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"