quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Humans need to breathe air to survive, therefore, it is only humans who can successfully breathe who are able to survive.
Well, obviously that's a tautology, and therefore untrue and completely worthless in understanding human biology or survival.
I said earlier in the thread that I had read somewhere that sometimes something is a tautology because it is self-evidently true. This would be an example.
Natural selection is a tautology because it is self-evidently true. It also, by virtue of being a tautology, contains exactly *zero* explanatory power.
Now I have to go back to that other accursed thread and find what MattP said about refuting my claim that Natural Selection is a tautology.
posted
That's what I'm afraid of. Here's to hoping!
I found it Matt. You linked to a blog. I think I got the jist of what the blog was saying without having gone to the link. I still don't see how admitting Natural Selection is a tautology changes the fact that simply stating the obvious twice in one sentence gives it the power to explain anything other than itself.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I had read somewhere that sometimes something is a tautology because it is self-evidently true."
Thats not what a tautology is. A tautology is a propositional formula that is true under any posible truth value of the variables.
Something that is self-evidently true is... not always true. It is possible it could be false. It is possible humans would not need to breath oxygen. It HAPPENS to be true (and is, incidentally, not self-evidentally true. Nor is natural selection. Otherwise, every person who ever lived would recognize the truth value of the proposition).
"Natural selection is a tautology because it is self-evidently true. It also, by virtue of being a tautology, contains exactly *zero* explanatory power."
Even assuming your definition of tautology were correct (its not), things that are self-evidentally true DO have explanatory power. Lets take the oxygen example. Even if its self-evidentally true, knowing that people need oxygen to live helps us understand that aperson can die from lack of oxygen. "That person died because the flow of oxygen to his lungs was cut off." See? Explanatory power.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may be missing the point. I find it equally likely that I'm the one missing the point. Let me try it this way:
Natural selection is true based upon it's own premises, because one premise implies the other. The definition of "the fittest" as pertains to Evolutionary theory is the the species that is most likely to reproduce. Therefore, if the species survives, it is fittest, and it is fittest if it survives. I should have said that the principle has zero explanatory power beyond an explanation of itself. I suppose it could be rendered false if it were determined that the fittest creatures are not necessarily the ones most likely to survive and reproduce, bot a lot of good that would do Evolutionary theory.
The tautology about oxygen is just a useless. "the person died because the flow of oxygen to his lings was cut off" actually does not have explanatory power. It doesn't explain why humans need oxygen, or why the oxygen source was cut off. You actually need to have some sort of explanation about how oxygen is used by the body, and what happens when it is cut off. That tautology explains why the person died just as accurately as Natural Selection explains how we evolved, which is to say, it doesn't.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I started this thread because of all the non-contributors on a different thread, and I asked that people who do not wish to engage in an honest debate please stay away.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was curious about something. Now I'm not... you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't understand your terms, and not only that, you don't understand that you don't understand what you are talking about.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Therefore, if the species survives, it is fittest, and it is fittest if it survives.
Natural selection ALSO says that the individuals that survive will pass on their genes to their offspring who will also be subject to the same selective pressures. Over time this process will tend to increase the representation of the "more fit" genes in the population.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not adding anything to the equation, Matt. Unless you are criticizing my use of the term species. The individual belongs to a species. The species is more likely to survive if the individual members of its group are sufficiently fit to pass on their genetic information. Their fitness is rated according to how well they pass on their genes.
[Edit} I didn't really answer your question. Ok, if an individual within a species is more fit than the others within the species, then its genes will have greater representation within the species. Now we're getting somewhere.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Natural selection is true based upon it's own premises, because one premise implies the other.
No, it doesn't. If we always observed that all varaints in a population always survived equally well, then we would not conclude natural selection.
But we observe that this is not the case. We observe that in the presense of antibodies, variants which are resistant survive better.
quote:The definition of "the fittest" as pertains to Evolutionary theory is the the species that is most likely to reproduce.
You don't understand how evolution works within a populaiton of the same species. No one thinks that you have a handle on what it has to say about competition between species.
Stick to individuals within a population first, then we can move into bigger things.
quote:I suppose it could be rendered false if it were determined that the fittest creatures are not necessarily the ones most likely to survive and reproduce, bot a lot of good that would do Evolutionary theory.
The fittest memebrs of a population are by definition the ones that reproduce the best. If certain variants don't reproduce any better than others, than we don't call them the fittest.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not adding anything to the equation, Matt.
