Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Just the right spot...

im saying that the dna of all living creatures on earth have the same basic components, but that they can link in so many different ways.

the main difference between a man and a worm is the length and number of genes. its how they are arranged that makes the difference between every thing. given enough time for a worm to gain the number of genes, and the right arrangement, yes it could. thing is it would take hundreds of millions of years for it to happen.

sorry, Amaranth Rose, that was not intended as an insult, it was intended to tell him that he is too closed minded. Hes not willing to let new ideas in.

"Perhaps I missed the sentance that tells us how it is acheived. Personally I don't think I did...but if I did would you be so kind as to cut and paste that portion?"

I think that there are a lot of sentences that you have missed. Now you're playing games with words. The consitution does not use the phrase "separation of church and state," but the framers (Jefferson and Madison) expressly stated that the purpose of the first amendment was the "wall of separation."

The sentences do not state precisely what you are looking for, but the meaning is clear, for someone who knows how to read.

It would help if you explained why you think mutations would not add up.

Soilguy, how many times do I need to explaine it to you?

lets start with the odds.

What are the odds of a RANDOM..did you get thet? RANDOM mutation..which just so happens to be beneficial, occurring in just the right place as to add to a previous mutation?

Balls in your court.

Let's start with the fact that you don't understand how to compute odds and go from there.

1) Random does not mean entirely unconstrained.
Consider a pseudo-random generator that produces random numbers X, such that 0<= X < 1. Such a function does return 2 or 3 or -pi. But it does return a random number.

2) I don't know how to explain to you more clearly that your attempt to compute the probability in this way is mathematical nonsense. How much clearer can I make it?

did you even notice my last post?

or how about the one in the other thread?

Your odds are meaningless. In fact, you didn't offer up any odds. Also consider:

--mutations aren't "random." Certain parts of genomes have much higher mutation rates than others.

--you are confining all mutations to point mutations, which is silly.

--mutations need not occur on the same gene to have a cumulative effect on the structure of the creature in question.

You wouldn't have such questions if you bothered to learn something about biology. That's why I asked you to explain what you envision. You don't seem to envision anything. You keep tossing up the false "odds" argument.

TheFallibleFiend...do you have any math that shows that RANDOM mutations do add up?

Sooooooo, lets see this model on how mutation add up.

Any takers?

"TheFallibleFiend...do you have any math that shows that RANDOM mutations do add up?"

I'm not aware that this is a mathematical problem. We have a method for the accretion of mutations that are beneficial to organisms. This method is called natural selection. Natural selection has been observed to happen in microorganisms.

There is nothing known that inhibits this process from explaining observed diversity. We have simulations that show very clearly that with selective pressure, mutations accrete. Those simulations are based on underlying mathematical models.

There is a vast and growing literature for genetic algorithms and evolutionary programs. There is an entire institute devoted to the investigation of these and other complex adaptive systems. That is the santa fe institute. I'm supposed to go there at the end of the month.

You can list 600 "scientists" who reject evolution. I can find you two buildings with that many scientists - but you reject quality, and quality, and prefer to make up your own math, and promote your own faulty logic.

Do your homework. Quit asking everyone else to "prove" things to you while you put your fingers in your ears and brainlessly chant "nya nya nya."

TheFallibleFiend continues with the claim...they just do.

But considering that you said there is an entire institute devoted to the investigation of these compplex adaptive systems...I have to assume for now your don't know.

Once again your evolutionism is based on faith.

trilobytes utters a lie:
"TheFallibleFiend continues with the claim...they just do. "

Clearly I have not countered with the claim "they just do."

I've explained to you very carefully in other posts, but you refuse to read them carefully.

"But considering that you said there is an entire institute devoted to the investigation of these compplex adaptive systems...I have to assume for now your don't know. "

What you assume based on poor understanding, poor math skills, and even much poorer logical facility is not relevant.

"Once again your evolutionism is based on faith."

Your failure to understand baed solely on your refusal to do homework does not equate to faith on my part.

I can't use math to prove that drops of water that fall into a cup with eventually fill it. It's logic and physical reasoning that one uses for that. We have a mechanism for the accretion of mutations. That mechanism is called natural selection.

