(May 28, 2013 at 5:47 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 28, 2013 at 5:42 am)pocaracas Wrote: FFS, for someone who claims to be a "scholar", you sure are not paying attention to class!!

Non-beneficial mutations, if the individual carrying them manages to mate, are cast out of the population within, at most, 80 generations.... read the paper, it's FREE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33757/

I saw this article years before, it is ridiculous
Non-beneficial mutation can stay for 1000s of generations, because natural selection cannot predict that it will be non-beneficial, harmful or beneficial

Don't you get the point?

Non-beneficial mutations can be put in two groups:
1. - Harmful non-beneficial - which are removed from the gene pool in very few generations.
2. - non-harmful non-beneficial - which, indeed, can remain for thousands of generations.

I get the feeling I'm talking about one of these groups (1.) and you're talking about the other (2.).... while attributing some effects from (1.) to your (2.) individuals...

Now, if you please, use an adequate nomenclature, so we end up talking about the same thing.

(May 28, 2013 at 5:30 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: non-sense mutations are not non-perfect organs
my proposition has 2 aspects
Members with non-sense mutations must out number all others and they must be found in the fossil records.

Oh cool, shifting the goalposts. It's so nice of you to confirm the magnitude of your dishonesty in front of all of us.

How about this: what is it you actually mean by "nonsense?" Because, you know, the word denotes something that doesn't make sense... like a donut shaped brain. You're clearly working on some form of idiot's dictionary.

(May 28, 2013 at 9:20 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 28, 2013 at 5:30 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: non-sense mutations are not non-perfect organs
my proposition has 2 aspects
Members with non-sense mutations must out number all others and they must be found in the fossil records.

How about this: what is it you actually mean by "nonsense?" Because, you know, the word denotes something that doesn't make sense... like a donut shaped brain. You're clearly working on some form of idiot's dictionary.

Take for example symmetry in most humans and animals
While the human body is not symmetrical from inside, it is very symmetrical from outside
It is more of beauty than function

If evolution is not intelligent asymmetrical shapes will be much more than symmetrical ones
and if it is a cause of some genetic function then bodies will be symmetrical from inside as well.

(May 29, 2013 at 2:50 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Take for example symmetry in most humans and animals
While the human body is not symmetrical from inside, it is very symmetrical from outside
It is more of beauty than function

You don't think a symmetrical body is the most functional, especially in a setting where survival isn't automatically assured? What benefit is conferred by asymmetry? Further, can you imagine the negative aspects of this, especially in terms of limbs? Say, if one were trying to escape from predators?

Quote:If evolution is not intelligent asymmetrical shapes will be much more than symmetrical ones

That's not self evident. You need to get into the habit of actually backing up your bald assertions with evidence; I'm certainly not going to take a single word a proven liar like you says at face value, least of all when it runs against conventional logic (see above.)

Quote:and if it is a cause of some genetic function then bodies will be symmetrical from inside as well.

The interior of the body is just storage space, "Scholar." Physical symmetry is advantageous because it at the very least saves on computational effort with regards to physical control, but there's nothing inherently worthy about symmetry that would cause it to exist in places where it's not maximally efficient, if a different configuration can be made.

In short: exterior symmetry is good because it's hard to run on legs that are different lengths or shapes, but interior symmetry... who cares?

(May 29, 2013 at 3:10 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 29, 2013 at 2:50 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Take for example symmetry in most humans and animals
While the human body is not symmetrical from inside, it is very symmetrical from outside
It is more of beauty than function

You don't think a symmetrical body is the most functional, especially in a setting where survival isn't automatically assured? What benefit is conferred by asymmetry? Further, can you imagine the negative aspects of this, especially in terms of limbs? Say, if one were trying to escape from predators?

That's exactly your problem
You assume only the extreme so you can justify it; minor and average symmetrical body variation will almost change a thing.
I have one leg longer than the other by 2 cm, still I can run a Marathon.

Quote:In short: exterior symmetry is good because it's hard to run on legs that are different lengths or shapes, but interior symmetry... who cares?

Yes, who cares it is beauty because we care
God created us in a beautiful form because we care

Exactly!

(May 29, 2013 at 3:29 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: That's exactly your problem
You assume only the extreme so you can justify it; minor and average symmetrical body variation will almost change a thing.
I have one leg longer than the other by 2 cm, still I can run a Marathon.

So you knew the human body isn't symmetrical really (of course there's variations, yet more testament to this being a natural process and not having a designer behind it!) and yet you still claimed it was when it was convenient. Yet more dishonesty, I see. And yet, apparently, you can't see that this runs contrary to your own stance...

Quote:Yes, who cares it is beauty because we care
God created us in a beautiful form because we care

Exactly!

A beautiful form... when just a post ago you were claiming symmetry is beautiful, and yet above you admit that some asymmetry is present... God you're dumb.

As for the rest, it's just word salad, as was to be expected.

(May 29, 2013 at 2:50 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 28, 2013 at 9:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: How about this: what is it you actually mean by "nonsense?" Because, you know, the word denotes something that doesn't make sense... like a donut shaped brain. You're clearly working on some form of idiot's dictionary.

Take for example symmetry in most humans and animals
While the human body is not symmetrical from inside, it is very symmetrical from outside
It is more of beauty than function

If evolution is not intelligent asymmetrical shapes will be much more than symmetrical ones
and if it is a cause of some genetic function then bodies will be symmetrical from inside as well.

Ahem. I give you one of the most common lifeforms on the planet:



Not a lot of symmetry there. Clue - symmetry is not a terrific indication as to whether or not a fuzzy sky daddy exists.

(May 29, 2013 at 2:50 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Take for example symmetry in most humans and animals
While the human body is not symmetrical from inside, it is very symmetrical from outside
It is more of beauty than function

Mads HOX/BOX handles pattern formation (in plantae and animalia, for example). Symmetry in life is a matter of division. The way it works is that one cell becomes 2. 2 become 4 - and so on. All complex pattern formation is built upon this simple scheme and so it's no surprise to find symmetrical - even legged (for example) things all over the place. Even in the case of non-legged things growth occurs bi-directionally, plants don't "grow up from the roots" they grow up -and-down. Even here, when we see asymmetry in action between roots and shoots the process itself enjoys symmetry in mechanics.

Quote:If evolution is not intelligent asymmetrical shapes will be much more than symmetrical ones
and if it is a cause of some genetic function then bodies will be symmetrical from inside as well.

Intelligence is not required for symmetry in life, it's handled by the above processes (and many more, depending on the specific type of life we want to babble on about), both are mechanical (and you really have to cast the net wide to pretend that we're talking about evolution)). More hilariously, there are "behaviors" that lifeforms exhibit that we intuitively feel would require -some- intelligence of -some- sort that require no such thing upon further inspection. Positive phototropism (in heliotropes), for example.

So I guess that's that, eh?

(May 28, 2013 at 2:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Wrong, I'm asking for non-sense mutations that lasted for generations!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

Quote:God created us in a beautiful form because we care

Some yes...




Some...




not so much.