Terrapin Station wrote:Show me a reference to a scientific work that posits this.
Mutation?
"Mutation" doesn't equal ontological randomness, does it?
Think about this: why do you suppose that people don't bring up evolution/mutations in all of those free will debates when someone asks for an example of something that's ontologically random?
Change in the environment is not random, evolution is the individual creature's adaption to that change and this adaptation is not random. Physical laws are not random, they are man's best attempt at describing how nature works, and man doesn't always get it right. Evolution is about the organism fitting the environment, and perfection has little or nothing to do with it, it's all about reproduction. the organism that produces the preponderance of offspring will dominate the environment.
Cells can be damaged by radiation, DNA can be altered slightly during cell division....Cell division isn't 'perfect'. Some of these mutations just happen to be beneficial to the host in a certain environment. There's nothing magical or mystical about it. It happens all the time. Give an organism a few thousand, million, or billion years and you are going to end up with all kinds of variations that might seem impossible to idiots.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Cells can be damaged by radiation, DNA can be altered slightly during cell division....Cell division isn't 'perfect'. Some of these mutations just happen to be beneficial to the host in a certain environment. There's nothing magical or mystical about it. It happens all the time. Give an organism a few thousand, million, or billion years and you are going to end up with all kinds of variations that might seem impossible to idiots.
What is important to notice is that the random change in DNA is beneficially zero in net.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Cells can be damaged by radiation, DNA can be altered slightly during cell division....Cell division isn't 'perfect'. Some of these mutations just happen to be beneficial to the host in a certain environment. There's nothing magical or mystical about it. It happens all the time. Give an organism a few thousand, million, or billion years and you are going to end up with all kinds of variations that might seem impossible to idiots.
What is important to notice is that the random change in DNA is beneficially zero in net.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You keep posting these stupid evolution threads. Why don't you just read up on it?? You could start with something like 'natural selection for dummies'. I'm sure you'll find something.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Cells can be damaged by radiation, DNA can be altered slightly during cell division....Cell division isn't 'perfect'. Some of these mutations just happen to be beneficial to the host in a certain environment. There's nothing magical or mystical about it. It happens all the time. Give an organism a few thousand, million, or billion years and you are going to end up with all kinds of variations that might seem impossible to idiots.
What is important to notice is that the random change in DNA is beneficially zero in net.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You keep posting these stupid evolution threads. Why don't you just read up on it?? You could start with something like 'natural selection for dummies'. I'm sure you'll find something.
It is very simple. As it stated a random change in DNA cannot be beneficial in net. That is true because any good change is cancelled by a bad change in the organism.
bahman wrote:
It is very simple. As it stated a random change in DNA cannot be beneficial in net. That is true because any good change is cancelled by a bad change in the organism.
OMG. Are you just trolling? Who said it's always beneficial? Much of the time it isn't. It can be NOT beneficial or just neutral. The unbeneficial ones tend to not get passed on. How difficult is that?
bahman wrote:
It is very simple. As it stated a random change in DNA cannot be beneficial in net. That is true because any good change is cancelled by a bad change in the organism.
OMG. Are you just trolling? Who said it's always beneficial? Much of the time it isn't. It can be NOT beneficial or just neutral. The unbeneficial ones tend to not get passed on. How difficult is that?
I'm not at all convinced that he's not just trolling.
For one, every time I work him towards something that requires a simple, direct answer, he falls back on the "I don't understand what you're saying" response.
bahman wrote:... I understand the importance of reproduction and sieve of natural selection in Theory of Evolution.
This,
bahman wrote:We know that random change does not offer any benefit so the main question is: Where does this capacity to fit better comes from? Doesn't that mean that we are evolving because objective perfection exist?
There are 3 kinds of mutations the most numerous are the neutral ones and they just accumulate over time and have no effect. The harmful one get selected out and after a few generations have no effect, the beneficial ones do get selected for, and over time change the organism to better fit the environment. The negative mutations do not balance out and neutralize the beneficial ones, that is just a misunderstanding by those who do not understand evolution.
bahman wrote:
It is very simple. As it stated a random change in DNA cannot be beneficial in net. That is true because any good change is cancelled by a bad change in the organism.
OMG. Are you just trolling? Who said it's always beneficial? Much of the time it isn't. It can be NOT beneficial or just neutral. The unbeneficial ones tend to not get passed on. How difficult is that?
