quadz: "And it's a misconception that evolution is a random process."Evolution here is unclear because you have disrespected the common definition. You have used it in such a way to include mutations and natural selection. The rest of the world sees it as being simply the process of change to the genome, from wikipedia: "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next" and britannica's definition: "Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations". It is nevertheless a broad and ambiguous statement with your definition and with "random" in here.quadz: "What I was saying was, the genetic mutation is random, but the overarching process of natural selection (of which genetic mutation is just a part) is not random."Very unclear. First of all, I could have just easily assumed it was his way of saying it's a magic trick. The real definition of random is "I don't know how something occured". If some person says "I was observing the nucleus of a bacterium, and observed random mutations", that is meaningless in terms of how how it happened and neither does it necessarily prove evolution the way you think of it. quadz's argument of "random mutations" would fall if he could not elucidate how it happened. And he continued on to just assume we all knew what he was talking about with "random" when we didn't, and then finally said something later on about what it could be.And second of all, "overarching process" in my mind usually reminds me of complex diagrams of things like second messenger systems in cells overseeing particular processes. He's already admitted that his way of writing that was unclear.And third of all, genetic mutation is NOT a part of natural selection, as natural selection only describes that the weak die off, while the strong live on. You could have a world with absolutely no evolution and still have natural selection.quadz: "But note that we have demonstrated that the genetic algorithm does work: We have taken the algorithm of the process represented by mutation and natural selection, and used that same algorithm to genetically grow solutions to programming problems."Suddenly introducing ambiguous terms, "the genetic algorithm" out of nowhere to try to explain something I didn't even ask about!quadz: "It's no different with antibiotic resistence.Good ol' wikipedia again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#An_example:_antibiotic_resistance"Adding to the confusion, the wikipedia article talks about the *development* of antibiotic resistance as being the result of natural selection."A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms."WRONG! I think I will actually go and change that article myself. An example of natural selection would be the elimination of non-resistant bacteria.Me: "And let me ask another question, assuming you're right that "random mutations" do happen in the way you'd describe, how do you know the entire evolutionary process is governed by "random mutations"?"quadz: "I wouldn't say that the process is governed by mutations..."A boat load of confusion, thanks."I've reiterated this in so many ways, saying that the random selection occurs at the protein level,""random selection"? Thanks for more confusion!Also what's interesting is the way some people change opinions so suddenly.Oh, and BTW, to all those people treating me like I'm an idiot from statements saying quadz wasn't unclear (such as jagermonsta).. thank you for being so sweet! I guess I shouldn't be surprised since most of humanity has emotional derangements, you just happen to be a part of that group! Thank you once again for you "criticism".
DaHanG (in response to reaper): "You continuously prove my point. You're obsessed with probabilities, even though science itself has *no problem* with them. Science accepts the *big bang and evolution* as *simply* *the way* the universe *is* because the *evidence* is *simply* too strong."Yeah, that evidence sure is strong... and talking about probabilities, you should try studying genetics before talking. And what is that evidence again? And why are you talking about evolution as though it were the genesis of life? You don't even know how life originated after such a big bang, and the rest of the science community doesn't either. Then later when you realize the rest of the community doesn't know, then you comment "I don't know how life originated", thus making your previous statement incorrect.
You are the master of confusion.
quadz: "It's no different with antibiotic resistence.Good ol' wikipedia again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#An_example:_antibiotic_resistance"Adding to the confusion, the wikipedia article talks about the *development* of antibiotic resistance as being the result of natural selection."A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms."WRONG! I think I will actually go and change that article myself. An example of natural selection would be the elimination of non-resistant bacteria.
The point is, I exposed the douche bag you act like (although that's clearly evident from tons of other posts), and then you posted your biased comment regarding quadz's ambiguity in this thread.
Oh, and thanks again for the idiot claim DaHanG, it makes you look really great on this forum...
jagermonsta, why are you referring to me as kid and son?
DaHanG: "The fact that I never came close to calling you one makes you look like one by saying I did."Sure thing DaHanG, and I guess you had no problems with "random selection"? What a biased follower.quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:
Quote from: Robot on November 02, 2007, 02:50:01 PMquadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement: That was the only thing he said that was confusing, and I don't remember reading that until it was pointed out recently.
quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:
quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement: "A well-known example of natural selection in action is the *development* of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms." (as in the genetic mutations leading to antibiotic resistance)
Quote from: DaHanG on November 02, 2007, 03:16:29 PMQuote from: Robot on November 02, 2007, 02:50:01 PMquadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement: That was the only thing he said that was confusing, and I don't remember reading that until it was pointed out recently.BTW, Robot is quoting the wikipedia page on Natural Selection there, not me. Robot, Quote from: Robot on November 02, 2007, 02:50:01 PMquadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement: "A well-known example of natural selection in action is the *development* of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms." (as in the genetic mutations leading to antibiotic resistance)I'm still trying to understand your position here, in no uncertain terms. Are you saying that random genetic mutations DO NOT lead to the formation of bacteria that have BETTER resistence than their genetic ancestors?Regards,quadz