Denial of evolution III

Billy T replied:

Enough genetic changes to cause normal development from single cells to produce individuals of a new species.

I have no objection to your calling Darwinian evolution of a new species "variation" instead of the common name (genetic evolution) but you could have avoided a lot of posts by using the standard term and concept.

You are now admitting that evolution to new species proceeds via accumulation of small genetic variations, as was the case of the preá species evolving from the guinea pig species but you prefer to call this "variation." Yes "evolution" is a sub category of the many types of variation that exist.

If it will make you happier, I will modify my original reply to your question (What accumulates?) to be:
Enough genetic variation to cause normal development from single cells to produce individuals of a new species.

The adjective "genetic" makes it clear that the variation is not, for example, climatic mean temperature or rain fall, etc. (and certainly not the shade of blue Ford is currently using to paint cars.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You summarized on the origin of species in one paragraph. Except that Charles was more fond of pigeons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saquist,
these comments of yours reveal you have not even a basic understanding of how mutations occur and influence evolution. The mutations are in the germ cells. There is no transmission from the somatic cells. Lamark is dead. This is fundamental knowledge. It is astounding to me that you would seek to question evolution when you are so deficient in understanding this simple, yet essential aspect of evolutionary mechanism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I'm much more concise than he was.

I hope you imply nothing by this.

 

Naturally I implied something with it, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned the bare hard fact.

pigeons were the iPads of the second half of the 19th century.

 

What's the difference between variation and evolution? Are you referring to Genetic Drift within a population vs genetic variation including new codes?

Exactly correct.

Mutations which occur in body cells (which generally do nothing, but in a worst case scenario result in cancer) do not transmit to germ cells. Only mutations which occur in germ cells or in the first few stages of blastula development will propagate across an entire individual's cells - as a result of all of that child's body cells being a copy of the originating zygote or blastula cells. The farther int he development process a mutation occurs, the fewer cells in the final individual will exhibit the mutation.

You stated that a faster reproductive rate, such as found in insects and smaller mammals would help a gene survive. How?

An important distinction: "if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene". In that case, then, yes, most are harmful. Note that it 70% are harmful as noted in that link, the remaining 30% are either neutral or positive. Those 30% are generally going to be what we are talking about in discussions of evolution; negative genetic mutations will likely not help the individual, and due to the forces you've mentioned before, will result in the earlier death or the lower productive output of the mutated individual, reducing the survival of the mutant gene in the population.

I agree with this completely, but I don't see how it backs your original claim. The level of DNA error checking varies between species, and sometimes a faster mutation rate is more useful than better error checking. For a layman introductions to real-world examples, check out "The Evolution of Aging"

What's the difference?

In order for DNA polymerase and its helper enzymes to do error checking, it has to have something to check its work against. If it creates a sequence of nucleotides randomly, how could error checking occur?

It doesn't work randomly, but instead moves along an unzipped DNA sequence, matching up the existing strand to the new strand it is creating. If it makes a mistake, it can immediately go to the original strand, the "template", to check itself. If the template has a mutation, then the new copy will reflect that error - there's no way for the copy mechanism to know that the code int he existing strand is wrong, so it treats it as correct.

These are not my "views". This is how genes work. It is no more my view than my stating how levers work.

You're effectively saying that you reject macroevolution because you refuse to learn more about how genetics works?

 

Yes. They say Darwin was always on his pigeon; never left the thing alone.

 

“I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know”~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

Your befuddlement does not proceed from a true understanding of what I know. It stems from an inflated sense of your own knowledge. Thus a dubiety of your own perception and willful ignorance. You have been here long enough to know and recall all the factual reasons for my doubt of evolution is not from mere incredulity. I suspect pretense. If your astonishment were genuine your explanation would have been in a layman's tongue. I'm a drafter I wouldn't expect you to know all ISO and ANSI Standards as a geologist.

So I accept your smiting...but it doesn't mean anything.

Variation: version: something a little different from others of the same type;
Accumulation: increase or growth by addition especially when continuous or repeated <accumulation of interest>

I'm not sure if that answers my question.

Number of offspring
By number of mating opportunities. Having a larger population can both hinder and assists mutation survival. More times you play the better the opportunity to win.

This merely shows an understanding of mutations as a high cost in heredity.

Apparently one has a less than 1% viability in mammals and plants.

LOL...No, river-wind this is a post error. I added my response to Ophiolite to your response location. See edited post for clarification.

 

It has just - by my grace - acquired meaning.

Somatic cells are those that perform functions other than reproduction.

Germline cells are those that perform the function of reproduction.

Ophiolite is telling you that the mutations are in the germline cells: eggs, spermatocytes. In other words, such mutations may be transmitted to succeeding generations.

In a broader critique: if you don't know the terminology, you, yourself are putting your discussion at a disadvantage. It does not mean the smiting is meaningless, only that you cannot comprehend how hard you have been hit. I appreciate that as a drafter your field of expertise is not evolution or biology - but then perhaps you see how it would be foolish and ignorant of me to inject myself into the engineering of drafting without understanding anything of its propositions, laws and concepts?

Iceaura: I utterly apologize for my earlier comments on this issue. I was clearly incorrect in my assumptions about the debaters. My sincerest apologies.

 

But if everyone else with a wild-type breeding allele/gene is breeding at the same rate, the chance of such a new allele being permanently incorporated in the same population is still proportionately low.

 

He had his pigeon and ate it too.

 

You will burn in hell for that one.

Which was scientifically proven to be near Australia by Darwin. So you will burn in Australia.

 

YES...I know.
I looked it up as I do with everything but it is his failing that he could not properly communicate that understanding.

I contradict you.
I do not have an obligation to know everything as a student but to make an effort to ask and be willing to be informed. The disadvantage is inevitable and eternal.

The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.~William A. Ward

...And a teacher that swings a blow is to be assiduously avoided .

Far from it. It is by injecting one's-self that one displays interest to expand understanding and knowledge. It is the arrogant and emotionally disabled who are offended by a child's attempt to progress and it is a villain that strikes them down.

 

Actually there's a hell in Michigan USA as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Or, it is yours that you inject yourself into a debate unarmed. That is hardly his failing.

I must rate your response on this point according to your actual "willing[ness] to be informed". How willing are you?

Colourful metaphor. But similarly, no man would waste time spanking a rock.

Really? A child performs progression by urinating in a protective circle? I think you mistake discussion with predestination: you already know where you want your questioning to go, whatever the route it takes.

Let's get back to the topic: you had a counter-argument related to germline mutation, I presume?

 

I contradict you.
It is his failing that he lacks the ability or willingness to be well understood with what he knows to be a non-expert.

Please isolate the parameters.

I would question the wisdom of disciplining an inanimate object that could not produce an error.

Have you seen this behavior before?

You are free to think what ever you wish. But it is none of my concern, sir.

My questions have no particular destination. Does yours?

No. Only questions.
To which no one has answered or understood despite the simplicity.

 

This smug superiority of yours is completely counter-productive if your goal is indeed to learn. Wouldn't it be more useful to engage people in a manner that is conducive to them feeling motivated to ensure that your understanding improves? Right now all you're doing is inviting pointless egotistical battles that are destined to frequently veer off-topic.

 

I'm sorry, I have no interest in discussing inferiority complexes.
It's off topic.

The only manner I wish to conduct is objectivity.
I dismiss all else despite the emotional repercussions.

I have never given an invitation for these individuals to expend their egos in this discussion. This is their method of persuasion. They believe accreditation, consensus and ridicule are either effective teaching methods or proper debating strategy. I do not. What your perception labels "superior" my thinking-self defines as self control. It serves to avoid the emotional attachment to my argument and dismisses the use of emotional appeals stripping away the superfluous and irrelevant for the simple facts. And I have learned much just by dissecting their statements, verifying and cross checking wiki, library and with my personal data base of relevant data I've been collecting.

So if they are offended by my dismissing their attempts to ridicule I'm sure you can imagine I'm having a difficult time mustering sympathy for these individuals that feel the need strike out verbally. River-wind has been conducting himself most amicably ever since I have known him and I've never had to stroke his ego to get objective information. He is a model atheist and member of this forum. Thus I learn more from him and understand him better as a fellow human being. I don't have to undergo the arduous task of stripping his statements of the ad hominems, personal agendas and emotionalisms. It's just black and white and it typically has me running for sources or asking questions. (which is when we really get some where)

 

then why no reply to this post?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2683592&postcount=961

It is mainly a clarification of terms used, that concluded with your being in basic agreement with evolution, but only wanting to call it "accumulated variation" instead of the more generally used terms.

 

We will be frank: you are a Christian theist. Your answers will drive in the direction of that conclusion, all evidence to the contrary. Otherwise: prove me wrong.

Then phrase your question to me, and I will judge its merit.