question for those who reject biological evolution

[leroy]

Yup and the Luria-Delbruck experiment put that one to bed in 1943, back when the original Looney Tunes was on and won a Nobel prize
"The Luria–Delbrück experiment (1943) (also called the Fluctuation Test) demonstrated that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selective pressure rather than being a response to it."

If you can figure out how to disprove it, there is a Nobel waiting for you.

ok we are back-------- you now deny the existence of non-random mutations



please decide---------- do you think nonrandom mutations (and genetic variation in general) can occur and likely played an important role, like @ and scientists and I claim…………… or do you deny this type of mutations?

In some ´posts you seem to accept them and in others, you seem to deny them …….. which one is it?

If you can figure out how to disprove it, there is a Nobel waiting for you.

120 years ago maybe

an article for your ignore list
Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions.

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Pogo]

Ok but that is a random and unsupported claim………….. You have no reason to think that I don’t understand randomness in this context.

Basically you are saying

1 Yes Leroy you are correct , likely mutations are not necessarily random

2 but you are wrong, because I arbitrarily decided that you don’t understand the concept of randomness

@leroy neither of those interpretations are reasonable summaries of what I wrote, another common failing of yours.
You reinterpret statements according to what you want to have been said.
In fact, misinterpreting statements is what caused your problem in the first place and continued misinterpretation shows that you severely lack comprehension and introspection abilities.

 

[Pogo]

ok we are back-------- you now deny the existence of non-random mutations



please decide---------- do you think nonrandom mutations (and genetic variation in general) can occur and likely played an important role, like @ and scientists and I claim…………… or do you deny this type of mutations?

In some ´posts you seem to accept them and in others, you seem to deny them …….. which one is it?



120 years ago maybe

an article for your ignore list
Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions.

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yeah I know about this too, it is not relevant to the formation of echolocation, That you post it is evidence that you don't know what you are talking about and just blindly putting terms into Google.

Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.​

Haven't posted this in a while, but it is you. Dunning Kreuger 1999

Abstract​

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of the participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

 

[leroy]

@leroy neither of those interpretations are reasonable summaries of what I wrote, another common failing of yours.
You reinterpret statements according to what you want to have been said.
In fact, misinterpreting statements is what caused your problem in the first place and continued misinterpretation shows that you severely lack comprehension and introspection abilities.

Then why don’t you simply explain clearly and unambiguously your views on non random mutations and non random genetic variation in general

1 Do you grant that the non random mutations/variations can occure every once in a while?

2 do you grant that they likely played an important role in the evolution of various systems like @Subduction Zone and scientists and I claim?

You keep semm to be moving from one position to an other……… so a clear and unabigous answer would help

 

[Pogo]

Then why don’t you simply explain clearly and unambiguously your views on non random mutations and non random genetic variation in general

1 Do you grant that the non random mutations/variations can occure every once in a while?

2 do you grant that they likely played an important role in the evolution of various systems like @Subduction Zone and scientists and I claim?

You keep semm to be moving from one position to an other……… so a clear and unabigous answer would help

Because you are incapable of honestly interpreting and understanding what people are saying to you.

You take any statement and interpret it to say what you want it to say. Whether this is deliberate or due to ignorance is questionable.
What is not in question is that echolocation is not an example of whatever problem you think the theory of evolution has because it is not a problem for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Multiple quotes for the original articles have been provided and they all indicate that the variants in the loci are the same.

But even then national geographic is much more reliable than the words of an anonymous fanatic guy that has been proven to lie in the past and that is not willing to support their claims.

When someone points out an error of yours and you do not understand it the proper thing to do is to ask questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

according to you what was my interpretation of the article?

You seem to believe that the the genes are identical in how they evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but that is a random and unsupported claim………….. You have no reason to think that I don’t understand randomness in this context.

Basically you are saying

1 Yes Leroy you are correct , likely mutations are not necessarily random

2 but you are wrong, because I arbitrarily decided that you don’t understand the concept of randomness

3. You are wrong because you try to over simplify a complex matter and the try to sneak god into the process by doing so.

Or perhaps even other answers. Try to avoid false dichotomies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok we are back-------- you now deny the existence of non-random mutations



please decide---------- do you think nonrandom mutations (and genetic variation in general) can occur and likely played an important role, like @ and scientists and I claim…………… or do you deny this type of mutations?

In some ´posts you seem to accept them and in others, you seem to deny them …….. which one is it?



120 years ago maybe

an article for your ignore list
Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions.

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And Newton could not work out how orbits of planets were stable with his Universal Gravitation so he invoked God at that point. Just because one person makes a claim does not matter one whit in the sciences, even if it is someone as prestigious as Newton. Others were able to work out the math. Now I did not know enough to say whether Weismann was right or wrong. It appears that he is making a classic argument from ignorance claim. He cannot figure it out so there has to be directed evolution. That belief does not seem to have caught on with other scientists that show how evolution advanced without directed variation.

Scientists do not worship people. If anything they worship evidence and results. This latest argument is so weak that it does not merit much more than a "So what?" in response.

 

[F1fan]

In the context of genetics, random means that a mutations or any other variation is not more likely to occur, just because the organism would benefit form it, for example a mutation that would make you resistant to COVID was not more likely to occur in 2020 than today , despite the fact that in 2020, this mutation would have represented a better benefit

So nonrandom simply means the opposite, a mutation is more likely to occur if the mutation would benefit the organism



This is obviously an oversimplification…………….

But how would a mutation not be random and be beneficial until after it’s happened?

