Jump to content

Mutation (split from The Selfish Gene Theory)


Evomumbojumbo
 Share

Recommended Posts

When I read these posts regarding mutations I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that mutations are the mechanism by which DNA coding for new anatomical structures is created. 
it goes against all coding principles, garbage in, garbage out.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that mutations are the mechanism by which DNA coding for new anatomical structures is created. 

What mechanism do you believe is at work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

When I read these posts regarding mutations I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that mutations are the mechanism by which DNA coding for new anatomical structures is created. 
it goes against all coding principles, garbage in, garbage out.
 

Nature and science don’t really give a shit about what’s easy or what’s hard for you personally as an individual to believe. Your incredulity doesn’t negate the facts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Thanks - it’s facts I’m asking for not a statement that they exist. Please could you cite evidence that convinced you ‘nature’ can code.

You first. Please answer my question.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What mechanism do you believe is at work?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Please could you cite evidence that convinced you ‘nature’ can code.

I don’t have to. You’re the one trying to conflate natural mutations and resulting characteristics with “coding.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

When I read these posts regarding mutations I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that mutations are the mechanism by which DNA coding for new anatomical structures is created. 
it goes against all coding principles, garbage in, garbage out.
 

Then you don’t understand the theory. Natural Selection for the best adapted promotes the successful mutations. There is a lot of so called Junk DNA in the chromosomes. Though the term junk has fallen out of favour, a lot of the code does not program for changes in the organism, it may simply be redundant. There have been significant advances since The Selfish Gene was written, principally the science of Epigenetics. There is a book called Junk DNA by Nessa Carey, It’s a useful read, but things are changing really fast in the field as new statistical computational methods are used for analysis. A year is a log time in geneti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Zapatos I missed that one. 
All major DNA features were created at the beginning. There is no progression of species from simple to complex. That is why so many proofs of evolution are actually examples of devolution, whales legs, snake legs, our little fingers etc. There is no evolution fir the opposite, evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Sorry Zapatos I missed that one. 
All major DNA features were created at the beginning. There is no progression of species from simple to complex. That is why so many proofs of evolution are actually examples of devolution, whales legs, snake legs, our little fingers etc. There is no evolution fir the opposite, evolution.

That’s way out of whack. I won’t engage in an Argument but treat that statement with suspicion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Sorry Zapatos I missed that one. 
All major DNA features were created at the beginning. There is no progression of species from simple to complex. That is why so many proofs of evolution are actually examples of devolution, whales legs, snake legs, our little fingers etc. There is no evolution fir the opposite, evolution.

What do you mean when you say "at the beginning". At the beginning of the Big Bang? At the beginning of the formation of the solar system? Just trying to understand your position here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

That is why so many proofs of evolution are actually examples of devolution, whales legs, snake legs, our little fingers etc.

Evolution means change. There is no direction. Devolution is you again forcing a false label on to a natural process. 

With that said, it seems rather obvious to me that your mind is already made up and your mood recalcitrant and obstinate, that you’re not here to learn… and that’s a shame. Lots of intelligent, kind, high quality natural teachers here who are willing to assist in your own evolution of knowledge and understanding. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

That is why so many proofs of evolution are actually examples of devolution, whales legs, snake legs, our little fingers etc.

So you do believe that evolution occurs but you call it something else.  Well that's a rather strange way to deny evolution, just call it something else.   Rather odd rationalization to say the least...

By the way, I get the whales evolving to be aquatic and snakes evolving to be legless, but what is the little finger thing?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

By the way, I get the whales evolving to be aquatic and snakes evolving to be legless, but what is the little finger thing?   

Another example of a most stubborn, profound, and willful ignorance. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html

And if not that above, then it’s even worse… the misguided belief that we should’ve evolved our pinky fingers away completely since we barely use them, thus leaving our hands with only 4 digits each. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

When I read these posts regarding mutations I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that mutations are the mechanism by which DNA coding for new anatomical structures is created. 
it goes against all coding principles, garbage in, garbage out.
 

Not if you understand the principle of natural selection. 

But from your short posting history here (not to mention your choice of user name), my guess is you will sidestep what natural selection says and come up with non-analogies like "tornadoes in junkyards". If you continue to post at all, that is.    

