Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

Prompted by a rabid youtube watcher who loves to scream at people who believe in Intelligent Design, I will ask the same question here and perhaps it can be answered by someone.

Questions:

1: Does every individual of any group of species mutate at the same rate as all members?
2: If the definition of species is "members of a group who are capable of interbreeding" and species first began in a singular biome, then if there is another biome in which a species population resides, did the species in the biomes mutate at the same rate?
3: Given that biomes are environments and mutations occur because of environmental reasons, then how are Africans and Inuits the same species?
4: As mutations lead to changes species-wide, so that a population in a biome becomes a different species, then the mutations in DNA that lead to different haplotypes, then are we all different species from each other?
5: As mutations are designed for adaptation for survival within a biome or moving to a new biome, the first species of life had no predatory reasons to adapt for survival within the biome, then did original mutations occur solely within the original biome?
6: As Natural Selection is the adaptation, then why do those who adapt, then go back to the state before adaptation?
7: How many individual species were in the original biome?


I may come up with other questions, but these seem pertinent to me at the present. And please, I would like real answers and not assumptions. Don't tell me "we think" or "scientists suppose", because those are assumptions.

a reply to: WarminIndy
I recently started a thread here discussing how I believe we need to approach this topic from both topics, intelligent design and evolution. I purposed that evolution is God's creative technique in time and space. I am not referring to any one religion when I refer to God. Matter of theology are not necessarily part of this discussion.

Evolution is a controlled and monitored process by celestial beings created by God for such a function. They are able to assemble and control the life plasam and activate evolutionary changes in the superior genetic strains of the given species.

This process is virtually the same on every planet in the universe, and there are many.

I wish I could awnser all but I can only comment on 5, mutations don't ocur to adapt, mutations are random and those with beneficial mutations have a better chance to survive and pass on their genes, eventually there will be more of the population with the good mutations.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Prompted by a rabid youtube watcher who loves to scream at people who believe in Intelligent Design, I will ask the same question here and perhaps it can be answered by someone.

Questions:

1: Does every individual of any group of species mutate at the same rate as all members?
2: If the definition of species is "members of a group who are capable of interbreeding" and species first began in a singular biome, then if there is another biome in which a species population resides, did the species in the biomes mutate at the same rate?
3: Given that biomes are environments and mutations occur because of environmental reasons, then how are Africans and Inuits the same species?
4: As mutations lead to changes species-wide, so that a population in a biome becomes a different species, then the mutations in DNA that lead to different haplotypes, then are we all different species from each other?
5: As mutations are designed for adaptation for survival within a biome or moving to a new biome, the first species of life had no predatory reasons to adapt for survival within the biome, then did original mutations occur solely within the original biome?
6: As Natural Selection is the adaptation, then why do those who adapt, then go back to the state before adaptation?
7: How many individual species were in the original biome?


I may come up with other questions, but these seem pertinent to me at the present. And please, I would like real answers and not assumptions. Don't tell me "we think" or "scientists suppose", because those are assumptions.

1: No.
2: No
3: Furs
4: No
5: Nothing to do with predation
6: Environmental reasons
7: There was no original Biome

First of all, the north/south polar regions where always going to be different than the tropics. Basic stuff here, which nullifies your ideas that the Earth started out as a single Biome. Secondly, Each environment changed at different rates.

Beyond that, I sense racist overtones here... You're on your own pal.

1: No, Mutations are random - there is no standard rate. Different environmental factors will contribute to mutation, one locality will not have the same environmental factors as another.

2: No, please see above.

3: Africans and Intuis, technically speaking, are both members of the same family - kind of like zebras and horses (all varieties) are members of the same family and can interbreed. Technically speaking, their distinct features make them separate species.

4: Not all mutations lead to changes species-wide. Some die out within a generation. Only those mutations that provide some sort of breeding advantage over other members of the species without that mutation usually cause changes species-wide. Again, I believe technically speaking, to use your example, Inuits and Africans might be different races, but members of the same species.

5: Mutations are not "designed for adaptation for survival." Instead, they are random. Some are beneficial and some are not. Those that provide a breeding advantage against other members of the species tend to propagate, simply because they provide some sort of competitive edge. In birds, for example, female birds of many species are more attracted to the brightest, prettiest bird. This leads the brightest, prettiest male birds to pass on their genes more often than their dull counterparts.

6: Can you provide an example? A specific example would help to answer this question, as there may be environmental factors that made this reversion beneficial.

7: How could anyone possibly know this? Perhaps when live first evolved, there was only one life form. It seems reasonable that if the conditions for life were present, perhaps life would have organized itself into a few unique life forms almost simultaneously.

originally posted by: Indigent
I wish I could awnser all but I can only comment on 5, mutations don't ocur to adapt, mutations are random and those with beneficial mutations have a better chance to survive and pass on their genes, eventually there will be more of the population with the good mutations.

Thank you for the response.

