Haw! ANOTHER "missing link" discovered!

[ding]

You wanted to know how long it takes to change the herd.
Why does it have to "do anything by itself"?

We are talking about speciation.

Yup.

Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd? Or was that you who wanted to know how long it takes to change a herd?

Critical mass would be required. I never took you for an Adam and Eve kinda guy.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You wanted to know how long it takes to change the herd.
Why does it have to "do anything by itself"?

We are talking about speciation.

Yup.

If the first mutation isn't use "by itself" then under Darwinian theory there would be no reason for it to add to the survival and reproduction of that individual and it's progeny.

So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.

That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic. An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye? Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd? Or was that you who wanted to know how long it takes to change a herd?

Critical mass would be required. I never took you for an Adam and Eve kinda guy.

Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd?

Yes.

Critical mass would be required.

Well, if your mutation results in twice the survival, critical mass happens pretty quickly.

I never took you for an Adam and Eve kinda guy.

Why do you feel I am?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the first mutation isn't use "by itself" then under Darwinian theory there would be no reason for it to add to the survival and reproduction of that individual and it's progeny.

So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.

That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic. An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye? Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.

If the first mutation isn't use "by itself"

Not sure what that means.

So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.

Just like any other gene. And?

That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic.

What's a key flaw? Apparent design?

An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye?

Light sensitive cells.

Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.

What about two? Or four?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If the first mutation isn't use "by itself"

Not sure what that means.

Sorry - useful.

So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.

Just like any other gene. And?

So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on.

If a mutation is not passed on, it does not further evolution in any way.

Unless you can explain - using Darwinian logic - why an individual with a useless mutation would reproduce more than its non-mutated cousins and become dominant.

That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic.

What's a key flaw? Apparent design?

The irreconcilable complexity.

An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye?

Light sensitive cells.

Light sensitive cells cannot be the first step. Not unless you're telling me that one individual was suddenly born/hatched that had a groups of localized light sensitive cells already wired to send signals to a brain already wired to interpret those signals as light.

That is way too many mutations to suddenly appear in one individual.

What are the steps that led to light sensitive cells?

Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.

What about two? Or four?

You tell me: how many random mutations, none of which added survival and reproduction advantage have to accumulate before they produce a useful trait?

If you're really asking me, I would say thousands at a bare minimum. A thousand random mutations can occur, but why would each of them be passed on if they were not useful?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry - useful.

So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on.

Unless you can explain - using Darwinian logic - why an individual with a useless mutation would reproduce more than its non-mutated cousins and become dominant.

The irreconcilable complexity.


Light sensitive cells cannot be the first step. Not unless you're telling me that one individual was born that suddenly had a groups of localized light sensitive cells already wired to sent signals to a brain now wired to interpret those signals as light.

What are the steps that led to light sensitive cells?

You tell me: how many random mutations, none of which added survival and reproduction advantage have to accumulate before there is a useful trait?

If you're really asking me, I would say thousands at a bare minimum. a thousand random mutations can occur, but why would they be passed on if they were not useful?

So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on.

Sometimes they're useful, sometimes they aren't.
Sometimes they're passed on, sometimes they aren't.

Light sensitive cells cannot be the first step.

Why not?

What are the steps that led to light sensitive cells?

Feel free to google your little heart out.

You tell me: how many random mutations, none of which added survival and reproduction advantage have to accumulate before there is a useful trait?

I don't know. Do you?

If you're really asking me, I would say thousands at a bare minimum.

OK.

a thousand random mutations can occur, but why would they be passed on if they were not useful?

Unless they're harmful, why wouldn't they be passed on?

 

[Seymour Flops]

So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on.

Sometimes they're useful, sometimes they aren't.
Sometimes they're passed on, sometimes they aren't.

Light sensitive cells cannot be the first step.

Why not?

What are the steps that led to light sensitive cells?

Feel free to google your little heart out.

You tell me: how many random mutations, none of which added survival and reproduction advantage have to accumulate before there is a useful trait?

I don't know. Do you?

If you're really asking me, I would say thousands at a bare minimum.

OK.

a thousand random mutations can occur, but why would they be passed on if they were not useful?

Unless they're harmful, why wouldn't they be passed on?

Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists. Darwin's theory is that useful traits are passed on because the possessors of useful traits are able to survive and reproduce better than those who do not have them.

