No, this article is just a synopsis of the findings. At the bottom of the article it states… The findings are detailed in the Sept. 3 issue of the journal Nature.
You seem to only know those terms because of research on evolutionary biology. None of us here are PhD level biologists. I really wish there were as they would probably wipe the floor on all our explanations.
Totally agree with this. Provisional science is limited by imperfect human reasoning of the observations.
Maybe not?
Or, maybe it doesn’t?
Seems you both should huddle up before your next post.
If, and only if, the environment is constant “for a few hundred thousand generations”. The whole process goes in reverse with each reversal of the environment factor that favors one mutation over and against its opposite.
Right, how does evolution know which way a climate change is going go, and for how long it’s going to last.
I think the Captain might have been talking about the belief that God has determined the outcome of the process. So for Him it cannot be anything but deterministic. But for us…there is simply no way to understand the chain of events that lead to a particular change. Just as we can say that if we knew all the factors involved in throwing dice then we’d be able to predict the outcome. With evolution that is not possible.
I was being very reductionist in response to all this stuff about “chance.” If we’re being very pedantic, technically all the interactions are predictable and replicatable because the laws of nature and chemical interaction themselves are, but on a more practical level, you’re right in that they appear random. They’re not, but we need a whole lot of information to accurately predict and test that.
It’s a tricky aspect of the process. I have previously used the example of the old adage ‘For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost…’ leading to the loss of the horse and the fight, the battle, the war and the kingdom. It would literally be impossible to forecast the result of a lost nail. But you could conceivably work backwards and say that the kingom was lost because we lost the war. And we lost the war because we lost that battle etc. And you end up with a loose nail in a horseshoe as the reason for it all.Freddy:
I was being very reductionist in response to all this stuff about “chance.” If we’re being very pedantic, technically all the interactions are predictable and replicatable because the laws of nature and chemical interaction themselves are, but on a more practical level, you’re right in that they appear random. They’re not, but we need a whole lot of information to accurately predict and test that.
I think this is where you and I disagree. It’s not an important part of evolutionary theory, but it is something.
Ah yes. That would be a given for you. It would be God’s will that whatever was deep back at the start of the process, it was always going to end up with us. But I truly believe we are a random result of random processes. That if a creature back in the deep past turned right instead of left coming out of his cave then we might not be here.Freddy:
I think this is where you and I disagree. It’s not an important part of evolutionary theory, but it is something.
Yo claim to “know” how life evolved - a nonsense claim, since you have no way of testing your theories.
Darwinian theory doesn’t match the evidence presented by the fossil record, so you need a new theory. Good luck explaining al! those gaps and fully-formed animals appearing out of nowhere.
The only difference between the two items depicted is “quantity”? Surely you jest.
You seem to not understand how big scientific theories work. We don’t “test” them so much as we say “This is what we think happened” and collect evidence that supports that. The grand theory of Evolution isn’t something we test directly. It’s a collection of evidence which led us to conclude that all life came from common ancestors which evolved via genetic mutation. In order to disprove it, you need to show that something else fits the evidence better.
See, you say that, but every example you give of this is debunked by us presenting evidence.
You’re so smart, why don’t you give us one?
Ah yes, the ones that don’t exist and have been repeatedly debunked in this very thread.
Then explain the difference.
I don’t have a problem accepting that God could could have directed the evolution of life using a process such as that described by Darwinian theory, but I suspect it’s not anywhere near as simple as that.
This is an excellent example of the “best scientific explanation” being as far-fetched as science fiction.
Now all you have to do is provide an explanation for how each mutation provided a survival advantage, resulting in a human eye.
You don’t seem to be keen to do any work yourself. And this is typical throughout threads of this sort. It’s all ‘prove this’ and ‘explain to me how’ and derogatory comments when someone does actually spend the time trying to help you understand. But you don’t seem interested in understanding.
In the case of the eye, yes, the physics of light has indeed been constant for that long, and longer. The evolution of the eye is driven by the physics of light.
Evolution ‘knows’ because natural selection ‘knows’ what the climate is, not what it is going to be.
The vast majority of those mutations provided no advantage at all. They were either neutral or deleterious. Natural selection would have weeded out the deleterious ones while neutral mutations would have been subject to neutral drift. Your question shows a lack of understanding of how evolution works in populations.
Some people are born with an extra digit or digits: polydactyly. Those extra digits have muscles and are connected to the brain. You need to learn more about how developmental genes work, and what impact mutations in those genes have.