What’s your problem?

[gluadys]

Aren't mutations infrequent? Because if what you say is the case, then mutations are not infrequent, but happens each and everytime an offspring is made.

In complex species mutations do happen each and every time an offspring is made. In mammals (including humans of course) each offspring carries on average about 120 mutations.

Of course, most have no effect, and of those that do, most have such a small effect that they are neutral in regard to fitness.

This being the case, I can go back to my earlier point of there being far too many different types of genes in the gene pool that would be passed on, and differention offspring to the point that they are too different to even be called a population.

It's hard to believe in evolution.

Did you read anything I posted earlier about gene fixation? Remember that as mutations increase variability, selection is acting at the same time to decrease variability and preserve basic forms.

We could get 100 different genes for hair colour because that doesn't affect fitness, so the variability doesn't hurt. But we don't get real people with multiple pairs of legs and arms like Hindu gods, because the two pairs of limbs was fixed long ago in the basic tetrapod form and that hasn't changed.

As an adaptive mutation spreads through a population, the original unadapted form disappears, so there is no net increase in the number of genes in the gene pool.

 

[gluadys]

then sadly it appears you weren't paying attention when I explained this to you before. Remmber that the breeding population and hence the number of alleles that can make up the offspring in the population is finite.

How can it be finite, when new alleles are passed on every generation?

Your question does not make sense. I expect the reason it does not make sense is becuase you are not clear as to what a gene pool is.

The size of a gene pool of a species is limited by the size of the species population.

If the human population consisted of 10 people, the gene pool relative to each gene would consist of 20 genes.

Do you understand why?

If all were identical at some point in time, there would be no choice as to the allele to pass on to a newly-conceived child. Mother and father would both have identical alleles to contribute to their child.

However, if either the sperm or the egg contained a mutation, then the child would have one mutated and one ordinary gene.

Now lets allow for one death to keep the population at 10 when the child is born. Now we still have a gene pool of 20, but they are no longer all identical. 19 are the same, but one allele is different.

If this allele offers a fitness advantage, then in each generation it will spread to more individuals. So still keeping the population constant you will at some point find that 10 of the 20 genes are copies of the original mutant, and only 10 copies remained of the original non-mutated gene. And eventually all 20 of the genes in our population of 10 people will be copies of the mutated gene.

And now we are back to the original scenario: 10 people, 20 identical genes. But its a different gene than the population began with.

 

[gluadys]

From what you've been demonstrating, there is no theory of evolution, only a convenientient word to apply when GOD is excluded. Evolutionists really have not have a clue it seems very evident

I have never claimed that evolution only happens when God is excluded. In fact, I hold the opposite position. Evolution only happens when God is not excluded.

 

[gluadys]

At the same time, there's no reason to assume that they did happen, nor is there any reason to believe that they happened as evolution says it did---which is a way which is a huge shot in the dark. And if there's no real reason to believe this, there's no real reason to believe in evolution, which is full of many other speculative things.

If you believe that God created a world of orderly continuity, there is every reason to believe they did happen.

 

[gluadys]

It's the exact same concept? You mean that even though we know that mutations are rare and infrequent, there's no reason to believe it happened in the past? Just like with car accidents?

If u say so.

Gee, shinbits, that's almost as bad as Liitle Nip.

What he means is that even though we know that mutations are rare and infrequent, there is every reason to believe it happened in the past---just like car accidents.

 

[Jet Black]

At the same time, there's no reason to assume that they did happen, nor is there any reason to believe that they happened as evolution says it did---which is a way which is a huge shot in the dark. And if there's no real reason to believe this, there's no real reason to believe in evolution, which is full of many other speculative things.

but the point is, that they happen through natural physical processes. and if natural physical processes are the same in the past as they are now, then mutations will have happened.

 

[shinbits]

In complex species mutations do happen each and every time an offspring is made. In mammals (including humans of course) each offspring carries on average about 120 mutations.

Of course, most have no effect, and of those that do, most have such a small effect that they are neutral in regard to fitness.

Most mutations have no effect.....and of those that do, they have such a small effect that they are neutral in regard to fitness---yet you believe that this is enough evidence to prove that creatures evolved into a new species?

You see nothing wrong with that?

If you believe that God created a world of orderly continuity, there is every reason to believe they did happen.

Completely random and unorderly occuring mutations are not orderly continuity. So there is no reason to believe that they did happen. Furthermore, there's even less reason to believe they happened as evolution claimed it did.

 

[shinbits]

but the point is, that they happen through natural physical processes. and if natural physical processes are the same in the past as they are now, then mutations will have happened.

True. I agree with you. Mutations probably did happen.

