This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I'm calling you out, Marioguy5. Let's debate evolution and creationism

#61Marioguy5Posted 11/13/2012 4:41:01 PM
I was saying that natural selection doesn't cause mutations to happen when the creature "needs" them. Natural selection aids in rooting out the old, and keeping the new. It doesn't cause evolution or development, it is just a process that keeps certain, more adapted creatures alive to continue breeding and evolving.
The main point of that post was to make sure we're on the same page, and to reaffirm you know (and admitted) that evolution is a random process. My post wasn't an attack, it was a set up for future debating.
I'll post more a bit later.
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#62Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 11/13/2012 4:42:18 PM
I still don't understand the issue with randomness in things that are inherently random.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.
#63Marioguy5Posted 11/13/2012 4:43:47 PM
Fingerpuppet posted...
I still don't understand the issue with randomness in things that are inherently random.


And that is why we're debating. Because you don't understand yet. I'll get into that later. Right now, I have to do school, eat food, watch movies, play vidya gamez...you know, nightly rituals.
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#64ThuggernautzPosted 11/13/2012 4:59:04 PM
Marioguy5 posted...
The first post


Yes, a lot of what Darwin said was wrong and his theories have since been refined. That's how science works. A lot of what Newton/Einstein said was wrong as well, but I don't see you trying to disprove Newtonian mechanics or the General Theory of Relativity.

As for disuse causing the removal of morphology, there is actually many documented cases of exactly that. Puppet brought up a good one with tailbones, there are many vestigial organs/body parts. There are also many individual species in niche environments which have regressed morphologically as those adaptations were no longer needed. Here's one:

http://www.livescience.com/22232-eyeless-spider-adapted-darkness.html

As for 'natural selection' not adding, that's correct. What is additive are the mutations, which as you've said yourself are mostly harmful. BUT, it's the beneficial ones that provide the advantages. And while often miniscule individually, over the vast amounts of time involved in the evolution of most species, those advantages and adaptations become very obvious and very beneficial; natural selection then promotes those advantage with higher reproduction/survival rates.

I was saying that natural selection doesn't cause mutations to happen when the creature "needs" them. Natural selection aids in rooting out the old, and keeping the new. It doesn't cause evolution or development, it is just a process that keeps certain, more adapted creatures alive to continue breeding and evolving.
The main point of that post was to make sure we're on the same page, and to reaffirm you know (and admitted) that evolution is a random process. My post wasn't an attack, it was a set up for future debating.
I'll post more a bit later.


The first sentence is correct, as is the second. Natural selection doesn't CAUSE evolution, it is the constraint by which the success of an adaptation is tested upon. In other words, the genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment. And artificial selection takes that a step further, with much faster results. That's why in the last 10,000 years of agriculture bananas have gone from this:

http://www.expatintaiwan.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/wild-banana.jpg

to this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Bananas.jpg/250px-Bananas.jpg

And why dogs have gone from this:

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/005/cache/grey-wolf_565_600x450.jpg

to this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Degaen.jpg
#65Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 11/13/2012 5:17:14 PM(edited)
Marioguy5 posted...
Fingerpuppet posted...
I still don't understand the issue with randomness in things that are inherently random.


And that is why we're debating. Because you don't understand yet. I'll get into that later. Right now, I have to do school, eat food, watch movies, play vidya gamez...you know, nightly rituals.


I think it's you who doesn't understand if you have an issue with randomness.

inb4legoanalogy

EDIT: I also must make note that, while mutations are random, that does not mean natural selection is random. Natural selection is the process by which random mutations are passed to successive generations and useless or harmful mutations are withheld.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.
#66Moorish_IdolPosted 11/13/2012 8:17:27 PM
I am curious to learn why randomness is a bad thing. Enlighten us Mario!
---
Ezekiel 23:20
#67Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 11/14/2012 12:01:49 AM
I'm sure that he's going to blow us all away with something extraordinary (although it's probably not a good thing) and then leave, just as he said he would.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.
#68ave1Posted 11/14/2012 6:32:21 AM
What's so bad about randomness is that Creationists bring up the point & Evolutionists nitpick about it & blow it all out of proportion. Now the process of constraint in nature is not random. The mutations which are supposed to have the power to build new morphology (with unique new function inherent), ARE random, though. The creative aspect of evolutiion happens to have randomness at its foundation & there"s no doubt about that, no matter what problems the Evolutionists have with it.
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#69Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 11/14/2012 6:59:47 AM
ave1 posted...
What's so bad about randomness is that Creationists bring up the point & Evolutionists nitpick about it & blow it all out of proportion. Now the process of constraint in nature is not random. The mutations which are supposed to have the power to build new morphology (with unique new function inherent), ARE random, though. The creative aspect of evolutiion happens to have randomness at its foundation & there"s no doubt about that, no matter what problems the Evolutionists have with it.


You're not actually explaining the problem with randomness. Also, please don't refer to anyone as an "evolutionist." We prefer to be called normal.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.
#70halo07guyPosted 11/14/2012 7:15:56 AM
Just thought I'd add my two cents.

Regarding mutations, they aren't clear cut, as in only ever good/neutral/bad. Take for example sickle cell disease. It is caused by a recessive allele, meaning the child must have two copies of the recessive allele to display the disease. It is a debilitating and sometimes lethal disease. Why then is it so prevalent in Africa? Because the red blood cell deformities caused by sickle cell disease make the person largely immune to the effects of malaria. Heterozygous carriers for the disease fair far better that those who aren't carriers or those who have the disease, as the recessive allele still imbues some of the anti-malaria properties even without causing the disease.

That is one example of something that would normally be considered a disadvantage actually becoming an advantage due to the effects that would normally be considered harmful.

Also, consider epistasis, where genes "upstream" of another gene determine whether or not and to what degree a gene is expressed. This is actually where yellow labradors come from. An epistatic gene overrides the gene that would have coded for coat color. You can tell what color the lab should have been by looking at the nose. A black nose means the yellow lab should have had black fur, and a brown nose means it should have had brown fur.

Also, consider the fact that epistatic genes are themselves affected by epistasis.