Darwin's Illusion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are accusing @LIIA for making mistakes and you are not even willing to quote such mistakes

Why should anybody have to go back and find anything for you, Leroy?

I just rebutted LIIA as well. Did you see the post? Did you understand what you read? If so, you can make your own list of what I considered mistakes of his and the reasons why.

If you're not interested in paying that much attention to the words when you first see them, then you will miss many. I've explained this to you, and showed you how to do better, but as others note, the problem is your inefficient comprehension and retention, not that the information isn't being provided. You ask for your questions to be answered again and again, but you will be evaluating them with the same apparatus that missed the answers the first time. People aren't motivated to contribute to that.

Even though you stated that you have reading comprehension problems, you appear to remain oblivious to how that contributes to this problem.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why? Because by definition natural selection can only act upon beneficial (or negative) mutations

Neutral mutations by definition are invisible for natural selection……………… that is literally the definition of “neutral” in this context.

Do I really have to support this?

There are, unfortunately, mutations of

Can you quote an example where that was obverved in popluations that reproduce sexually?


Sure it happens but that mechanism cant be an important contributor.....it is so rare and so unlikely that is not relevant.


I have arround 3 billion base pairs in my genome

So imagine that I was born with a neutral mutation in base pair number 1,000

And imagine that a mutation in base pair number 2000 would also be neutral by itself .... but the combo of the 2 mutations would resoult in a bebefit.

What are the odds that me or any of my descendents have a random mutation in that specific spot?

The mutation rate is about 100 mutations per generation.

So you have 100 shots and you have to hit a specific target amoug 3Billion posibilities.

The probability is 3,000,000,000 / 100 = 30,000,000

Since the first mutation is neutral, it is unlikely to survive much, (genetic dirift will remove it)


So sure it can happen , but not very often

Some people don't like to "reveal themselves."

 

[YoursTrue]

I did my graduate studies in anthropology at Wayne State University whereas there's on-going studies on this process using fruit flies as they reproduce rather rapidly. By keeping the gene pools smaller, a new fruit type of fruit fly will emerge roughly 10 years that is a different species. Selective breeding can shorten that process but the time it takes is not uniform.

BTW, no genetic engineering is used in that study.

Fruit flies are said by scientists to become something other than fruitflies I suppose maybe? NO ONE SAYS DIFFERENT TYPES OF FRUIT FLIES ARE NOT PRODUCED.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am asking what claim should I support....what "rules" of debate am I breaking?


Ohhhh yea you have your own language.....maybe debate means something else in your language

Debate means that some are right and anyone that disagrees with them are wrong. Period. Fruit flies are the proof. Oh, no proof. Fruit flies become something else but no validation of that, only maybe conjecture.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How is genetic engineering relevant to random mutation/evolution? what is the point?

You were saying that the genes cannot be modified.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In any case, an allele variant is neither a new gene nor gives rise to new gene.
Agreed, Natural Selection cannot generate new genes.

Do we have the same genes that Prokaryotes had? How did new genes come, hand of Allah?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is your point? If you reject the alleged evolutionary line from fish to humans, then I agree.

I don't reject 'fish to humans evolution'. The image makes it clear. Tiktaalik belonged to a different branch.
Our branch was Tristichopteridae.
"Tristichopterids (Tristichopteridae) were a diverse and successful group of tetrapodomorph fishes living throughout the Middle and Late Devonian. They first appeared in the Eifelian stage of the Middle Devonian. Within the group sizes ranged from a few tens of centimeters (Tristichopterus) to several meters (Hyneria and Eusthenodon)."

Tristichopteridae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[metis]

This coming from a deluded atheist of all things.

Are you a "deluded theist"? Just asken for a friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This coming from a deluded atheist of all things.

I think that even the theists here will see that I am not the deluded one.

I gave you a reasonable challenge. Try to make a rational argument point by point. If you make a long post that is a huge risk. A person can stop at your first error, point it out to you, and the rest of that long post is just garbage. There is no need to refute it.

If you try to form a proper argument you might learn something. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fruit flies are said by scientists to become something other than fruitflies I suppose maybe? NO ONE SAYS DIFFERENT TYPES OF FRUIT FLIES ARE NOT PRODUCED.

And we see the return of the flawed argument that does not realize that she is still an ape and that all of her children will be apes.

You are only confirming the theory of evolution with this argument. That is what the theory tells us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were saying that the genes cannot be modified.

He has to keep moving the goalposts. It started out as "there is no new information". I then pointed out that every mutation is by definition "new information' even if it is garbage information. He then took quite a leap to "no new genes" even though an allele is a "new gene". It may be doing the same job but it is still a different gene. And of course as changes accumulate it may start to do have a secondary function and eventually that can become its main function. Once one acknowledges the obvious, that the genome does change, and realizes that natural selection allows the garbage to be left behind and that only functioning genes will continue one has to realize that evolution is a fact.

