[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Barbarian chuckles:
It's been your question after being answered several times.



Yep. That part is random mutation. As you learned, the cause of evolution is random mutation and natural selection.

Random mutation can't be acted up on by natural selection until it has a selective value. Often that isn't the case when the mutation happens, but later it may change.

It only requires that specific traits be acted upon by natural selection. Remember, natural selectin only acts on phenotypes. So whenever a phenotype with a selection value appears, natural selection steps in. So far, that's the only mechanism known for phylogenetic change.



Captain Obvious strikes again. As you see, random mutation and natural selection, again.



Don't have to. Only when there's actually one that does something, does it matter.



From the outside, this looks like Yorzhik is depending on obstinate refusal to accept the fact. You're trying to use semantics to hide from the conclusion.

That's your answer? That I'm right. I realize you state that you don't believe me even though you say I'm right, but your cognitive dissonance is a good admission at least.

Here you say, "Random mutation can't be acted up on by natural selection until it has a selective value. Often that isn't the case when the mutation happens, but later it may change." without realizing that 'Often' is a great majority of the time.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Guyver

Actually...I guess there's another option...like some around here...you can try to believe both...

God says he made us specifically and for a reason. All things considered...I find that the most probable option...and I have no problem with belief in the supernatural.....however antiquated that view is in this "modern" world.

Where exactly does "probable" or perhaps "belief in the supernatural" come in it for you, I thought you were someone who had been given a special insight and knows these things?

[Guyver]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

See above. You need to separate abiogenesis from evolutionary theory, which has nothing to say about abiogenesis.

Why do you object to God doing it naturally, as He says He did, in Genesis?

If you take God at His word, there's really no other alternative, is there?

But why does it bother you that He used nature to do it?

I am well aware of the convenient distinction between abiogenesis and evolution that natural evolutionists like to make. I'm sorry that it's not clear to you that you can't have one without the other, and that they're really not far apart from a logistical or engineering perspective.

Barbarian ponders... "Why do you have a problem with God doing it naturally"

First of all...there's nothing natural about abiogenesis....that would be supernatural....as would all life on this planet evolving from that specific event....if it ever occurred without Gods direct intervention.

Secondly, as I explained before...in the case of humans it's clear that God did not use natural forces...he directly and specifically takes credit for making man in a fully developed and reproductively capable state.

Barbarian observes.."Taking God at his word leaves no alternative"

This is true and I'm really good with it. The idea of mans common descent from apes is not only contrary to what God states...but it is an unprovable myth that is the stuff of science fiction and deceives millions of people into thinking they are something they are not...namely a "living soul."

[Guyver]

Originally Posted by alwight

Where exactly does "probable" or perhaps "belief in the supernatural" come in it for you, I thought you were someone who had been given a special insight and knows these things?

I do know these things. But I also am aware that I can't prove it...which is what you science types require. In your mind I could be a liar or delusional.

PS. My computer is virus infected and Im sick of trying to thread on this iPad....I'm out. Regards to all. Light, life, peace and Gods blessings to all reading.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by alwight

Perhaps it's me maybe there is something here that I simply won't see?

Right. It's something obvious.

Here's a simple question. Every new trait requires nucleotide changes to exist, correct?

The whole point is surely that no traits ever pre-exist in some way, that is not what evolution suggests.

So you are suggesting that the majority of traits existed in the first life form? Unless your logic is different than everyone else's, those traits had to come from changes farther down the road.

The basic premise is that random small mutations can and do occur naturally. (This is not about crocoducks or even two headed snakes btw.)

Yes. That's one of the points I'm trying to get you to acknowledge in your line of reasoning.

They don't have to be advantageous mutations and probably for the most part they aren't, but just occasionally they are.

Perhaps this is what you don't seem to get. It doesn't matter whether the mutations are advantageous or not. It only matters that they are some of the few mutations that can successfully create a new compatible trait.

When they are of some even small benefit then those individuals with them will tend to be naturally selected for, have I missed something significant here?

Yes, you've missed something significant. You can't get to this point until you've spent the majority of your time collecting mutations that will turn into something that will be selected for.

Why do you need to collect the mutations before they turn into traits? Because it takes more than a few nucleotide changes in most cases to make a new trait.
Why isn't luck good enough to account for collecting these nucleotide changes?
Because not being lucky is a great deal more likely.

Try this: restate my argument in your own words.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Guyver

I do know these things. But I also am aware that I can't prove it...which is what you science types require. In your mind I could be a liar or delusional.

