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

[Larniavc]

But its a choice.

It’s not a choice. You can’t choose to evolve any more than you can choose to get younger.

 

[Larniavc]

You are telling me it was a fact, but I want to know why?

Why what? I’m sorry: can you restate your question?

 

[Larniavc]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

 

[tas8831]

Hi there,

So I guess I am assuming you are some kind of expert on "Evolution"

And all readers conclude that despite your YEARS of posting here, you still cannot grasp the basics.

 

[Gottservant]

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!

 

[Gottservant]

If Evolution is true, the message of Evolution should change over time, too?

 

[Gottservant]

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?

 

[Gottservant]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If Evolution is true, the message of Evolution should change over time, too?

What 'message of Evolution'?

 

[ruthiesea]

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.

 

[Shemjaza]

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?

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

 

[Freodin]

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?