Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[leibowde84]

...you need the mutations to be many, so that you get new things to select, and get a new specie. But then many mutations mean lots of corruption. The model doesn't work out.

No, you don't need "many mutations" (although, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "many"). It occurs over billions of years, so there is no need for speed in this sense. Evolution is an incredibly slow process with subtle changes happening over millions of years.

* By changes, I mean the budding of new species.

 

[Valjean]

...you need the mutations to be many, so that you get new things to select, and get a new specie. But then many mutations mean lots of corruption. The model doesn't work out.

I don't understand why you need many mutations in the beginning, or why you need new species.
I don't understand this "corruption" fixation, Mohammad. Harmful mutations don't persist, they're eliminated. "Corrupted" individuals don't breed well so their corrupt genes are lost.
Beneficial mutations, on the other hand, spread through a species because those with these mutations are better adapted and have more children with the same mutation. These mutations spread and help the species to change to cope with an ever changing environment.

Without mutations many species would be unable to change fast enough to survive, they'd be unable to adapt as their surroundings change.
Mutations are important, not corrupting. Few species can remain unchanged for long periods of time and expect to survive.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, you don't need "many mutations" (although, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "many"). It occurs over billions of years, so there is no need for speed in this sense. Evolution is an incredibly slow process with subtle changes happening over millions of years.

* By changes, I mean the budding of new species.

You need many mutations if a functional organism consists of many CATG. If a functional organism requires only few CATG in the correct order, then you don't need many mutations.

You need many mutations.

 

[Valjean]

The size of the genome has little to do with the complexity or size of the organism.

 

[leibowde84]

You need many mutations if a functional organism consists of many CATG. If a functional organism requires only few CATG in the correct order, then you don't need many mutations.

You need many mutations.

How many is "many"? You can't make any kind of judgment on this until you are actually working with a number. Otherwise, there is nothing to claim as impossible.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How many is "many"? You can't make any kind of judgment on this until you are actually working with a number. Otherwise, there is nothing to claim as impossible.

As a matter of common sense, organisms are obviously chosen as a whole in the DNA world. Every part does not mutate in every direction for natural selection then to weed out these unfit mutations. Only those who ideologically object to freedom being real and relevant in the universe deny this choosing takes place.

For if one simply accepts as fact that freedom is real, it is just common sense that it would work this way, and surprising if it did not. How can freedom be real, and choosing not be relevant to the way organisms come to be? What is done with this freedom in the universe then? Nothing much of anything? That does not make sense.

 

[Valjean]

How are you defining "freedom?"

 

[leibowde84]

As a matter of common sense, organisms are obviously chosen as a whole in the DNA world. Every part does not mutate in every direction for natural selection then to weed out these unfit mutations. Only those who ideologically object to freedom being real and relevant in the universe deny this choosing takes place.

For if one simply accepts as fact that freedom is real, it is just common sense that it would work this way, and surprising if it did not. How can freedom be real, and choosing not be relevant to the way organisms come to be? What is done with this freedom in the universe then? Nothing much of anything? That does not make sense.

I still don't understand what you mean by "freedom." I think you are using the wrong English word to communicate what you are saying. Can you give me the appropriate word from your native tongue so I can try to figure it out. Because, no one here has claimed that choice (or more appropriately superior instinct) would not have a role. In fact, superior instinct (superior "choice" making ability in animals) would be completely due to brain development (or a mutation, as you call it). Some creatures would have more advanced brains (like raptors in the dinosaur world) for hunting, escaping, hiding, etc. So, the ones that have the most advanced instinct in these activities would be able to procreate more easily and survive longer, which is the very idea of evolution.

But, maybe that is not what you mean by "freedom," which is why I would like to get to the bottom of that first. An animal still has "freedom" when acting instinctually. They merely do not have the ability to reason in their choice making (or "weigh options"). This has been substantiated. If you do not believe this to be the case and animals actually do "reason" like human beings, then just provide some scientific data for your conclusion. Just saying that it should be "common sense" is admitting defeat, as anyone could say that about anything. You have to prove your claim objectively and thoroughly when that claim goes against scientific consensus, as yours does. That's all I'm asking.

