237
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + +
→What?
::::::::: The statement you considered false was rejecting the idea of simultaneous ''mutations'', apparently by arguing that they are learnt ''behaviours''. Now to return to claiming ''mutations'' that are essentially ''simultaneous'', as both the cleaner fish and their symbiotic species both need to acquire these mutations at the same time.
::::::::: The statement you considered false was rejecting the idea of simultaneous ''mutations'', apparently by arguing that they are learnt ''behaviours''. Now to return to claiming ''mutations'' that are essentially ''simultaneous'', as both the cleaner fish and their symbiotic species both need to acquire these mutations at the same time.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:32, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:32, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Yeah I thought that was what you were veering towards,I was saying that the two evolutionary processes were simultaneous yes, but not that the mutations were, evolution is a long process, mutations happen in an instant. I a currently in the process of writing up a post on that argument you made about information gaining mutations so I will not touch on that topic just yet, but that is were the rub lies, I never implied that learning came in to the equation, you just inferred it based on the premise that no mutations can "result in new information" and if that is correct than I would be wrong with out a doubt, however as will become apparent I feel that I have firm ground on saying that that is not correct. So, will you concede to the notion that new "information" arriving in the genomes of individuals of the organisms involved combined with the selective pressures I outlined before could gradually over time result in the behavior in question? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 04:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh an I think we should start from the edge again.