who told you that lie?

Fruit flies share 60% with humans.
Dogs share 82%...

My bad on that one

There is no such thing as "less selection pressure". There is only different selection pressures.

And more diversification will take place, when selection pressures CHANGE.
They never seize to exist. They are always present. An animal must always survive to find a mate and produce off spring.

Selection is not just finding food and having sex.

As I said, if everything stays roughly the same and the eco-system is stable (local optimum), then nothing much will change. Some things will, but there won't be any radical changes.

See, natural selection is like a filter. The shape of the filter is dictated by the environment. If the environment stays the same, then so does the filter. After some time, all species "fit" the filter as best they can and as a result it will stay rather stable.

Now change the environment. This changes the filter. Now, species that were in a local optimum, likely no longer are. There'll be 2 possible outcomes: adapt or go extinct.


Seriously, it's not hard.

Let me try again, do you agree that:
1. Mutations always occur
2. Less selection pressure means more mutations can survive

So with less selection pressure, gradually there will be much more variant than more selection pressure right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will go with you, where is the experiment that is designed to show TOE is incorrect?

Every single fossil ever found, every genome sequenced, any dissection of a creature's anatomy, has the potential to falsify evolution by not being in line with the predictions of nested hierarchies.

Every breeding program can also be seen as an evolutionary experiment.
If evolution is wrong, breeding for certain traits or qualities shouldn't work.

How is it, do you think, that we were able to turn the thing on the right, into the thing on the left:

PURELY by artificially selecting the next generations?
There was no genetic manipulation taking place here. It's just breeding for specific traits and qualities.

"Nature" prefers the one on the right.
Human breeders prefer the one on the left.
That's selection pressure for ya...

My bad on that one

That's very okay. However, it illustrates a nice point. Why is this so?
Answer: nested hierarchies. If what you said was actually correct, that fruit flies share more DNA with humans then dogs... that would be a real problem for the theory. It would be a massive breach of the nested structure.

No non-mammal should be more closely related to a mammal then other mammals.

Let me try again, do you agree that:
1. Mutations always occur

Yes.

2. Less selection pressure means more mutations can survive

No.
As I explained, there is not such thing as "less" selection pressure. It's always present.
"less" selection pressure would mean "less need to survive and reproduce".

There is no such thing as "less" or "more" such pressure. There is only "different pressures" or a change in such.

Creatures have a niche to fill, a habitat to operate in.
That habitat is what it is and certain criteria are always present in order to be able to survive and reproduce in it. When organisms reach their local optimum, the pressures don't evaporate. They are still there. It merely means that the organisms in their local optimum have "maximised" their success rate for the given environment.

There is not suddenly "less" pressure. The pressures remain the exact same.

So with less selection pressure, gradually there will be much more variant than more selection pressure right?

Nope. Because there is no such thing as "less" or "more" pressure.
There is only "different" pressure.

Variation / change will accelerate if the selection pressures change.
Either that, or extinction. And the amount of change, or the risk of extinction, will be in line with how much the pressures change and how fast.

If the change is too big / too sudden, species likely won't have enough time to gradually adapt to the "new reality". And extinction will inevitably follow.

 

[dcalling]

Every single fossil ever found, every genome sequenced, any dissection of a creature's anatomy, has the potential to falsify evolution by not being in line with the predictions of nested hierarchies.

Every breeding program can also be seen as an evolutionary experiment.
If evolution is wrong, breeding for certain traits or qualities shouldn't work.

How is it, do you think, that we were able to turn the thing on the right, into the thing on the left:
View attachment 184547


PURELY by artificially selecting the next generations?
There was no genetic manipulation taking place here. It's just breeding for specific traits and qualities.

"Nature" prefers the one on the right.
Human breeders prefer the one on the left.
That's selection pressure for ya...

I never disagreed with those changes, i.e. changes that can occure within the boundaries of design, in software terms it is like configuration changes, doesn't touch the core. Example of a core change is, from complex elements to DNA (outside of this discussion), from single celled organism to multi-celled organism.

It will be considered a true test to me if scientist can show the DNA mutation steps in a lab from a primate DNA to human DNA.

No.
As I explained, there is not such thing as "less" selection pressure. It's always present.
"less" selection pressure would mean "less need to survive and reproduce".

There is no such thing as "less" or "more" such pressure. There is only "different pressures" or a change in such.

