Explain Random Relative Mutation

1. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   -Please simplify and explain random relative mutation. How is/was mutation and selection random when it had/has to be relative? Does random mutation require faith? How is mutation random when something relative caused it to mutate? Is mutation independent?

   replyreport
2. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   I know many atheists get mad or upset when anyone challenges science. If you want to assume I am defending God or religion by asking this question, it's alright. I understand that some get defensive when protecting their scientific faith.

   replyreport
3. 55

   (Q)posted 14 years ago

   Your questions are noble and deserve the respect gained within their content.
   
   However, they are questions in which a few well placed paragraphs would never suffice. As well, they are questions that would require some homework on your part in order for you to understand the answers. In fact, a great deal of homework, I would predict years in the making based on your collective posts here.
   
   That said, we are also faced with your second post spouting some drivel about getting upset and defensive simply because no answers to your OP were forthcoming.
   
   Hence, we are left to conclude that we are dealing with a one-dimensional, infantile mind who has nothing better to do than exhibit such to the world.
   
   We await in sheer delight your next response.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Q, thanks for writing the disclaimer before your religious opinions. What are your credibilities over mine? What areas are you so certain on of having better grades on your homework? "Collective posts" is a broad generalization. I could make one as well that say your collective posts are simply to annoy people and get your point across without considering anyone that disagrees with you. You are clearly upset when someone says that science lies or has lied in the past. You get mad and say it's impossible for science to lie. Clearly your feelings are hurt from me challenging your scientific faith that what you know is correct.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You see, Niteriter, this is exactly the type of trash talk marine constantly spouts here. His entire motive for starting threads is obvious, despite the fact the questions may have merit.
         
         Are you saying his actions and motives are civil?

         replyreport
4. 60

   Niteriterposted 14 years ago

   (Q), is it really necessary for you to be so inflammatory and abusive when addressing marine? He asks reasonable questions and you respond with personal vitriol aimed at him instead of the issue. What does that say about you?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well - it is fair to say that Marine has posed many questions such as this and never wants to listen to the answer.
      
      Like the religionists - as you can see from his latest response - he is not actually looking to have this question answered. He is looking for a fight and to question in an effort to throw doubt and confusion.
      
      Having spent some considerable time answering his questions only to have them rejected and another question posed without any effort at understanding, I would say that Q's response is quite reasonable.
      
      Marine has not done the home work, has no intention of doing the home work and does not actually want the questions answered.
      
      What he wants to be able to do is exactly what he has just done.
      
      Accuse people of being hurt when their beliefs are challenged. Regardless of whether these beliefs are completely faith based or based on some knowledge. No matter the response, an ignorant argument against the answer would ensue until such times as this type response was elicited. Far easier to go straight to the meat than waste time attempting an answer. 
      
      Job done.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         lol The answer I got was to do more homework. This is not an answer. You are making an assumption that I don't listen to all the answers. How do you know this? You make another assumption that I don't make effort to understand things, how do you know this?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I am not making assumptions. I am making a statement based on my own observations and experiences of interacting with you and watching you interact with others.
            
            And much like the boy who cried wolf, I will not be attempting to answer any of your questions because - it does require you to do some home work - and you have made it clear that you are not interested in doing that.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               If you understand something as absolute, shouldn't you be able to explain and simplify it without telling someone to go do homework? Go do homework on what, the things I disagree on until I agree?

               replyreport
            2. 61

               Colebabieposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I agree that a lot of the questions being asked can be answered by opening a textbook. However, marine has listened to my answers.
               Some of the questions are valid and thought provoking.
               I guess it is just asked of him to have an open mind when it comes to the responses and have no motive when asking the question in the first place. (other than to receive various answers)

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Cole.

                  replyreport
      2. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well said Mark.

         replyreport
   2. 55

      (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I would like to thank Mark Knowles for his response as it addressed the issue considerably well.
      
      Niteriter, as I explained in my post, it was marines second post that revealed his motives for making the first post. I did in fact think they were good questions, but also stated they couldn't be answered in a few short paragraphs, pages or even a few books, for that matter.
      
      If you have been following marines threads, you'd also understand this is a regular pattern with him. As Mark explains, marine has no intent on hearing real answers to his questions. He dismisses our answers as "scientific faith"
      
      I find it quite surprising you're defending him.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Niteriterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I find the personal putdowns on here (not just by you) to be more than a little disappointing. I think civility is a requirement even in cyberforums. I have no axe to grind but I do like marine.
         
         Anyway, I have to go. I'd just been lurking here today and now my time is up. Too bad. All the best to you all. (Hi cagsil.)

         replyreport
         1. 59

            marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks Nite.

            replyreport
         2. 70

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Niteriter.

            replyreport
5. 60

   Niteriterposted 14 years ago

   What you say may be true, Mark. I don't know the answer at the moment. But that doesn't justify the lack of civility displayed by (Q).

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ah well. Perhaps he could have phrased it more politely, I will give you that.

      replyreport
   2. 55

      (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Civility? Are you serious?
      
      I sit here reading the responses of others who constantly diss science, all the while enjoying everything science has provided them. They go on insulting years of hard work by dedicated people who strive looking for answers to hard questions and delivering on those things for which they only receive reproach and contempt from those who wallow in superstitions and delusions.
      
      Civil indeed.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You think I am against science for what reason? Because I said it has lied before and you disagree? Off of my one statement, how many assumptions did you make that I am against science?

         replyreport
6. 74

   WriteAngledposted 14 years ago

   I'm a biomedical scientist not an evolutionary biologist, so my knowledge and understanding of this issue are very limited.
   
   I do know there are genetic "hotspots", which are more likely to respond to stimuli that cause random mutation. Therefore, the mutation rate at these hotspots is very much higher than in other genes. This is why certain characteristics/structures/proteins are conserved across many species, while others change.
   
   In the 1970s, when I was a student, I was aware of research based on a hypothesis that mutation could occur simultaneously in a group of genes, as an explanation of how, for example, wings evolved in birds. It seems thoughts are turning in different directions now. I found this interesting article, specifically about insect and bird wings:
   
   http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … o-use.html

   replyreport
7. 61

   Colebabieposted 14 years ago

   You can borrow my Genetics book if you want. It has a good few chapters on spontaneous and induced mutations.

   replyreport