3 armed boy to have surgery

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation, essentially when a large-scale mutation produces a characteristic.

now the quote that set you off...

Originally posted by PVS
wrong. you are combining macromutation and micromutation to suit your point.
though the theory you apparently believe in does exist (saltationism), it is not the defining theory behind evolution. you would do well to not insist that it is. also, most who agree with the evolution theory disagree entirely that such random tremendously altering mutations are the basis for evolution.

now, what about my quote is incorrect? nothing.

Taking things out of context again? I never said that macromutations are the basis of evolution, I said RANDOM mutations.

This theory(macromutation) has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental then beneficial. However, beneficial macromutations have been known to occur: for example, the addition of body segments among arthropods may be regarded as a macromutation.

Hey, awesome! An exception! Hmm, I must have mentioned something similar...oh yea!

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I'm not trying to sell that a 3-armed baby is evolution. It could have been if the arms worked and are beneficial, but the damn thing is in pain all the time and one of them doesn't even function.

oh ok, its the tireless rebutter. my bad.
you just want your A+ and gold star and a framed picture of
you hanging on the wall that reads "winner of teh thread".

i'll try one last time.
you said that all mutation was the basis for evolution.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution.

thats an absolute statement, and it is not true. deal with it and move on with your life, champ. adding the words of a widely discredited, though still obscurly existant theory of evolution only makes you look desperate.

You are not understanding something. You seem to ignore the fact that I mentioned natural selection about 50 thousand times. I even clarified my statement for you in nearly EVERY post. YES, all random mutations are a part of evolutions, the detrimental mutations DO NOT get passed on through natural selection...detremental as in MOST macromutations, not ALL.

Evolution consists of a combination of random mutation and natural selection. <<<THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO REFUTE

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Evolution consists of a combination of random mutation and natural selection. <<<THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO REFUTE

why should i? its a true statement (according to widely accepted theory).

unfortunately its not what you said initially, and i find it quite pathetic
that you would backpedal like that and then claim that you were right all along.

that statement you JUST posted does not imply that all mutation contributes to evolution. though natural selection will eliminate all undesirable mutations, it does not mean that macromutation plays any part in evolution at all.

"It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution."

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yes it is based on random **** ups. The adaption bit is what weeds out the good **** ups from the bad ones. They go hand in hand.

^^This statement implies and is meant to mean: Evolution consists of a combination of both random mutations and natural selection. That's why I clarified it back on page 3.

Macromutation is a random mutation. If it's beneficial it stays, and if it is not, it goes. The problem is that most of macromutation is not beneficial. That is not to say that it CAN'T be beneficial. Therefore a beneficial macromutation, which is admittedly rare, can actually play a part in evolution.

*sigh*

im just going to ignore you now.

you can either read this and understand FINALLY:

"There is another important distinction to be made between different types of mutations. The type of mutation most people think of when presented with the word "mutant" is called a macromutation, or a mutation that involves a very large change. A frog born with eyes in its throat or with extra legs would be an example of a macromutant. Macromutations are equivalent to taking a blind leap over a precipice and hoping to land on a ledge. They are virtually never beneficial (no well-documented case exists) and are not the forces of change in natural selection. The (erroneous) belief that macromutations drive evolutionary change is called saltationism, and is generally discredited today. The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection."

...or just keep pulling false facts out of your rectum. i dont give a damn.

By reposting that, you ignored everything I wrote. Good job. 👆

Last time I checked "virtually never" still meant that there is a possibility they can be...again shown by a source I already posted. And again proving me right. If the third arm was beneficial, it would be a huge step in evolution. But it most likely isn't, which I already said.

Now this is just going around in circles because you refuse to accept that the third arm is a random mutation.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
if i had 6 arms, would that make me arachniboy?

Nah , it'd make it bloody hard to buy a shirt....AND expensive to buy gloves.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
By reposting that, you ignored everything I wrote. Good job. 👆

Last time I checked "virtually never" still meant that there is a possibility they can be...again shown by a source I already posted. And again proving me right. If the third arm was beneficial, it would be a huge step in evolution. But it most likely isn't, which I already said.

