Interesting that I was waiting for replies from you in other threads but instead of doing so, you've simply started more threads.
Yes. I did some studying & composed a little while I was away. I waited a little while, but it didn't seem that a time was rapidly approaching when it would be convenient to you for me to post. I gave up waiting, you see.
It is odd that you complain so when you're "ahead" in the "get the last post" game.
Some of them'll say a mutation that hurts a lifeform's survival chance by 1/10 of a per cent will be immediately detected and result in death, whereas a "beneficial mutation" of the same magnitude will always be passed on.
I've read on this topic in different places and have never come across such a claim. Source please.
Well I've seen plenty of such garbage in forums, and it's very frequently on TV. I might wonder what planet you live on. But most likely you just take such statements for granted when you encounter them.
Unless you can provide this, then subsequent conclusions are meaningless.
LOL! Really? Now I'm tempted. You seem to have overlooked something. Either that, or you're just jabbering to jabber.
This premise isn't a critical element in my reasoning. It could be totally wrong, and my argument does not suffer a bit. My conclusions do not depend upon evolutionists being idiots. That some demonstrably are is what it is, but it does not have an impact on the soundness of my conclusions.
Is there a more politically correct/less offensive smiley you'd prefer me to use when it's time for the
? I do want to be a good moderator, and it's not good to give offense when appropriate alternatives can be found.
You also need to bear in mind what natural selection actually is. In a reproducing population, organisms that have a beneficial mutation will tend to produce more offspring than those which do not, and over time the mutation will become a feature of the population. There's no requirement for how often a beneficial mutation has to occur, nor is there a requirement for how quickly natural selection has to work (it depends on the environment and whether it is changing).
False. When the bad mutations pile up too much, extinction occurs. Evolution must outpace devolution if it is to succeed. There have been several terms for this. You might google "genetic load" as a start. I haven't kept track of all the trends in terminology, so you might be able to make me look up some synonym if you can guess right.
Where did you get the idea that all harmful mutations have to result in death? Who said this?
Hold that thought. I'm combining responses.
Essentially this post is expressing incredulity that harmful mutations can be eliminated in a population due to selection pressures.
Trying to work in the "argument from incredulity" junk again? Not recommended.
I'm not sure what this is driving at. Just ask yourself if there are major populations of diseased and deformed organisms out in nature, because the "luck goddess" of evolution hasn't eliminated them yet.
Your portrayal of mutants is just funny. On the flip side, one could ask how many
X-Men have ever been spotted demonstrating helpful mutations.
I guess humans don't have mutations, since we don't look like the sewer-dwellers on
Futurama. Plenty of harmful mutations have been found everywhere they've ever looked.
Everywhere.If you can find some, then you can claim the ideas in this post are correct.
Mutants? Yep. Harmful mutations? More than you can count. Side-show freakazoids? Not so many.
Such are actually a dream of evolutionism which isn't openly confessed. Were new limbs & organs popping up left & right, it'd be a lot easier to argue that some might by mere chance, just happen to come in handy. It's just what they used to say, but now it only survives in the comics. Another retreat that isn't publicized. But the old-timers who started those comics didn't make it up on their own, not by a long shot.
If you can't, then you might consider that this is because they were de-selected for in their environment. You might also consider the fact that selection pressures on humans have been greatly decreased since civilisation dawned, so anyone who does not take this into consideration is not understanding the role of the environment in the process.
Care to define "selection pressure"? It's a much less commonly-encountered term than mutation, and I still wouldn't ask; but you've demonstrated inconsistent understanding.
I'm still waiting elsewhere for you to explain how bacteria whose lactose-digesting gene was removed could in subsequent generations digest lactose, and how bacteria could digest a human-made substance like nylon.
That's okay. You don't care. If you did, you would have considered what I have said more than once about such things.
If they repeat like clockwork, they ain't random. They do, therefore they ain't.
It might be fun to ask sometime: "Do you believe any individual creature has a 100% survival chance?" The world is a dangerous place, after all. There are all sorts of disasters: volcanos, tornados, forest fire, prairie fire, flood, etc. But in spite of all this, there is one creature "guaranteed" to always survive: the first one to possess a beneficial mutation. Or so I've been told... I think more honest answers are available.
