No one person has ever observed a mature redwood tree grow all the way from a seed. Does that mean redwood trees were POOFED into existence?
That moment when you realize the person you thought understands next to nothing about a topic actually understand even less.
Much as stochastic gradient descent fits a neural network prediction model over numerous training epochs.
How does the octopus make light/dark changes?
Do you really not realize, after all you’ve posted (and possibly read) here, that evolution never happens to individual organisms, that it can only happen to populations?
If you don’t realize something this basic, would realizing it change your position on evolution?
[dad dumb joke]
Did you hear about the family who sent their young son off to bording school?
When the boy returned in two years he had grown another foot!
[/dad dumb joke]
of course. the problem is that it cant happen if we need at least several mutations.
so if we assume that one in billion sequences is functional and say that the first mutation is now in the population. what next? we need the second mutation and it will take about billion more mutations. but till we will get the second mutation i think that the neutral mutation will be lost since it will get many mutations that will remove\change it.
maybe. but in this case its irrelevant since we might not dealing with complex system. im talking about new anatomical part.
if the sequence is different and has a different complex function then it might not be the result of HGT.
it just was a rhetorical question.
maybe it is the result of HGT but it depend in many factors (for instance how much the function is different). but i dont want to get into this now. my main point is that some systems need at least several genes and thus probably cant evolve stepwise. so a single gene that evolved from a transposon will not give us a complex biological system.
how is this relevant to the number of mutations?
how is this relevant to the number of mutation that we need to a new anatomical part? and by the way evolution in a population need to start first in individual organism after all.
Maybe? Do you doubt that the physical differences between chimps and humans are due to the differences in the sequence of our genomes?
Also, humans and chimps are complex, so I am curious as to why you don’t think this a good example.
of course not. i refer to the number of mutations to get a new anatomical part. again; we have billions of pople and basically zero new anatomical functional part. so if we assume that in general a single new anatomical part take a billion mutations the chance to get two of them is thus 10^18 and 3 is 10^27 etc.
So in the real world when the bacteria in the long-term evolution experiment with E coli have accumulated somewhere between hundreds, to several thousand mutations, this “can’t happen”?
Forgive me but I think I’m going to just go with what happens in reality, instead of letting your creationism-polluted intuitions guide our understanding.
who said that it cant happen? im not talking about any mutation but about specific mutation.
Do you think a single mutation can result in a new anatomical part? Most biologists think it requires an accumulation of many mutations, certainly more than could be accumulated in a single generation. So why do you expect to see a new anatomical feature pop up in one or a few generations?
So if I point out ten specific ones of all those mutations that happened in the experiment, you will say what?
that is my point. i was very generous when i said that a single mutation=new anatomical part.
what should i say?
What you think is your best response.
Then why would you expect a new anatomical part to suddenly appear in the human population?
Especially in a population that’s in the billions. Gould would argue humans should be experiencing stasis right now
Gould would also argue that it is possible for an isolated human population living in an inhospitable environment to rapidly evolve, but not as rapid as @scd is suggesting.
I have to hand it to you. You have left the world of science and evidence, zoomed past speculation, went past common sense in a blur, and in seriously suggesting that evolutionary theory would even allow for people sprouting wing parts, have finally exited the realm of rational discourse.
Most boss YEC/ID folk I know would have long offered camouflage and mimicry as examples of micro-evolution, punched their time-card, and called it a day.
If one in a billion sequences in functional (and I don’t know where you got that number from, but let’s go with it) how to you go from that to concluding that it would take a billion more mutations before the 2nd one occurs? Just because the number “a billion” applies to one part of the calculation, does not mean it applies to all the others.