But there's no reason at all to believe that they happened as evolution says it did---that is far to improbable, as well as unprovable.

 

[shinbits]

Gee, shinbits, that's almost as bad as Liitle Nip.

Yeah, I just felt like being a little difficult with that comment, and see what everyone says. I'll respond correctly from now on.

And what's wrong with Little Nip? Don't let 'em getcha down, Nip.

What he means is that even though we know that mutations are rare and infrequent, there is every reason to believe it happened in the past---just like car accidents.

Yeah, I know. But what you don't know about past car crashes---unless it was documented---is the circumstances of how or when or who was involved. The mutations that supposedly happened in the past were not documented. So there'd be no way to know that these mutations, if they did happen, occured in a way that set in motion an evolutionary process that resulted in a population becoming a new species.

 

[Jet Black]

And what's wrong with Little Nip? Don't let 'em getcha down, Nip.

The problem with LittleNipper is that he is just abrasive, is incoherent and doesn't actually make any arguments other then going round claiming everything is false. THis is where you differ and why I have time for you. you actually make proper arguments that can be discussed.

The mutations that supposedly happened in the past were not documented. So there'd be no way to know that these mutations, if they did happen, occured in a way that set in motion an evolutionary process that resulted in a population becoming a new species.

if you are going to rely on documentation for everything, you have the same problem with nuclear fusion. Since the fusion reactions in the core of the sun were not documented, how do you know that the nuclear fusion ever happened? In fact, prety much everything goes out of the window then, because the vast majority of everything ever has gone undocumented, so you don't know if it hever happened in the past. I doubt murdeders carefully document their crimes. The egyptians didn't carefully document the construction of the pyramids, the sun hasn't been carefully documented coming up every day for the past millions of years, so how do you know any of these things happened?

The point is that all the things you are complaining about happen right here, right now because of common physical processes. and if the common physical processes are the same as they were, then these processes will have happened in the past too. There is documentation in a sense, it is documentation in the genomes themselves. The evidence is in that many species are polymorphic for a wide variety of features that could not have all been contained in a single limited gene pool.

 

[Jet Black]

True. I agree with you. Mutations probably did happen.

But there's no reason at all to believe that they happened as evolution says it did---that is far to improbable, as well as unprovable.

ok. so now what do you mean by "as evolution said it did" do you mean that these mutations did not create phenotypical variety within the population?

 

[shinbits]

ok. so now what do you mean by "as evolution said it did" do you mean that these mutations did not create phenotypical variety within the population?

Evolution assumes what sort of envirormental pressures may have been around and assumes what types of information may have been passed on as a result. Of course, you must also assume that they were passed on, and also assume those genes didn't disapear in the course of time, as you've said does happen.

 

[Jet Black]

Evolution assumes what sort of envirormental pressures may have been around

no not really. See if we look at the areas where fossils are found it can be very informative. For example Tiktaalik, the fish/tetrapod we are discussin on the other thread. What we know about the environment there is that it is in a shallow tropical river basin. Other fossils also indicate the environments that they are found in, so from those environments, we can see what many of the pressures were.

and assumes what types of information may have been passed on as a result.

well the mutations are passed on as a result of meiosis.

Of course, you must also assume that they were passed on, and also assume those genes didn't disapear in the course of time, as you've said does happen.

many will have disappeared of course, but the statistical likelihood of all mutations ever disappearing are incredibly slim. Furthermore, when mutations do have some phenotypical effect, that will automatically create a pressure, which will determine whether individuals with that particular mutation propagate more or less than average. We dno't have to assume, because we know these things do happen, and they happen because of very simple logical ideas: offspring are not identical to their parents, and are not identical to their siblings. Resources are limited. The differences between the offspring will affect their chances of reproduction.

 

[shinbits]

no not really. See if we look at the areas where fossils are found it can be very informative. For example Tiktaalik, the fish/tetrapod we are discussin on the other thread. What we know about the environment there is that it is in a shallow tropical river basin. Other fossils also indicate the environments that they are found in, so from those environments, we can see what many of the pressures were.

This assumption is being made on based on the current envirornment it was found in. If the earth has been evolving, as well as as the plants and animals surrounding it, then you can't use the current envirornment as information on how it may have lived. You can only assume what may have happened, how it may have lived and interacted with it's envirornment--- and you can only assume what kind of envirornment may have been around, if the earth is indeed "millions" of years old.

many will have disappeared of course, but the statistical likelihood of all mutations ever disappearing are incredibly slim.

Are u serious? You're using this as an argument for evolution, when the likelyhood of evolution itself is incredibly slim statisticswise?

