leroy
Well-Known Member
Yes that is exactly how I have always defined random in this thread.
.
Obviously true, but try convincing @shunyadragon who seems to reject that idea
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Yes that is exactly how I have always defined random in this thread.
.
Obviously true, but try convincing @shunyadragon who seems to reject that idea
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It doesn't change anything about the mutations being radnom to fitness.
As I'm sure @shunyadragon will agree with.
Yes scientists disagree on the 'details' of evolution, and not specifically what you call non-random mutations.
Eugenics does play a role in the complexity and diversity of life, but you misrepresent eugenics, and compare it to the rejected and out of date Lemarkian inherited charactoristics
Yes I agree, but wording is important; the timing of the emutations is random to fitness. What @ Leroy over states is the degree organisms determine mutations based on 'need.' Various non-random processes of organism do influence and determine the type of mutations, but it is not based on anthropomorphic 'need.' Evolution involves natural processes of the whole organism, and the larger population Evolution takes place in populations.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
@leroy See? How come I realised this instantly while you still haven't figured it out after all these pages?
Anthropomorphic wording for the influence of natural metabolic processes that influence how mutations take place.
.
leroy
Well-Known Member
You just said that the environment can change the hot spots…………so which one is it? Do you accept that at least some mutations are not random? Yes or no……
you said:
Implying that the environment determines (at some degree) the probability of a mutation-.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Really? Explain to me with your own words what shun tried to say
That is just a random combination of words intended to avoid a direct answer……..
leroy
Well-Known Member
and if you have time @TagliatelliMonster can you expalin to me what shun meant?.
'To some degree' is the issue. All organisms to a 'degree' the metabolic processes influence and interact with the DNA to influence the process.
Kick out 'probability' here, because it is too subjective, often misused as is all statistics, and often agenda oriented. Some use of probability is relavant to the science of genetics, but it needs to very carefully defined for a purpose.
Example; 'Natural Genetic Engineering.'
leroy
Well-Known Member
I never said “anthropomorphic need” once again you made another dishonest stawman….so ill ask again ¿are you sure you are not a YEC? You seem to be using the same dishonest tactics that they tend to use…
What I did say is that at least some mutations (or some hereditable variations) are not random, in the sense that the mutation is more likely to occur if the organism would benefit from it. ……. So do you agree or not?
leroy
Well-Known Member
aja Natural Genetic Engineering what?
leroy
Well-Known Member
I simply meant that the “needs” (selective pressures) can influence the occurrence of a mutation such that the organism would benefit from such mutation….
For example a mutation X that would cause resistance to antibiotics, is more likely to occure in the presence of antibiotics than whiteout antibiotics … this is what I mean by non random mutations………….so do you accept that atleast some mutations are not random?
I am using the term “mutation” in a wide sense to refer to any hereditable change in the traits of the organism
My previous references, which you choose to dismiss addressed this:
Evolution: A View from the 21st Century
"My final disagreement with Jim's general argument concerns a truly fundamental point, however: the dismissal of natural selection as a shaping force in evolution. Thus, it is stated, at the very start of the book (top of p. 1): “Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation and novelty, selection has nothing to act upon.” Although all evolutionists would agree wholeheartedly with the second sentence, most would reject the first. The matter of selection is then virtually ignored until the final section of the book. There we read, as one of nine bullet points that summarize the core message: “The role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection operates as a purifying but not creative force [emphasis added].”
I cannot imagine many evolutionary biologists subscribing to that position. The objections to it come from both genetic arguments and paleontological data. Take the genetic considerations first. In microbes, the number of steps between a genetic change and its phenotypic consequences is usually small, often being simply the function of an altered encoded protein. One might say that, in general, within prokaryotes, the “genotype–phenotype distance” is short. The consequence is a fairly direct and predictable biological consequence, whose selective consequences (favorable or unfavorable) are often easy to predict. In contrast, in complex multicellular organisms, the genotype–phenotype distance is large, the effects of most genetic changes being transmitted through complex genetic networks and cellular changes. These, which can be diagrammed as a linear sequence (though often embedded within larger branching networks), constitute a large sequence of steps, one that eventuates in morphological change. Furthermore, the genetic change often has pleiotropic consequences. The net result of all these complexities is that the biological consequences of a genetic (or stable epigenetic) change are often both indirect and mixed. In such situations, there will be trade-offs between biological fitness gains and losses for each resultant change. Natural selection must comprise an important part of the process that either filters out or amplifies the effect of most such changes."
Yes, it is an anthropomorphic use of terms not found in the research of other scientists as a process of evolution mechanism. Also . .
My previous references, which you choose to dismiss addressed this:
Evolution: A View from the 21st Century
"My final disagreement with Jim's general argument concerns a truly fundamental point, however: the dismissal of natural selection as a shaping force in evolution. Thus, it is stated, at the very start of the book (top of p. 1): “Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation and novelty, selection has nothing to act upon.” Although all evolutionists would agree wholeheartedly with the second sentence, most would reject the first. The matter of selection is then virtually ignored until the final section of the book. There we read, as one of nine bullet points that summarize the core message: “The role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection operates as a purifying but not creative force [emphasis added].”
I cannot imagine many evolutionary biologists subscribing to that position. The objections to it come from both genetic arguments and paleontological data. Take the genetic considerations first. In microbes, the number of steps between a genetic change and its phenotypic consequences is usually small, often being simply the function of an altered encoded protein. One might say that, in general, within prokaryotes, the “genotype–phenotype distance” is short. The consequence is a fairly direct and predictable biological consequence, whose selective consequences (favorable or unfavorable) are often easy to predict. In contrast, in complex multicellular organisms, the genotype–phenotype distance is large, the effects of most genetic changes being transmitted through complex genetic networks and cellular changes. These, which can be diagrammed as a linear sequence (though often embedded within larger branching networks), constitute a large sequence of steps, one that eventuates in morphological change. Furthermore, the genetic change often has pleiotropic consequences. The net result of all these complexities is that the biological consequences of a genetic (or stable epigenetic) change are often both indirect and mixed. In such situations, there will be trade-offs between biological fitness gains and losses for each resultant change. Natural selection must comprise an important part of the process that either filters out or amplifies the effect of most such changes." .
leroy
Well-Known Member
And again for the 10th time………..can you quote any of my comments that is in disagreement with anything said in your source
Ok. Maybe he should have used other words that sound “less anthropomorphic” to your ears…
Been there and done that. It appears you have English skills limitation.
leroy
Well-Known Member
No you are lying……
Quote any comments that I have made in this thread that is in contradiction with any of the sources that you have quoted
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
No one would argue that there is disagreement in the scientific community about most theories in science so the theory of evolution is no acceptation. So what is your real point. If it is only to say that not all scientists think the same then there is no discussion since variation in ideas keeps the theory moving forward.
Epigenetics does not cause permanent changes in the dna sequence. Yes they are inheritable up to an extent but not in the same way that mutations are. Epigenetics affects the expression of the current DNA sequence. There is a difference.
So yes I disagree since there is a difference in regulating the phenotypic expression that epigenetics can do compared to permanent changes in the DNA sequence. Both are important but they are not the same.