Well, for the reasons I stated earlier. “Natural selection” attempts to explain how environmental factors can allow or not a change to be transmitted, but it cannot explain what causes those changes to happen.
But even that is iffy, because many genes are actively counterproductive to both survival and reproduction with 0 benefits.
On a philosophical level, it is even debatable whether a cause-consequence approach is adequate. It is a linear analysis that necessarily excludes more than it includes. A single chain of single links of cause and consequence must be found to exist, and if not found, then forced.
A wider view that includes all factors non-exclusively can allow one to look for patterns that are consistent and suggest coherence through time. Relationships between factors can often be apparent and hold with perfect consistency with no cause-consequence being discernible without abusing reason with endless, precarious chains that inevitably become circular.
What matters for science is not the determination of causality, but the consistency of its findings. Cause-consequence will always beg the question, such that one inevitably winds up with the Aristotelian paradox of the First Cause.
Who says cause/consequence has to be linear?
You have a shockingly naive view of necessity.
Out of date.
I think we’ve moved on from Aristotle; the man that thought women had fewer teeth than men.
Of course. This is a complete no brainer.
Radaiation is one. Plus a massive list of oncogenic chemicals.
How else do you think mutations and variations occur?
I mean…
A consequence has a cause, and a cause gives a consequence. There’s not really a way around that. Not because you can’t find it so much as because it’s baked into the definition.
Yo momma.
You keep making these assertions.
Well, to be clear, you said light. And I guess I don’t see why other chemicals couldn’t interfere with DNA as it splits, but I would need you to be a little more specific as to how.
That’s the question people tend to sort of jump over.
But you seem to be saying that variations occur only because of extragenetic factors acting on the moment of transcription. Again, you are not being too clear, but I’m interested.
And if I could bother you, answer me this: do you believe discernible patterns can be found in the occurence of variations, or do you believe them to be simply random?
Like I said below - you are clueless.
What the fuck do you think skin cancer is?
How the fuck have you managed to make it to adulthood without learing that radiation causes mutations.
Your ignorance is astonishing.
britannica.com/science/radi … -mutations
Fucking read a book.
Ah, you’re an idiot.
You know, when you were Silhouette, at least you tried to make arguments.
On the other hand, that made your stupidity more patent, so maybe this is better.
I do not know what you mean by SIlhouette.
But there is no doubt of your ignorance and stupidity.
Here, for example, you demonstrate a very Aristotelian view of something causing something in a very linear fashion. Of course, the only way cause and effect operates.
Light is radiation. All light is radiation.
Extrinsic factors including chemicals and radiation routinely interfere with DNA transcription.
Nobody jumps over this question. The causes of mutations are very well understood.
He didn’t say ONLY.
Mutations are always random with respect to the environment. In a given environment, mutations occur all the time. Some, fortuitously, may be beneficial, in that particular environment. Some, non-fortuitously, may be detrimental in that particular environment. The majority of mutations, however, are neutral, neither conferring nor impeding a survival advantage.
In the 20th century, a population of bacteria acquired a mutation that allowed them to digest Nylon. This mutation probably occurred untold numbers of times before, but in the past, before the invention of Nylon, the mutation was either neutral or detrimental to survival.
Fortuitously, these particular bacteria were living in the waste water of a Nylon manufacturing plant. Their numbers exploded, because they had acquired a mutation that gave then an advantage over bacteria that could not digest nylon.
There are patterns to evolution, but they are only discernible after the fact. There are no a priori patterns to evolution, because it is a mindless process that has no goal in mind. Evolution is not progress. It is only a change in allele frequencies over time. Humans are an accidental product of a largely stochastic process. It is only largely stochastic because while mutations are random, natural selection is not. But natural selection is not the whole of evolution. Genetic drift, which is totally accidental, may play a predominant role at the genotypic level and even at the phenotypic level. The biochemist Larry Moran calls this “evolution by accident.”
Basically, humans are accidents.
Yeah, but light is a specific type, and I am wondering if he contends that light modifies DNA transcription chemically.
I guess you missed the part where:
They do. You are now.
Not by you.
He did.
That was not my question. And the proper wording would be “independent of,” not “random in respect to.” If there is a pattern, it is not random.
How am I jumping over the question? There is a huge literature of the causes of mutation. Use Google. Educate yourself. Do you expect me to give you a detailed post of all the causes of mutations? Am I being paid to do this?
Mutations are random with respect to the environment, or if you prefer, independent of the environment. Both ways of putting it are exactly the same.
Did you read my example of the nylon-digesting bacteria?
The question of whether patterns are random or not is a bit of a red herring, I think. Are snowflake patterns random? They are all different but they are all caused. There is no designer designing snowflakes. Perhaps the word random should be discarded. Mutations are uncorrelated with the environment. Or independent of it, as you say. Fine. The point is this: It could have been the case that mutations occur in response to environmental change. In the nylon eating bacteria example, that would mean that such bacteria underwent a mutation in response to the presence of bacteria, to make it able to eat bacteria. But the evidence shows this is not the case. So the mutation was fortuitous and the lucky bastards just happened to acquire the mutation in the presence of a Nylon feast.
“I don’t know what it is but other people do” is a way of jumping over the question.
Do you have any ability to post in good faith? If not, you are a troll.
Why should I spell out the causes of mutations? I gave you a link to educate yourself. Why should I repeat it in my own words?
But fine. Radiation causes mutations. Not visible light radiation, but radiation in other spectrums, causes mutations. Why do you think your dentist steps out of the room when he x-rays your teeth? Ordinary copying errors cause mutations. Viruses cause mutations. Chemicals cause mutations. Now what?
It was you who claimed that people “jump over” the causes of mutations but this is clearly false and I have demonstrated it be false. Are you utterly incapable of admitting error?
Well, ok, this is a step in the right direction. Because he did specifically say light.
If you’re angry about it, we can talk about it some other time.
I am not angry about anything. I am unable to understand why you can never admit error and can never seem to have a civil conversation.
Yes, he said light. Visible light is a small part of the light spectrum. It’s all light. If we had eyes as big as radio telescopes we could see radio light. Pigeons, bees, and many other animals see ultraviolet light which humans cannot see. What is your actual point? An ego-driven drive to one up others? Certain wavelengths of light are damaging to our DNA and cause copying errors.
You said not light, now you say light.
This is why specificity is important. But it makes you angry when I ask for it.