Sure it does. Your proposed tautological statement of natural selection says nothing about the transmission of genes. When you include enough information to fully describe the theory, it becomes much harder to formulate a tautological statement of the theory. It's not impossible though, because you can describe any theory as a tautology if you include the observations and inferences of the theory in the statement.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You don't understand how evolution works within a populaiton of the same species. No one thinks that you have a handle on what it has to say about competition between species."
This is why I'm ignoring you. Don't bother.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh- You've proved over and over again you have no clue. When you say "Ok. Dozens of people are telling me i don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe i should listen to what they are saying for a little while," then you're worth discussing evolutin with.
But, when everyone is telling you that you don't understand evolution, and has been telling you the same thing for a year, and won't respond to their questions or statements, all it says is you have a closed mind and are not willing to learn what evolution really is.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reproduction is the mechanism by which genes are transmitted. The transmission (and preservation) of genes is a necessary component. "The most fit are the most fit" doesn't supply any of that information. It doesn't tell us why that is important or what the implications are. Without a mention heritability of traits, it's a meaningless statement.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Paul. You're telling me that I should just take at their word all the dozens of people who have repeatedly shown that they think understanding the theory of evolution implies belief in the same, and conversely, disbelief in the their implies ignorance of its concepts and what it says. I am wrong, I am ignorant, and as far as I can tell you know this because I don't believe the theory.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The individual belongs to a species. The species is more likely to survive if the individual members of its group are sufficiently fit to pass on their genetic information.
Sigh.
As those benefical alleles start to spread around the population, more and more benefical mutations build on those. Eventually, the popualtion becomes differnt form its parent popuation, to the point where they aren't the same species.
So it's silly to say the the species will survive better if its descendants aren't the same species!
quote:[Edit} I didn't really answer your question. Ok, if an individual within a species is more fit than the others within the species, then its genes will have greater representation within the species. Now we're getting somewhere. [/qb]
No. We conclude that a particular allele is probably making its bearers more fit if we observe that the allele is growing in frequency in the population. (Neutral alleles can grow in popualtions due to random chance, or being physically linked to benefical alleles)
Observation, then conclusion. That's how science works.
Not "We decide it's fit, and then we look for frequency data which confirms this". Or "We decide that there is a direct line between pigs and dogs, and then crow about how science can't find it, so science must be wrong".
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"OK, Paul. You're telling me that I should just take at their word all the dozens of people who have repeatedly shown that they think understanding the theory of evolution implies belief in the same, and conversely, disbelief in the their implies ignorance of its concepts and what it says. I am wrong, I am ignorant, and as far as I can tell you know this because I don't believe the theory."
No, Resh. I am telling you that the first thing you need to do is listen to explanations about why your understanding of evolution is wrong, and read some of the links that people have been providing you, so that you come to an understanding of what evolution is. Currently, you do not have that understanding.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you please leave me alone? Every post of yours has some snide remark directed at me, and I started this thread to avoid that. Do I have to whistle you?
Matt, it is a meaningless statement. I'm asking for something that goes beyond that meaningless statement. This would have to be something like a specific increased function that gives an advantage to a species, or an individual [edit] within the [/end edit] species. The problem is that the only criteria by which we judge something to be advantageous is the degree of increased reproductive capability, which just brings us full circle back into the mire of the tautology.
[edit] I didn't get to that mistake above right away because I was distracted by some mal-intentioned posters. Would you all please go away if you have nothing constructive to add?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, the main thrust of the arguments about how I do not understand Evolution usually turn on the fact that I don't believe it to be true. I am trying to have a conversation with people (like Matt) who want to discuss the theory on it's merits. You're free to join in, but stop telling me I'm wrong because I'm wrong.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, you haven't actually defined natural selection yet. Here's wikipedia's definition:
quote:Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.
Natural selection explains the progression of the allele pools of populations. Individuals which are more successful will have a larger influence on the allele pool than individuals which are less successful. Over time, alleles that grant the best chance of reproduction will become more common in the allele pool of the population.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that basically what I've been saying, Threads? "Individuals which are more successful will have a larger influence on the allele pool than individuals which are less successful. Over time, alleles that grant the best chance of reproduction will become more common in the allele pool of the population."
Is there a major difference between saying that and saying: " The species is more likely to survive if the individual members of its group are sufficiently fit to pass on their genetic information. Their fitness is rated according to how well they pass on their genes... if an individual within a species is more fit than the others within the species, then its genes will have greater representation within the species.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: This would have to be something like a specific increased function that gives an advantage to a species, or an individual [edit] within the [/end edit] species.