And, you still have failed to define the word "many" with a number, which I would greatly appreciate moving forward. It's not your fault, buddy, it's just this crappy translation technology most likely.

 

[leibowde84]

As a matter of common sense, organisms are obviously chosen as a whole in the DNA world. Every part does not mutate in every direction for natural selection then to weed out these unfit mutations. Only those who ideologically object to freedom being real and relevant in the universe deny this choosing takes place.

For if one simply accepts as fact that freedom is real, it is just common sense that it would work this way, and surprising if it did not. How can freedom be real, and choosing not be relevant to the way organisms come to be? What is done with this freedom in the universe then? Nothing much of anything? That does not make sense.

Please explain what you mean by these terms:

"freedom"

"many"

 

[Etritonakin]

You appear to be confusing the beginning of life on earth with the later "Origin of Species".
They are not the same thing and evolution has nothing to do with the former.
Tom

The origin of species has nothing to do with the evolution of species.

I'm going to assume you are not serious

 

[Etritonakin]

Evolution is driven by environmental feedback, natural selection. That is why it is not random accident. This is about the most fundamental concept behind the theory. To believe evolution is accident is to demonstrate that you do not actually know what 'evolution' means.

You can not know what evolution means and at the same time think it is accident.

Just word games -very tiring -accomplishing nothing (except wearing us out -ahem)

 

[columbus]

The origin of species has nothing to do with the evolution of species.

I'm going to assume you are not serious

I must have misunderstood the post I quoted.
People often confuse the origins of life itself with the evolution of species. That seemed like what you meant with the word "begun".
Sorry
Tom

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Please explain what you mean by these terms:

"freedom"

"many"

I am using the words as in common discourse. You study common discourse with discipline, instead of second guessing common discourse with "scientific" theories which describe everything in terms of it being forced. Then you will know what you are actually saying is true when you use common discourse in daily life.

Choosing
1 freedom:having alternative futures available
2 anticipation:the relationship between the thing now and the available futures of it
3 the decision: making one of the alternative futures the present
4 consequences: the result of the decision
5 self: what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I still don't understand what you mean by "freedom." I think you are using the wrong English word to communicate what you are saying. Can you give me the appropriate word from your native tongue so I can try to figure it out. Because, no one here has claimed that choice (or more appropriately superior instinct) would not have a role. In fact, superior instinct (superior "choice" making ability in animals) would be completely due to brain development (or a mutation, as you call it). Some creatures would have more advanced brains (like raptors in the dinosaur world) for hunting, escaping, hiding, etc. So, the ones that have the most advanced instinct in these activities would be able to procreate more easily and survive longer, which is the very idea of evolution.

But, maybe that is not what you mean by "freedom," which is why I would like to get to the bottom of that first. An animal still has "freedom" when acting instinctually. They merely do not have the ability to reason in their choice making (or "weigh options"). This has been substantiated. If you do not believe this to be the case and animals actually do "reason" like human beings, then just provide some scientific data for your conclusion. Just saying that it should be "common sense" is admitting defeat, as anyone could say that about anything. You have to prove your claim objectively and thoroughly when that claim goes against scientific consensus, as yours does. That's all I'm asking.

As I was saying, the essence of choosing in a predator-prey relationship, in the sense of natural selection, is surprise in attack and escape.

You on the other hand mangle what I say into "weighing". Weighing will result in very predictable actions, 10 will always weigh more as 5, predictable organisms are eaten, or they starve.

You read what I write better, instead of reading a page from your book of assumptions about what I write.

 

[leibowde84]

As I was saying, the essence of choosing in a predator-prey relationship, in the sense of natural selection, is surprise in attack and escape.