I will content myself with pointing out that the order in an open system can increase by purely natural processes, so long as entropy (or disorder) is increased elsewhere. This happens all the time in nature. So "garbage in garbage out" is not applicable.  

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

... from your short posting history here (not to mention your choice of user name) ...

"An obsession is an unbidden, intrusive thought, image, or urge that intrudes into consciousness; attempts to dispel it are difficult and typically lead to anxiety. These thoughts, images, or urges are recognized as part of one’s own mental life." (Obsessions | Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Guide (hopkinsguides.com))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, iNow said:

And if not that above, then it’s even worse… the misguided belief that we should’ve evolved our pinky fingers away completely since we barely use them, thus leaving our hands with only 4 digits each.

Sorry if this is off topic, but try grasping something without using your pinky and then grasp the same thing without using your pointer finger, you should find that your grasp is stronger with you using your pinky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Genady said:

"An obsession is an unbidden, intrusive thought, image, or urge that intrudes into consciousness; attempts to dispel it are difficult and typically lead to anxiety. These thoughts, images, or urges are recognized as part of one’s own mental life." (Obsessions | Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Guide (hopkinsguides.com))

Haha, yes could be. But I suspect it may be one of these creationist "seagulls" that I've encountered before. At one time William Dembski ran a course, at some Baptist university in the Southern USA, in which he awarded points to students on one module of the course for signing up to science sites and attacking evolution. Normally there would be a flurry of posts for 24-48hrs  - and then radio silence. The posts varied in inanity. But the idea of it not being possible for order to emerge spontaneously cropped up quit a bit.

Dembski is history now (he got sacked), but maybe someone else is doing something similar.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Dembski is history now (he got sacked)

 

I wondered (just a little bit) what has happened to the "modern genius" Dembski. Did he mutate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Genady said:

I wondered (just a little bit) what has happened to the "modern genius" Dembski. Did he mutate?

Not sure. He seems to have fizzled out. He does seem to have a special knack of quarrelling with just about everyone, eventually. But now that Philip E Johnson, the lawyer who founded the ID movement in the USA,  has died, I think all those guys will soon be looking for other things to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

When I read these posts regarding mutations I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that mutations are the mechanism by which DNA coding for new anatomical structures is created. 
it goes against all coding principles, garbage in, garbage out.
 

What are "coding principles"? Why are they relevant to biological evolution?

Most mutations will be either irrelevant or "garbage" but those that are deleterious get taken out by natural selection. Development of new anatomical structures is rare and  much less likely after they have already evolved and successful organisms that reproduce in vast numbers already have them. Most of the significant and complex anatomical structures go back a long way; the advantage of crude sight when everyone else is blind is much greater than when everyone else has eyesight with hundreds of millions of years of evolution behind them.

Hard to believe is not a science based conclusion. It isn't even scientific skepticism; true skepticism includes a commitment to learn rather than simply argue the negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that @Evomumbojumbohas been online a while back.

So I would like to remind members that he is still unable to reply to their posts as he has yet to pass  the 5 posts in the first 24 hours limit.

Several have asked for clarification of his position and I, for one, do not understand it so am unwilling to say whether I consider it right or wrong until he has had a proper chance to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Studiot 

thanks for that - I’m back from post quarantine.

lots to answer 

Ken

you’ve made the job of proving anatomical change even harder by sending it back to an almost mythological age. Why isn’t there just continuous new forms, has evolution run out of ideas?

Exchemist

natural selection selects from an existing gene pool. Evolution needs new genes.

i won’t be going anywhere until I break a site rule which I’m sure is inevitable

 

MigL

if apes have 98% our DNA then why wouldn’t retroviruses be in the same place, or maybe 2% out

Inow

 

nothing obstinate here

Zapatos

are we allowed to start talking Big Bang on this thread? I’d be happy to discuss the universal framework of physics, quantum, parallel universes and Laurence Krauss’s definition of nothing if you like but not sure we can

 

Zero zero

yiu should turn your laser beam of suspicion onto your own beliefs

Zero zero

it seems a good thing Nessa Carey came along or what would you have done for proof of evolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.