Creatures have a niche to fill, a habitat to operate in.
That habitat is what it is and certain criteria are always present in order to be able to survive and reproduce in it. When organisms reach their local optimum, the pressures don't evaporate. They are still there. It merely means that the organisms in their local optimum have "maximised" their success rate for the given environment.

There is not suddenly "less" pressure. The pressures remain the exact same.



Nope. Because there is no such thing as "less" or "more" pressure.
There is only "different" pressure.

Variation / change will accelerate if the selection pressures change.
Either that, or extinction. And the amount of change, or the risk of extinction, will be in line with how much the pressures change and how fast.

If the change is too big / too sudden, species likely won't have enough time to gradually adapt to the "new reality". And extinction will inevitably follow.

This is where you and me differ. You agreed that mutation can always happen, and yet you say that "'less' selection pressure would mean 'less need to survive and reproduce'.", which seems to indicate mutation rate can slow down when environment is favorable for most mutations?

 

[HitchSlap]

Even if a mutation does not "improve", because conditon allows, it will still stay. Do you understand my question?

Yep, and these can be observed in the form of ERV's, as it's a record of your evolutionary past.

Science rocks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

 

[dcalling]

Yep, and these can be observed in the form of ERV's, as it's a record of your evolutionary past.

Science rocks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Is there any research that show EVR has to be time based? What if virus can infect at anytime and mutate DNA and leave a mark (not because it happened while DNA is growing, but due to the chemical composition)?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never disagreed with those changes, i.e. changes that can occure within the boundaries of design

I'ld rather say "within the boundaries of the physical limits".

ie: mutations are not going to give ducks plastic wings.

, in software terms it is like configuration changes, doesn't touch the core.

That's a false analogy.

Example of a core change is, from complex elements to DNA (outside of this discussion), from single celled organism to multi-celled organism.

Funny, because we actually saw single celled yeast become multi-celled yeast, right in front of our noses.

It will be considered a true test to me if scientist can show the DNA mutation steps in a lab from a primate DNA to human DNA.

If you would understand how evolution works, and how that particular process took 7 million years, you would realise how absurd that statement was.

This is where you and me differ. You agreed that mutation can always happen, and yet you say that "'less' selection pressure would mean 'less need to survive and reproduce'.", which seems to indicate mutation rate can slow down when environment is favorable for most mutations?

No, that's not at all what I said.

I've explained it multiple times now as best as I can.
I don't know how to make it any simpler.

I don't feel like giving you a high school education on biology on these forums.
I suggest you do some self-study (from proper biology sources) and then come back and try again.

 

[dcalling]

I'ld rather say "within the boundaries of the physical limits".

ie: mutations are not going to give ducks plastic wings.

We agree on this one. I just thinking there might be much more physical/chemical difficulties in DNA mutating to some meaningful way than you, and some mutations will be impossible without outside help.

Funny, because we actually saw single celled yeast become multi-celled yeast, right in front of our noses.

I read that report. It does not mention of any new DNA in the different yeast, leaving me to believe nothing new is mutated, just the same yeast has a tendency to cluster when there are lot of them (i.e. all other yeasts cluster)

If you would understand how evolution works, and how that particular process took 7 million years, you would realise how absurd that statement was.

Why? What's wrong in asking a step by step DNA mutation map? Too hard? Impossible?

No, that's not at all what I said.

I've explained it multiple times now as best as I can.
I don't know how to make it any simpler.

I don't feel like giving you a high school education on biology on these forums.
I suggest you do some self-study (from proper biology sources) and then come back and try again.

I am just trying to see if you really understand what you are talking about. I was told before that it only take high school chemistry to understand TOE

Think this way, it is only logic to have more variants when less mutations are selected out. How are you going to dispute it? Your explanation about local optimum can't explain it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We agree on this one. I just thinking there might be much more physical/chemical difficulties in DNA mutating to some meaningful way than you, and some mutations will be impossible without outside help.

You can "think" that, but the facts are the facts. There's a multitude of mutations that can and will happen, and there is nothing stopping any of these mutations occuring anywhere in the DNA.

Why? What's wrong in asking a step by step DNA mutation map? Too hard? Impossible?

It's just not a reasonable request. We're talking about an accumulation of millions of mutations of millions of years spanning thousands of generations.

It's like asking someone to show a picture of their face of every second of their lives, to prove that they are aging.

