Mutation not random????

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

I only spoke of Evolution only in general term. I didn’t make an claim of Evolution being “gradual” or “sudden”. I have not mentioned anything as to the rate of change.

Please, stop making things up.

All I said, what you quoted from me, is that Evolution do “do” experimental tests. I even gave you a couple of examples of such experiments, like thermoluminescence dating, radiometric dating and DNA test/analysis. All 3 are examples of experiments being performed.

As I said, I wrote nothing about gradual changes or sudden changes, so this is nothing but you, using strawman.

I agree with you. The literature continually reports on experiments regarding evolution. Not sure how anyone could miss that.

I don't know of any evidence for sudden change in evolution. I suppose it depends on what is meant by sudden. One hundred thousand years could be sudden in terms of evolution. Insubstantial change in a generation could be seen as sudden (a trend towards an increase of a specific mutation in a population), but that would be insufficient to claim speciation. Sudden usually means quickly and without warning. Like a duck suddenly turning into a crocodile. I wonder if that is the sort of "sudden" that is being claimed?

Have you seen anyone define sudden or present evidence for sudden speciation? I haven't.

 

[ppp]

"It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it's non-random in a way that benefits the plant. It's a totally new way of thinking about mutation."
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-evolutionary-theory-dna-mutations-random.html

Interesting article. And very cool if it's true. I wonder how the protection method varies across domains.

But I do not understand why they are claiming that it's Not random. I agree that if they are correct that it's not an even distribution, but that's not what random is. Is. If you roll one six of the die then you have a even distribution of outcomes. But if you roll two six-sided dice then there is a heavily weighted distribution for seven, and against two and twelve. But it's still random.

 

[tas8831]

"Experiment" creates theory, NOT observation.

No matter how often you pretend to be an expert on science, you will never be one.

You talk about experiment constantly, yet you have never - not ONCE - presented "experiments' that support YOUR claims on any subject.
You claim 'all change is sudden' and that all experimental evidence indicates this. You are asked for evidence. You write 4 paragraphs claiming to have already presented it. But you never did.

When you finally do present something other than your bloviating and self-aggrandizing pap, it turns out that "sudden" means a couple of GENERATIONS.
Then, 2 days later, you are back to "sudden change" and "experiment" all over again.

And you KNOW that I can pull up the receipts, for I have done it repeatedly. So don't lie and claim that I am wrong, for I have no problem humiliating you with your own failures yet again..

Remember when you claimed that the brain is an "elastic organ" and that we have a "bifurcated speech center" in the "midbrain"???
No 'experiments' for that idiocy...

 

[tas8831]

Interesting article. And very cool if it's true. I wonder how the protection method varies across domains.

But I do not understand why they are claiming that it's Not random. I agree that if they are correct that it's not an even distribution, but that's not what random is. Is. If you roll one six of the die then you have a even distribution of outcomes. But if you roll two six-sided dice then there is a heavily weighted distribution for seven, and against two and twelve. But it's still random.

I hate these kinds of press releases and claims in actual publications. Did these people NOT do a lit review? Did NONE of the reviewers have ANY knowledge of the last 50 years of work on the topic?

I was taught/read that mutations are not 'randomly distributed' decades ago, and there is no secret as to why.
This is like ENCODE's BS all over again.....

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps "I" "should start "putting" "every" "word" "in" a "sentence in "parentheses".

Those - "" - are not parentheses.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps "I" "should start "putting" "every" "word" "in" a "sentence in "parentheses".

Those - "" - are not parentheses.

Agreed...those are not parentheses.

I’ll predict that instead of admitting his error, cladking will make excuses by trying to redefine the word parentheses to suit his (warped) idea of what they mean.

His ego won’t allow him any admission of errors. He will most likely use the “semantic” card again. He will accuse you of “playing semantics” or “word game”, but when in truth, he is the one doing it.

In his past thread, eg Ancient Reality, as well in almost every other threads when he talk of “experiment”, he always deny that experiments are “observations”.

He always claimed that evidence are “look and see” - observation - but claimed that “experiments” are not observations, not “look and see”.

Experiments are evidence, they are observations.

He doggedly deny experiments are observations.

 

[tas8831]

Agreed...those are not parentheses.

I’ll predict that instead of admitting his error, cladking will make excuses by trying to redefine the word parentheses to suit his (warped) idea of what they mean.

