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

[Gottservant]

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?

For mutation to precede adaptation, concern with design, is committed to greatest eventuation

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...

mutation coming before adaptation - justified *how*?

The point being I suppose, that mutation coming beforehand, is a weaker supposition, than it needed to be?

 

[BeyondET]

Those are just two of a few, regeneration is another, metamorphosis.

 

[SkyWriting]

The point being I suppose, that mutation coming beforehand, is a weaker supposition, than it needed to be?

Mutations don't really exist as people claim they do.
God designed life up to the point it all ends for all of us.
He's just that smart.

 

[BeyondET]

Mutations don't really exist as people claim they do.
God designed life up to the point it all ends for all of us.
He's just that smart.

The corona virus certainly shows mutations happen

 

[Gottservant]

Those are just two of a few, regeneration is another, metamorphosis.

Metamorphosis is a good example: if the caterpillar adapted first and mutated second, the mutation would apply to the cocoon or the butterfly (not the caterpillar) - then there would be a chance for its eggs to close the loop (though this still would not be "macro-Evolution", in the sense that the butterfly would not have "greater than caterpillar to cocoon to butterfly" eggs). My understanding is that Evolutionists don't see metamorphosis of the butterfly as evidence of macro-Evolution anyway!

 

[SkyWriting]

The corona virus certainly shows mutations happen

Unless it was designed to do exactly what it has done.
God is so good at planning things, that He planned it.

 

[Gottservant]

Mutations don't really exist as people claim they do.
God designed life up to the point it all ends for all of us.
He's just that smart.

I think the thing with mutations is: they have to be kept constant (for the young to adapt to it).

Sort of like "repenting" prevents the wrongs of the father passing on to the sons.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think the thing with mutations is: they have to be kept constant (for the young to adapt to it).

Sort of like "repenting" prevents the wrongs of the father passing on to the sons.

Mutations are not at all constant. Some species hardly change at all for thousands of years. Others change in just a couple generations. Lately DNA has been found to change in one lifetime effecting the offspring.
Repentance changes the person and the effect acting in change might get passed to the children, perhaps. The wrongs can last for generations though.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Unless it was designed to do exactly what it has done.
God is so good at planning things, that He planned it.

Unironically true, randomness does not actually exist. Calling something "random" is really just a judgment about knowability from a human perspective. As it says in Proverbs: "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD."

 

[BeyondET]

I’d say maybe an order of such, regeneration, metamorphosis, mutations, adaptations.

Adaptations seems to be of longer process, like the eye lids of people of oceans and mountainous regions long ago. slightly more closed to ease eye strain when basically squinting from the glare of light off of body’s of water or snow.

 

[Gottservant]

The thing is showing the mutation to have a context, it can only get by coming to an end.

If you show me a mutation without end, I will show you something that can't be adapted.

 

[BeyondET]

Unless it was designed to do exactly what it has done.
God is so good at planning things, that He planned it.

Indeed everything is already written in the huge libraries of DNA. things turn on and off since long time.

 

[BeyondET]

Metamorphosis is a good example: if the caterpillar adapted first and mutated second, the mutation would apply to the cocoon or the butterfly (not the caterpillar) - then there would be a chance for its eggs to close the loop (though this still would not be "macro-Evolution", in the sense that the butterfly would not have "greater than caterpillar to cocoon to butterfly" eggs). My understanding is that Evolutionists don't see metamorphosis of the butterfly as evidence of macro-Evolution anyway!

There are a few stem cells that turn on and off at a certain time in the life span, science hasn’t figured out why and what turns one on that totally dissolves the caterpillar and the other stem cell to signal a total rebuild of the soup to butterfly, creation is amazing indeed.

 

[Gottservant]

I suppose alternatively, you could say "mutation and adaptation happen at the same time" (but I doubt you could successfully justify it, the way adaptation can be?)

 

[Shemjaza]

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?

For this to make sense you would have to describe how a new adaption appear without a mutation.

We have no evidence for or method of detection a change made to a genome of a species that wasn't from either a mutation or human intervention.

 

[Gottservant]

For this to make sense you would have to describe how a new adaption appear without a mutation.

According to the right selection pressure (isn't that how the story goes?).

We have no evidence for or method of detection a change made to a genome of a species that wasn't from either a mutation or human intervention.

If there is a p factor (of co-related relevance) the possibility of many different adaptations will eventuate with at least one, in principle?

 

[Shemjaza]

According to the right selection pressure (isn't that how the story goes?).

No.

Selection pressures are not the cause of adaptations... they are the reason they become more common once they appear.

If there is a p factor (of co-related relevance) the possibility of many different adaptations will eventuate with at least one, in principle?

There's not necessarily even one adaptation. But the origin of the change is still mutation, not the pressure itself.

 

[Gottservant]

No.

Selection pressures are not the cause of adaptations... they are the reason they become more common once they appear.



There's not necessarily even one adaptation. But the origin of the change is still mutation, not the pressure itself.

So you "allow" mutation, but you don't allow adaptation?

I would say "there is not even necessarily one mutation" - what's the difference?

Unless you have a subtextual need to be one-sided (about what I can't tell, until you make it clear?)?

 

[Shemjaza]

So you "allow" mutation, but you don't allow adaptation?

No, you have misunderstood.

An adaption is a new trait of a species that is helpful in dealing with the environment... mutation is the source of new traits.

I would say "there is not even necessarily one mutation" - what's the difference?

If there isn't a mutation then how, specifically, has the species changed?

Unless you have a subtextual need to be one-sided (about what I can't tell, until you make it clear?)?

I don't understand this statement, can you explain it?

 

[Gottservant]

Unless you have a subtextual need to be one-sided (about what I can't tell, until you make it clear?)?

I don't understand this statement, can you explain it?

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?

No, you have misunderstood.

An adaption is a new trait of a species that is helpful in dealing with the environment... mutation is the source of new traits.
[...]
If there isn't a mutation then how, specifically, has the species changed?

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.

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?