>Claim: Each organism inherits random gene mutations that make it slightly different, natural selection than selects for good mutations and removes bad mutations according to changing environments. This process explains how we evolved from single celled organisms.
Fact: Weather an organism survives and reproduces is almost always determined by environmental and circumstantial factors, not genetic factors. Survival of the luckiest, not the fittest. Fact: When an organisms success is due to genetics, it is almost always due to genes inherited rather than gene mutations. 99% of gene mutations have a miniscule effect on the organism and are not visible to natural selection. Fact: In cases where mutations play a role in survival, they almost always cause death, rather than survival. Fact: In the RARE cases where mutations benefit an organism, it is ALWAYS is a result of scrambling pre existing ordered information that the organism is better off without. Examples of this include malaria resistance, anti-biotic resistance, and blue eyes. All involve the removal of biological processes that hinder the organism.
The simple fact is that there is no known naturalistic way all the information in the genome could have arisen by itself. Generally, order decreases with time and undirected energy, aka entropy, and there is no evidence that genomes are exempt. Each generation has more random and thus scrambled genomes, and there is known process resisting this. At the rate genomes are mutating, they can't be more than 100,000 years old, let alone billions.
>inb4 the sun and le earth isn't a closed system
Undirected energy increases entropy. If you don't believe me, go stand out in the sun all day. But don't come crying to me when you get fucked up with skin cancer.
>Fact: Weather an organism survives and reproduces is almost always determined by environmental and circumstantial factors, not genetic factors. Survival of the luckiest, not the fittest. It's the genetic traits inherited by a generation that allows it to survive and adapt to its environments further increasing its chance of survival.
Eg. Moths that inherit a gene that makes it brown will be more likely to survive and reproduce in the environment by hiding on trees, something white moths wouldn't do because they haven't evolved for this particular example environment
>snow=white >fur=white is camouflage, allowing for better hunting etc. All of the facts that OP pointed out are arguments for evolution though so I am confused
Christopher Torres
>Fact ... almost always... >Fact... almost always... >Fact... almost always... You're pulling all this out of your ass, son.
Connor Anderson
Also the continuing complexity of the genome arguement is fucking retarded because there are aomebas with dozens of times more complexity in thier genome than us and they are single celled.
Also our great ape cousins have exact copies of parts of our chromosones but spread over more than one chromosone and we have telemere sequencers in ours that make it appear that there was some kind of fusion of those chromosomes in our ancestors but not in the other apes.
Explains why chimps have two more chromosones than us.
Gavin Collins
I was arguing with this
>Fact: When an organisms success is due to genetics, it is almost always due to genes inherited rather than gene mutations
Because in an artic environment a mutation to a melanin related sequence in a wolf/bear/rabbit/owl etc would me massively beneficial if it resulting in say grey fur/feathers ending up as white.
Carter Turner
Also you could also factor in mutations in a desert mouse that is sand coloured..
What if the mouse fur in a young mutated to black?
Sure it would be more visible in the day because it would contrast, but at night in say the moon, it would be a massive benefit for anti predation.
What can be a bad mutation in one direction/environment can be benefitial in another.
Anthony Jenkins
>Fact: Weather an organism survives and reproduces is almost always determined by environmental and circumstantial factors, not genetic factors. Survival of the luckiest, not the fittest.
False, genetic factors define an organism's survivals based on its environment because it defines an organism.
>Fact: When an organisms success is due to genetics, it is almost always due to genes inherited rather than gene mutations. 99% of gene mutations have a miniscule effect on the organism and are not visible to natural selection.
That's why it takes a long time. The changes are subtle and often don't make a huge impact, but a difference of one child but occurring in half the species for 1000 generations makes differences occur.
>Fact: In cases where mutations play a role in survival, they almost always cause death, rather than survival.
"they ALMOST always cause death" no shit that's why we don't change too much between single generations, but the fact you agree its almost is counter intuitive to your argument.