I'd be very loath to call anyone a liar without some rather good evidence or at least a special insight, but "delusional" might be a good possibility to consider.

Originally Posted by Guyver

PS. My computer is virus infected and Im sick of trying to thread on this iPad....I'm out. Regards to all. Light, life, peace and Gods blessings to all reading.

Seems like a very convenient virus if you ask me.

[Stripe]

Here is Yorzhik's challenge in my words (and picture):



A random mutation in evolution will effect a change analogous to the changed, magnified pixel in the sentence. But this alteration will have zero impact upon the message being communicated.

In order to change the message into a new sentence, something other than "reading selection" has to be at work.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Here is Yorzhik's challenge in my words (and picture):



A random mutation in evolution will effect a change analogous to the changed, magnified pixel in the sentence. But this alteration will have zero impact upon the message being communicated.

In order to change the message into a new sentence, something other than "reading selection" has to be at work.

I thought this was a great example earlier. Didn't you get a reply?

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Right. It's something obvious.

Here's a simple question. Every new trait requires nucleotide changes to exist, correct?

Unlike you perhaps the genome is not my field of excellence but yes change is what would have to happen when a mutation occurs presumably. But also as I understand it changes could occur in DNA without producing any obvious mutations, at least at the time.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

So you are suggesting that the majority of traits existed in the first life form? Unless your logic is different than everyone else's, those traits had to come from changes farther down the road.

No, you misunderstood me I was saying that no traits would ever pre-exist and that evolution did not suggest it ever did. I hope that's has made it clearer for you.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Yes. That's one of the points I'm trying to get you to acknowledge in your line of reasoning.

Good we're on the same page then.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Perhaps this is what you don't seem to get. It doesn't matter whether the mutations are advantageous or not. It only matters that they are some of the few mutations that can successfully create a new compatible trait.

You're right it still doesn't make sense.
Why exactly is having an advantage not going to actively assist the chances of that organisms survival right there and then? You seemed to gloss over that part.
No, new traits afaic simply emerge slowly and without any foresight or planning because those with the said advantage are naturally selected for in favour of those without.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Yes, you've missed something significant. You can't get to this point until you've spent the majority of your time collecting mutations that will turn into something that will be selected for.

What if a small genetic change occurred that altered the coding of the colour of a moth say that happened to make it somewhat less obvious to birds while on a particular background? Would birds, in your opinion be equally as likely to select these particular moths anyway even though they were harder to see than others that perhaps stood out rather more? I really don't think so btw.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Why do you need to collect the mutations before they turn into traits? Because it takes more than a few nucleotide changes in most cases to make a new trait.

I really don't see your reasoning for any need to "collect mutations" first as though there were some planned objective in mind there just isn't, small changes simply build on small changes that either help, hinder or are neutral as survival traits at the time.
It's really no good looking at the "end product" trait, as you seem to, and exclaiming "oh look at all the nucleotide changes required, impossible!".
You rather miss the whole point I think perhaps even deliberately so.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Why isn't luck good enough to account for collecting these nucleotide changes?
Because not being lucky is a great deal more likely.

What's luck if not only a subjective opinion? And what may be luck for one individual may simply be in having a slight genetic advantage in surviving and reproducing while the less fortunate ones are never heard of again.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Try this: restate my argument in your own words.

What argument was that?

[The Barbarian]

That's your answer? That I'm right.

No, I'm pointing out that you're wrong.

I realize you state that you don't believe me even though you say I'm right,

C'mon, Yorzhik. You aren't in second grade. You know I'm saying you're wrong. The process works by random mutation and natural selection. And so far, no one's identified anything else.

Here you say, "Random mutation can't be acted up on by natural selection until it has a selective value. Often that isn't the case when the mutation happens, but later it may change." without realizing that 'Often' is a great majority of the time.

The point is, it doesn't matter. The variation that natural selection acts on is produced by random mutation. Whether it works immediately or later when the environment or the rest of the genome changes, doesn't matter.

It's still just random mutation and natural selection. And you, trying to redefine words to make your argument work, is pretty good evidence you realize it.

[The Barbarian]

I am well aware of the convenient distinction between abiogenesis and evolution that natural evolutionists like to make.

That's the way science works. Theories are only accountable for the claims they make, not for claims other people wish they had made.

