Hi there,
So question is:
The glass is half full after all!
So question is:
Get me?Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?
The glass is half full after all!
Get me?Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?
Adaptations happen BECAUSE of mutations.
No.
I think the choice is arbitrary.
Imagine a world where adaptations only happened in one order: in terms of Evolution, there would be far less development to prey upon.
A sufficiently good adaptation, can only help more, if it is able to evolve in that order.
Then you are absolutely wrong.
Yes but what evidence can you give, that Creation didn't decide to mutate later?
You are being unscientific? You should be assuming nothing will interfere with the experiment (as to what can be evolved)?
You can't give any evidence to support your claims, and you never have and never will.
No, I am indifferent to whether mutation or adaptation goes first.
It is you that needs to provide evidence that it only happens one way.
It sounds like your are referring to the idea that God hard-wired or “front-loaded” everything. The problem is, the purveyors of that idea have never produced any scientific evidence for front-loading.Hi there,
So question is:
Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?
Get me?
The glass is half full after all!
Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?
It's a matter of cause and effect.No.
I think the choice is arbitrary.
Imagine a world where adaptations only happened in one order: in terms of Evolution, there would be far less development to prey upon.
A sufficiently good adaptation, can only help more, if it is able to evolve in that order.
If you're indifferent, why did you ask the question "Why don't you adapt first and mutate later?"?
It's a matter of cause and effect.
It's like claiming that something being wet was the cause of pouring water on it, it doesn't make any sense.
People have tried to explain this exact point to you in other threads.
An adaption is a beneficial new variation in a species, new variations are caused by mutation.
It remains arbitrary.
Nothing you have said contradicts the possibility that the batting order could be improved, while the dimensions of the pitch remain the same.
Lamarckism was demonstrated to be wrong because it wasn't supported by evidence, not because someone didn't like the mood of its implications.I don't think that Lamarckism is valid in its own right, that's not progress either.
There should be a choice.
If I developed adaptation after adaptation, and needed to weed them out (for survival reasons), I could easily jettison the more mutated (that would increase my survivability, by reducing the load).
The alternative for you, is too keep mutations, in the hope that the overloading of pressure needed to achieve survival under such conditions, will produce a higher level of spontaneous adaptiveness - gratuitous in every situation, except where you are able to achieve the optimum adaptiveness, for each and every selection pressure, by pure chance.
I'm not saying you can't take that chance (of purity) or even that you can't succeed at it, just that you are not forced to, nor does failing to compromise anything specific, nor does the difficulty of it necessarily win you a greater mate.
I stand by the idea that choosing to adapt on my own, does not immediately compromise my chances at survival.
What I should not need to do, in principle: is compromise adaptations I have already, because of a substandard expectation that mutations are always needed first!
If I belong to a family (even the human family - to wit) my loyalty to the family comes first - I am not allowed to develop a bad attitude, simply because I have pretensions of granduer about what they family should be to me.
Show me how to consistently choose mutation, and I will show you how to consistently adapt (without choice)!
If you knew God, you would not have this problem of how to maintain control over the development of the species: God does not interrupt Evolution, with mutations; nor do mutations represent a point of unchanging failure, that Jesus can't forgive. As long as I am going without a chance to mutate, Evolution dictates that the influence of selection pressures in that circumstance, will continue to produce a load that demands more of the Evolution of the Power of God, than I can hope to have and evolve without Him.
If I have given something up, for God, God promises that I will get more again - if I have given up Evolution for God, God promises that I will get more again (with persecutions, as He said).
It isn't because adaptations aren't chosen and choosing something can't be a mutation.How do you know that choosing adaptations first, was itself not a mutation, to begin with?
The evidence keeps piling up; you don't know how much you need to mutate, without information, and adapting evidently can make something of information without changing it - the being information, is itself its own justification for change.
If adaptations first was itself from a mutation, you could not disavow its efficacy?
To me, its the same thing as God giving me adaptations, without mutation - I can do it perfectly, and not suffer the consequences!
That's what species have been doing from the start: adapting.
You should be focussing on how difficult it is to adapt, without mutating too much.
No mutation is going to give you warning, without also doing damage (in principle).
You have to recognize the mutation in spite of the adaptation, at some point, doing it your way (that's dangerous!).
No but if you adapt first, you know you are not sharing what will be a mutation in a future generation.