Natural selection is the fitness function. Without natural selection there would be no way for a species to adapt to its environment. The random mutations introduced in one generation would have no influence on the next. The genetic makeup of the population would stay virtually identical. Natural selection is function that permits the adaptation of species. The random mutations in one generation may have a decidedly non-random impact on the reproductive capabilities of an individual. This non-randomness allows beneficial mutations to spread throughout the population over time because the individuals with those mutations will reproduce more often than those without them. Without this fitness function, species could not adapt at all. Darwin's finches would never exist.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Paul, the main thrust of the arguments about how I do not understand Evolution usually turn on the fact that I don't believe it to be true.
No, it doesn't. You aren't such a victim as you keep making yourself out to be.
No one who thinks that evolution predicts a direct dog-to-pig transitional orgainsm understands the theory of evolution.
But really, you could easily prove me wrong. You could prove to everyone on the board that you understand evolution by telling everyone what you think that theory of evolution actually says. And what the scientific community believes to be the evidence in favor of it
posted
Holy cow, this may be where the disconnect lies! Natural selection doesn't simply work on the mutations, it works on the variation within a species. The finches have encoded into their DNA a certain amount of variability in the size of their beaks. No mutations are needed. If a population of finches just keeps on reproducing with no variation in the environment, you'll get finches with a mean and median beak size, and then a few with beaks at the extreme ends of the size spectrum. All this without a single mutation necessary.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Is there a major difference between saying that and saying: " The species is more likely to survive if the individual members of its group are sufficiently fit to pass on their genetic information. Their fitness is rated according to how well they pass on their genes... if an individual within a species is more fit than the others within the species, then its genes will have greater representation within the species.
I don't see a circularity. I see two ways of saying the same thing. Natural selection is pretty self-explanatory. All it requires to work is that different individuals in a population have different chances of reproduction (in this case caused by genetic differences between individuals). Those different chances of reproduction are what lead to changes in the overall genetic composition of a population.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If a population of finches just keeps on reproducing with no variation in the environment, you'll get finches with a mean and median beak size, and then a few with beaks at the extreme ends of the size spectrum. All this without a single mutation necessary.
And if the type of seeds change so as to favor large beaks then the large beak finches will eventually dominate the population (and become the new "norm"). That's natural selection.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, that is the postulation that must work in tandem with natural selection to produce change. You need mutations that actually result in structural differences in phenotypes. Natural selection alone has been shown to have conservative tendencies.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if the type of seeds change so as to favor large beaks then the large beak finches will eventually dominate the population (and become the new "norm"). That's natural selection.
Absolutely. Verifiable, acceptable, no argument there. But as an indication of natural selection's conservative tendencies, when the environment changed back, the average beak size returned to normal (this actually happened.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Isn't that basically what I've been saying, Threads? "Individuals which are more successful will have a larger influence on the allele pool than individuals which are less successful. Over time, alleles that grant the best chance of reproduction will become more common in the allele pool of the population."
Is there a major difference between saying that and saying: " The species is more likely to survive if the individual members of its group are sufficiently fit to pass on their genetic information. Their fitness is rated according to how well they pass on their genes... if an individual within a species is more fit than the others within the species, then its genes will have greater representation within the species.
Yes, there is a difference. The top quote is only talking about individuals changing the allele pool of a population, the second is talking about the survival of species.
The whole point of evolution is that populations can change so much that eventually, they are not the same species as their ancestors.
If a sub-population of, say, fish, evolves to live in deeper waters than the other members of the population, then eventually those deeper fish will become a new species. And if, say, global warming causes the sea temp to rise, which kills the shallow fish, then the deeper species will survive, and the shallow one won't. Did the fact that some shallow living fish evolved to live in deeper waters help the orignal "species"? No. That species died. That a closely related species survived didn't help the shallow fish.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: [QB] Holy cow, this may be where the disconnect lies! Natural selection doesn't simply work on the mutations, it works on the variation within a species. The finches have encoded into their DNA a certain amount of variability in the size of their beaks.[QB]
Really, why don't you show us?
Mice come in lots of different colors: black, white, brown...etc.
Why don't you grab the C57L/B6 mouse data, and shows us where in their genome all that information for all the differces in fur color is stored.
posted
Ok, swbarnes, this is appropriate. I already whistled you, but all I was hoping for is just a suggestion that we talk about the theory and not make things personal.
You are describing a subtle change where one type of fish very gradually evolves into a very similar fish with different capabilities and strengths. That is Micromutation, and something that I have repeatedly said I don't have a problem with. It may be considered a different species depending on what changes occur and even how species is being defined at the time.
