Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
And by advantageous we mean that it helps the organism to live long enough to pass on its genes.

If it is advantageous, the organism passes on that genetic advantage to its offspring. And the offspring passes it on further down the line. And all things being equal, that tiny genetic advantage will gradually become the norm in any given population.
Click to expand...
How is it that this one organism is going through all these evolutionary changes ,but the ecosystem that it’s connected to isn’t ?
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Of course they do, they have to. (evolution always has to be involved or no more funding (…)
Click to expand...
Well, I remember buffalo telling us about the information in the discrete signal coming from the faces on Mount Rushmore and the background noise coming from the uncarved mountainside.

I suggest research to develop a device that can receive and analyse these signals, with appropriate calibration, and enable us to scientifically distinguish designed from undesigned objects.

This could be followed by research into the problem of how we distinguish the design of some parts of Creation from the design of the rest of Creation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
I suggest research to develop a device that can receive and analyse these signals, with appropriate calibration, and enable us to scientifically distinguish designed from undesigned objects.
Click to expand...
We could build on the SETI model.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
rossum:
A disease that only one organism is resistant to.
Click to expand...
So, this disease is killing everything else off ?
Click to expand...
If only one organism survived (and that was actually stated in your question) then obvioulsy it killed everything else off.

This is a new low we have here. Not only do you not understand the answers you are given, but you don’t even understand the questions that you ask.

How is this even possible…?
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
rossum:
A disease that only one organism is resistant to.
Click to expand...
So, this disease is killing everything else off ?
Click to expand...
If only one organism survived (and that was actually stated in your question) then obvioulsy it killed everything else off.

This is a new low we have here. Not only do you not understand the answers you are given, but you don’t even understand the questions that you ask.

How is this even possible…?
Click to expand...
Bradskii said:
If only one organism survived (and that was actually stated in your question) then obvioulsy it killed everything else off.
Click to expand...
If everything else is killed off, how is it going to survive without a ecosystem to support it ?
 
Get back to work. You are trolling. Nobody is this stupid.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
I wouldn’t be this stupid if I could get some actual details on how all this is suppose work.
Click to expand...
Problem is you seem to make strange leaps of thinking which it is difficult to answer with useful actual details.

First you assume the ecosystem isn’t changing and ask why not — as though someone had suggested this was the case. But no one had suggested this was the case. Why did you assume that?

A few posts on you assume only one organism survives — as though someone had suggested this was the case — and ask what could cause that. But no one had suggested this was the case. Why did you assume that?

rossum suggested that what could cause all organisms but one to die might be some particular disease.

Then you query whether a disease that killed every organism but one … could kill every organism but one. A strange question to raise.

Then, having yourself invented a situation in which only one organism survived, you expressed doubt that such an ecology was possible.

This stuff is just impossible to answer productively.
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Techno2000:
I wouldn’t be this stupid if I could get some actual details on how all this is suppose work.
Click to expand...
Problem is you seem to make strange leaps of thinking which it is difficult to answer with useful actual details.

First you assume the ecosystem isn’t changing and ask why not — as though someone had suggested this was the case. But no one had suggested this was the case. Why did you assume that?

A few posts on you assume only one organism survives — as though someone had suggested this was the case — and ask what could cause that. But no one had suggested this was the case. Why did you assume that?

rossum suggested that what could cause all organisms but one to die might be some particular disease.

Then you query whether a disease that killed every organism but one … could kill every organism but one. A strange question to raise.

Then, having yourself invented a situation in which only one organism survived, you expressed doubt that such an ecology was possible.

This stuff is just impossible to answer productively.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks…how about you explain how it works, and I’ll ask some detail questions.
 
Bradskii said:
Why are you multiplying the figures?

If an organism has a random change to its code then ‘almost always’ it will be neutral or deleterious. But, as you have now realised, ‘almost always’ doesn’t equate to always. So some of the time the random change is advantageous. And by advantageous we mean that it helps the organism to live long enough to pass on its genes.

If it is advantageous, the organism passes on that genetic advantage to its offspring. And the offspring passes it on further down the line. And all things being equal, that tiny genetic advantage will gradually become the norm in any given population.

And you are right. Any change that disadvantages an organism will be passed on as well. But they won’t survive as well as the organisms that had the advantageous change. If there are enough disadvantageous changes (almost always) and not enough advantageous ones (not very often), then the organism will die out. Which is the norm. As many more species have died out than are currently in existence.
Click to expand...
It’s the entire scenario that doesn’t quite add up for a number of reasons.

First, the presumption is that the very rare, randomly generated mutation is so advantageous to the species that it will eventually become the norm. Yet, it is clear that that vast majority of random mutations are disadvantageous or neutral (at least short term.) Those mutations that are beneficial would be beneficial, to only various degrees, most often not very. So it is a stretch to presume any significant number would become the successful norm.

Second, I think I read once that in order for mutations to make any functional difference, there would need to be a minimum of two or three in relatively close chronological sequence affecting the same function. That cuts down the likelihood of any, even neutral mutations, from having any appreciable impact on function to the benefit of an organism or lineage.

Third, assuming random mutations are relatively frequent, that would mean even the lineages that benefitted substantively from an advantageous mutation, would subsequently suffer from disadvantageous mutations that could end that genetic line, making it less likely to succeed.

I suspect the math regarding the impact of random mutations on genetic lines hasn’t been fully worked out. It would be necessary to do so before accepting the concept of random mutations undergoing natural selection being up to the task of powering all genetic innovation. On the surface of it, at least, many questions arise.
 
HarryStotle said:
First, the presumption is that the very rare, randomly generated mutation is so advantageous to the species that it will eventually become the norm.
Click to expand...
And it’s so advantageous that it can produce 10 million different species of plants and animals. :roll_eyes:
 
Techno2000 said:
If everything else is killed off, how is it going to survive without a ecosystem to support it ?
Click to expand...
I wish I could find the paper on this. Nautilus published it a few years ago - about ecological fulfillment.
 
HarryStotle said:
It’s the entire scenario that doesn’t quite add up for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
Another big one is the organism fights against these mutations becoming fixed. Now we also see, over a few generations the organism bending back to the mean. It gets worse everyday for evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top