Evolution is not random -here's why

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If our reality is designed, then the singular obvious purpose is to confound us.

See, that's called noticing the obvious, and trying to incorporate it into your understanding. How rational of you...

 

[Cooky]

Please forgive me for saying so, but that statement about what is possible and what isn't is completely ignorant. Eyes have evolved many times, in many different ways, to accomplish essentially the same thing.

Leibniz and Newton invented calculus entirely independently of one another, and at around the same time. Shouldn't that be "impossible," too?

Well that's very interesting -these convergent concepts. I'd like to delve into that a little more.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most new mutations are going to become lost due to their rareness (even if the mutations are beneficial); however, very small effects on reproduction or survival may greatly impact the long-term rates at which various mutations accumulate in particular genes and at particular sites within genes. This results in a pattern of evolutionary change that appears nonrandom and is actually nonrandom; some sites rarely change, others change occasionally, while others change relatively more often.

But in the end, they only thing that really matters is not that they were random or nonrandom mutations, but that they have an impact on reproductive success...and therefore carry themselves forward, or not. And if you really stop to think about it, and do the math, that process is cumulative, in the way that compound interest is.

 

[Cooky]

I know it means you have a very limited or no knowledge of the science of evolution, and genetics, and you have a religious Intelligent Design agenda.

No you do actually. You're an ID creationist!

 

[Cooky]

The fact that you ended with "Somehow," really does suggest that you have no interest in finding out how, but would prefer to simply believe in the impossibility. That's too bad.

Is that what you think?

 

[Cooky]

Oh..! One more thing, since we're on the topic... How do mutations progress? Using the flying rodent as an example, a mutation occurred, and then two mutated animals reproduced over and over, but why or how did the mutation continue on into full blown patagiums?

I understand natural selection, but the mutation itself is a seperate issue.

...Is there some kind of gene that furthers specific mutations to increase?

 

[Cooky]

Because chalking it up to natural selection seems like putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Kirran]

Oh..! One more thing, since we're on the topic... How do mutations progress? Using the flying rodent as an example, a mutation occurred, and then two mutated animals reproduced over and over, but why or how did the mutation continue on into full blown patagiums?

I understand natural selection, but the mutation itself is a seperate issue.

...Is there some kind of gene that furthers specific mutations to increase?

There isn't a sense in which a mutation can increase. A form of a gene different to that previously prevalent in the population can arise through mutation, and can be either heterozygous or homozygous (i.e. one or two copies), but it can't really increase. Further phenotypic changes will occur through further mutations.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh..! One more thing, since we're on the topic... How do mutations progress? Using the flying rodent as an example, a mutation occurred, and then two mutated animals reproduced over and over, but why or how did the mutation continue on into full blown patagiums?

Natural selection.

I understand natural selection, but the mutation itself is a seperate issue.

Not really. Natural selection results in proliferation of beneficial genes. It's very much related.

...Is there some kind of gene that furthers specific mutations to increase?

No, it's natural selection.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because chalking it up to natural selection seems like putting the cart before the horse.

How so? Without natural selection, mutations are completely irrelevant and can't result in any significant changes in allele frequency at all.

 

[PruePhillip]

I believe it's called "convergent evolution". I find it extremely bazaar and highly unlikely. So unlikely, that it is impossible. It should be clear that mutations are not random, but are based on environmental needs. Somehow.

Different animals approached flight from different environmental and physiological directions.
That's all.
Of interest is the statement in Genesis that God commanded the seas to bring forth life. And
from the seas came birds.

 

[Cooky]

How so? Without natural selection, mutations are completely irrelevant and can't result in any significant changes in allele frequency at all.

Because natural selection cannot 'create' a mutation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because natural selection cannot 'create' a mutation.

It's not supposed to. It selects the mutations that confer benefits.

 

[Cooky]

It's not supposed to. It selects the mutations that confer benefits.

Right. So when a squirrel grows a little tiny extra flap, it takes millions more mutations before the whole patagium is developed. Mutations. Not natural selection but mutations.

This plays into the ever-interesting "convergence" we see in biology so often.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right. So when a squirrel grows a little tiny extra flap, it takes millions more mutations before the whole patagium is developed. Mutations. Not natural selection but mutations.

Except that tiny little extra flap would only proliferate if it conferred some form of evolutionary advantage, thus it's driven by natural selection. The mutation of the flap itself is pointless if you don't consider whether or not it increases or decreases the likelihood of the organism's genes spreading. It simply makes sense that if a particular feature confers a distinct evolutionary advantage in multiple environments, mutations that result in that feature - or some variation of it - will be selected for through environmental attrition.

 

[Cooky]

Except that tiny little extra flap would only proliferate if it conferred some form of evolutionary advantage, thus it's driven by natural selection. The mutation of the flap itself is pointless if you don't consider whether or not it increases or decreases the likelihood of the organism's genes spreading. It simply makes sense that if a particular feature confers a distinct evolutionary advantage in multiple environments, mutations that result in that feature - or some variation of it - will be selected for through environmental attrition.

How exactly does natural selection make a tiny flap turn into a full blown patagium? Natural selection makes cells increase how?

Or are you saying that successful mating further activates more recent mutations to mutate further in that same area?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How exactly does natural selection make a tiny flap turn into a full blown patagium? Natural selection makes cells increase how?

Once again, natural selection doesn't do anything to the cells. When a mutation is beneficial to the survivability of an organism and its likelihood to produce fertile offspring, natural selection enables that mutation to proliferate. To talk about mutations and not include natural selection when discussing evolution is like discussing building a car without acknowledging the existence of physics. You can build a car any way you like - without physical forces to actually make the car go, you're not actually discussing anything that makes sense.

Or are you saying that successful mating further activates more recent mutations to mutate further in that same area?

That's not how evolution works. Mutations are random, but those mutations only matter if they produce a tangible impact on the success of an organisms ability to survive and/or reproduce. If "a small flap of skin" confers an evolutionary advantage, it will proliferate within a population. If small changes and advancements to that "flap of skin" confer further advantages, the same will happen. Evolution doesn't produce a change with the intent of "doing something else with it later".

 

[tas8831]

I believe it's called "convergent evolution". I find it extremely bazaar and highly unlikely. So unlikely, that it is impossible. It should be clear that mutations are not random, but are based on environmental needs. Somehow.

And we should care that YOU find this "extremely bazaar [sic] and highly unlikely. So unlikely, that it is impossible"?

Let us see your math and your research, such that you can make so confident a proclamation. And no - googling a few pictures and declaring it all impossible is NOT research.

 

[tas8831]

The law of probability suggests otherwise. Six different species? All unrelated develop the same mutations.

Wow...

So first, tell us all about this "law of probability." Show us your calculations.

Then, tell us all about these "same mutations."
Tell us what a mutation is, what this specific mutation is and how you know it, etc.

Sorry to say, but I get the distinct impression that you are using words you are not familiar with.

 

[tas8831]

It could be I've classified them based on the results of their mutations, when the mutations themselves are quite different. That would be a human tendency.

What mutations?

Show us the sequence data.