 

[leroy]

I am not sure if I agree with Metis, but your math is terribly wrong. You need to study lotteries a bit more. Lotteries do not have just one person entered at a time.

Let's consider again. Yes, we acquire about 100 mutations per generation. Those do not just "disappear". Your two parents had 100 mutations each and you had 100 from them combined, the same applies to all of the generations before you. You are the most recent edition of an ever increasing number of mutations. So it is just not those two mutations that could combine and work together. There are countless possible matches. I would hate to try to calculate the odds. But with more players there is a greater chance of a winner.

Your mistake is looking at just John J Smith of 111 Main st. winning the lottery when you should be looking at the odds of someone winning the lottery.

Yes of there where many possible "combos" or matches the odds would increase, but I dont think there is evidence for "many possible matches"

winning the lottery when you should be looking at the odds of someone winning the lottery.

Yes that is what I did. Any of my descendats could win the loterry (well only thise who share the first neutral mutation)


But I fact o do appriciate your fedback and the fact that you made an honest effort in understanding the argument

 

[leroy]

I did my graduate studies in anthropology at Wayne State University whereas there's on-going studies on this process using fruit flies as they reproduce rather rapidly. By keeping the gene pools smaller, a new type of fruit fly will emerge roughly 10 years that is a different species. Selective breeding can shorten that process but the time it takes is not uniform.

BTW, no genetic engineering is used in that study.

Was a combo if 2 neutral mutations, where the pair is positive observed in those flies?

 

[metis]

Was a combo if 2 neutral mutations, where the pair is positive observed in those flies?

How are you defining "neutral mutations" as I never have run across such a thing when learning genetics as no mutation is "neutral"? Are you referring to when a mutation is a stand-alone [genotype] and has not yet "met its match" [phenotype]?

BTW, leaving shortly until Monday, so have a nice weekend.

 

[leroy]

Why should anybody have to go back and find anything for you, Leroy?

I just rebutted LIIA as well. Did you see the post? Did you understand what you read? If so, you can make your own list of what I considered mistakes of his and the reasons why.

If you're not interested in paying that much attention to the words when you first see them, then you will miss many. I've explained this to you, and showed you how to do better, but as others note, the problem is your inefficient comprehension and retention, not that the information isn't being provided. You ask for your questions to be answered again and again, but you will be evaluating them with the same apparatus that missed the answers the first time. People aren't motivated to contribute to that.

Even though you stated that you have reading comprehension problems, you appear to remain oblivious to how that contributes to this problem.

just rebutted LIIA as well

Your rebuttal was full of mistakes and logical falacies.

 

[leroy]

How are you defining "neutral mutations" as I never have run across such a thing when learning genetics as no mutation is "neutral"? Are you referring to when a mutation is a stand-alone [genotype] and has not yet "met its match" [phenotype]?

BTW, leaving shortly until Monday, so have a nice weekend.

Mutations that dont affect significantly the probability of surviving and reproducing successfully ..... that is what is meant by neutral mutations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes of there where many possible "combos" or matches the odds would increase, but I dont think there is evidence for "many possible matches"

Why not? You appear to be now making the mistake of assuming a goal to evolution. There is no goal. It only needs to improve any gene somehow and it would lead to an improvement. @metis told you of his experience. I am sure that if you did a proper search of Google Scholar that you would find all sorts of articles on that sort of improvement. In other words it is hypothesized and observed. Sounds pretty solid to me.

Yes that is what I did. Any of my descendats could win the loterry (well only thise who share the first neutral mutation)


But I fact o do appriciate your fedback and the fact that you made an honest effort in understanding the argument

LOL!! No, no, so close. I refuted the argument. I wish that I could say that you made an honest attempt to understand it, but that does not seem to be the case. Reality, actual observed experiments, demonstrate that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your rebuttal was full of mistakes and logical falacies.

You need to be able to point them out and explain how they are mistakes and fallacies. I doubt if you can do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How are you defining "neutral mutations" as I never have run across such a thing when learning genetics as no mutation is "neutral"? Are you referring to when a mutation is a stand-alone [genotype] and has not yet "met its match" [phenotype]?

BTW, leaving shortly until Monday, so have a nice weekend.

Have a great weekend!

 

[metis]

Mutations that dont affect significantly the probability of surviving and reproducing successfully ..... that is what is meant by neutral mutations.

My last post before leaving.

There is no way to anticipate if a mutation will ever become a phenotype nor whether it will or will not enhance survivability.