[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Cygnus]

That's directly observed to happen. Natural selection tends to preserve the most fit, and the next generation selects the most fit of those. It's not debatable.

I'm happy to see you used the word..tends...

Each slight mutation that makes it more effective is tends to be retained, and natural selection works from that new, higher level the next generation.

The problem you have...and so far have not answered is.....how does the second and 3rd slight mutation occur and effect the DNA responsible in a way in which it comes effective? You ack as if this process is gimme. You assume it's a done deal.

As you just learned, it's happening again, in an entirely different group of fish.

Is it? You can't show how it happened the supposed first time...let alone now.

 

[Cygnus]

No. Conjugation is a fairly complex process and requires specific pili to transfer episomes. Not all bacteria do lateral gene transfer.

rolls eyes...yet they do.
The point is you really can't compare bacteria to a turkey or a tree.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Because that's how I saw it and what I wanted to address. If I violated your personal code on net conduct...then I apologize

Well, I'm not making some of the arguments you seem to want me to defend and insist I follow something called ecolutionism. It a clear that you want to fight someone else and tear down someone else's argument. I'm done since it's clear you aren't interested in what I actually have to say, it seems you are more interested in just more copy paste arguments. Have a good day.

 

[Barbarian]

rolls eyes...yet they do.

I'm pretty sure you don't even know how it works, or what the genetic transfer does.

The point is you really can't compare bacteria to a turkey or a tree.

Since turkeys and trees (most of them) reproduce sexually, useful mutations can pass rapidly though descent.

Since you're telling us about it, how much genetic and biochemical relatedness is there between bacteria and animals?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's directly observed to happen. Natural selection tends to preserve the most fit, and the next generation selects the most fit of those. It's not debatable.

I'm happy to see you used the word..tends...

The race is not always to the swift. But that's where the smart money is. The law of large numbers pretty much makes that a sure thing for most populations.

The problem you have...and so far have not answered is.....how does the second and 3rd slight mutation occur and effect the DNA responsible in a way in which it comes effective?

Same way the first one did. Remember each generation is the survivors of the previous one. So for example if it's advantageous for an organism to be able to detect from where light is coming, then a mutation that causes pigment to accumulate in one spot is very useful, since it will be more sensitive to light, and the organism can sense which side the light is on.

So most of the population will have the spot after a few generations. So then if another mutation that causes the spot to be in a slight depression occurs, then the organism will be able to more precisely identify from where the light is coming. Another easy one would be to have more sensory structures beneath the spot to detect the energy absorbed by it.

And after a few generations, that becomes the most common form.

You ack as if this process is gimme. You assume it's a done deal.

See above. I'm sure that if you had thought about it for a bit, you'd have realized how it works.

Is it? You can't show how it happened the supposed first time...let alone now.

No, that's wrong. We still have both of the forms I mentions in living populations. Euglena, for example has the first mutation, a dark spot.

And there is the evidence. The intermediate stages you said couldn't exist. They still do exist in living organisms.

 

[Cygnus]

Well, I'm not making some of the arguments you seem to want me to defend and insist I follow something called ecolutionism. It a clear that you want to fight someone else and tear down someone else's argument. I'm done since it's clear you aren't interested in what I actually have to say, it seems you are more interested in just more copy paste arguments. Have a good day.

Milk Drops.....I've seen Eve's like you come and go. When you have the ability to explain how mutations add up, feel free to respond back.

 

[Cygnus]

Since you're telling us about it, how much genetic and biochemical relatedness is there between bacteria and animals?

Since they have the same creator, or a common creator....all

 

[Cygnus]

Same way the first one did. Remember each generation is the survivors of the previous one. So for example if it's advantageous for an organism to be able to detect from where light is coming, then a mutation that causes pigment to accumulate in one spot is very useful, since it will be more sensitive to light, and the organism can sense which side the light is on.

Sheeze man, listen to yourself rant. You're painting a picture of a "what if" assumption. You're scenario is a SWAG.

 

[Barbarian]

Since they have the same creator, or a common creator....all

Sorry, that belief won't work. We can check it by looking at populations of known descent, and genetic relatedness does indicate common descent.

 

[Barbarian]

Sheeze man, listen to yourself rant. You're painting a picture of a "what if" assumption. You're scenario is a SWAG.

I don't think excuses are going to help you now. Get some facts, learn to present a rational argument,and come on back and show it to us.

 

[Cygnus]

Sorry, that belief won't work. We can check it by looking at populations of known descent, and genetic relatedness does indicate common descent.

Sure, on a short term level. Grand kid may look like the grand dad...... But in the long run homology doesn't really work. That icon of evolutionism was torn down many years ago.

 

[Cygnus]

I don't think excuses are going to help you now. Get some facts, learn to present a rational argument,and come on back and show it to us.

I get your diversion tactic....you really couldn't show that what you posted wasn't assumptions....So, you resort to the get some facts answers.
You fail to realize...I HAVE THE FACTS....evolutionism fails.

 

[Barbarian]

Sure, on a short term level. Grand kid may look like the grand dad...... But in the long run homology doesn't really work.

Sorry, we know it does. The fact that it works for populations of known descent demonstrates that it establishes relationships.

As you see, all the intermediate forms you claimed couldn't exist, do exist. Isn't it time for you to make an accommodation with reality?

 

[Cygnus]

Sorry, we know it does.

Long sigh

 

[Barbarian]

It's tough swimming upstream against evidence, um?

 

[Cygnus]

It's tough swimming upstream against evidence, um?

Actually I'm not swimming...I'm walking through your evidence with hip boots on.

 

[Barbarian]

And I think my job is done here.