Role of Mutations

!——, — — ?— —? ‘

---

you just mentioned all of those things that you just mentioned.

nonsense. this whole "information" thing is creationist mumbo-jumbo. "mutation" need only be variation. environmental conditions are a selection factor. that helps determine which variations are kept, and which are discarded. law of large numbers.

---

change = variation.

quote:

---

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Forum Guidelines

​

---

evolution is the study of life after it appeared on this planet. it has nothing to do with how it got there. it's a biological principle -- and conflating it with abiogenesis (or the big bang for that matter) is a rather class creation pratt (point refuted a thousand times). it is off topic here, but if you'd like, there are probably a number of threads where the "probability" argument can be addressed that are still open. and if not, feel free to start one in proposed new topics.i think you also find that a good many of members here do believe in a god, and that god is resposible (in some form) for creation. we have a number of members here who are christians, too. (you're talking to one, btw)and yes, we've all read aig. personally, i find their analysis of the bible about as wanting as their reinterpretation of science. i do not consider them a reputable source, though admittedly they are far more honest than most creationist sources. *coughkenthovindcough*Edited by AdminAsgara, : changed long link to dboard version

---

do you agree that natural selection happens?do you agree that variation happens? sure they can. you just use one gene to modify the others. for instance, birds no longer have feathers on their feet. i'm saying that one has nothing to do with the other. it's not grand unification, or the theory of life, the universe, and everything. it's a description of the history of variation of life on this planet -- and that's it.this notion of yours comes from a fundamental misunderstand of what science is. it is not an alternate mythology, designed to remove any need for god. and not all people who understand science are athiests. science in general does not need to explain all of life's mysteries, nor does any one particular field of study need to be all-encompasing.

---

natural selection + variation = evolution. as far as i am aware, i am the only person on this board to have even attempted a (biblical) definition of the word "kind" that is in concordance with biological heirarchies. proposing a strict limit for something based on a vague definition is a no-no. *groan* this is an old one.no, and for something like that to happen to would disprove evolution. what evolution predicts is that each generation of dog varies in the frequency of certain heritable trait, and that some point (usually determined by reproductive isolation) we arbitrarily choose to call one generation something other than "dog."yes, it really is arbitrary. we've seen many. in lab conditions, no less. denying they exist does not mean they don't. ah, this one's actually my favourite.here is a post where i demonstrate artificial selection and evolution in action, within a particular variety of one species of cat, persian blues, over the last 100 or so years. keep your eye on the snout length.shorter snouts are favored by judges, so shorter snouted cats are more likely to be bred. this leads to a gradually shortening of the average snout length in persian cats. this sort of change can be affected on just about any part of the body -- and once the change is great enough, we arbitrarily call this cat something besides "a persian blue cat."purebred dogs, btw, are prone to problems because they are inbred. which is bad for anything. the persian cats above are prone to tear duct problems (ie: they can't stop crying, they get infected, etc) because we have designed them that way, overriding natural selection. have fun in bio class. yes, i agree.

---

yes, something of a variation of what i said. i should phrased more clearly. natural selection is usually done on the basis of functionality. does this feature work better than other features? artificial selection tends to be done more on visual style than function -- leading to cats with faces so flat their tear ducts no longer are able to shut off, or dogs that have to be born by c-section.granted, in natural selection, sexual factors are also prevalent, but they seem to take a backseat to functionality. i can't think of any cases were something counter-functional (such as the examples above) have evolved in the wild. inbreeding is also a factor in some cases, but not with every dog of course. it depends on the dog's pedigree. it's not saying that "all purebred dogs have this problem or that problem" but it does happen more easily with purbred dogs -- just like human royalty!

---

yes, i suppose that's a good point.the question is, does it ever cross the line between impractical and destroying certain functions of the animal? the only reason i'd think not is natural selection. sitting around and looking pretty is all well and good, but the ones that get eaten don't breed.like dawkins points out, though, natural selection isn't exactly "survival of the fittest," more like survival of whatever can get by. predators only take off the very bottom.

---

yeah. i'm trying not to sound like an IDiot here with the usage of "function." what i mean is, basically that, i think, sexual selection is balanced with natural selection in the wild, and there is a certain line that sexual selection cannot cross because natural selection will prevent it.i may be totally wrong here, of course. i'm not a biologist by any means.

---