His ego won’t allow him any admission of errors. He will most likely use the “semantic” card again. He will accuse you of “playing semantics” or “word game”, but when in truth, he is the one doing it.

In his past thread, eg Ancient Reality, as well in almost every other threads when he talk of “experiment”, he always deny that experiments are “observations”.

He always claimed that evidence are “look and see” - observation - but claimed that “experiments” are not observations, not “look and see”.

Experiments are evidence, they are observations.

He doggedly deny experiments are observations.

You know him well.
You must have that 'bifurcated speech center' in the 'midbrain' that you willed into existence.

 

[night912]

Perhaps "I" "should start "putting" "every" "word" "in" a "sentence in "parentheses".

(Then) (perhaps) (you) (should've) (done) (this) (instead).

I might be wrong since I've been out of school for a while, but when I was still in school, parenthesis haven't evolved into quotation marks yet. Someone let me know if it did.

 

[cladking]

I agree with you. The literature continually reports on experiments regarding evolution. Not sure how anyone could miss that.

Then it should be easy to show one that demonstrates a gradual change in any species.

The last time I asked for this I got an experiment that concluded in a couple days. Show any species that gradually changed for at least a few thousand years. Preferably at least 10,000 or more.

 

[cladking]

You talk about experiment constantly, yet you have never - not ONCE - presented "experiments' that support YOUR claims on any subject.

You ignore observations, facts, evidence, and experiments. Then you claim it never happened.

I've mentioned a few experiments in addition to every experiment done by every researcher there were also the upside down flies for which I can't remember getting a comment from you.

 

[metis]

Then it should be easy to show one that demonstrates a gradual change in any species.

The last time I asked for this I got an experiment that concluded in a couple days. Show any species that gradually changed for at least a few thousand years. Preferably at least 10,000 or more.

Speciation - Wikipedia

 

[cladking]

Speciation - Wikipedia

So not one experiment, eh?

Pathetic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then it should be easy to show one that demonstrates a gradual change in any species.

The last time I asked for this I got an experiment that concluded in a couple days. Show any species that gradually changed for at least a few thousand years. Preferably at least 10,000 or more.

We have ample fossil evidence for the evolution from certain four legged mammals to whales. Do some research.

 

[cladking]

We have ample fossil evidence for the evolution from certain four legged mammals to whales. Do some research.

You have absolutely no evidence for a gradual change driven by "survival of the fittest". These are things that must be taken on faith despite the evidence, experiment, and observation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You have absolutely no evidence for a gradual change driven by "survival of the fittest". These are things that must be taken on faith despite the evidence, experiment, and observation.

Sure we do. The only people who don't see it have 1. never looked at the evidence or 2. willfully refuse to see it.

 

[cladking]

Sure we do. The only people who don't see it have 1. never looked at the evidence or 2. willfully refuse to see it.

And you can't cite any of it. If you tried anything you cited would support rapid change in species and "punctuated equilibrium" because there's no such thing as "fitness".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And you can't cite any of it. If you tried anything you cited would support rapid change in species and "punctuated equilibrium" because there's no such thing as "fitness".

It would be a booklet for me to discuss the fossil record with regards to the evolution of whales. You are welcome to do your own research.

 

[cladking]

It would be a booklet for me to discuss the fossil record with regards to the evolution of whales. You are welcome to do your own research.

Are you suggesting then that there's something in the evolution of whales that proves a gradual change?

Would you be so kind as to say what that is so I can research it?

Of course you can't because "Evolution" is principally a belief system.

 

[metis]

So not one experiment, eh?

Pathetic.

You clearly either didn't read it and/or check out the links, and that's what truly is "pathetic".

To reject the basic process of evolution is to deny reality as all material things appear to change over time and genes and life forms are material things. Therefore, the basic ToE stands to even the most basic common sense, thus denying it is to deny that which should be obvious.

And by denying it, one makes their "religious" affiliation to at least appear to be an exercise in ignorance. I left my church that did as such back when I was in my mid-20's because of that and the overt racism there.

 

[metis]

You have absolutely no evidence for a gradual change driven by "survival of the fittest". These are things that must be taken on faith despite the evidence, experiment, and observation.

Oh really? Well then, maybe read this: The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study (nih.gov)