Spirituality
25 Jul 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayCan anyone explain what this means please?
For one, this shows that once bad mutations come in and they start weeding out life that get them, there is no recovery for the bad mutations coming in. They die off due to the weaknesses that were introduced. You then must grapple with the idea that everyone gets them, they are far outnumbering the ones that could do specific good works, like continue to build an eye.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterOkay, I'm going to help Kelly out here (he is floundering rather). Here is an article that (I think) best represents Kelly's position:
Can anyone explain what this means please?
http://bnugent.org/lack-of-beneficial-dna-mutations-refutes-darwinian-evolution/
Here's a section:
'Adam Lee includes the following absurd claim that these “beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population.” One could argue that the above mutations do confer a limited degree of advantage and survivability of offspring. To claim that such mutations “spread through the population” is to give the impression that mutations simply spread through a gene pool like an infectious disease!
Mutations to DNA are transmitted to other humans by only one mechanism, namely, reproduction. Those with a beneficial mutation will enjoy a slightly higher degree of survival and produce more offspring that survive. For any beneficial mutation to predominate in the human gene pool and advance humans one small step in evolution would require hundreds of generations. During these hundreds of generations, the unfortunate humans without the beneficial mutation would gradually die off and gradually be replaced by the humans with the slightly higher survivability rate. The gene pool would then have the beneficial mutation as a feature in the genes of all humans.
Why do I insist that the beneficial mutation be substituted into the DNA of all humans? That’s because, as mentioned above, the DNA of all of the human race is over 99% similar and there is no subspecies of humans with DNA containing significant beneficial mutations that would set them apart. This scientifically verified uniformity of the gene pool shows that any alleged evolution in the past must have resulted in substitution of genetic mutations into the entire gene pool of 7 billion humans spread across six continents.'
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterGood mutations in order to actually add to a good work being done, for example build
Can anyone explain what this means please?
an eye in a lifeform not only has to show up, but in the right place to continue the work, in
the way as to continue the work, be the right type to continue the work, and not harm
anything already in place to continue the work. Do this while showing up with less
frequency by the overwhelming numbers of bad mutations.
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofone"Life, uh... finds a way"
Good mutations in order to actually add to a good work being done, for example build
an eye in a lifeform not only has to show up, but in the right place to continue the work, in
the way as to continue the work, be the right type to continue the work, and not harm
anything already in place to continue the work. Do this while showing up with less
frequency by the overwhelming numbers of bad mutations.
Dr. Ian Malcolm
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayIn my example, no "recovery" is required. The organisms that receive the bad mutations don't produce any offspring, they are an evolutionary dead end. Remember that the vast majority of offspring in my example had neither good nor bad mutations, which represents a reality that is necessary for evolution to work: mutations need to be both sufficiently rare and sufficiently common.
That does exactly what I have been saying, and it doesn't help your cause. For one, this
shows that once bad mutations come in and they start weeding out life that get them,
there is no recovery for the bad mutations coming in. They die off due to the weaknesses
that were introduced. You then must grapple with the idea that everyone gets them, they
are ...[text shortened]... ocess does not lend itself to the continuation of life over time, especially millions
of years.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSince bad mutations are far more prevelant than good ones, you need a miracle to explain how all of life as we know it came from a single cell.
In my example, no "recovery" is required. The organisms that receive the bad mutations don't produce any offspring, they are an evolutionary dead end. Remember that the vast majority of offspring in my example had neither good nor bad mutations, which represents a reality that is necessary for evolution to work: mutations need to be both sufficiently rare and sufficiently common.
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerNo, thanks to a mechanism called "natural selection" beneficial mutations proliferate in a population, while harmful mutations do not. I attempted to explain this mechanism using my simplified example, but if anything is still unclear I am happy to illustrate further.
Since bad mutations are far more prevelant than good ones, you need a miracle to explain how all of life as we know it came from a single cell.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIn an already existing population yes, but natural selection fails to explain how life as we know it progressed from a single cell due to the fact that bad mutations are far more prevalent than good ones.
No, thanks to a mechanism called "natural selection" beneficial mutations proliferate in a population, while harmful mutations do not. I attempted to explain this mechanism using my simplified example, but if anything is still unclear I am happy to illustrate further.
14 Aug 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAnyone have any idea why people who have poor critical thinking skills, poor conceptual thinking skills, poor reading comprehension skills, poor writing skills, etc. tend to believe that they are being "attacked" when those deficiencies are pointed out? Why they tend to believe that their arguments are sound - no matter how unsound they may be? Why they tend to believe that it's because others cannot "handle their arguments"?
Anyone have any idea why people tend to attack an individual if they can’t handle their arguments. I can think of one idea at least.
Anyone have any ideas why so many Christians hate truth so much?
Originally posted by @divegeesterFiction supporting fiction!
"Life, uh... finds a way"
Dr. Ian Malcolm
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneLol. Oh the irony.
Anyone have any idea why people who have poor critical thinking skills, poor conceptual thinking skills, poor reading comprehension skill, poor writing skills, etc. tend to believe that they are being "attacked" when those deficiencies are pointed out? Why they tend to believe that their arguments are sound - no matter how unsound they may be? Why they ...[text shortened]... ot "handle their arguments"?
Anyone have any ideas why so many Christians hate truth so much?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou haven't put forward any arguments, just misunderstandings.
Anyone have any idea why people tend to attack an individual if they can’t handle their arguments. I can ThinkOfOne at least.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Aug 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWould you care to point out the misunderstanding in my reply to Kazet:
You haven't put forward any arguments, just misunderstandings.
‘In an already existing population yes, but natural selection fails to explain how life as we know it progressed from a single cell due to the fact that bad mutations are far more prevalent than good ones.’