a reply to: Raggedyman
Yeah but the problem is the mutation never, ever, ever mutates into something better,
If you believe that evolution has a purpose to 'advance' from simple to complex, you might possibly agree with that statement. The problem is that in
an evolutionary context the only definition of the word 'better' is 'is the organism in a 'better' situation to survive its environment than its
parents'. A mutation either makes things worse, better, or has no effect what-so-ever. Whether the mutation makes an organism more complex or simpler
has nothing what-so-ever to do with anything what-so-ever.
it ALWAYS de-evolves,
There is no such thing as 'de-evolve'. There is only change; like time, the arrow of evolution moves in one direction - each generation is different
from its parent generation. Whether the difference is one of simplicity or complexity or just refinement is irrelevant. Change is change. It doesn't
Now you know what? It is conceivable that a population might evolve due to some environmental reason that turns out to be temporary. If the mutation
that helped them survive in the new environment is actually detrimental to them in the old environment, the population may indeed 'lose' that new
How would that work? Glad you asked.
Suppose a Beaver dams a river and a lake forms behind it creating a swamp. Suppose there is a beetle there that doesn't like getting its feet wet.
Suppose that SOME of the beetles have a mutation that lets them tolerate water better than others. Soon you'll have two populations; one in the swamp
and one remaining on dry land. After a few years those in the swamp have come to rely on their waterlogged environment, eating water bugs or swamp
plants or doing whatever beetles do; relying on leaves that float on water to protect their eggs sacks and so on. The guys on land are still doing
what beetles on dry land do. The 'new' guys have evolved, but there aren't really two species yet, they just have some different behaviors and
tolerances. They might still breed together at the edges of the swamp if they run into each other.
Then a few years later a big rainstorm causes a flood that destroys the beaver dam and there isn't anymore swamp. The 'new' beetles are now
'disadvantaged' by their previous 'advantage'. Where do they hide their eggs and how do they do all their water sports? They don't. The landlubbers
return to dominance everywhere.
The population has NOT de-evolved; it has just evolved again. Just like a calendar, Tuesday follows Monday. Just because today is Tuesday doesn't mean
its the same as last Tuesday, and next Tuesday isn't the same as today. Evolution is change over time, and the population of beetles has changed over
time. One population became two populations, then the two populations 'merged' into one (I think in that, as I described it, the second population may
more correctly be said to have gone extinct, but that is still part of evolution - and is a new change, not an un-change).
no new information is EVER added into a virus mutation
That is patently false. Organisms are not information systems and cannot be expected to behave like information systems even if they have some
attributes that vaguely correspond to procedures and methodology that information systems use. These correspondences only seem to exist because WE
identify them as familiar models ('mind-maps') in order that we can use a short hand description of them. This an approximation to the definition of
jargon, and you really need to understand the underlying meaning of jargon and the limitations of the model for which it is shorthand before trying to
stretch the modeled analogy beyond its limits.
Furthermore they are not closed systems and cannot be expected to adhere to some supposed conservation law that only applies to closed systems. And
you really, really should understand, no I mean REALLY understand what information is in information systems before you try interpreting some half
baked analogies as gospel truth.
Organisms are biological systems; they behave like biological organisms.
Sorry to make it look like false science but it is false science
There is nothing false about it. Exactly what are you describing as false? In what way is the experiment false. Was the design not transparent? Was
the result not evident?
Also makes Darwinism look redundant, evolution by mutation, not natural selection as supposed
One more time: individuals mutate, populations evolve. Mutations affect individuals, natural selection determines whether the mutation is passed into
the population. If the mutation helps (or doesn't hinder) the individual to pass its DNA to the next generation then the mutation gets to survive and
remains in the population. If the mutation gives its bearers a 'significant' advantage then it spreads throughout the population via the succeeding
generations. When that happens the population is said to have evolved. It is not 'either/or' it is both in combination.
Mutations are 'filtered' by natural selection and the end result is evolution.
Your failure/refusal to understand that last sentence, no matter how many times it has been explained to you is becoming extraordinarily tiresome.
Its not evidence of evolution, its just phony science
In what way was the experiment 'phony'?
Why not show empirical evidence rather than phony evidence
That is exactly what the experiment is: empirical evidence. Please stop pretending that 'empirical evidence' means 'stuff that agrees with me'.
Why do people hate science,
Your remarks here clearly make you the one closest to the problem. I suspect you can't answer for everyone, but you are certainly the best placed to
answer for yourself. Please enlighten us.
why do those who support evolution manipulate and abuse science in this way.
Why do you have to continue to talk as if you live in Bizzarro World? Turning accusations around, like you have lamely attempted here, only works when
the original accusation is false or brought up by hypocrites. Neither is the case here, so it just comes off as lame, trite, irredeemably ignorant,
and focuses the readers attention on your own fundamentally false premises and hypocritical complaints.
edit on 13/9/2016 by rnaa because: (no
edit on 13/9/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)