|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Mutations | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If this really is your entire goal, "coming up with definitions" that your "not going to use" in a debate, why even come here? Well, you came back, didn't you? So now we get to see if all the work we did trying to come up with a definition that is as word-game-proof as possible was worth it. Of course, if you're just going to attack the things we said about you during your absence then it wasn't worth it, now was it? Honestly you were gone for like a week. I can understand if you've got better things to do, but it doesn't make debating with you any easier. It's like arguing with someone via postal carrier. It's not fast enough to be satisfying. I know it's not your fault, but you have to bear with some of our frustration.
I thought that I would meet people on this board that would be interested in sitting down and talking about the facts, not coming here to play games. Well, then, why did you start by playing games? Your whole argument has been, so far, that beneficial mutations aren't really "beneficial" in the strictest sense of the word. If that's not a word game, what is? The facts (which you claim to prize) are that we've consitently shown purely benefical mutations - with no negative side effect to the organism whatsoever - which you seem to have dismissed. Your only response has been to argue that because the mutation removes a function that is now longer needed, it is still detrimental. We've tried to point out the illogic of this. Here's an analogy: By your argument, all modern Macintosh computers are inferior to the older ones because the new Macs lack floppy drives and legacy ports - despite the fact that neither floppy disks nor legacy devices (SCSI, ADB, etc.) are at all widely used by Apple owners. By your own argument, moving to USB and Firewire has broken all new Macs. That's simply ludicrous. Anyone can see that newer computers are much, much better than ones that are really old. (That's like a computer industry truism.) The lack of SCSI or ADB function is simply irrelevant because the environment of most Macs no longer includes devices that need those ports. Ergo, the utility of function depends soley on environment. If I've somehow misrepresented your argument it's only because you've mistated it. If so I invite you to clear up the confusion.
There are a huge amount of assumptions at play in the theory of evolution, far too many to make it tenable to a thinking person interested in finding out what the truth is. To my knowledge, no more so than are at work in any other science - mainly, an assumption that natural principles can account for all natural phenomenon. This has been a succesful assumption in science for many, many years. If you feel that more assumptions are at work, could you outline those for me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PhospholipidGen Inactive Member |
quote: This is not so, please read my posts again.
quote: More side-tracking. The issue is not one outweighing the other, the issue is not so much even the effects of the mutation. Although they do play a part in this because the catagories of mutation are specified by their neutral or deleterious affects. The issue is the NATURE of mutations...what they are, and what they are not. Again, some, very rare deleterious mutations have proven that they can, in certain environments, confer some amount of beneficial side-affects to their bearer. But then again, this is not what I am arguing.
quote: Is this your reasoning for accepting that variation arises from mutation? If so, it is poor reasoning...no insult intended. We are not clones because we did not all come from the same egg. As for other arguments along that line, even identical twins have differences in expressed variant alleles...in short, no one is exactly identical. Even twins have different finger prints, this much I can attest to.
quote: Not so, evolutionary theory needs variation, otherwise it goes no where. There are plenty of top evolutionists that disagree with you, Mayr, for one. As for genetic drift, another false play by evolutionary theorists of the last century, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with population genetics, which also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Population genetics only traces the differences in expressed variant alleles within populations, and that is all. Evolutionary theory is not about variation, it is about speciation (and with that we open up another can of worms). This was my first clue that something was amiss with the theory, everytime I came up to a pivotal point in one portion of evolutionary explanations for proving evolution true, there came a road block. At that roadblock, there magically formed an assumption to overthrow that blockade...answer this, please... Pure beneficial mutations are assumed, why? Because without mutations you have no variant alleles. Why does evolution need variant alleles? Because variants are differences between organisms. But variation does not give rise speciation...since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature? So, we have to come up with a definition of speciation that demonstrates evolution is a reality, and so Mayr has...in his own mind, anyway. However, none of these examples change one creature into another, they only demonstrate variation. We have come up against another wall, so we assume that with enough micro variation, we will eventually observe macro variation...speciation. This is not the case. We have now jumped over what the factual data will allow with invalid and unwarranted assumptions four times, and it is interesting to me that at every wall is when these assumptions are called upon. Then we call