The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Improbability (to quote your own answer back at you) I don't understand what you are saying here. What do you mean?

I think I get what you mean but the wording is a bit all over the place. Surely mistakes in copying simply produce imperfect copies. I.e. change. No? Whether or not that change is beneficial or harmful will depend on what the change is and what environment it is operating in. No? Do you accept that it is possible? I think we can (in fact I think Percy has already) calculated a probability example.You seem wedded to the notion that any imperfection in copying must result in a harmful end result to the organism in question. But I am not sure why you think this must be the case.Can you clarify?

An error in copying is just a change from that which was copied. I don't really see how that can be disputed? The overall effect of that change is what you seem to be most concerned with. Is that correct? You seem to be denying that there is ever any beneficial change at all. Is that the case? I think we can be more specific than that. Which part of Percy's probability calculation do you actually dispute? You consider there to be no examples of any observed beneficial genetic changes (outside of bacteria). Is that the case?Do things like genetic lactose tolerance not qualify as beneficial in your eyes?

Faith's objections seem to be based on the following thinking:1) A copying error = BAD because "errors" are obviously synonomous with "badness".2) All the evidence verifies this because genetic errors result in genetic illnesses.I think talking about this with Faith in terms of imperfect replicators, probabilities and all the rest of it will result in nothing but head banging frustration for all concerned.Instead I think the only thing that might convince her of anything are examples of genetic traits that have arisen and which she would terms as "beneficial". I would suggest HIV resistance and lactose tolerance as examples of beneficial changes that have occurred in the sort of timescales Faith might accept.Does that make sense?

You seem very hung up on the term "error". It is better thought of as an imperfect copy. An imperfect copy that can be "better", "worse" or neutral in terms of the effect it has in the environment in which it occurs.But having read your responses I am of the opinion that others have also reached. Namely that there is little point pursuing this with you. So you are absolutely wedded to the idea that no beneficial changes can ever occur to anything as an incontrovertible truth? (except bacteria of course which you discount)So according to you nothing ever adapts to it's environment in any beneficial way. And you think this is consistent with the evdience?

It is a common creationist statement that experiments on bacteria are irrelevant to demonstrating evolution. I think they genuinely believe this.I was just hoping to use examples of things other than bacteria. If you have already done that then I won't bother. But I am bemused as to how Faith does think beneficial genetic changes ever do occur in organisms?I shall have a read of your Great Debate thread and see if Faith ever answers that question.

Fair point. I was picking up my terminology from that commonly used in reference to "imperfect replicators" but in this context I think your wording is more helpful."Inexact copy" it is - Faith if you are reading.

Personally I think that is a shame and I am sorry to hear that. But at the same time I can fully undestand why and I guess it was almost inevitable.