I'm sorry that it's not clear to you that you can't have one without the other,

In fact, Darwin assumed just that. He assumed God made the first living things, and they evolved from there. And it should be clear to you that abiogenesis is not a requirement for evolution.

and that they're really not far apart from a logistical or engineering perspective.

Nice try.

Barbarian asks:
"Why do you have a problem with God doing it naturally, as He said He did?

First of all...there's nothing natural about abiogenesis....that would be supernatural....as would all life on this planet evolving from that specific event....if it ever occurred without Gods direct intervention.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that God stepped in and changed anything. Nature seems to have worked just as He intended, the first time.

Secondly, as I explained before...in the case of humans it's clear that God did not use natural forces...he directly and specifically takes credit for making man in a fully developed and reproductively capable state.

But the Bible doesn't say that, does it? Adding to scripture is always a bad idea.

In the case of evolution producing all life via natural forces
or a supernatural being we call God doing it.... Actually...I guess there's another option...like some around here...you can try to believe both...

Barbarian observes:
If you take God at His word, there's really no other alternative, is there?

This is true and I'm really good with it.

(Barbarian acknowledges the evidence for common descent)

The idea of mans common descent from apes is not only contrary to what God states...

But the Bible doesn't deny it, does it?

it is an unprovable myth that is the stuff of science fiction and deceives millions of people into thinking they are something they are not...namely a "living soul."

Nothing in science is "proven." But we have compelling evidence for the way life varies and for common descent. And none if it even vaguely suggests that humans don't receive a "living soul" from God.

C'mon. You know this.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by alwight

Unlike you perhaps the genome is not my field of excellence but yes change is what would have to happen when a mutation occurs presumably. But also as I understand it changes could occur in DNA without producing any obvious mutations, at least at the time.

I'm not a scientist. But there is enough information about how DNA works that even laymen can get these basic ideas. Wiki is more than enough. Go here: www.wikipedia.com and search for 'DNA'. The links in the main article will take you on a journey that can easily last an afternoon.

No, you misunderstood me I was saying that no traits would ever pre-exist and that evolution did not suggest it ever did. I hope that's has made it clearer for you.

Right. I thought you had shot yourself in the foot, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for making it crystal clear.

Better get a bandaid on that.

Good we're on the same page then.

But then you turn around and say something that shows you aren't on the same page like this:

You're right it still doesn't make sense.
Why exactly is having an advantage not going to actively assist the chances of that organisms survival right there and then? You seemed to gloss over that part.
No, new traits afaic simply emerge slowly and without any foresight or planning because those with the said advantage are naturally selected for in favour of those without.

and this:

What if a small genetic change occurred that altered the coding of the colour of a moth say that happened to make it somewhat less obvious to birds on a particular background? Would birds, in your opinion be equally likely to select these particular moths anyway even though they were harder to see than others that perhaps stood more? I really don't think so btw.

First, there is no foresight or planning. I get that which is why I know there are only 2 options which can make evolution work.

One is mentioned in your quote immediately above and isn't a part of the main driver to evolution. The example you list is a minor driver since it is rare that only 1 or 2 nucleotide changes are required to make a trait work. Most new traits aren't like that. Most new traits require a greater number of nucleotide changes that must first have been collected before it can be expressed by a final nucleotide change.

Which brings up the other driver to evolution (at least the ones available with the evidence we have so far):

Since there is no foresight, that other driver must be "luck." Somehow we have to collect nucleotide changes without foresight or planning... or NS.

small changes simply build on small changes that either help, hinder or are neutral as survival traits at the time.

No. There is no helping trait (we can ignore hindering traits for now) until a trait exists. A helping trait does not exist until there are a rather great number of nucleotide changes that have collected, neutrally, until a final nucleotide change or two can start the new trait working. Your problem is that most of the time evolution has is spent collecting these neutral nucleotide changes. Only after the majority of time spent evolving something can NS finally take over and quickly fix the new trait into a population.

What's luck if not only a subjective opinion? And what may be luck for one individual may simply be in having a slight genetic advantage in surviving and reproducing while the less fortunate ones are never heard of again.

Luck is very specific and not subjective or opinion or subjective opinion. It is defined ruthlessly narrow as nucleotide changes that create a trait that provides an advantage. There are only a relatively few nucleotide sequences that can make a new trait that works. It has nothing to do with subjectivity.

What argument was that?

Asking you to restate my argument in your own words is a way to find out if you understand the concepts involved.

You can try again if you'd like

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

No, I'm pointing out that you're wrong.