You on the other hand mangle what I say into "weighing". Weighing will result in very predictable actions, 10 will always weigh more as 5, predictable organisms are eaten, or they starve.

You read what I write better, instead of reading a page from your book of assumptions about what I write.

The term "weighing" in this context means "reasoning" or "thinking-over." Not sure why you said the thing about 10 being more than 5.

 

[leibowde84]

As I was saying, the essence of choosing in a predator-prey relationship, in the sense of natural selection, is surprise in attack and escape.

You on the other hand mangle what I say into "weighing". Weighing will result in very predictable actions, 10 will always weigh more as 5, predictable organisms are eaten, or they starve.

You read what I write better, instead of reading a page from your book of assumptions about what I write.

"As I was saying, the essence of choosing in a predator-prey relationship, in the sense of natural selection, is surprise in attack and escape."

1. surprise in attack and escape is almost 100% controlled by beneficial mutations making a creature or plant (in some cases) more able to do these things. That is the reasoning that evolution rests on.

2. if an animal breaks from the herd, so to speak, and acts differently than others in his species, or becomes unpredictable, this would also be attributed to evolutionary mutations and natural selection. Animals, again, act mainly on instinct. They do not have the ability to say to themselves, all the other rabbits are going left ... I think I'll be safer going right. They just can't do that (apart from animals with more advanced brains like dolphins, orangutans, etc.). So, again, you have presented another argument in favor of evolution.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The term "weighing" in this context means "reasoning" or "thinking-over." Not sure why you said the thing about 10 being more than 5.

......that is what the word weighing means, you weigh this, it is 10, you weigh that, it is 5, then 10 is sorted as the highest, if the criteria are set up for the highest.

As all evolutionists you confuse selection / sorting, with choosing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"As I was saying, the essence of choosing in a predator-prey relationship, in the sense of natural selection, is surprise in attack and escape."

1. surprise in attack and escape is almost 100% controlled by beneficial mutations making a creature or plant (in some cases) more able to do these things. That is the reasoning that evolution rests on.

2. if an animal breaks from the herd, so to speak, and acts differently than others in his species, or becomes unpredictable, this would also be attributed to evolutionary mutations and natural selection. Animals, again, act mainly on instinct. They do not have the ability to say to themselves, all the other rabbits are going left ... I think I'll be safer going right. They just can't do that (apart from animals with more advanced brains like dolphins, orangutans, etc.). So, again, you have presented another argument in favor of evolution.

See a hare escaping from a fox. And maybe a hare can injure a fox, and threaten with injuring it. Run,jump, skip, hop, turn, stand still, attack. The choosing makes for surprise.

 

[leibowde84]

......that is what the word weighing means, you weigh this, it is 10, you weigh that, it is 5, then 10 is sorted as the highest, if the criteria are set up for the highest.

As all evolutionists you confuse selection / sorting, with choosing.

Lol. I am saying that the word "weighing" in English has multiple meanings. One of them is this:

"Weigh" (v) - assess the nature or importance of, especially with a view to a decision or action.

Weighing, or reasoning, is a subjective process. One's world view always comes into consideration and different things are important to different people (which should be more than apparent from this site). So, to claim that "weighing" is somehow objective is false. But, that is why I felt it necessary to supply you with the accurate definition (which is one of several).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Lol. I am saying that the word "weighing" in English has multiple meanings. One of them is this:

"Weigh" (v) - assess the nature or importance of, especially with a view to a decision or action.

Weighing, or reasoning, is a subjective process. One's world view always comes into consideration and different things are important to different people (which should be more than apparent from this site). So, to claim that "weighing" is somehow objective is false. But, that is why I felt it necessary to supply you with the accurate definition (which is one of several).

Weighing in that sense is subjective, but subjectivity operates by choosing. So your explanation of choosing is....even more choosing.

Your understanding of choosing is false, you confuse choosing with sorting, this is why you refer to weighing when the issue is just choosing, because weighing involves sorting.