I looked that up from Berkeley University and here is what it says

Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.

That is an assumption, because it says "generally thought"

And they based it on a false premise

For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:

Lice shampoo is designed to kill the first time, therefore there is no need to use the shampoo a second time. I have never known a person to ever say "Oh, the lice weren't killed the first time, now there are multiple generations of lice now mutated to be resistant". Lice can be killed the first time, nullifying the argument. Once the lice are killed, it is impossible for the dead lice to mutate or breed.

They also reference the Lederberg experiment that showed bacteria mutated to be resistant

So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.

Where did the information come from for them to mutate? Aren't mutations the result of new information?

And this from New Scientist

The same thing can happen in fruit flies, and likely in many other groups too.

The wording again is an assumption.

What then is information?

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't understand your problem with "assumptions" (which in many cases are actually theories, that hold a lot of water..)

The entire idea of intelligent design is based on assumptions - and in this case they are assumptions with literally zero evidence to back them up.

I'm not trying to be rude or insult you, but I don't understand how you can have no problem with wild assumptions but refute any assumption or theory with a basis in observed science.

originally posted by: WarminIndyThank you for the response.




What then is information?

It's information when it's not indoctrination. But you simply wouldn't understand.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

There is no racism, but these are questions that come from a forum about the Neanderthal percentages in Europeans. I am 2.9%.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndyThank you for the response.




What then is information?

It's information when it's not indoctrination. But you simply wouldn't understand.

What is information?

How does information cause an effect?

These are things you should be able to answer definitely if evolution is definite.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: MarsIsRed

There is no racism, but these are questions that come from a forum about the Neanderthal percentages in Europeans. I am 2.9%.

So... early humans bread with other early humans - what exactly is you're problem? God?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndyThank you for the response.




What then is information?

It's information when it's not indoctrination. But you simply wouldn't understand.

What is information?


How does information cause an effect?

These are things you should be able to answer definitely if evolution is definite.

Information is derived from what's observed. It's that simple!

a reply to: WarminIndy

DNA Splits, it makes 2 copy's of the original, sometimes an amino acid is changed making an imperfect copy of the original, this is a mutation.

From all mutations that occur most may not have any effect hence they will propagate the same, some may give you cancer or make you albino killing you faster, some may give you better eyes to see pray and eat more.

When you have a population they are all slightly different due to the random mutations, if you hit bacterial with antibiotics it may happen that one of the seemingly useless mutation made it resistant to antibiotics, so what will happen? The rest of the bacteria will die leaving the resistant one to replicate. After this most of its decendants will have the mutation and those that don't will die.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't understand your problem with "assumptions" (which in many cases are actually theories, that hold a lot of water..)

The entire idea of intelligent design is based on assumptions - and in this case they are assumptions with literally zero evidence to back them up.

I'm not trying to be rude or insult you, but I don't understand how you can have no problem with wild assumptions but refute any assumption or theory with a basis in observed science.

I am asking these questions because these are based on the theories of evolution. If you can't really answer the questions with absolutes, then why be so demeaning to those who believe in Intelligent Design?

Is evolution absolutely absolute? "Can" is not "does". If the bucket holds water, then does the bucket actually hold water?

An empty bucket might definitely be able to, but if the bucket has no water put into it, then it does not. Analogies, gotta' love them.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndyThank you for the response.




What then is information?

It's information when it's not indoctrination. But you simply wouldn't understand.

What is information?


How does information cause an effect?

These are things you should be able to answer definitely if evolution is definite.

Information is derived from what's observed. It's that simple!

So the information in an organism is observed by the organism?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndyThank you for the response.




What then is information?

It's information when it's not indoctrination. But you simply wouldn't understand.

What is information?


How does information cause an effect?

These are things you should be able to answer definitely if evolution is definite.

Information is derived from what's observed. It's that simple!

So the information in an organism is observed by the organism?

No - It's observed by us!

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: WarminIndy

DNA Splits, it makes 2 copy's of the original, sometimes an amino acid is changed making an imperfect copy of the original, this is a mutation.

From all mutations that occur most may not have any effect hence they will propagate the same, some may give you cancer or make you albino killing you faster, some may give you better eyes to see pray and eat more.

When you have a population they are all slightly different due to the random mutations, if you hit bacterial with antibiotics it may happen that one of the seemingly useless mutation made it resistant to antibiotics, so what will happen? The rest of the bacteria will die leaving the resistant one to replicate. After this most of its decendants will have the mutation and those that don't will die.

But if the mutation is reversed, then it is not passed on.

"But if the mutation is reversed, then it is not passed on."

No. Which is an argument in the current understanding of evolution. Do you have a point?

a reply to: WarminIndy

No reason to be reversed, you copy 000001110101010101 1k times them you mess up 000001101010101 and if it does not kill you it copies the new secuence until a new mutation occurs.

a reply to: WarminIndy

That wasn't simple!! Jezzz..

I'll just say: I don't know