upon another one, the assumption that evolution is simply change, this way we can call upon population genetics to demonstrate evolution, but does it really? No. It does not demonstrate nor observe one creature turning into another, it only documents variational differences. If we reduce the theory of evolution to what some call micro-evolution, changes within organisms'expressed allelic gene versions, then I agree. But until it can be demonstrated that we have one organism turning into another, there is no evolutionper say. Darwin did not give a thesis on trying to explain variation, but on the divergence between a modern dog and its ancestors. Between a modern elephant and its ancestors, etc. In short, unless you have a genetic mechanism that can add to a single celled organism, that in time will build blue-prints for arms, legs, sex organs, other organs, a head, mouth, fingers, etc....you have no evolution. My argument is this, that there is no such mechanism. All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature. My whole argument, boiled down, I guess, is that what scientists are calling as mutations today are fabrications and mis-callings based upon what the evolutionary theorists of yester-year propagandized the to be in their efforts at keeping the theory alive. What needs to be done is this, these areas need to be looked at again, from the very beginning, identifying these assumptions that are holding the theory together (many and unfounded are they), and test them. But for now, there are just too many, even by science's standards [Kitcher], for the theory of evolution to be considered a valid theory. Greetings!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PhospholipidGen Inactive Member |
quote: Frog can assume a naturalistic paradigm all he wants too, but evidence demonstrates that this is a slap in the face to reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
Frog can assume a naturalistic paradigm all he wants too, but evidence demonstrates that this is a slap in the face to reality. How do you define "naturalistic paradigm"? As I understand it is an approach that uses exactly that for which there is "evidence" and excludes anything else. And by evidence I mean all the different forms of input that science uses and that it is repeatable as needed to produce a broad consensus of both skeptical and "friendly" observers. If you think you have "evidence" that suggest that the naturalistic paradigm need revision please tell us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We are not clones because we did not all come from the same egg. Begging the question: Where did all those different eggs come from? There's way more alleles in the human population than could ever have been stored in the genetics of two people. Unless a big sky-man is inventing new kinds of people as we go along, where are all those new alleles coming from? Mutational variation, of course.
It has to do with population genetics, which also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Biologists disagree with this, because (obviously) only populations evolve - individuals don't. Your assertation that population genetics doesn't have anything to do with evolution is either hand-waving or ignorance. In fact the synthesis of population genetics and evolutionary theory is responsible for the vast growth of the theory of evolution's explanitory power and experimental confirmation in recent years.
Evolutionary theory is not about variation, it is about speciation Sure, and speciation only happens to populations. How can it not be related to evolution? If you disagree with this then you're operating under an inaccurate view of what speciation is.
Pure beneficial mutations are assumed They're not assumed, they're observed.
since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature? This doesn't even make sense. Creatures aren't Transformers (sorry, listening to Optimus Rhyme right now). A creature stays the creature it was born as until it dies. I mean, if you have kids, we don't say that you turned into your kids, do we? Populations DO change because some traits are selected for - individuals with that trait tend to leave more offspring - and some are selected against - individuals with that trait leave less offspring. it is through this differental reproduction that the ratio of expressed traits shifts in a population. If a population is seperated into two groups, trait ratios drift apart until the two populations can no longer produce viable offspring. This is basic speciation and we observe it regularly. Why do I have to tell you this?
All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature. If the changes can be inherited, then they are mutations. How they occur is not relevant. If they can be inherited and confer a survival benefit to the organism, then the population will experience a change in trait ratios.
But for now, there are just too many, even by science's standards [Kitcher], for the theory of evolution to be considered a valid theory. Well, if by evolution you refer only to Darwin's original theory (which you seem to in your rejection of population genetics) then you are correct. The thing is we've come a little farther (understatement) with the theory these days, due to the introduction of knowledge of genetic mechanisms and population studies. Ultimately you appear to be arguing against a version of the theory that is a hundred years old. Why is that relevant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yeah, totally, PPG. I'd love to hear your evidence that the naturalistic paradigm is incomplete. Of course, never mind the fact that if the existence of supernatural entities could be inferred by their actions in the natural world they would cease to be supernatural, wouldn't they?