It's simply not reasonable.

That, and the fact that it isn't required to demonstrate that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Common ancestry is easily testable, without being able to identify every single miniscule step from beginning to end.

Just like we don't need a timemachine to observe your parents having sex to know that they are your biological parents. All we need is your and their DNA.

I am just trying to see if you really understand what you are talking about. I was told before that it only take high school chemistry to understand TOE

Think this way, it is only logic to have more variants when less mutations are selected out. How are you going to dispute it? Your explanation about local optimum can't explain it.

You not understanding it, is not an argument against it.

Natural selection is like a filter. A local optimum is when the subject fits the filter as best as it can. When the subject mutates, chances are very real that it will not longer fit the filter as best as it can. This is why local optimums and a stable environment (=unchanged selection pressures) "slow down" evolution, in the sense that not much will be changing. Any change in fitness will be in the direction of unfit, since the local optimum is already reached.

When selection pressures then change (not "more" or "less", but just different), then subjects might no longer find themselves in their local optimum.

Ie, they will no longer "fit" the "filter" of natural selection as best as they can. That's when there is again a pressure to adapt so that they once again fit the filter as best they can.

You seem to be of the opinion that selection pressures "disappear" when a local optimum is reached. This is completely false. Selection pressures stay the exact same.

 

[dcalling]

You can "think" that, but the facts are the facts. There's a multitude of mutations that can and will happen, and there is nothing stopping any of these mutations occuring anywhere in the DNA.

This is the question. how do you know mutations occuring anywhere in the DNA? Is there part of the DNA that mutation can't occure (i.e. the structure will became unstable upon change)?

It's just not a reasonable request. We're talking about an accumulation of millions of mutations of millions of years spanning thousands of generations.

It's like asking someone to show a picture of their face of every second of their lives, to prove that they are aging.

It's simply not reasonable.

That, and the fact that it isn't required to demonstrate that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Common ancestry is easily testable, without being able to identify every single miniscule step from beginning to end.

Just like we don't need a timemachine to observe your parents having sex to know that they are your biological parents. All we need is your and their DNA.

For parent/child DNA test, it is very repeatable, testable and confirmable, i.e. if all 36 points of DNA matches, the chances that a kid belongs to a parent is 1 in x-million (for example). It is totally different then look at fossiles, and assume they must be evolved from on another based on appearance (it might be correct, but it is only a hypothesis)

You not understanding it, is not an argument against it.

Natural selection is like a filter. A local optimum is when the subject fits the filter as best as it can. When the subject mutates, chances are very real that it will not longer fit the filter as best as it can. This is why local optimums and a stable environment (=unchanged selection pressures) "slow down" evolution, in the sense that not much will be changing. Any change in fitness will be in the direction of unfit, since the local optimum is already reached.

When selection pressures then change (not "more" or "less", but just different), then subjects might no longer find themselves in their local optimum.

Ie, they will no longer "fit" the "filter" of natural selection as best as they can. That's when there is again a pressure to adapt so that they once again fit the filter as best they can.

You seem to be of the opinion that selection pressures "disappear" when a local optimum is reached. This is completely false. Selection pressures stay the exact same.

I think you confused on "local optimum". Just because something fits the environment best, does not mean nothing else can survive, else the entire world will have only one species.

Do you agree that under laboratory conditions, when there are less selection pressure compare to the nature world, more mutations will have a chance to survive, since even if they don't fit the condition perfectly, they can get by due to good food source and less natural predators.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is the question.

It's not a question. It's observed fact.

how do you know mutations occuring anywhere in the DNA?

Observation.

Is there part of the DNA that mutation can't occure (i.e. the structure will became unstable upon change)?

That's really a different question.
We were only talking about the occurance of the mutation, not its effect on fitness.
Leave those goalposts in place, please.

For parent/child DNA test, it is very repeatable, testable and confirmable,

Indeed it is. We van use DNA to determine kinship / ancestry.

i.e. if all 36 points of DNA matches, the chances that a kid belongs to a parent is 1 in x-million (for example). It is totally different then look at fossiles, and assume they must be evolved from on another based on appearance (it might be correct, but it is only a hypothesis)

Why are you suddenly talking about fossils?

I think you confused on "local optimum". Just because something fits the environment best, does not mean nothing else can survive, else the entire world will have only one species.