C'mon, Yorzhik. You aren't in second grade. You know I'm saying you're wrong.

No. You restated most of what I've said so far the same way I intended, as what you believe. If that isn't an endorsement that I'm right then you need to improve your reading comprehension.

It doesn't matter only if time doesn't matter.

The vast majority of the time evolution has to work with is spent waiting for the right random, selectively neutral, mutations to occur and be fixed in the population. The word "later" in your statement is so trivial, and is the part where NS is working, that it can't be a main driver.

The process works by random mutation and natural selection. And so far, no one's identified anything else.

This is no answer to the problem I've raised. Somehow you have to get by the problem of the vast number of required nucleotide changes not being subject to NS.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
C'mon, Yorzhik. You aren't in second grade. You know I'm saying you're wrong.

No. You restated most of what I've said so far the same way I intended, as what you believe.

If so, then you believe you're wrong. What I said was that evolutionary change is due to random mutation and natural selection. So, if you concede the fact, there's nothing left to argue.

Here you say, "Random mutation can't be acted up on by natural selection until it has a selective value. Often that isn't the case when the mutation happens, but later it may change." without realizing that 'Often' is a great majority of the time.

Barbarian observes:
The point is, it doesn't matter. The variation that natural selection acts on is produced by random mutation. Whether it works immediately or later when the environment or the rest of the genome changes, doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter only if time doesn't matter.

Thank you. It doesn't matter how long it takes. It's still random mutation and natural selection.

The vast majority of the time evolution has to work with is spent waiting for the right random, selectively neutral, mutations to occur and be fixed in the population.

Doesn't have to be fixed. Do you understand what "fixation" is in genetics? And yes, how long it takes is not an issue; the mechanism is still random mutation and natural selection.

The word "later" in your statement is so trivial, and is the part where NS is working, that it can't be a main driver.

That's wrong, too. Directed change happens only during selection.

This is no answer to the problem I've raised. Somehow you have to get by the problem of the vast number of required nucleotide changes not being subject to NS.

It's called "random mutation." That's the other part of it. Evolution is caused by random mutation and natural selection.

I'm not a scientist.

No kidding.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Barbarian chuckles:
It's been your question after being answered several times.

Quote:
One answer was that every nucleotide gets acted upon by NS, but that can't be true since most nucleotide changes are selectively neutral (including the nucleotide changes required to make a new trait.---yorzhik


Yep. That part is random mutation. As you learned, the cause of evolution is random mutation and natural selection.

Random mutation can't be acted up on by natural selection until it has a selective value. Often that isn't the case when the mutation happens, but later it may change.

It only requires that specific traits be acted upon by natural selection. Remember, natural selectin only acts on phenotypes. So whenever a phenotype with a selection value appears, natural selection steps in. So far, that's the only mechanism known for phylogenetic change.


Quote:
Yes, that is exactly my point. NS cannot act on a new trait until it exists.

Captain Obvious strikes again. As you see, random mutation and natural selection, again.

Quote:
They don't exist with each nucleotide change.--Yorzhik


Don't have to. Only when there's actually one that does something, does it matter.

Quote:
Barbarian has not successfully countered this point and I doubt that he will.


From the outside, this looks like Yorzhik is depending on obstinate refusal to accept the fact. You're trying to use semantics to hide from the conclusion.

Very rarely does a single mutation by itself create a new trait that can be acted upon by natural selection. Most of the traits that are required for macro evolution to occur all have multiple nucleotide changes from what was in existence before. One mutation can cause a new trait, but that is only because hundreds or thousands of other mutations have already occurred in the past that acting together with the single new one produce the new trait that is selectable.

This scenario is highly improbable. If a new trait that is selectable requires a thousand specific new nucleotide changes arranged in a precise order on the chromosomes, the chances are slim that they will all exist at the same time and same order that is necessary for the selectable trait to be produced. You are asking that when each of these one of necessary nucleotide changes occur, it must stay in the genome and wait for all his neccesary partners to arrive and do so without being mutated into another form. Without selective pressure to stay in the genome, there is nothing to keep it in the genome.

While all of these necessary nucleotide changes are waiting for all their partners to arrive, other nucleotide changes are also occurring, and chances are very good that these other (non partner) nucleotide changes will act together with the original partners to indeed form a selectable trait.

The trouble is that this other selectable trait will likely be deadly.

In summation, all of the nucleotide changes necessary for a new selectable trait to arrive by chance require even more time than the amount of time evolutionists give( millions of years).