I would put...

  • ..mutation first

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • ...adaptation first

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • .....some other thing first

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Total voters
    9

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,626
51
✟312,535.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
When adaptations on their own cannot? There is a prohibition against perfect adaptations?

If you are just starting out with an adaptation, how can you get it wrong?
You don’t start with adaption. Adaption is what happens when a mutation (or genetic drift, or random assortment etc) is fixed in a population.

So by definition the mutation comes first.

Be in no doubt: mutations occur prior to adaption to the environment.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Sure it does, you're saying obscuring the truth makes it truer.

Jesus said "if you are unfaithful in what is least, you will be unfaithful in what is much"

You are putting mutation first, which is unfaithful and concluding you don't need to change the interpretation of what you believe according to the circumstances or expectations of others who might also want to believe it.

God never said "Let there be mutation" your head is in the clouds?

Buddy, you just need to stop. Your comments are becoming more and more insipid and I fail to see any value in anything you write.

No, I'm not putting mutation first, because that is not how evolution works. Evolution is not something you put first because it is just a scientific descriptor of a biological event, that is all. Why do you not understand this?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shemjaza
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
You can't. You have no conscious control of your own genetics.

Studies in plants have shown that DNA changes position (within the plant) in conjunction with the seasons (Australian Science Magazine, exact reference beyond recollection)

It isn't physically possible to have a new evolutionary adaption without a mutation.

You still don't appear to understand how adaptions work.

You are assuming you know how adaptations work, out of an appeal to necessity.

I'm not saying mutation doesn't ever invoke a review of damaged DNA, I'm saying the focus of the DNA is never second place to mutation - the review of damaged DNA aims to restore the DNA to its best possible or better state. No one takes perfectly good DNA and hopes they'll get better, should more and more of it mutate - they simply settle for something close to restored, if it proves strong. Anything less than that and you have cancer or death.

That's what your DNA is screaming at you "mutate less, not more!"

Specifically describe a single example of a new adaptation that did not originate in a mutation but is still relevant to the evolutionary process.

Because your descriptions do not make any sense using accepted definitions.

The first creatures on earth, did not mutate at random - their adaptations were a gift from God (as God added strength to them, in the form that He wished to give them) - they may have mutated at times, but on the whole they did not desire to stray from God, and so we have what we see today!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
714
504
✟71,668.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
It’s really quite simple. If a mutation occurs and it aids in the survival of a species it will be passed on to the next generation. If not it may or may not be passed on. If it negatively effects the species then the species may become extinct or the mutation will be selected out. A neutral mutation that is passed on may become useful in adapting to a future environmental change.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Studies in plants have shown that DNA changes position (within the plant) in conjunction with the seasons (Australian Science Magazine, exact reference beyond recollection)

What you are describing is not in any way a conscious choice, it's a chemical reaction to environmental triggers.

In addition, plants don't have a consciousness anyway, so nothing they do is a choice.

You are assuming you know how adaptations work, out of an appeal to necessity.

I'm not saying mutation doesn't ever invoke a review of damaged DNA, I'm saying the focus of the DNA is never second place to mutation - the review of damaged DNA aims to restore the DNA to its best possible or better state. No one takes perfectly good DNA and hopes they'll get better, should more and more of it mutate - they simply settle for something close to restored, if it proves strong. Anything less than that and you have cancer or death.

That's what your DNA is screaming at you "mutate less, not more!"

DNA has error correcting mechanisms that exist to prevent mutations. These are not conscious and don't scream or say anything.

All actual or potential mutations you posses occurred as a result of random chemical actions. They were also not choices.

The first creatures on earth, did not mutate at random - their adaptations were a gift from God (as God added strength to them, in the form that He wished to give them) - they may have mutated at times, but on the whole they did not desire to stray from God, and so we have what we see today!

You don't any evidence that any of this occurred.

But you have described the "who", not the "how".

How does an adaption that gifted from God change an organism?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
If Evolution is true, the message of Evolution should change over time, too?

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Evolution is a physical process and a scientific theory that explains that physical process.

Evolution is relevant to populations of reproducing living things... ideas, processes and scientific theories are not literally living things, so the theory doesn't directly apply.

What if the space that existed in DNA, for adaptations to fit into, was limited?

Then you would be forced to evolve, the most adaptive set of all possible sets?

It's an idea. Unless you have evidence for it it's not particularly relevant.

I think what is missing is that you are suggesting that the mutation is greater than its context: the context of a mutation is in principle just as important as the mutation itself.
No. The mutation is only relevant to it's context.

That context being a new variation in the genetic structure of a living thing that may help or harm it or its offspring.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
If Evolution is true, the message of Evolution should change over time, too?
If gravity causes things to fall down, should the message of gravity be found only at the bottom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shemjaza
Upvote 0