Please provide a source reference for your "one creature "guaranteed" to always survive" statement.
Since there's unanimous desire among evolutionists to see common knowledge presented, and since presenting it will serve to further demonstrate just how stupid evolutionism gets people to become; I am seriously considering doing just as you both suggest.
Naturally, I'll begin my search with the usual suspects & work outwards. I may not have time to do much responding to other ...'stuff', I suppose, is the polite term.
We'll see how the priorities go. I have to moderate, and I don't plan to let anything important slip by. If the project proves boring or impractical I'll give up on it. I know what I've seen. You all know you've seen the same thing countless times; and it's just a matter of locating it. Everyone knows.
But I can comply with silly suggestions when it promises to be fun.
Maybe the house doesn't intend to wait because the owner wants to see a profit in his lifetime. Evolution doesn't have a time limit.
"4.6 billion years" ring any bells? The age of the Earth has been pushed back time after time after time to try to supply enough time, and they still want much more.
For anyone with any experience or knowledge about probability, the evoarguments are pretty funny. Some of them'll say a mutation that hurts a lifeform's survival chance by 1/10 of a per cent will be immediately detected and result in death, whereas a "beneficial mutation" of the same magnitude will always be passed on. Now such is untrue. It's just an attempt to sell the selection god(ess).
Who are these "some" that say these things...people you interviewed on the street?
Haven't conducted many street interviews. Just stuck with the same encounters everyone else has had.
Perhaps a quote from an actual science publication or an actual biologist would be more appropriate here.
Well, now. That's a worthy goal: find an actual evopro saying such stuff. There is a bit of a problem: lots of posers on the forums. Oh, but you can't admit to their existence either - I forgot. Makes it a little easier for me.
Just imagining you calling some EvC regulars posers is worth a chuckle. Shoot! I gotta quit. I can't break the smile, and my face is getting sore. Oh, goodness... That is way, way, way funnier than I noticed at first. Please, oh please don't do it if I dredge one up and you get the chance. I'd never quit laughing if it actually happened.
By definition, improving survival chance by a whole percentage point means the selection god(ess) has only one chance in 100 of getting it "right". 1/10 of 1% reduces this to one chance in 1000.
Now if you call them on it, most often they'll say "Oh yes, it could take 3 or 4 generations, but..." Nonsense! No thinking person can believe you'll hit a 1 in 1000 shot in 3 or 4 tries, and this overlooks the fact that in the case of a defect, the defect is being reproduced.
Again a reference for your quote regarding this miniscule amount of "tries" would be good here since it is in quote marks. Otherwise the only "Nonsense!" is your assumption.
I do not make this stuff up. I have seen just such absurdities. We all have.
But if you think about it, I could go to another forum, tell of RAZD's claim that compounding periods are all the same, and folks would be pretty reluctant to believe. That'd be a harder sell than something straight out of common experiences like selection goddess claims. They're a dime a dozen.
If this statement is to make any sense at all you need to define your terms, which I requested above.
Not so. The classic definitions of all terms, definitions well-established and recognized throughout the English-speaking world, work perfectly well. You need evotwisted definitions to even begin to obfuscate what I said. The potential to even feign misunderstanding is lacking as evidenced by... Well, see for yourself...
Once they spread, it doesn't become easier to eliminate them - just the opposite. The "good mutations", if they spread, will be likely to remain, but they're going to be outnumbered by 29 to 1. Extinction will occur long before transformation.
Your ambiguous inference as to what a "detrimental" mutation is, makes this statement unsupportable.
I don't think there's anything ambiguous there. Maybe if you assert it a few more times some lurker or another will look it up. That's sure to work to the good as they read their way around this forum.
See? It makes no difference at all. They can't win either way. I have simplified this ever so slightly - IN THEIR FAVOUR. (I have rounded DOWN to 29 from the actual numbers which would be 29.xxx, and the mantissa will in any case work AGAINST the evogod(ess).) The only value that works is 100%. If the average bad mutation absolutely guarantees death, and the average good mutation is guaranteed to survive, "natural selection" would work. That's the point of my original question. Do you remember your response?
Nope because this is the first time you have brought this up.
"My original question" refers to the first question in the post. In the future, is there some way I can communicate such things more clearly than I have?