Now this is just going around in circles because you refuse to accept that the third arm is a random mutation.

backpeddling is childish, especially when attempting to disprove that you said something....when you in fact said it, and i have quoted that many times.

you made a false statement,
i called you on it,
you threw a tantrum,
then you were proven wrong,
and finally you altered your statement to a sound one

...and somehow, by your logic you proved that you were right all along as i was wrong. that is why i will no longer take you seriously.
kthx

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Um, I'm not making it up. Random mutations and natural selection make up evolution. If you refuse to believe it that's your problem.

Here's my statement, at 12:11. Here's your response.

Originally posted by PVS
wrong. you are combining macromutation and micromutation to suit your point.
though the theory you apparently believe in does exist (saltationism), it is not the defining theory behind evolution. you would do well to not insist that it is. also, most who agree with the evolution theory disagree entirely that such random tremendously altering mutations are the basis for evolution.

And here is my statement again, THE SAME STATEMENT

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

Evolution consists of a combination of random mutation and natural selection. <<<THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO REFUTE

And your response goes from "wrong" to:

Originally posted by PVS
why should i? its a true statement (according to widely accepted theory).

This debate isn't going to be resolved until we get an actual biologist in here, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

wow, i love your abridged version of our discussion way more than the actual thing. reality just sucks anyway. but i must:

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution.

full post:

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution. if that extra arm turns out to benefit the kid and he lives long enough to have children and pass down the third arm mutation....it's going to be a fun future for humans

random mutations are not the basis for the theory of evolution.
micromutations, which this article has NOTHING to do with, are a factor of evolution, along with natural selection.

"ZOMG I SAID THAT!!!" *quotes furiously*

yeah, AFTER the posts i called you on, which is what you've been trying to prove was not justified. all the while wasting my time. thats reality.

MAN I WOULD LLOOVVEE to have 3 arms mannrobot

Originally posted by PVS
wow, i love your abridged version of our discussion way more than the actual thing. reality just sucks anyway. but i must:

full post:

random mutations are not the basis for the theory of evolution.
micromutations, which this article has NOTHING to do with, are a factor of evolution, along with natural selection.

"ZOMG I SAID THAT!!!" *quotes furiously*

yeah, AFTER the posts i called you on, which is what you've been trying to prove was not justified. all the while wasting my time. thats reality.

LOLWTFLMAO11!1!one

Random mutation ARE the basis(YES BOTH micromutations AND macromutation), ALONG with natural selection. ANY MUTATION that is >>beneficial<< to the survival of the species is evolution. Macromutation is USUALLY not accepted because it is very rare that they are beneficial. That's the ONLY reason. Yet, if it IS beneficial then it helps evolution. Who wouldve thunk it!?! Natural selection, another part of the basis of evolution, weeds out the mutations that are not beneficial. You know this. I said this from the very beginning(hey, notice that word 'benefit' in the quote you JUST posted! 😱 ). Im tired of repeating it. Look it up, Im not coming in here anymore to post. It's gotten kind of ridiculous now.

..according to a widely discredited theory which you cling to, which i have been saying all along. you go on to tout macromutation as part of the basis of the theory. "the theory" meaning the generally accepted theory...which is a flatout lie, but fine then.

:edit: oh yea. forgot to reciprocate: ZOMGLOLOLOLOLWTF!!!111 U ROFLZ MY WAFFLZ!!!!

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
This debate isn't going to be resolved until we get an actual biologist in here, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Arachnoid don't take this the wrong way....but if you're saying that you need an actual biologist in here for the discussion. Does that mean you're not sure of what you're saying? I mean...if you know you're making a firm stand on the topic. Why would you need certification? Your own arguement should do the trick. Again...not taking sides. Just making an observation.

lol@needing an actual biologist in this room

Originally posted by grey fox
Nah , it'd make it bloody hard to buy a shirt....[b]AND expensive to buy gloves. [/B]

True, but the name "Arachniboy", would make a good comic book hero dont you think.