Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mutations
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 18 (8315)
04-08-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
04-08-2002 6:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
Is a sufficient number of mutations accumulated over time to create the mind-blowing diveristiy and complexity of today?
Could random and rare mutations create the following:
a second stomach in a cow
echolocation
limbs from fins
fully functional lungs
brains from single-celled organisms
vertebrates
venus fly traps
wings
feathers (the perfect design of feathers would have to come immediately- crude feathers would cause the death of the animal and the loss of the mutation)
nervous systems (these would also have to come about in one massive and miraculous mutation- half a nervous system is not good)
senses for detecting the magnetic field of the planet (again, half a sense is no good- we're not talking about quantum leaps and enormous mutations that somehow work perfectly and create fully functional senses, limbs, organs, etc.)
flowers that attract pollenators and attach "pollen packs" to the pollenator (again, some systems, like that of the orchid, are extremely complex- half a pollenation system would cause the extinction of the specie)
mosquitos and chemicals that numb surrounding skin (mosquitos that were unable to numb the pain caused by their bite would become quickly extinct- what mutation could bring around a random mechanism that would just happen to produce a chemical that would just happen to numb an organisms skin.
fingernails
etc.
Please don't tell me that these questions needn't an answer because evolution occurred, no matter how you turn it. Occam's razor states that a theory that cannot produce sufficient answers for all questions is most likely incorrect. If evolution can only carry half its weight, then less likely and less possible theories must be condsidered, in the case that they are the only solutions.

That is not what Occam's Razor states.
From Talkorigins:
"Occam's razor, or the law of parsimony, requires us to choose among several possible hypotheses that which has the least assumptions and arbitrary constants."
There is a further discussion here:
http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 04-08-2002 6:45 AM quicksink has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 18 (9232)
05-05-2002 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ksc
05-04-2002 10:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Just to form these incredible body parts or systems the mutations ...through RANDOM chance.... highlite on the RANDOM , must occur over and over again in the same DNA strand responsible for the body part or system.
So what are the odds of a RANDOM mutation effecting a particular DNA strand in the first place? Then to do it again and and again..by chance?
Not to mention that most (almost all) mutations are harmful with a few that are neutral.

First, what you completely miss is that evolution is not completely random. Natural selection, by definition, is not random.
Those organisms which have heritable characteristics which enable it to succeed in reproducing itself within particular environmental conditions will therefore spread it's genetic material more rapidly through a population that those which reproduce less-successfuly.
The environmental selection is non-random. Mutations are, however.
BTW, you are wrong anbout most mutations being detrimental. Most mutations are neutral as regards to fitness. Please provide full references to the professional literature that says otherwise.
If most mutations are detrimental, then why haven't all or most species spiraled into extinction??
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ksc, posted 05-04-2002 10:30 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ksc, posted 05-05-2002 10:22 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 18 (9257)
05-06-2002 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ksc
05-05-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
[b]Schraf:First, what you completely miss is that evolution is not completely random. Natural selection, by definition, is notrandom.

ksc:Whether natural selection is or isn’t is debateable.[/QUOTE]
Really? Please provide references from the professional literature which states that natural selection is random.
BTW, how can something that is selected based upon certain characteristics be described as random?
[QYOTE]What you have forgotten is that the mutations that you claim are naturally selected are RANDOM


Right. What is your point here?
quote:
Schraf:Those organisms which have heritable characteristics which enable it to succeed in reproducing itself within particular environmental conditions will therefore spread it's genetic material more rapidly through a population that those.

ksc:Genetic differances will spread, but not differances produced by your mutations. For starters the changes would be so small that the environmental conditions would not even recognize them.
So, do you recognize that small changes do occur?
Please explain, then, how small changes, such as a slightly longer prehensile tail which enables an individual to reach more fruit, or a slightly different shaped beak which enables an individual to crack seed hulls more quickly, would not be recognized by the environment? If you are able to get even a little bit more food in you, wouldn't that mean that your offspring would be better fed by the mother because the mother could produce more milk, in the case of mammals, and therefore more of your offspring would survive?
quote:
In fact the time needed between a noticable morphological differance produced by mutations would be extremely long.
Morphological change isn't the only kind of change. What about the resistance/immunity that some Caucasions have to HIV due to a mutation? It seems that people who's ancestors survived the Black Plague in Europe passed on a mutation of a certain protein to their descendents which affords partial protection from or full immunity to HIV-1 to those which have the mutation, depending upon if it is a partial or full mutation.
Read more here:
http://www.sciam.com/0997issue/0997obrien.html
quote:
So long that the environmental conditions would have probablty moved on long ago.
Uh, are you actually implying that the environment changes extremely rapidly in all ways, everywhere, at all times? That is demonstrably not true.
quote:
Schraf:which reproduce less-successfuly.
The environmental selection is non-random. Mutations are, however.
BTW, you are wrong anbout most mutations being detrimental. Most mutations are neutral as regards to fitness. Please provide full references to the professional literature that says otherwise.

ksc:I think you can find it in just about any book on evolution that talks honestly about the subject.


Great, then you will have no problem providing full references to the literature here to back up your assertions.
BTW, any good book on the ToE is going to be heavily referenced to the professional literature. I don't care much about what people say in popular press books unless they reference peer-reviewed professional literature. Popular press books are not peer-reviewed and are not really good sources of reliable scientific information unless they arewell-referenced.
[QUOTE]Schraf:If most mutations are detrimental, then why haven't all or most species spiraled into extinction??


ksc:Because evolution doesn’t happen
[/b][/QUOTE]
Uh, you just said that most mutations are detrimental. This means that you acknowledge that mutations occur, right?
Therefore, to follow your logic, if most mutations are detrimental, then we would have all species rapidly becoming extinct.
Try again.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ksc, posted 05-05-2002 10:22 AM ksc has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024