You are arguing that traits are passed on for no reason at all and then by coincidence, they end up producing a useful trait, and then a new species.

It actually makes less sense than Darwinism, which isn't easy, since Darwinism has been so thoroughly debunked.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists. Darwin's theory is that useful traits are passed on because the possessors of useful traits are able to survive and reproduce better than those who do not have them.

You are arguing that traits are passed on for no reason at all and then by coincidence, they end up producing a useful trait, and then a new species.

It actually makes less sense than Darwinism, which isn't easy, since Darwinism has been so thoroughly debunked.

Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists.

I did? Be more specific.

Darwin's theory is that useful traits are passed on because the possessors of useful traits are able to survive and reproduce better than those who do not have them.

Yup. Where did I disagree?

You are arguing that traits are passed on for no reason at all

I didn't say that. Sometimes someone with a useful trait dies before they can reproduce.
Sometimes the offspring doesn't have the trait. There are no guarantees.

then by coincidence, they end up producing a useful trait, and then a new species.

You're lying.

It actually makes less sense than Darwinism

I'm sorry that you're too confused to understand my very clear post.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists.

I did? Be more specific.

Darwin's theory is that useful traits are passed on because the possessors of useful traits are able to survive and reproduce better than those who do not have them.

Yup. Where did I disagree?

You are arguing that traits are passed on for no reason at all

I didn't say that. Sometimes someone with a useful trait dies before they can reproduce.
Sometimes the offspring doesn't have the trait. There are no guarantees.

then by coincidence, they end up producing a useful trait, and then a new species.

You're lying.

It actually makes less sense than Darwinism

I'm sorry that you're too confused to understand my very clear post.

I understood you perfectly.

You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason and that they could accumulate into a useful trait.

If not, what is the reason that non-useful mutations would be passed on and accumulate into a useful trait?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I understood you perfectly.

You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason and that they could accumulate into a useful trait.

If not, what is the reason that non-useful mutations would be passed on and accumulate into a useful trait?

You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason

You bet. Why wouldn't they be?

and that they could accumulate into a useful trait.

That was your claim.

So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations

 

[Seymour Flops]

You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason

You bet. Why wouldn't they be?

and that they could accumulate into a useful trait.

That was your claim.

So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations

That's fine, if that's your theory.

But it isn't Darwin's theory, because your idea doesn't require any greater survival/reproduction by the mutated individuals in a species.

I don't know, maybe you've got something there. The universe as craps table in which a seven is rolled millions of times in a row by millions of species.

 

[Hollie]

That's fine, if that's your theory.

But it isn't Darwin's theory, because your idea doesn't require any greater survival/reproduction by the mutated individuals in a species.

I don't know, maybe you've got something there. The universe as craps table in which a seven is rolled millions of times in a row by millions of species.

Arguing against what you don’t understand.

Well, there’s always the religion forum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's fine, if that's your theory.

But it isn't Darwin's theory, because your idea doesn't require any greater survival/reproduction by the mutated individuals in a species.

What idea of mine are you talking about?

 

[Seymour Flops]

What idea of mine are you talking about?

Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.

7 for originality.
-9 for logic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.

7 for originality.
-9 for logic.

Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason

Why wouldn't non-harmful mutations be passed on?

and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.

For the second time, you made that claim, not me.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason

Why wouldn't non-harmful mutations be passed on?

That's the idea that disagrees with Darwin. I'm not trying to dissuade you and persuade you to accept Darwin.

and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.

For the second time, you made that claim, not me.

So, where do you claim that the useful adaptations came from?

 

[ding]

Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd?

Yes.


View attachment 597943

Critical mass would be required.

Well, if your mutation results in twice the survival, critical mass happens pretty quickly.

I never took you for an Adam and Eve kinda guy.

Why do you feel I am?

That's not even close to me asking how long for a herd to change.

I don't see a new species passing go and collecting $200 without being at critical mass at the start.

Because you seem to believe speciation can occur with as little as two mutated creatures. I don't.

 

[idb]

Ah...I see the problem here...you confuse 'headline' with 'article'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's the idea that disagrees with Darwin. I'm not trying to dissuade you and persuade you to accept Darwin.

That's the idea that disagrees with Darwin.

Why does the propagation of a mutation that neither harms nor helps, disagree with Darwin?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because you seem to believe speciation can occur with as little as two mutated creatures.

Where did I even mention speciation, let alone make that claim?