ok
you have a reading problem? In post 119, I said “Namely it is know that small changes do occur and no reason is known that limits what gross change may accumulate by many small steps.” And again as: “OBVIOUS TRUTH, unless you can show some limitations on the extent of change that can be achieved one small step at a time over very long periods.
What a strange argument? when you say one small step at a time you almost infer logic. when indeed it is not one small step over time, it is many many in many different random palces which have got no co ordination and are stochastic,(not to mentions punctuated equillibraim, dosent soud like "small step over time" to me) you are infering that it happened that way simply becuase we have as yet seen no limits? infact i have read articles about limits to variations in species, if there are no limits then why indeed do we see just that when growing foods or breeding animals? are you saying there is no limits to the changes you can make to such organisms?
By saying many small steps you utterly trivialize the task you are setting such an uncoordinated mechansm, it is almost presuming that, once something is selected for, it automatically sets the species on the road to higher complexity, when infact it just survived, and more often then not that is by pure chance, not what mutations it had or inherited. if you are a fish in a shoal, it wont matter what slight variation you have once a shark comes randomly snapping its jaws around..
You forget the sheer amount of co ordinated changes you are invoking
here!
so how about giving me evidence that when for example circadean clock is "hit on"(adn it was separatly many times which is very suspect, since it obviously took many many generations to get to 24 hours so what happened before that?) that the section of the brain dealing with the circadean clock co evolved also, for if it didnt, well you know!
or how bout some evidence other then handwaving and point mutations or deletions in bacteria that countless organsism coudl co evolve there sexual organs, chemicls, emotions, mechanism etc, soem to the point of unbelievable contrivincy! where is the evidnce for that other then specualation im curios?
Instead of trying to show some limitations on the change that can accumulate from many small sequential changes, you pretend you cannot read the twice stated description of the “OBVIOUS TRUTH.”
nope wrong again, i pretended nothing, and it is NOT an obvious truth that those changes will accumualte to higher complexities at all, that is an assumption based on your logic that "becuase there here" is good evidence.
If your problem is understand what “accumulation” means, I will give an math example of small changes accumulating: Start with value 0 and then at random( as the “small steps”) add or subtract 1. After a large number of these small steps it is highly likely that the value achieved will have a magnitude of greater than a million. (The expected net movement from the starting point in a random walk is the step size times the square root of the number of steps taken.)
oh i know what accumulation means, but i dont simply state it happened for everthing i see in nature. oh look, tree frog puts its egg inside carniverous pitcher plant, oops! but wait, the eggs secrete the perfect enzyme to stop them bieng digested! must have been those forsight lacking accumultions again.
male angler fish loses its abiltiy to digest food when it reaches maturity...
Must fid femael to live off of her,
female emits chemal, male finds her due to specialised front olafactory system..
now, when male reaches female, eh secrets just the right enzyme(even though they evloveld separatly) to break down the females skin adn fuse it to his own(wow) therefore feeding off her blood supply! interstingly his gonads do not gete digested like the rest of his insides..
problem
the first males to have lost the function of there insides(strange thing to be selected for indeed) would simply have to have produced taht enzyme otherwise there species is kaput!
can you simply attribute this to them blind stochastic mechanisms of evolution? or is that faith on your part?
Yes, Evolution is the ONLY known theory to explain the vast set of different creatures that do exist, unless you want to drop the the scientific method and postulate, with zero proof or support: (1) God exist. (2)God created this vast set of different creatures
when you say evolution, do you mean change over time? because that pretty much explains everything, it does not prove the mechanisms did it.
It proves it happened.
And no i dont want to propose god did it, although i am not opposed to design i am not theistic in any way either. Certinaly it would be far from unreasonable to assert design in nature, that does not make it true of course.
oh, and lets just for a moment assume it was all the product of desing, would that then be ignored because it was unscientfic?
i am willing to look at all avenues, limiting yourself is not the way too move forward!
Or….. {You are welcome to supply an alternative scientific explanation if you can, but don’t pretend to be just here to learn, etc. until you meet the minimum requirement of logical thought. I.e. existing things have a cause}
First off i have no alternative, but i dont claim to, second i am not pretending anythgn and i find your supposition utterly childish. If you'd read my nitrogen thread i freely admited i was utterly wrong, therefore i learned somethign in my very first post! so please save it and adrress my remarks..
You should also learn the difference between evolution and adaptation. Your confusion is seen here: “, chance mutatios giving an individual a slight benefit simply says NOTHIGN about the origin of adaptions such as the desert beatle,…”
are you saying it does explain it?
was i wrong to say it dosent?
Individuals make adaptation and do NOT pass them on to their offspring. For example you can develop an muscular body if you work out with weights. But your children will not be any more muscular as a result of your workouts. – It is your body that is adapting, nothing is changing in the genes which your child will get from you
Indeed genes can change ie, there expression from parent to child, its called epigenetics and it may well have future implicatins for evolutin.
I would not agree that individuals dont pass on adaptions though, what are you talking about?
. Probably were moved as you don’t seem to understand much about what evolution states. There are no mechanism
s –There is a mechanism, which is changes in the information use to create the next generation.
so you refer to selection, and mutations as well as genetic drift all as one mechanism? fine, i dont, i see both as separate AND as whole because one acts before the other..this is no reason to be moved(the thread i mean), only pre prejiduces that anyone who questions the theory are automatically IDiots..grow up.
Until recently with man’s active selection to server some goal, these changes were random alternations in the genes. First purposeful changes in the gene pools were things like the domestication of wolfs to make dogs, then later cows to give more milk, etc. In the last couple of decades man has learned how to transfer sections of DNA from one creature (or even plants) to another to produce organisms with characteristic he wanted.
i honestly dont know what this adds to the conversation