(February 10, 2020 at 12:20 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(February 9, 2020 at 12:18 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: So someone here quoted
“The mutations may be random, the selection process is not. ”
Again, NS is wholly dependent upon 100% random mutations. Are you still denying this and calling me crazy? That’s rich
Random mutations are only a small part of natural selection. Mutations are a constant occurrence in each succeeding generation. You have 68 mutations that your parents did not have.
What drives natural selection, is the SELECTION process, which is not randfom.
Quote:NS can only keep traits caused by 100% randomness and I know “evolution “ occurs over time
No. Natural selection keeps traits because they are selected for because they instill a survival and reproductive advantage. The randomness of the mutation has nothing to do with why and how traits continue in populations.
Quote:But tell me you find it normal happenstance
That a perfect set of owls eyes will appear?
I keep bringing this up because I want to know the logistics of how you fall for this crazy lucky coincidences.
No luck involved.
Environmental pressures, put on populations, to select for traits that will instill a survival advantage, is not luck.
When humans bred wolves into dogs 10,000 years ago, was it luck that they picked the most social, and docile examples as their initial breeding stock? When they decided to breed early dogs into a dog that could hunt rabbits in holes, was it luck that they decided to pick dogs with unusually short legs (so they can more easily fit in hole) to breed into dachshunds?
The process in natural selection is no different than artificial selection. The only difference is the selection agent. Is it humans selecting for specific dog traits, or is it nature doing the selection for survival traits?
I actually did not include the importance of environmental pressures selecting against traits that are detrimental to survival.
Or, traits that have little or no survival advantages or disadvantages, being carried on, because they have no effect.
What he doesn't understand (at least one among many things), is that, eye like spots on some percentage of the population of butterflies wings could have existed for many, many generations previously, with no positive (or negative) effect on survival. Then, a new predator species could have been introduced into their environment, and now, those butterflies, with existing spots had a survival advantage. The predator would remove the butterflies with genes for no spots, and only the butterflies with spots would pass on their genetic material.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