The only one confused here, is you. I never said anything remotely like this.

Do you agree that under laboratory conditions, when there are less selection pressure compare to the nature world, more mutations will have a chance to survive, since even if they don't fit the condition perfectly, they can get by due to good food source and less natural predators.

You still didn't understand this part either, it seems.

Again: there's no such thing as less or more selection pressures. There is only different selection pressures. Yes, there are environments without natural enemies. And they aren't even confined by laboratory conditions, you can find those in the wild, sort of, as well.

However, all these still require to survive, metabolise food, find a mate and breed.
And they require a certain minimum fitness level, in order to be able to do so.
This never changes. And any and all mutations that take place, must either make the creature "more fit" in function of those pressures, or make no difference.

Mutations that make the creature "unfit" for those pressures, will always be at a disadvantage.

 

[dcalling]

That's really a different question.
We were only talking about the occurance of the mutation, not its effect on fitness.
Leave those goalposts in place, please.

It is the same question. I am asking if there are DNA structucts that are unstable, that you can't mutate into.

Indeed it is. We van use DNA to determine kinship / ancestry.

Have you ever wondered how did the first humans survive with such limited genes? When they were force to marry close to each other since not much people existed? How did they survive the DNA shortage, unless their DNAs must have much less flaws then us?

Why are you suddenly talking about fossils?



The only one confused here, is you. I never said anything remotely like this.



You still didn't understand this part either, it seems.

Again: there's no such thing as less or more selection pressures. There is only different selection pressures. Yes, there are environments without natural enemies. And they aren't even confined by laboratory conditions, you can find those in the wild, sort of, as well.

However, all these still require to survive, metabolise food, find a mate and breed.
And they require a certain minimum fitness level, in order to be able to do so.
This never changes. And any and all mutations that take place, must either make the creature "more fit" in function of those pressures, or make no difference.

Mutations that make the creature "unfit" for those pressures, will always be at a disadvantage.

OK let's focus on this, I will try again to clearify it.
As you said, for some cell that has archived "local optimal", is it possible for it to mutate to something that less fit but can survive anyways? extend on this, if you did an experiment on bacteria, would you expect to see more and more variations after many many generations (they maybe not fit perfectly, but are able to survive).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is the same question. I am asking if there are DNA structucts that are unstable, that you can't mutate into.

Ow, okay.

Yes there are certain things that are very hard to mutate, in the sense that most likely it would decrease fitness or worse.

But mutations will still occur in those sections...

Have you ever wondered how did the first humans survive with such limited genes? When they were force to marry close to each other since not much people existed? How did they survive the DNA shortage, unless their DNAs must have much less flaws then us?

You ask strange loaded questions.
Just because there weren't 7 billion of us, doesn't mean there was a "dna shortage".

OK let's focus on this, I will try again to clearify it.
As you said, for some cell that has archived "local optimal", is it possible for it to mutate to something that less fit but can survive anyways?

Yes. Just like the "most fit" can be struck by lightning and die before spreading his genes. There's always variation and some unertainty.

extend on this, if you did an experiment on bacteria, would you expect to see more and more variations after many many generations (they maybe not fit perfectly, but are able to survive).

That's been done already.
Several isolated populations of the same species in some solution.
After a while, there was a population boom in one of them. The species had acquired the ability to metabolize a new substance in the solution. The parent species could not metabolize that substance. That's pretty cool.

 

[dcalling]

Ow, okay.

Yes there are certain things that are very hard to mutate, in the sense that most likely it would decrease fitness or worse.

But mutations will still occur in those sections...




You ask strange loaded questions.
Just because there weren't 7 billion of us, doesn't mean there was a "dna shortage".




Yes. Just like the "most fit" can be struck by lightning and die before spreading his genes. There's always variation and some unertainty.



That's been done already.
Several isolated populations of the same species in some solution.
After a while, there was a population boom in one of them. The species had acquired the ability to metabolize a new substance in the solution. The parent species could not metabolize that substance. That's pretty cool.

Finally you changed your stance, from "Local optimal" (your excat explaination is "If the environment stays the same, then so does the filter. After some time, all species "fit" the filter as best they can and as a result it will stay rather stable.") to realizing it is proven in experiments that things do change.

Now we can finally go to the next step. As you can see even mutations that does not give a best fit (or neutral) to current environment will stay, over a long run would you expect to see more and more variations?