|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, traits can jess keep cummulating.
It is only when filtering comes into play that there is any significance and then ONLY when the trait is so detrimental that it keeps the critter from reproducing.
Well, if the evolution of a given trait is too unlikely, then you'll have to look for another explanation for the origin of that trait. Uh, no. Why would I have to look for some other explanation?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Again, traits can jess keep cummulating. If natural selection is out of the equation, then only traits that can be easily arrived at through a probable combination of mutations will "jess keep cummulating."
It is only when filtering comes into play that there is any significance and then ONLY when the trait is so detrimental that it keeps the critter from reproducing. By "filtering" you mean natural selection?
Well, if the evolution of a given trait is too unlikely, then you'll have to look for another explanation for the origin of that trait. Uh, no. Why would I have to look for some other explanation? Because the evolution of the trait is too unlikely, meaning that it is implausible to have originated through evolutionary processes. Since evolution wouldn't work as a mechanistic explanation for the origin of our particular trait, it makes sense to look for another explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Hi Haldir,
Now, if I have my list right (and I certainly may not), the question then is whether or not these things needed to arise simultaneously, or if they could have been advantageous individually. It seems to me that each step you describe would, in fact, offer a selective advantage. One could do a broad survey of various marine organisms and see if any of them have only a few of those changes. Kirschbaum and Schwassmann (2008) have a paper on the subject of the evolution of certain features of the electric organs of Gymnotiformes. The full title: "Ontogeny and evolution of electric organs in gymnotiform fish."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If natural selection is out of the equation, then only traits that can be easily arrived at through a probable combination of mutations will "jess keep cummulating." Utter bullshit. Any changes that happen get passed on whether probable or not.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Utter bullshit. Mmk.
Any changes that happen get passed on whether probable or not. If a trait requires that 15 specific amino acid substitutions occur in a given protein in order for it to arise, and none of those substitutions (either individually or in combination) offer a selective advantage until all of them have taken place, you suggest the evolution of this trait is just as plausible as the evolution of a trait that can evolve through 15 amino acid substitutions that individually offer a selective advantage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nope.
But a change is a change. Something that happens, regardless of how unlikely, happened.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But a change is a change. Something that happens, regardless of how unlikely, happened. Sure, but not necessarily through Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. If the evolution of a given trait is implausible, then you can't say "Even if its evolution is implausible, it's here so it obviously evolved." That's illogical, and not how science works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
More utter bullshit.
Of course I can say that because so far that is the only evidence supported method that has been presented.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Of course I can say that because so far that is the only evidence supported method that has been presented. Sure, you can say that, but that's not how science works. If a hypothesis is demonstrated to be unrealistic, then it's time to look for another hypothesis -- a hypothesis that better fits the data. To cling onto an implausible hypothesis isn't science: it's a dogmatic stance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But so far no such too implausible to have happened scenario has been presented.
Improbable and unrealistic are not synonymous.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But so far no such too implausible to have happened scenario has been presented. Debatable.
Improbable and unrealistic are not synonymous. Really? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Not exactly. Neutral drift will ensure that changes keep accumulating at the genetic level. And as the number of changes accumulates the probability of getting a trait which requires a particular number of mutations or more can be a lot higher than the probability of getting a particular trait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, really.
What may seem unrealistic may seem very realistic when looking at things like evolution. When you factor in very long times and very large numbers of iterations even the most improbable becomes a near certainty. Guided evolution no matter what funny face or fanciful costume it is dressed in is still simply totally and completely un-evidenced.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Not exactly. Neutral drift will ensure that changes keep accumulating at the genetic level. And as the number of changes accumulates the probability of getting a trait which requires a particular number of mutations or more can be a lot higher than the probability of getting a particular trait. Correct. I didn't get into the whole population genetics aspect of this. It should be noted, however, that there is no guarantee that a given (neutral) mutation that is required for the evolution of a given trait will be fixed in the population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
What may seem unrealistic may seem very realistic when looking at things like evolution. Then again, it may not.
When you factor in very long times and very large numbers of iterations even the most improbable becomes a near certainty. ...unless you factor in time and large iteration levels, and still find that it is improbable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024