When I say that there is no evidence for Evolution (notice the capital "e"), what I mean is that Isaying that this type of micromutation can conceivably account for the eventual changes of fish into amphibians, I do not think that is evidence.
[edit] Nevermind. I gave you a chance. I'm ignoring your posts from now on.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Holy cow, this may be where the disconnect lies! Natural selection doesn't simply work on the mutations, it works on the variation within a species.
No kidding. You're telling me you didn't understand that? No wonder you're confused- that's the basic postulate upon which the theory rests!
Natural selection operates on variation in phenotype.
Variation in phenotype can be generated by variation in genotype.
Variation in genotype is generated by mutation.
If you accept that these three things are true, then evolution is not only likely to happen, it's inevitable.
quote: The finches have encoded into their DNA a certain amount of variability in the size of their beaks. No mutations are needed.
Where do you think that variability came from in the first place? Hint: it starts with "M" and rhymes with "plantation."
Of course, you can also generate novel phenotypes by recombination, but to get the variation in alleles necessary for recombination to have an observable effect in the first place, you need mutation to occur first.
quote:If a population of finches just keeps on reproducing with no variation in the environment, you'll get finches with a mean and median beak size, and then a few with beaks at the extreme ends of the size spectrum. All this without a single mutation necessary. [/QB]
Sort of. If certain phenotype(s) are advantageous in your hypothetical constant environment, then they will tend to sweep to fixation (that is, they will eventually dominate the population until they are the only alleles present). How long fixation takes depends on how much more fitness they confer relative to the other alleles in the population.
But again, you ain't gonna get any of that variation in the first place without mutation. A mutation-free population is a population of clones.
quote:Absolutely. Verifiable, acceptable, no argument there. But as an indication of natural selection's conservative tendencies, when the environment changed back, the average beak size returned to normal (this actually happened.)
Yes, which only goes to show that evolution doesn't follow some grand master plan- that what is "better" at some particular place and at some point in time won't necessarily be "better" anywhere or anywhen else. It also doesn't mean that evolution will inevitably cause populations to return to some ancestral state, if that is what you're implying. Natural selection has no memory- it only acts on the here and now.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I applaud your efforts, Reshpeckobiggle. But I think you are probably wasting your time. The pro-evolutionist lobby here is utterly wedded to the notion that only someone who is ignorant could refuse to accept evolution. When someone comes along and shows that he is not at all ignorant, and knows all the facts that they do, and still does not accept evolution, that really gores their ox. When you cite facts that are clearly inconvenient for their cherished theory, they can get mean, nasty. Rabid. And they accuse you of doing all the screaming and yelling, when it is really them. At least, that has been my experience with them, and all their ilk, for forty years. Good luck.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Tarrsk, lets tackle this. Are you saying that any change in DNA between the parent and offspring is a mutation?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You are describing a subtle change where one type of fish very gradually evolves into a very similar fish with different capabilities and strengths. That is Micromutation, and something that I have repeatedly said I don't have a problem with. It may be considered a different species depending on what changes occur and even how species is being defined at the time.
"Macroevolution" is just the logical consequence of "microevolution" over a very long period of time. Lots of things can lead two formerly interbreeding populations to stop interbreeding, and once they stop, they aren't likely to start again. Eventually, some genetic change will occur that eliminates inter-population fertility altogether, such as a chromosome duplication or fusion. Yes, contrary to your preconceived notions, there are events that can very rapidly lead to speciation. Of course, when I say "very rapidly," I'm still talking in the order of thousands of years. But it's quicker than millions.
quote:When I say that there is no evidence for Evolution (notice the capital "e"), what I mean is that Isaying that this type of micromutation can conceivably account for the eventual changes of fish into amphibians, I do not think that is evidence.
Of course it is. It demonstrates how small changes can build up over time, which is a central prediction of evolutionary theory. When lots of small changes build up, you get large changes. It's as simple as that.
quote:[edit] Nevermind. I gave you a chance. I'm ignoring your posts from now on. [/QB]
You've got to be kidding. swbarnes is being very polite- he's just demanding that you put up or shut up. The only one here losing his cool is you.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's important to understand that there is still debate on how macroevolution occurs (ex: gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium). However, the debate on whether it occurs is over because the evidence for macroevolution is no dependent on the mechanisms for macroevolution. I link to some pages discussing universal common descent if you would like.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
You are describing a subtle change where one type of fish very gradually evolves into a very similar fish with different capabilities and strengths. That is Micromutation, and something that I have repeatedly said I don't have a problem with. It may be considered a different species depending on what changes occur and even how species is being defined at the time
When I say that there is no evidence for Evolution (notice the capital "e"), what I mean is that Isaying that this type of micromutation can conceivably account for the eventual changes of fish into amphibians, I do not think that is evidence.
