If you have such a strong belief in your religion you can surely explain it right? It's supposed to be "scienctific fact" so it has already been proven scientifically. Easy job for you. You clearly know about it and i don't, so enlighten me.
>inb4 religious cuck not very convincing argument. What makes the mutations stack on top of other to create an actual functioning organ even if you had billions of billions of years it would be most unlikely thing to happen not to speak about it happening multiple times.(dyd?) >Why isn't there any "useless" in progress organs right now? >Why does it seem like the human genome is only degrading instead evolving?
>>Why isn't there any "useless" in progress organs right now? there is - people are born with genetic problems that cause blindness.
if this was an evolutionary advantage we would call it progress - it isn't. That is a "useless" progress.
same goes for all sorts of genetic illness.
at the same time people are born with all sorts of abnormal features that turn out to be useful - they are smarter, faster, meaner, more disease resistant - these are not seen as problems, even if unusual. time will tell if they breed more and become "normal"
Nicholas Miller
>>Why does it seem like the human genome is only degrading instead evolving?
it doesn't.
That is a vlaue judgement and needs unpacking - what do you mean by "degrade" what do you mean by "evolving"? You seem to assume that all evolution is directional, in ways that you think are positive - not necessarily so.
you could ask why we do not all have eyes as good as hawks (or bees) and ears as good as dogs and taste buds as good as cats - but we do not need these things. there is no force to drive our evolution int hat direction.
Evan Scott
>>One random mutation cannot create a fully functioning organ (do you disagree?), what happens in between?
yes very unlikely that would happen. But many mutations can lead to the formation of anew organ in combination. What is the problem? we are the product of billions of years of evolution.
it is not that human being only evolved livers and hearts and spleens in the last few thousand years - we share the evolutionary heritage of all other species that have those organs, which developed in sophistication over millions and millions of years.
Adrian Hall
Inb4 we become 240 iq vegetals cuz we don t use our muscles anymore
go read campbell, then come back. I'm not even going to waste my time discussing it with someone who doesn't even have a frosh tier understanding of biology.
Nicholas Diaz
Neanderthals evolved into Cro-magnon.
Caleb Parker
>>How does random mutations and survival of the fittest really apply together?
If you have a random mutation that makes you more fit to survive and therefore breed and pass on the mutation, than you do, and the mutation becomes the normal genetic material in your species as your successful offspring are successful and they breed more.
what is the problem with this idea?
so if you have cells that are light sensitive, and this allows you to tell day from night or seek shelter or avoid predators, you breed more than the non light sensitive members of your species - who get eaten. So a cup shaped patch of these, instead of a flat patch, then allows some directional sense to develop - the predator is behind you, or to your left, the shelter is near you at the right. more advantage. It becomes a deep cup because the gene is reinforced - hey better directional sensing, and so on until it becomes a pinhole camera - with thin skin over it to keep dirt out, and maybe liquid inside to focus the light better, and slowly it becomes an eye - over a few million generations.
Samuel Phillips
>How does random mutations and survival of the fittest really apply together?
If a mutation is beneficial, it provides an evolutionary advantage and renders the mutant fitter. If a mutation is malignant, the opposite applies.
>One random mutation cannot create a fully functioning organ (do you disagree?), what happens in between?
The evolutionary process happens.
>What makes the mutations stack on top of other to create an actual functioning organ even if you had billions of billions of years it would be most unlikely thing to happen not to speak about it happening multiple times.(dyd?)
Why is it unlikely that it would happen over an extended period of time? You are basically arguing that although you could walk to the kitchen, you cannot walk to the shop.
>Why isn't there any "useless" in progress organs right now?
There are. The human appendix is one example. The fact that human eyes are horrendously inefficient and prone to defects is another.
>Why does it seem like the human genome is only degrading instead evolving?
That's simply a matter of your ideological perspective. Personal bias is not an argument against scientific fact.
Jaxson Turner
Sperm counts in western men are down 50%. Average IQ is down 14 points since the last century, also in the West specifically. We are becoming more and more degenerate, with people deliberately giving others STD's. Nihilism is on the rise, testosterone is down, how are we NOT degrading? What is getting better? Name one thing, you fucking can't.
Jason Garcia
There is literal scientific proof that people are losing their qualities. >muh ideological bias Get fucked you dumb cunt.
Samuel Martinez
>>How does random mutations and survival of the fittest really apply together? Random mutation cause changes. Survival of the fittest causes the "bad" changes to not reproduce.
>>One random mutation cannot create a fully functioning organ (do you disagree?), what happens in between? I agree, what happens in between is more random mutations. The human eye evolved from a simple light sensor. It's a poor design compared to the eyes of other species (we have a blind spot for example) but each mutation improved fitness.
>>What makes the mutations stack on top of other to create an actual functioning organ even if you had billions of billions of years it would be most unlikely thing to happen not to speak about it happening multiple times.(dyd?) A mutation is selected if it improves fitness. The mutation is subsequently mutated and the mutation is selected if it improves fitness.
Also there are mutations which don't produce a phenotype and therefore can "hang around" in the gene pool until a combination of mutations produces a phenotype. These could help to drive what is known as punctuated equilibrium.
>>Why isn't there any "useless" in progress organs right now? In humans? There may well be.. the appendix is currently pretty useless. We're no longer really subject to the same natural selection we once were but if we had been it may have mutated into something else.
>>Why does it seem like the human genome is only degrading instead evolving? I didn't realise it "seemed" that way. "Seem" is in the eye of the beholder.
Brayden Adams
im talking about what you told in your previous post. The things that cause, not necessariy blindness, but all kinds of vulnerabilities to heart diseases and cancer are getting more and more common. I guess it could be explained by survival of the fittest as the people with genetic illnessess are kept alive by healthcare long enough.
However the most important question im seeking answer is about the direction of mutations. Is an undeveloped limb more beneficial for ancient fish than no such thing? Why doesn't survival of the fittest clear such qualities off the chart? Even if there is a case of fish that don't have any predators in their environment, why does that same limb keep mutating into a fully functional one if there is a random chance. If there was a truly random chance wouldn't it be just as, or even less likely to keep mutating into something useful? If i understand the math of classical chances it would be 1/x ^ y, x being the chance for that part of dna changing and y being the required mutations for it to fully develop.
>However the most important question im seeking answer is about the direction of mutations It's largely driven one way. Throwbacks don't tend to succeed. The whale evolved from a land mammal that evolved from a fish fish ---> land ---> whale.
Ayden King
>evolution is real >evolution isreal >evolution israel
Adam Cox
What about between the fish and land animal? i don't think one mutation can suddenly make you a land animal and the problem comes from the progression to land animal being unbeneficial for an animal that still lives underwater.
Easton Perez
>oy vey! 95% of communists, oops, I mean scientists, believe in goyvelution.
>i don't think one mutation can suddenly make you a land animal Nobody suggested otherwise. Read up on the lungfish and other fish that can breathe air.
>the progression to land animal being unbeneficial for an animal that still lives underwater. If such a progression wasn't beneficial then natural selection ensures it doesn't survive. There are fish who live in areas where droughts cause the waters to dry up and the remaining fish have to survive in the mud, these fish obviously benefit from a mutation. If the droughts become more severe then a further mutation proves beneficial.
