- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,517
- 52,488
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's why STDs and COVID are prevalent.I will give you my standards:
Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.
Don't care about what the bible says, go with y.
Don't care about what the bible says, start research.
Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.
Don't care about what the bible says, start research.
Ahem. I'd like to remind everyone to please read my opening post again, and pay particular attention to the bit where I say:
"I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution."
You can take that to mean that I do not want this thread devolving into a thread about Covid and STI prevalence in the world either!
Straw man. It has nothing to do with the post to which you were responding.At least I thought of it.
I rest my case.
If you don't believe in common design, and you live in a universe that's at least 94 billion light years wide, made of just over a hundred different elements, then ... well ... you're entitled to your opinion.
Statement 6: If an individual has some genetic trait (as in statement 2) that gives it an advantage (as in statement 4), then it can pass that trait on to the offspring it produces (as in statement 3). And since a beneficial trait is likely to result in the individual with that trait producing more offspring (as in statement 5), beneficial traits have a greater chance of being spread than a harmful trait. So beneficial traits will spread more than harmful traits.
Do you agree with this?
"then it [might] pass that trait on to the offspring [if it produces offspring]." But I don't know that that individual will produce offspring; it has not been shown me. Are we still talking about within-the-species traits, or mutations?
But it does make sense to me that beneficial traits are more easily spread than harmful traits that are by mutation. I also agree that individuals inheriting mostly harmful traits tend to die more easily than those with mostly beneficial traits. But I can't agree with the generalization that beneficial mutated traits will more likely produce offspring that will pass that gene down to successive generations, than those with harmful extant traits will reproduce. At least, not until it is shown me.
"then it [might] pass that trait on to the offspring [if it produces offspring]." But I don't know that that individual will produce offspring; it has not been shown me. Are we still talking about within-the-species traits, or mutations?
Most species have a natural drive to produce offspring. Without reproduction, the genetic line dies out completely and there is no evolution.
And this stuff of "within-the-species traits" and "mutations" makes it sound like you think a mutation is something like that horse born with wings stuff. It's not. As I've said, most mutations are very small changes to what's already there, since larger changes tend to result in unviable embryos.
But it does make sense to me that beneficial traits are more easily spread than harmful traits that are by mutation. I also agree that individuals inheriting mostly harmful traits tend to die more easily than those with mostly beneficial traits. But I can't agree with the generalization that beneficial mutated traits will more likely produce offspring that will pass that gene down to successive generations, than those with harmful extant traits will reproduce. At least, not until it is shown me.
The simple answer is that the individuals with the beneficial traits will be likely to produce more offspring since they are probably going to live longer due precisely to the beneficial traits they have. A longer life means more breeding opportunities.
Most species have a natural drive to produce offspring. Without reproduction, the genetic line dies out completely and there is no evolution.
And this stuff of "within-the-species traits" and "mutations" makes it sound like you think a mutation is something like that horse born with wings stuff. It's not. As I've said, most mutations are very small changes to what's already there, since larger changes tend to result in unviable embryos.
Don't worry. I'm not into winged horses. Nor New Jersey devils. In fact, for example, the South Carolina "Lamp Eel" that lives in ditches, that I don't know if it is a fish or what, and breathes air and many of them have little pollywog-looking 'front' legs behind their gills —I don't know if maybe they are a different species of their own, or a link between species, or strangely enough, if there are existing genetics common to many/all creatures to cause such strangenesses to happen and to be reproduced. Anyhow, you don't need to convince me that large changes don't happen suddenly, nor that evolution does not teach such a thing.
The simple answer is that the individuals with the beneficial traits will be likely to produce more offspring since they are probably going to live longer due precisely to the beneficial traits they have. A longer life means more breeding opportunities.
Yes, if they can breed, and breed with others with the same genetic trait and so produce offspring with that genetic result. Still sounds like 'within-the-species' to me, but I don't know enough to say it can't happen by mutation.
Yes, with reservations as to the generalizations involved in your points and as to where you might go with them.Okay, just to get things back on track here, Here's the the last statement I made and the following discussion about it with @Mark Quayle:
So it seems to me that Mark has agreed with me regarding Statement 6. If you still don't agree with that statement, @Mark Quayle please let me know. But froim the sounds of it, you agree that parents have the possibility of passing on traits that are carried by genes to their offspring, and that genes that convey benefits (in other words, traits that create more opportunities to reproduce) are more likely to be passed on than traits that convey disadvantages.
Statement 7: Environmental pressures play a large part in determining whether a trait is advantageous or disadvantageous. For example, a gene that causes a thicker coat of fur would be beneficial in a cold environment (and an individual with this trait is likely to have more opportunities to reproduce because it can better survive in the cold), but the same "thick fur" trait in a hot desert can be a disadvantage, causing the individual to be more likely to overheat and thus die sooner. Please note that I'm not saying that environmental pressures are the only pressure, simply that they are a major one.
Do you agree with this?
Yes, with reservations as to the generalizations involved in your points and as to where you might go with them.
I would expect you to be concerned, but you need not be concerned because of the conclusions, but, rather, because of the means to the conclusions. Generalizations, particularly if presented as axiomatic without even giving 'proof' of their veracity, are dangerous. You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.As I've already said, I am trying to illustrate the general points. There are more complex issues at play as well, but none of them render what I have said either wrong or impossible.
And I'm a little concerned with you saying that you have reservations as to where I am going to go with this. That seems to be suggesting that you'll decide for or against based on whether you agree with the conclusion or not. I certainly hope that's not what you mean!
I would expect you to be concerned, but you need not be concerned because of the conclusions, but, rather, because of the means to the conclusions. Generalizations, particularly if presented as axiomatic without even giving 'proof' of their veracity, are dangerous. You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.
I would expect you to be concerned, but you need not be concerned because of the conclusions, but, rather, because of the means to the conclusions. Generalizations, particularly if presented as axiomatic without even giving 'proof' of their veracity, are dangerous. You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.
You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.
If I may? It's not that these are axiomatic
Then I think it would be worthwhile to lay it out, perhaps flowchart-style. But instead, @Kylie is asking me to agree with each step, and I cannot without reservations.If I may? It's not that these are axiomatic—they are not a priori—so much as they are generalizations to be accepted "for the sake of argument." They are a posteriori, that is, knowledge dependent on empirical evidence. That can be explored, of course, but she is trying to lay some groundwork first, to find out where the discussion needs to go.
Then I think it would be worthwhile to lay it out, perhaps flowchart-style. But instead, @Kylie is asking me to agree with each step, and I cannot without reservations.
As you state these 5, I have no objections, (though your #5 still smells of a blanket statement), until your next paragraph. Hence, my reservations.Are you suggesting that evidence is required of these things? I mean, with regards to Statement 1, I think it's obvious to everyone that in a given population of animals, that there are going to be variations among the individuals. You can spend an afternoon at your local shopping mall and see this for yourself.
Likewise, with regards to Statement 2 I think it's clear to most people that genes play a very significant role in what characteristics you have. My blonde hair, my blue eyes, my straight nose, the fact that I have the little dangly bits at the bottom of my earlobe, all these are examples of traits that are caused by genes.
Concerning Statement 3, I hope you already understand that parents pass on their genes to their offspring.
And with Statement 4, I hope that it's fairly clear that different traits can have an effect in how well the animal survives. If an animal has a gene that causes its bones to be slightly more brittle, then that can mean it will suffer a broken bone in a situation where another animal without the genes would not break a bone.
Likewise, with Statement 5, I think it is fairly clear that animals that have traits that help them (such as a slightly thicker coat in a cold climate) are more likely to survive for longer, and thus have more opportunities to reproduce. After all, the longer you live, the more time for breeding.
And as a consequence of the above statements, if an animal is able to reproduce slightly more than the average because it has genes which result in it having some advantage in reproduction (such as a gene which confers a benefit to living longer, or growing larger antlers and driving off rivals, that kind of thing), then the gene for that advantage can be passed to the offspring. And then the offspring will have that same gene. The chance that this gene will be passed on to offspring is going to be a bit higher than the average chance for some random gene to be passed on. Likewise, the gene that causes a disadvantage is going to be LESS likely to be passed on, since it would result in a poorer chance for reproduction, either by means of killing the animal (such as my above brittle bone example) or by making it less likely to breed (smaller antlers which can't drive off competitors).
If you require concrete examples of any of these, please let me know.
No reservations there. It is obvious.Well, let's go through each statement and you can tell me the reservations you have, and I can respond to them.
Do you have any reservations about Statement 1, where I said that different individuals in a population have different traits?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?