The universe does not care about what you personally can or can't conceive of. No one here does, we care about what the evidence shows.
The fossil record is clear, it shows sets of fossils changing from ancient fish into ancient anphibians, until they become reptiles.
And even if we didn't have any fossil record at all, the DNA evidence would still allow us to draw the same conclusion.
That you don't know anything about the DNA, and that you refuse to look at the fossil doesn't change what the evidence is.
quote:Nevermind. I gave you a chance. I'm ignoring your posts from now on.
Yeah, I made the cardinal error of asking you to back up your make-believe with evidence from Ensembl, and now you are pouty. How predictable.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I applaud your efforts, Reshpeckobiggle. But I think you are probably wasting your time. The pro-evolutionist lobby here is utterly wedded to the notion that only someone who is ignorant could refuse to accept evolution. When someone comes along and shows that he is not at all ignorant, and knows all the facts that they do, and still does not accept evolution, that really gores their ox. When you cite facts that are clearly inconvenient for their cherished theory, they can get mean, nasty. Rabid. And they accuse you of doing all the screaming and yelling, when it is really them. At least, that has been my experience with them. Good luck.
Thanks Ron, but that's not true of everybody. I am really hoping that if I ignore the bad apples and only engage those like Threads and Matt, and a few others from the other thread like fugu and sumnion, that this will be a very pleasant conversation, and maybe we can all learn something.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ok, Tarrsk, lets tackle this. Are you saying that any change in DNA between the parent and offspring is a mutation?
*faceplant*
Yes. Of course. That's the definition of mutation!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ok, Tarrsk, lets tackle this. Are you saying that any change in DNA between the parent and offspring is a mutation?
*faceplant*
Yes. Of course. That's the definition of mutation!
From wiki: In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as hypermutation.
This is something quite different from the differences acquired by taking half your DNA from one parent and half your DNA from a different parent.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Ron, why don't YOU take a look at the DNA that swbarnes linked too, and show where that information exists in the genome, since you made a similar arguement as Resh did?
And Resh: Remember when I was defending you from the others?
You said you'd come back, and when you had time, you'd answer my questions. They said you wuoldn't, and I told them to hold on, that I believed you.
You never did. You never answered them. And eventually, you began responding to my questions, my asking you to do what you said you would do, with derision.
I was wrong about you. I was wrong to defend you. I tried to defend you, but you responded by proving their claims that you would not show anything to be true.
Why should I respect the claims of a person who does this, again?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, look, Megabyte, I'm sorry I keep disappointing you. I just greatly dislike your demands, and the way you go about the discussion. I find you to be insincere and I think you have only one goal in mind: to catch me in a trap. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested.
[Edit] Okay, you may be right. Maybe I'm not being fair to you. As much as it may irk you, I'm not going back to that other thread, or the one way back before it. I'd rather we start anew, if you're willing. Go ahead, ask me what you want to ask me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ok, Tarrsk, lets tackle this. Are you saying that any change in DNA between the parent and offspring is a mutation?
*faceplant*
Yes. Of course. That's the definition of mutation!
From wiki: In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as hypermutation.
This is something quite different from the differences acquired by taking half your DNA from one parent and half your DNA from a different parent.
Hah. Fair enough, you got me there. I forgot about recombination, which is when you get a bit of something from Mom and a bit of something from Dad. That doesn't change the fact that for Mom and Dad to be different in the first place, mutation must have occurred at some point. Otherwise, there would be no variation in the population at all- everyone would be a clone. And if that's true, then it doesn't matter what you get from Mom or Dad, because the end product (your genotype) will always be the same.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all seriousness and no snideness intended - there's no trap, mate. There's just evidence. You make claims, they make claims and everyone provides evidence to back up their claims.
No-one's trying to trap you - even when we've been snide, we're genuinely interested in the evidence you do have and your interpretations of the evidence we provide.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a premise I don't just blindly accept. Mutation may be the sole source of differences, but it may be because Adam and Eve were created with two different yet compatible sets of DNA, and all the male/female pairs on the Ark had different yet compatible sets of DNA.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, by the way. But I find it more likely to have happened than Evolution.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