>Fact: In the RARE cases where mutations benefit an organism, it is ALWAYS is a result of scrambling pre existing ordered information that the organism is better off without. Examples of this include malaria resistance, anti-biotic resistance, and blue eyes. All involve the removal of biological processes that hinder the organism.
Such processes take energy that can be better spent elsewhere. Organisms with more energy are more capable of fucking.
2/10 got me to respond
Robert Price
And this is the result of the loss of genetic information, specifically the ability to have offspring with different colored coats. Speciation is entirely arbitrary. The genomes become decreasingly complex leading to further speciation. Natural selection causes this loss of genetic information.
Nathan Powell
you realize that you're helping the evolution argument right? you think saying "survival of the luckiest" is an epic put down since you think survival of the fittest is trying to explain how perfect advanced life is, but thats a creationist argument, that advanced life is perfect, in reality random stupid bullshit is alive and well in advanced life forms just because it happened to not get us killed fast enough
Jayden Wilson
>>inb4 the sun and le earth isn't a closed system >Undirected energy increases entropy. If you don't believe me, go stand out in the sun all day. But don't come crying to me when you get fucked up with skin cancer.
You can't get usable energy from the Sun?
Huh.
Guess that explains why plants don't exist.
Luke Ramirez
> The changes are subtle and often don't make a huge impact, but a difference of one child but occurring in half the species for 1000 generations makes differences occur.
Exactly, even a mutation that strengthens say teeth enamal, visial accuity, bone strength etc by a fraction of a fraction of a percent in a few generations is massive over the long term.
Jackson Stewart
But you can have additive mutations,subtractions, translocations, i know its not a benifitial example but down syndrome is extra chromosomal information.
Chances are our benefitial additions are not noticed because historically those that didnt inherit them died out, my great ape ancestor chromosonal fusion is a good example.
We can only see the evidence in our ape cousins and our shared ancestors.
Lincoln Wright
>Weather an organism survives and reproduces is almost always determined by environmental and circumstantial factors, not genetic factors. Survival of the luckiest, not the fittest. Their genetic factors determine whether or not they'll survive the environmental factors. It is survival of the fittest, you could call it luck being born with genes that help you survive, sure.
> In the RARE cases where mutations benefit an organism, it is ALWAYS is a result of scrambling pre existing ordered information that the organism is better off without. Examples of this include malaria resistance, anti-biotic resistance, and blue eyes. All involve the removal of biological processes that hinder the organism. How are any of those cases the removal of biological processes? And not just changes?
The other facts you listed are arguments FOR evolution, so I'm not sure what you think you're doing.
Gabriel Jones
This is bait right? You don't even try to make it seem like you're arguing against evolution.
Colton Hill
>Speciation is entirely arbitrary. >The genomes become decreasingly complex leading to further speciation. >Natural selection causes this loss of genetic information.
These are not facts, you are making them as if they are facts, they are wrong.
There is a metric shiton of evidence out there about this stuff.
The entire fields of biology, microbiology, genetics, mechanics, chemistry, biochemistry, geology etc all support evolution brah.
Aaron Gonzalez
And yet there's biological diversity with a solid mechanism visibly producing change on a daily basis.
Classic irreducible complexity bullshit. Not surprising on poil.
Austin Smith
not gonna lie, this guy's funny
that said, he's arguing against age old theories that aren't any longer thought to be even a little correct
Robert Russell
Weasel words and I forgot how to science : The Post.
Brayden Sullivan
The argument for entropy really only works on a trend-based model, but that works too.
Are you going to try to deny that certain chemical reactions occur even though they aren't spontaneous, and have an energy threshold that has to be reached before the reaction can occur? Similarly, with regards to mutation, new genetic information can arise out of unlikely, entropically unfavored reactions that end up with a more stable end state.
Brayden Baker
>(1) post by this ID
Sebastian Gonzalez
No meme is. If you're going to continue coming here you need to learn politics is a world of egos. Facts are irrelevant unless and until they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