"Slap in the face to reality"? Reality as I perceive it contains no supernatural entities. You'll have to show evidence to the contrary that can't be explained by naturalistic means. Of course, no one ever has...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PhospholipidGen Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, in light of the advancements made in molecular biology, it is your assertion that no purpose in molecular machines is false. Without going crazy and way off theme, lets look at the supposed evolution of sexual organs. In the male, you have 27 different parts, all with specific jobs to carry out, and all aligned and put together in such a fashion as to carry out those jobs. It is hard to imagine them in different connection points working in the manner that they are supposed to. In addition, these 27 different parts are coded for by different chromosomes, and some portions are coded for by more than one. If even one of these parts is nonfunctional, the whole organ is nonfunctional (you know, irreducibly complex). This includes the testes and the fact that sperm cannot be produced inside the body, but have to be outside, hence the reason for the scrotum. The entire organ screams design, but we will not go there. Then you have the female sex organs, 21 in all, and each just as specific as in the case with the male organ. This including the manner in which the eggs are produced and behave. In considering these, you must also consider the fact that, if evolution were true, each of these separate parts would have had to come about piecemeal over hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of years...where would the selection pressure come from for these to be selected? How would they be selected seeing as their purpose is only found within the whole? If you advocate change of structure/function, then you open up another whole slue of questions that you cannot answer without so many assumptions that your entire hypothesis doesn't remain within the scientific realm. Then you have to consider that the male and female organ fit together perfectly, as most of us can well attest too!!! In any case, this perfect fit did not occur on accident. Then we also have to consider that (from an evolutionary perspective) these organs had to adapt to one another...and how could this take place? Especially when we make mention of the female and her eggs being acquainted with the DNA of the male. Also in question is that neither the male nor female organs will function unless there is emotional behavior getting things started. A penis will not function sexually without arousal behavior, neither will the vagina. this means that we go beyond the perview of the organ itself and now must address the machinery invovled in the arousal, ejaculatory state of the organs. How many millions of mutations would it have taken in order to even begin our consideration of these two marvelous organs? How is it that, in a world prevously of asexual organs only, could sexual organs ever even get a start, and most importantly, why? All answers to these and other questions that I have ever heard all border on precognition of evolution, and we all know that this is a farce. You might as well go ahead and say that God did it and save us all the headache and trouble. Greetings!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
Hang on!! Whoa
You just spun off topic. If you want to start talking ID and irreducible complexity then post this to a new topic or find the one it belongs under.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Finally it comes down to it: Argument for sudden design by irreducible complexity.
If even one of these parts is nonfunctional, the whole organ is nonfunctional (you know, irreducibly complex). Not in dispute. I never claimed that any particular part of a living organism was without function, only without purpose. If you use a screwdriver to pound a nail, it has the function of a hammer. That doesn't mean that it has the purpose of a hammer. There's no way to connect function and purpose, without assuming that the purpose and function of something are the same. But, that's just an assumption. What you have yet to prove is that purpose can be reliably inferred from function. If you'll look closely you'll see this is the crux of your argument. Anyway, irreducable complexity is child's-play to refute. Consider a stone arch - irreducibly complex in that the removal of any stone will topple the arch. Ergo, it could not have been built stone by stone, right? Wrong, obviously. Arches are built stone by stone. How does this work? We put up a scaffold to support the arch as we build it. Is the scaffold as efficient or useful as the arch? No, not at all. But the scaffold is sufficiently simple that it can be built piece by piece, used to construct the "irreducibly complex" arch, and then taken away, leaving only the beautifully efficient arch.
Then you have to consider that the male and female organ fit together perfectly, as most of us can well attest too!!! Perfectly? Have you talked to women about this? The clitoris is located outside of the vagina, where it becomes rather hard to stimulate with the penis. I wouldn't call that a perfect fit. In fact I'd say it's just good enough to perpetuate the species, which - surprise! - is exactly what the theory evolution would predict.
