Role of Mutations

But all natural selection operates on existing mutations, which by your definition are now preadaptations.I think what Jaderis was getting at was more the diversity latent in the population from accumulated non-lethal mutations.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Which is why you use an (albino?) male for your avatar? and As in finding a use for that old broken broomstick that's just lying around. Innovation based on a previous base that would not otherwise be available. Selection could be sexual, say for blond hair ... And knowing that certain genes are more susceptable to certain pollutants than others, increasing the possiblity of repeated mutations in the same general area of the same type from similar exposures at different times.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Nothing in the real world is mathematically impossible.Nothing.And it is obvious to me that anyone making this argument cannot see the logical error in their thinking. Why? How do you measure it? What does the "information" do? You are obviously familiar enough with these mutations and genes (seeing as YOU make the above statement) that you know precisely what information was lost, what it was, and where it was located: give one example.It appears to me that you are just taking buzz phrases from creatortionistas (which, by the Dover Decision now includes IDists), and regurgitating it without any real thought on your part.Creatortionista, btw, is defined as someone who intentionally misrepresents the truth of what they are saying to fool the gullible and those ignorant of the truth in support of creationist dogma. The measure of this is that creatortionista websites will continue to post erroneous and false information even after it has been pointed out that the information is erroneous and false. Every species is a daughter of the parent species, no matter how distant those parent species happen to be.Variation and natural selection are enough to cause speciation events -- this has been observed. The other thing that should be fairly obvious to those not logically impaired is that speciation involves new "information" of some kind -- something has been "added" that make a difference in the populations {old species} and {new species} and thus speciation falsifies the concept of "no new information" in a way that creationists cannot honestly deny.All hominids are apes the same way all dogs are dogs (although all you are talking about is varieties there not species differentiations, so of course they are going to be dogs -- but lets look at the full concept applied to biology eh?).Just as all chimpanzees are apes (and all gorillas and all orangutans and all bonobos etc).But before we were apes our common ancestors were primates, and we are still primates, the same way all apes are primates and the same way all monkeys are primates.Before we were primates our common ancestors were mammals, and we are all still mammals, the same way all apes are mammals and all primates are mammals, and the same way all mammalian species alive and extinct are still mammals.All that has happened since each of these divisions is descent from a common ancestral population, with variation and natural selection.If a dog gave birth to something not{dog} that would NOT be evolution -- that would be a typical creatortionista strawman monster. Because all humans evolved from the hominid population group that had voiceboxes, it became 'fixed' in the population that survived (natural selection). There is no such thing as a "positive" mutation. This is a human value judgement, and a creatortionista strawman, when in fact evolution could care less what humans value or even think - it has been happening for 3.5 billion years without benefit of human thought."Beneficial" still has some 'good' connotations of human valuation, but these need to be ignored. It is the term commonly used where having the mutation benefits the organism relative to its surviving or reproducing.All mutations come with a {cost\benefit} analysis - it is called natural selection:

• Those that {survive} or {reproduce better} with the mutation than those without, benefit from having it,
• Those that {do not survive} or {reproduce worse} with the mutation than those without, pay a cost for having it,
• Those for whom the mutation neither affects their {survial} or {reproductive success} compared to those without have a neutral {cost\benefit}

While the effect of beneficial and costly mutations can be readily observed in populations by direct effect, the {cost\benefit} of neutral mutations cannot be so observed.Notice that all {potentially beneficial} and {potentially costly} mutations that are not immediately tested by natural selection are by definition neutral.Later changes to the environment or other species (competitions) can make having the neutral mutation beneficial or costly, in which case whole populations are likely to be affected as the neutral mutation has more opportunity to spread in an otherwise static population.Neutral mutations also add diversity that can be a base for further mutations ... beneficial, costly or neutral ... Changes to the genetic code are variations in the genetic code -- they are different, that is variation.Probability has been "all done up already" I agree -- it has been shown to be a false argument based on false assumptions and lack of information and has been demonstrated to be irrelevant to reality.See {the old improbable probability problem} thread.
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problemOf course feel free to point out the logical and mathematical errors on that thread if you can. These are bare links and area violation of the forum rules. They are also laughable as evidence: answers in genesis is just wrong on many things, which have been pointed out (these are also called PRATTS). They are one of the "better" creatortionista and their "arguments we think creationists should not use" should be required reading for any creationist -- they are so bad and the evidence against them is so strong that they cannot be argued even by AiG. What prevents a future mutation from changing it back? What prevents sexual reproduction from not passing it on? What you have here is another logical fallacy.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added response to message 25, 34, 37, 40Edited by RAZD, : typos, formating

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

As noted by Ned you will need to have a working definition of "information" to make this statement. Why shrink? They also have constant mutation occurring and the different environment will select for those most to the advantage of the subpopulation for survival and breeding -- from all available sources, and those mutations will necessarily be different than in the other population (being random) and the selection for advantage will mean that new alleles from mutations will be available to selection.It is the accumulation of these new alleles - replacing the ones that are lost -- that results in the speciation. Again define information and then describe how you can measure "old" versus "new" -- other than by bare assertion.As an example: all mutations change the information that was there before - the DNA is different, therefore it is changed - and further, all mutations are "new" information in that the particular pattern in the DNA was not in existence before, therefore it is new. "New" information is by definition also "added information" as it was not in existence before and has been added to the amount of information that existed before the mutation. Then you need to pay more attention to facts - take the nylon digesting bacteria, a function never performed by a bacteria before the invention of nylon. Something that never existed before fits my definition of new. So the common ancestor had both manes and stripes, as well as the spots on cheetahs and the all black fur of panthers .... About the same time we would stop being an ape, a primate and a mammal. I addressed this in the post you replied to: What part about nested hierarchies resulting from common ancestors don't you understand? It is a simple concept.Branches do not cut themselves off and then graft themselves on somewhere else. What do you think is right? One of their more humorous pages is the Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - which has this topical tidbit: In other words "beneficial mutations occur but we are going to equivocate about how they occur." Most of the answers on this page have similar equivocations on the answers.Note that this is listed under "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" - and under "What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use?" is another topical tidbit: They also conveniently fail to define "information" or establish any metric for measuring how much organism {A} has compared to organism {B}, thereby avoiding finding that information is increased.This is wrong information. Why is there no definition or metric to measure information if this is so central to these arguments? Because without it they can continue to assert their (false) argument without fear of invalidation by real evidence. This is dishonest.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.