 

[Jet Black]

This assumption is being made on based on the current envirornment it was found in. If the earth has been evolving, as well as as the plants and animals surrounding it, then you can't use the current envirornment as information on how it may have lived.

what do you mean "the earth has been evolving" you mean the laws of physics have been changing or something?

You can only assume what may have happened, how it may have lived and interacted with it's envirornment--- and you can only assume what kind of envirornment may have been around, if the earth is indeed "millions" of years old.

again, you seem to be suggesting that deduction is a useless tool.

Are u serious? You're using this as an argument for evolution, when the likelyhood of evolution itself is incredibly slim statisticswise?

you are making baseless claims when you say "the likelyhood[sic] of evolution itself is incredibly slim statisticswise[sic]"

and no, I wasn't saying that, I was making the point that the odds of all mutations ever disappearing are incredibly slim. I mean, we can see that they don't - look at the instance of sickle celled anaemia in sub saharan africa. that must have been a mutation right, so why is there so much of it?

 

[shinbits]

what do you mean "the earth has been evolving" you mean the laws of physics have been changing or something?

Does evolution say that the earth evolved or that it was created?

again, you seem to be suggesting that deduction is a useless tool.

If you don't know what kind of envirornment animal was in, and don't know how it reacted to it's envirornment or the other animals around it, you can't deduce anything. You can only assume.

you are making baseless claims when you say "the likelyhood[sic] of evolution itself is incredibly slim statisticswise[sic]"

Mutations are purely random. In addition to this, some mutations randomly disapear, either by simply not being there anymore as the lineage continues, as you've pointed out happens, or by being stopped in its tracks by not even being able to be passed on---all more random events, in addition to random mutations.

In light of this, my claim is not baseless; evolution relies on chance, which also happens to be incredibly slim.

 

[Dannager]

Does evolution say that the earth evolved or that it was created?

Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about how earth came to be. Earth could have spontaneously popped into existence fully formed before the first lifeform reproduced and evolutionary theory would remain the same. Earth's creation is outside the pervue of evolutionary theory.

Mutations are purely random.

Sure, but natural selection isn't.

In addition to this, some mutations randomly disapear, either by simply not being there anymore as the lineage continues, as you've pointed out happens, or by being stopped in its tracks by not even being able to be passed on---all more random events, in addition to random mutations.

Perhaps fundamentally random, but not unpredictable.

In light of this, my claim is not baseless; evolution relies on chance, which also happens to be incredibly slim.

Chance is a factor, and without it evolution would not function, but it is reliant upon a number of things. The element of chance is still likely enough that evolution occurs, and that is all that is necessary.

 

[shinbits]

Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about how earth came to be. Earth could have spontaneously popped into existence fully formed before the first lifeform reproduced and evolutionary theory would remain the same. Earth's creation is outside the pervue of evolutionary theory.

This is true.

Perhaps fundamentally random, but not unpredictable.

How do you predict random mutations of organisms that are believed to have lived millions of years ago?

Chance is a factor, and without it evolution would not function, but it is reliant upon a number of things. The element of chance is still likely enough that evolution occurs, and that is all that is necessary.

Okay. I personally, have a different view. I hope my reasons for why I believe the element of chance is not likely enough that evolution occurs at least makes sense to you.

 

[Dannager]

How do you predict random mutations of organisms that are believed to have lived millions of years ago?

Generally you don't. That's not to say it can't be done - remember, we're not predicting the mutations themselves, only the ones that are most likely to perpetuate and survive. These predictions are largely based upon the environment (in many cases, solely based upon the environment). However, it is more feasible, and often done, to make predictions on current mutations. That's a very significant part of how biologists handle vaccines, for instance.

Okay. I personally, have a different view. I hope my reasons for why I believe the element of chance is not likely enough that evolution occurs at least makes sense to you.

I can understand the skepticism, certainly. It is difficult to fathom the perpetuation of a cycle steeped in a process with a chance of "success" so low. It's never good to cow to what boils down to an argument from incredulity, though. It should evoke suspicion and reason to investigate further, but such healthy skepticism is not the same thing as evidence against.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I hope my reasons for why I believe the element of chance is not likely enough that evolution occurs at least makes sense to you.

Okay, it seems that we have jumped to a new misunderstanding here. While it seems you’ve dropped your objections about accepting the fact that mutations happened, now you say that the “element of chance” (in reference to these mutations) “is not likely enough that evolution occurs”. This is where natural selection comes in. Natural selection is NOT random. If you have two eagles born into a population, one with good eyesight and one with poor eyesight, which one is more likely to survive and reproduce? The one with poor eyesight will die and never pass on that trait. Do you understand how the two work together now?