It’s all still random except not knowing if a mutation will be beneficial or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes the proteins and the genes are similar (not identical) in bats and dolphins…….such that if you make a tree based on similarities and differences, dolphins appear closer to bats than with other mammals that are supposed to be closer relatives.

Do you have any reason to think that this is wrong?

Whoa! He almost has it. Yes, if the changes were identical then you would have identical proteins. I knew that you could see your error sooner or later. This is why the article calls them convergent, not directed. Not identical. That would be problem for evolution.

By the way, the "trees" that they are talking about are self admitted to be false trees since they are only looking at a very small part of the genome. Here is an article dealing with this that is a bit more on the scientific side:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23242020_The_hearing_gene_Prestin_reunites_echolocating_bats

 

[leroy]

Because you are incapable of honestly interpreting and understanding what people are saying to you.

You take any statement and interpret it to say what you want it to say. Whether this is deliberate or due to ignorance is questionable.
What is not in question is that echolocation is not an example of whatever problem you think the theory of evolution has because it is not a problem for evolution.

Ok ok but you dindt answer my question………. Do you think non random mutations occure………do you think they play an important role?

Because you are incapable of honestly interpreting and understanding what people are saying to you.

then answer wiht a direct yes or no to my questions, that way I can´t interpret your words to say what I want them to say

What is not in question is that echolocation is not an example of whatever problem you think the theory of evolution has because it is not a problem for evolution.

Strwman, nobody is saying that it is a problem for the current TOE

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but that is a random and unsupported claim………….. You have no reason to think that I don’t understand randomness in this context.

Basically you are saying

1 Yes Leroy you are correct , likely mutations are not necessarily random

2 but you are wrong, because I arbitrarily decided that you don’t understand the concept of randomness

Your posts repeated demonstrate your lack of understanding. And when people try to explain your errors to you and all that you have is going back to the article and repeating your false interpretations you are going to have people pointing out your errors to you constantly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok ok but you dindt answer my question………. Do you think non random mutations occure………do you think they play an important role?

You would have to define "non random". There are parts of the genome that are more apt to have mutations than others. I am not sure if that qualifies as "non random". I wonder if the shape of folding and other geometric forces on the strand of DNA could cause some parts to be more exposed than others. Those areas might be more subject to mutations.

then answer wiht a direct yes or no to my questions, that way I can´t interpret your words to say what I want them to say

Complex questions cannot always be answered yes or no. Frankly I do not know of any cases. That does not rule it out, but you would think that would make the news if it did happen. I am leaning towards, probably no in any meaningful way.

Strwman, nobody is saying that it is a problem for the current TOE

Then why do you resist corrections so vehemently?

 

[leroy]

You seem to believe that the the genes are identical in how they evolved.

no
, that is not what I believe.

My interpretation of the article is that when comparing the genes like perstin in bats dolphins cows dogs and other mammals, bats and dolphinas have more similarities between each other than when with mammals that are closer relatives……….. for example dolphins have more similarities with bats than with blue whales, or cows, despite the fact that cows and blue whales are closer relatives than bats.


In other words, bats and dolphins dont have an identical gene persitin, but their gene perstine is more similar between each other than between closer relatives.

I am not sure if this applies when comparing the whole gene, or just specific portions of that gene (I belive is the former)


the implication is that a relativley recent ancestor of modern bats and a recent ancestor of modern dolphins independently suffered from the same mutations in the same genes in the same loci around 200 times

..

Did you understand something different from what I understood?

 

[leroy]

And Newton could not work out how orbits of planets were stable with his Universal Gravitation so he invoked God at that point. Just because one person makes a claim does not matter one whit in the sciences, even if it is someone as prestigious as Newton. Others were able to work out the math. Now I did not know enough to say whether Weismann was right or wrong. It appears that he is making a classic argument from ignorance claim. He cannot figure it out so there has to be directed evolution. That belief does not seem to have caught on with other scientists that show how evolution advanced without directed variation.

Scientists do not worship people. If anything they worship evidence and results. This latest argument is so weak that it does not merit much more than a "So what?" in response.

ok but Weismann made that claim 120 yers ago.

today we know it is correct as the article expalins

 

[leroy]

But how would a mutation not be random and be beneficial until after it’s happened?

It’s all still random except not knowing if a mutation will be beneficial or not.

I didn’t understand the question, could you repeat it with different words?

 

[leroy]

But how would a mutation not be random and be beneficial until after it’s happened?

It’s all still random except not knowing if a mutation will be beneficial or not.

I didn’t understand the question, could you repeat it with different words?

 

[F1fan]

Ok ok but you dindt answer my question………. Do you think non random mutations occure………do you think they play an important role?

It doesn’t matter what we lay folk think. It’s important what Experts say.

then answer wiht a direct yes or no to my questions, that way I can´t interpret your words to say what I want them to say

What we agree to is irrelevant. It only matters what experts say. All we have to do is defer to experts to be correct. Anything we add is irrelevant.

Strwman, nobody is saying that it is a problem for the current TOE

The TOE is what experts say it is.

 

[F1fan]

In the context of genetics, random means that a mutations or any other variation is not more likely to occur, just because the organism would benefit form it, for example a mutation that would make you resistant to COVID was not more likely to occur in 2020 than today , despite the fact that in 2020, this mutation would have represented a better benefit

So nonrandom simply means the opposite, a mutation is more likely to occur if the mutation would benefit the organism



This is obviously an oversimplification…………….

How can a nonrandom mutation know if it’s more likely to be a benefit?

Or is this just a classification thing that humans make because they observe a benefit?