Can random mutations increase fitness?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by James R, Aug 14, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are to be commended and I am not questioning your veracity regarding your academic achievements. It would not be a favorable thing for your own future to exaggerate.

    However, I think my comments still stand. You are still far from a Ph'd and beware of Professors. They do not all fully appreciate science. That is some indeed have the book learning but no experience and actual hands on understanding. Teaching from books does not yield the same confidence in their content as doing the research and testing that created the information in the books.

    Teachers must also pass class by an achievement score. If 70% is passing, that actually means they got 3 out of 10 answers wrong!

    And finally, as you have already pointed out even among scientists, in virtually every field you have groups that favor one view over another. With regard to evolution the scientific disbelievers are in an extreme minority. Such disagreemnts are generally over some specific detail and not the issue of evolution itself.

    You seem to have a preconcieved notion that evolution simple can't be right and are collecting every bit of negative press or fact, be it media, creationists or just alternate scientific opinions and collectively using that to attack the concept with a broad brush.

    For each QUALIFIED negative comment you find you must also consider the same issue and the number of positive arguements. Ones persons opinion does not overturn a theory. That belief or finding must become generally accepted before that happens.

    That doesn't mean they are wrong and the majority is right but only that you should not make up your mind to soon. Absorb all you can and then decide.

    From your claims I would say you are academically better qualified to talk biology than I, since my background is nuclear BUT due to my age and experience I have to tell you that I think the issue is more understanding the scientific methodology and confidence in the qualified masses supporting evolution than it is any actual biology issue you have raised.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    For your information. There are many scientist who do not believe in the Theory of Evolution
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Ph'd doesn't have to do with anything. It is common sense and facts.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    786:

    Now is the time to go out and change the world, 786, while you still know everything.

    Medical doctor, or PhD? Medical doctors need to know about evolution, since it is the foundation of biology. You could do a PhD in a non-biological field, of course. You'd never make any sense of biology with your current mindset.

    What are the tertiary qualifications of your teachers, and which institutions did they get them from? Are any of them qualified in biology?
     
  8. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    did you read my second post. I took College Biology.
     
  9. kula (Memes enclosed) within Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    I dont believe in random mutations being responsible for evolution (unless my perception of statistics is fundamentally flawed !)

    What we consider to be life has some very special qualities, and to be able to keep those, in the light of random mutations seems a bit too complex. If one of the qualities of life is consciousness, then life may be able to adapt its own DNA, over generations, towards what it 'imagines' it needs (based on analysis of its conscious observations). It gives a 'purpose' to consciousness and removes the 'chaos' from an otherwise balanced system.

    Here are a couple of thoughts. (ive used this on another post, so apologies if youve seen it before)

    http://www.mtvdance.com/artists/magic lamp/geometry of conciousness.htm

    kula
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I'll tell you what I'll do. For each qualified biologist you name that denies evolution (I don't mean supports some alternate twist to evolution) I'll name 10 that support it.

    When one stops posting names he loses. Sound fair or are you aware that the odds are substantially in my favor?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    Did you read the very first post in this thread, kula?
     
  12. kula (Memes enclosed) within Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    Hi, yes i did

    I am not saying that random mutation isnt possible, i just think that nature found a better way.

    And if it didnt do, i think it has now via human consciousness and bio-feedback.

    kula
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I am finishing my PhD in biology. Published on evolution.
     
  14. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Natural selection actually does the opposite. It reduces diversity. It can only act by reducing diversity.

    Sorry if u have explained this before in the thread, but can u tell me why u think species can't change through evolution?
     
  15. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I think you're wrong here. Natural Selection reduces the population. Because the fittest survive and the rest mostly likely die or fell prey. The diversity I am talking about is different type of the same animals. An example of how this might happen is adaptation. If part of the poplutation miragrates. Then it will have to adapt to the enviroment. This will only change the gene in what they already have. For example they already have beaks. One side of the population might develop longer beaks. But they will remain birds, only they will be a litte different.
    This part of the theory is on shaky grounds. If there was no chance then it had no ground, but since they say there is a chance they have ground but very shaky.
     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Good for you.
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ok, lets follow your lead here. But instead of birs lets discuss a mammal. For example a deer. Since you seem to agree that birds that migrate or have some other enviornemntal pressure will develope a bigger beak, can a deer that finds its food source such as leaves that for some reason have either began to be on taller trees develope a longer neck.?
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ok, lets follow your lead here. But instead of birds lets discuss a mammal. For example a deer. Since you seem to agree that birds that migrate or have some other enviornemntal pressure will develope a bigger beak, can a deer that finds its food source such as leaves that for some reason have either began to be on taller trees develope a longer neck.?
     
  19. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Thats not the best way of looking at it. It REALLY works because the poorest die. Neutral adaptations do not usually result in genetic change due to NS (the exception being in cases of competition).

    How can a process which REMOVES individuals increase diversity in any way?

    How about this:

    there is a population of birds (100). only 20 of them have very long beaks (10cm) and 10 have very short beaks (2cm). Theres no NS working on them at the moment. The mean length of the population beaks is 6cm. Mutations generally cause beak length to change by around 75% hence the variation. Now if we add a selection pressure, say beaks need to b long to get into worm tunnels which are getting longer, then thos beirds with beaks less than 5cm are gone. The mean length of a beak is now about 8cm and mutation will cause some beaks to be 3-4cm and at the other end, 12cm. Can u see how NS causes direction?

    Now what if this happens to their sexual organs and what if some birds found they didn't need to fly anymore? They lose their wings and become a different animal.

    Doesn't matter. I'd like to hear it out anyway!
     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    IF the environment remained unchanged, then natural variations might not be selected to such a degree that new species emerge, however, the environment can change radically both through time, and when, for instance, a species encounters an island or new habitat. Then selection can result in dramatic change. 786, how old do you think the earth is? Do you realize it's 4 billion years old? Alot can happen in that time.
     
  21. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I don't know exactly how old the earth is. But many things can happen in that time. This still doesn't prove Evolution.
     
  22. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    The fossil record certainly seems in accordance with the theory of evolution.
     
  23. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Actually there are no transitional forms.
     

Share This Page