Biological evolution does not work on the level of individuals. It works on populations. Whenever there is a population of organisms, large or small, there is variation. Some of that variation is due to mutation. If those mutations confer no benefit in the environment in which they arise, then they have no effect. If they cause an imbalance, then a selection pressure is created. This pressure is very potent. Biologists have known this for a long time, but I didn't understand the power of it until I wrote my first evolutionary program.

The least little imbalance can cause a shift in a matter of a few generations. Note that these programs do not prove evolution, as they do not operate exactly as evolution does, but onlyl analogously. They do, however, give us some insights. You can visit the santa fe site for some information on that.

So now we have a mutation that is dominant in the community. It is important to realize at this point, that this new mutation doesn't necessarily cause all of the bearers of the original gene to die out. Even if that were possible, it would not be desirable. It is beneficial - even imperative - for the optimization of the population that some non-optimal individuals survive long enough to breed.

However, now that this new set of genes is dominant, the birth of every set of offspring brings yet another opportunity for genes to be altered. The alterations can happen in a number of ways. (In some micro-organisms there is also gene exchange between them. This helps to explain why viruses and bacteria can adapt so quickly.)

This population with the new dominant gene then acquires another mutation eventually that confers even more advantage - probably that mutation has nothing to do with the first one. There may be several beneficial mutations (and many bad ones) before another mutation occurs that would add some benefit to the first beneficial mutation - but over time, there is no reason to think that this would not permit the development of new organs any more than there is cause to doubt that drops added to a cup would eventually fill it.

Sigh....once again a post on how a mutation occurs and is added to the population is presented...but the needed second, third, fourth...etc. mutation is LEFT OUT.

im begining to think that tri is just argueing for the fun of argueing. Hes not willing to learn, no matter how many times its explain. to quote a movie "the cows could understand it by now"

"Sigh....once again a post on how a mutation occurs and is added to the population is presented...but the needed second, third, fourth...etc. mutation is LEFT OUT."

I mentioned the subsequent mutations in my last paragraph. You didn't read carefully.

This is the MO of creationists. Keep asking idiotic questions and ignore answers. Later, make the absurd claim of winning the argument. Ho-hum.

"Keep asking idiotic questions and ignore answers. "

Ingoring answers the biggest one. That, and flat out lying along with a heaping helping of sciolism.

OK Trilobite. From the beginning. We know all the following from experiments.

Our genes are carried on our chromosomes. Chromosomes consist of long double chains of DNA, a series of nucleotides, A, D, G, and C for short. Each group of three nucleotides in the DNA chain programs for a particular amino acid. Proteins are long chains of amino acids. They are responsible for regulating the development and functioning of the individual plant or animal. Sometimes when DNA is replicating itself mistakes occur and some nucleotides or chains of nucleotides get mixed up. Sometimes this has no effect on the protein the particular string of nucleotides is responsible for but at other times it does. This alters the protein.

Sometimes the altered protein has some effect on the way the organism with it develops. But usually these mutations give rise to recessive genes. Therefore they too have no effect. For a recessive gene to become esablished it must be present in both parents. Recessive genes tend to appear as a result of inbreeding. If the gene is disadvantageous it will be eliminated, often before birth or even before conception. If it is advantageous it spreads through a population through the formation of hybrids.

Within any population of species there are a huge variety of genes available for each point on the chromosome. Those organisms with any advantageous double recessive gene will make up the population numbers when acted on by selection. Farmers use this idea to select the individual plants or animals they breed from.

Each gene is actually a whole complex of proteins. Mutations that lead to a wing or an eye don't have to randomly occur at the same point on a particular chromosome. As a result of mutations all species on earth change over time and space. Even you are surely aware of the spatial variation. As I've asked you on another posting: if all humans descend from one couple how come there is so much regional variation?

So finally, Trilobyte, could you please explain to SAGG what on earth is the difference between micro- and macro- evolution. Surely the difference is simply time.

terrytnewzealand, you guys do good at explaining the first muation...but fall way short when it comes to the second.

Why is that?

troll-obyte,
it has been explained clearly to you, but you either pretend not to understand or deliberately skip it.