How is it that, in a world prevously of asexual organs only, could sexual organs ever even get a start, and most importantly, why? Because sexual reproduction is great for the adaptation of species. It confers an enormous resitance against disease, for instance (through so-called "Hybrid vigor" and other effects). It maximises the selection of beneficial traits. Why do you assume that human genitals are some unique structure? All vertebrates and most invertibrates have genitals - and the rest usually have gonads, at least. Bacteria exchange genetic information before dividing. It's clear that sexual reproduction arose to the unicellular level. Genitals just evolved to match. They wouldn't have to have evolved from scratch for any animal, much less humans. They simply would have decended with modification, like anything else. Does this stuff really stump you? A minute of thinking "how could this confer a survival advantage?" is generally enough to debunk all your so-called "argument for design."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6730 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Greetings PLG,
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLG ultimately does not want to concede that mutations can confer any benefit but he ignores the meaning of beneficial in the context of natural selection. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is not so, please read my posts again. M: I have and this is my interpretation..I will elaborate below PLG: More side-tracking. The issue is not one outweighing the other, the issue is not so much even the effects of the mutation. Although they do play a part in this because the catagories of mutation are specified by their neutral or deleterious affects. The issue is the NATURE of mutations...what they are, and what they are not. Again, some, very rare deleterious mutations have proven that they can, in certain environments, confer some amount of beneficial side-affects to their bearer. But then again, this is not what I am arguing. M: wrong, the entire issue is the effect of the mutation. If a C to T transition in the Dloop of mitochondria has absolutely no effect on mtDNA replication, mitochondrial gene expression, etc. then the mutation is irrelevant as it has no effect on the organism. It is neutral with regards to evolution. However, any mutation that under a specific environmental condition ehances and indivduals chance at reproduction has a better chance of becoming more frequent. So not all mutations are deleterious...what does it matter if a pseudogene has a C or a T at a given position? PLG:Is this your reasoning for accepting that variation arises from mutation? If so, it is poor reasoning...no insult intended. We are not clones because we did not all come from the same egg. As for other arguments along that line, even identical twins have differences in expressed variant alleles...in short, no one is exactly identical. Even twins have different finger prints, this much I can attest to. M: You are confused PLG, you are talking about non-heritable variation during developement which is responsible for differences among twins. We are not clones because of heritable genetic variation. Thus, the source of heritable variation IS genetic. That is not a strictly evolutionary concept as all genetics relies on this. PLG:Not so, evolutionary theory needs variation, otherwise it goes no where. There are plenty of top evolutionists that disagree with you, Mayr, for one. As for genetic drift, another false play by evolutionary theorists of the last century, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with population genetics, which also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. M: You are completely wrong on two fronts. First, I said one does not need endless variation for evolution to occur..not that variaition is uneccessary..Please read my posts more carefully as I was addressing your statement. Population genetics and evolution are the same thing. That you deny this suggests you are either poorly informed about evolutionary biology or someone has purposefully mislead you... Here..from a basic biology textbook for your edification "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 PLGopulation genetics only traces the differences in expressed variant alleles within populations, and that is all. M: Wrong again, population genetics does not trace differences in "expressed" variant alleles. The majority of population genetic markers are non-expressed. Are you sure you know anything about pop gen? Just asking..have you ever taken a course? Read a textbook? Primary literature? I ask because you are making definitive statements that are completely false. PLG:Evolutionary theory is not about variation, it is about speciation (and with that we open up another can of worms). M: Uh, you have not read Darwin either it seems. Evolutionary theory is exceptionally pre-occupied with variation and how said variation is acted upon by selection resulting in (mostly extinction actually) but also speciation. PLG:This was my first clue that something was amiss with the theory, everytime I came up to a pivotal point in one portion of evolutionary explanations for proving evolution true, there came a road block. At that roadblock, there magically formed an assumption to overthrow that blockade...answer this, please... M: Because that is how science works. All theories, gravity and relativity for example are tentative. They are constantly being tested and modified as novel discoveries are made. A theory can be overthrown. Evolution is the best supported theory in biological science but is still tentative. You will no more "prove" evolution as you will "prove" the theory of gravity. Assumptins are not magically formed by the way...at least nobody has ever accused me of performing magic in the lab..especially when I drop my tube rack on the floor...doh! PLG:Pure beneficial mutations are assumed, why? Because without mutations you have no variant alleles. Why does evolution need variant alleles? Because variants are differences between organisms. M: You were doing a bit better up to this point... PLG: But variation does not give rise speciation...since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature? M: one creature does not turn into another....Lamark was wrong. However, variation in populations does give rise to new species and this has been observed in the case of bacteria, cichlids, and in various plants among other things. PLG:So, we have to come up with a definition of speciation that demonstrates evolution is a reality, and so Mayr has...in his own mind, anyway. However, none of these examples change one creature into another, they only demonstrate variation. M: Again, your logic is flawed and also demonstrates you have no grasp of the scientific method. PLG:We have come up against another wall, so we assume that with enough micro variation, we will eventually observe macro variation...speciation. This is not the case. We have now jumped over what the factual data will allow with invalid and unwarranted assumptions four times, and it is interesting to me that at every wall is when these assumptions are called upon. Then we call upon another one, the assumption that evolution is simply change, this way we can call upon population genetics to demonstrate evolution, but does it really? M: Firs n genetics demonstrates evolution very well in fact..here are just two examples of many Schliewen UK, Tautz D, Paabo S. Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids.Nature. 1994 Apr 14;368(6472):629-32. Lenski RE, Winkworth CL, Riley MA.Rates of DNA Sequence Evolution in Experimental Populations of Escherichia coli During 20,000 Generations. J Mol Evol. 2003 Apr;56(4):498-508. PLG:No. It does not demonstrate nor observe one creature turning into another, it only documents variational differences. If we reduce the theory of evolution to what some call micro-evolution, changes within organisms'expressed allelic gene versions, then I agree. But until it can be demonstrated that we have one organism turning into another, there is no evolutionper say. Darwin did not give a thesis on trying to explain variation, but on the divergence between a modern dog and its ancestors. Between a modern elephant and its ancestors, etc. M: This is a typical creationist rant that one organism turning into another which evolution and genetics do not propose. This is neo-Lamarkian thinking and is thus a strawman arguement against evolution.Find a definition by an evolutionary biologist or geneticist that claims one organism turns into another...your are describing the typical cartoonish version of science uneducated creationsists adhere to. PLG:In short, unless you have a genetic mechanism that can add to a single celled organism, that in time will build blue-prints for arms, legs, sex organs, other organs, a head, mouth, fingers, etc.... M: Actually there is...they are called Hox genes...I can't believe you have never heard of this PLG:you have no evolution. My argument is this, that there is no such mechanism. M: Your argument is refuted by developmental genes PLG:All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature. M: You clearly do not know what a mutation is. So genetic changes leading to an altered phenotype is not mutation?...that will be news to the entire scientific community....please cite the papers you have read by the way so that we can discuss these supposed cellular or sub cellular system changes you claim there is evidence for. PLG:My whole argument, boiled down, I guess, is that what scientists are calling as mutations today are fabrications and mis-callings based upon what the evolutionary theorists of yester-year propagandized the to be in their efforts at keeping the theory alive. What needs to be done is this, these areas need to be looked at again, from the very beginning, identifying these assumptions that are holding the theory together (many and unfounded are they), and test them. But for now, there are just too many, even by science's standards [Kitcher], for the theory of evolution to be considered a valid theory. M: Sorry that my tone is turning snide but you apparently have no background in biology and yet are attempting to make difinitive statements about biological phenomenon. So, your argument boils down to what a geneticisit calls a mutation is a lie propagated by the scientific community to mislead people like you? That is a weak and frankly a paranoid argument. I am not convinced you have any knowledge of what a mutation is or what evolution is.. Please define what you think is the scientific and generally accepted (in the scientific community) definition of1. Mutation. Please provide supporting references for your definition 2. Evolution. Also provide supporting references and in addition please demonstrate how the definition I provided by Futuyma is false and is not accepted by scientists. This should be an easy task considering you claim to be an authority on mutation and evolution. Looking forward to it... Cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
PLG:
All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature. FK: Darn, Mammuthus beat me to this. I have seen this debate style before. When presented with beneficial mutations, either assert: 1. That they are not actually mutations,2. That they were directed by THE DESIGNER, 3. That they must have some unknown harmful effect, or 4. That they caused the genome to lose information. Under no circumstances should you admit the possibility that a beneficial mutation may have occurred, or all may be lost. I have news for you, PG. Assertions are not evidence. Please support your statements above with something other than "because I said so". Your credibility is on the line. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3472 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote:I am sure that Kitcher would be very interested to learn that his statements indicate that Evolutionary biology is not science . ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6730 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I think Futuyma and the rest of the evolutionary biologists out there would be surprised to learn that population genetics has nothing to do with evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6730 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi FK,
Part of the problems is that the definition of evolution held by creationists such as PLG, Peter Borger, and others is that it excludes population genetics. By doing this, there is no logical way for speciation to occur since heritable mutations have no way of being passed on from one generation to the next. Darwin was aware of transmission of traits in populations. Population geneticists have been at this for decades and population biology has always been the core of evolutionary theory. If you exclude genetics from evolution then well...there is no basis for any biological sciece. I have to assume that defining evolution as having nothing to do with pop gen is a debating tactic, misinformation campaign, whatever propagated by specific widely read creationists sites as a strawman argument since exactly the same mis-definition appears so often. I doubt this is the last time we will see this arguement here. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I know it's not really aimed at you, but the main difference
between purpose and function is that purpose is about 'then intent behind the design'. Using 'purpose' to infer design is backwards reasoning.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024