How is Natural selection a mechanism?

Try to attain precision of thought.The sole mechanism by which we can observe organisms being formed is in fact the reproduction of other organisms. "Mutating genes" are possible in this process but not actually necessary.If you think I am being overly pedantic, you are wrong. Scientific thought requires precision. If someone maintains that E = mc³, they're not nearly right, they've blown the whole thing.What is it that you wished to say? If you will try to put what you wanted to say in precise terms, you may find that you can see the answer to your own question.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It can't be.You seem to be exhibiting a typical confusion which I see often in discussions of evolution. It's as though someone were to say: "Cars can't work. How can the steering wheel be a mechanism that directs the car from place to place when it provides no motive power to the car!"This analogy is rather a good one. Mutations are the engine, natural selection provides the steering.

Sure. You believe wrongly. What a bizarre statement. Germ-line mutations are by definition heritable, they can't just melt away like the dew in the morning. The only thing that can get rid of a germ-line mutation is another germ-line mutation. Yes, of course. Though "observe it happen" would be more accurate than "make it happen". Obviously when one is studying evolution one does not induce the mutations! You have failed to show your working. As a mathematician, I can assure you that you are wrong, but unless you show your working I can't point out your specific error. No, that is fantastically unlikely, but again, unless you show your working, I can't point out your specific error. Natural selection or genetic drift, since not all of the mutations tolerated by natural selection are necessarily adaptive.We can, of course, measure the rate of mutation, and show that it is just what is required to fit the time-frame derived from geology, thus confirming the correctness of evolution. Which evidence would that be? But your calculation of odds applies to your fantasy of "a monkey suddenly giving birth to a human", not to consecutive mutations being fixed by selection or drift. Your error? Too little math and too little common sense.Has it ever occurred to you that geneticists know at least as much math as you, have at least as much common sense, and know a darn sight more about genetics? That would be a fact for you to think over.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If that is your definition of micro-evolution, then perhaps I should point out that most creationists have now admitted that speciation takes place.Indeed, the creationist apologist group "Answers In Genesis", with remarkable chutzpah, write: Presumably the point at which it became "an important part of the creationist model" was when they found themselves utterly unable to go on denying it. That was a bizarre non sequitur. Because it explains paleontology, morphology, embryology, biogeography, et cetera. Or, in the words of Theodosius Dobshansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Er ... that would be a saltation by somatic mutation. Evolution is about the gradual accumulation of germ-line mutations.You are at a level of understanding where you don't need us to answer your questions, you need a high-school biology text book. This is not true. Once more, you have failed to show your working, so although I know you are wrong, I cannot point out the point at which you have made your mistake. Well, there's the fossil record, and there's the fact that this is what we'd expect to see if the theory of evolution was true.As for "controversial", Darwin described is as "probable" 150 years ago. Today, I don't think anyone would object. What an odd fantasy world you seem to inhabit.However, the things that you like to "imagine" are not relevant to this thread. See above. I am not in the least interested in the causes of imaginary things that you made up in your head. No, of course not. You'll find a similar thing happens in connection with the theory that the Earth is not flat.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Unfortunately, I cannot, in fact, take the time to write several books. I have something else to do this afternoon.However, books do exist on these subjects.I notice that I forgot to mention genetics. Read a book on genetics first. This is, of course, untrue. Like evolution, then. 150 years and still going strong. Assuming that by "genetic code" you mean "genome" ... all of them. Keep waiting. You really have no idea how evolution works, do you? If evolution violated any "natural relationships" I'm sure that scientists would have noticed by now. They know quite a lot about nature, and they're quite smart.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, the evidence that that happens is that that does in fact happen, as creationists admit. That would not be possible. That is why paleontologists have found many intermediate forms. Once again, you have failed to show your working.If you wish to base your argument on numbers, then at some point you're going to have to do some actual math. That is not what evolutionists tell you to expect, since T. rex is not ancestral to birds. And you believed him? How amusing.But what some guy said to you is not evidence. But no evolutionist, least of all Dawkins, has conceded that. Admitting the possibility is not the same as saying that it seems to be the case. I admit the possibility that you're an alien from Sirius B. In which case, welcome to Earth. But that is a far cry from saying that you seem to be an alien from Sirius B. It might explain your ignorance of terrestrial biology, but I can think of more parsimonious explanations.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, you claim that the numbers support you and you disclaim the ability to do the math?Fascinating. You should really study the fossil record some day, it's most interesting. I know that there are ten times more base pairs different between even chimps and humans than there are base pairs in total in a typical prokaryote. Also, because I have done the math, I know that this difference is accounted for perfectly by measured mutation rates.What's your point? Does this somehow relate to the math you admit you are unable to do?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You didn't ask for evidence of "macroevolution" You asked, and I quote, for an example of "a beneficial permanent mutation that's resulted in new genetic information".You have been given one. If you were a different sort of person from the sort of person that you very plainly are, you would have said thank you, instead of whining that it isn't what you didn't ask for.

Certainly.By the way, did your mother never teach you the "magic word"? And how wrong you were. Your fantasy of mutations "correcting themselves" is a new one on me. I thought I'd heard every creationist error about genetics, but it seems there's always something new to learn.Anyhoo, my point is that this is something you've made up. Basing your arguments on stuff you've made up is not going to get you very far. Did you ask that? How amusing.It hasn't. Another odd fantasy. You do say a lot of stuff that isn't true, don't you?Anyway, the purpose of this thread is for you guys to be wrong about genetics (preferably natural selection) not the origin of life or the scientific method. But feel free to start another thread.

But that is not what you asked for.If you are looking for evidence of macroevolution, why did you explicitly ask to see something which is not evidence of macroevolution? And the capacity to metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions was not. Therefore, this is something new. Because it wasn't there and now it is. New. See? The fact that I haven't yet answered every error you've made in this thread doesn't mean that I haven't read them all. This is a strange collection of words. I can make little of them. Which, as I pointed out, fit perfectly together.

Now read it again until you understand it. You might want to look at the section on "misconceptions" at the bottom of the page.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But such figures do not trouble scientists. Mainly because scientists are mathematically literate.This is why you can't quote any scientist talking such nonsense about genetics, but instead are quoting some random guy on the internet whose errors about genetics are so far removed from reality as to be delusional.

What an interesting fantasy world you live in.The most amusing thing about this fantasy is that it has, literally, been passed down from generation to generation. Creationists have always been pretending that any day now they will achieve victory. Ex-creationist Glen Morton has called it the longest running falsehood in creationism.Yeah ... any day now. Tomorrow, or Tuesday at the latest, you guys will come up with a good argument, and then everyone will see that you're right. Or maybe Wednesday ...Nice daydream. Let me introduce you to reality: Those are actual scientists, not the imaginary scientists who live in your head.Now, this thread is actually a chance for you to be wrong about natural selection. Would you like to do that, or would you prefer to share your wet dreams with us?

I think I see what you're trying to be wrong about. I'm not sure, because, let's face it, you're not going to win the Mr Coherent 2009 award.But you seem to be complaining that I have proved the following fact: Whereas this, you seem to be saying, is "using a reverse scientific method", because I should have proved the following fact: But these are logically identical statements. It doesn't matter which way I demonstrate the math, it's the same equation, rearranged.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.