Login

Join for Free!
119308 members


Natural selection is proven wrong

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby jumma » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:35 pm

there is nothing like "starting mutation". Mutation simply happens and that's it
tart the

then you have point 2 of deans

the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics can


but for point 1
something needs to get to the gene to start the mutation ie virus radiation etc
so tell us the random process that gets the something ie virus radiation etc to the gene
jumma
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:34 am

Postby OdinsRaven » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:10 pm

Why aren't any of you talking about the sun?

It was there before any life on this planet began. You asked why mutations started in the first place. How about the idea that mutations are a tool for adaptation. The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes. It seems that DNA is also subject to change. Actually it seems that everything is subject to change. Is that not what a mutation is, just a change.

Without change, there is extinction.

The real question is why does life matter so much to keep it going? Changes happen, we know how they happen and even in many cases where they originated from, but whats the point of this continuous adaptation through generations of lifeforms?
OdinsRaven
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 4:17 am

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby jumma » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:38 pm

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes


now that is some sort of explanation behind the random process that starts the mutation that leads to the generation of a new species

that is a lot more than canalon has offered - but then he want find explanations like that in his holy/sacred biology text books
all canalons books can tell us is what happen AFTER the starting process not BEFORE
jumma
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:34 am


Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby JackBean » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:06 pm

jumma wrote:
The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes


now that is some sort of explanation behind the random process that starts the mutation that leads to the generation of a new species

This is explanation??? :roll: So what did we provide? :roll:
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby jumma » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:22 pm

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes

you say

This is explanation??? :roll: So what did we provide?


GEEEEEEEE

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes


all those changes could/can be part of the random process that start mutations that generate new species

ie a virus was blown onto a gene
sun spots might have caused a lonely neutron to fly onto a gene
chemicals in the atmosphere might have fallen onto a gene
etc
etc

that is a lot more than canalon has offered - but then he want find explanations like that in his holy/sacred biology text books
all canalons books can tell us is what happen AFTER the starting process not BEFORE
jumma
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:34 am

Postby canalon » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:25 pm

A mutation is a change in the genetic code. It does not start before the DNA is changed by chemical or other means. You do not make sense.
In fact the more you are trying to argue the more you are showing your complete ignorance of the subject at hand. I gave you a link to a place where you can go and instruct you for free. You chose instead to make a fool of yourself. Do not expect to be treated with any sort of respect. You deserved to be called an ignorant idiot, and you will be, you ignorant idiot.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby jumma » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:33 pm

A mutation is a change in the genetic code



a changed caused by ie a virus radiation via a random process a random process genetics cant explain
an example of such a random process which could start the mutation

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes



all those changes could/can be part of the random process that start mutations that generate new species

ie a virus was blown onto a gene
sun spots might have caused a lonely neutron to fly onto a gene
chemicals in the atmosphere might have fallen onto a gene
etc
etc
jumma
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:34 am

Postby david23 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:01 pm

"a virus was blown onto a gene" something is terribly odd with this statement

same with "sun spots might have caused a lonely neutron to fly onto a gene" well this one is just wrong. Neutrons cant move so freely without some kind of catastrophic effect

"chemicals in the atmosphere might have fallen onto a gene" why not, sounds pretty "ok"
david23
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest