Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 218 (334690)
07-24-2006 12:34 AM


the general premise for any theory to be approved is its PREDICTABILITY. How does evolution fit in interms of prediction??
To be precise, the test of a theory is whether the predictions derived from it are accurate, not whether it predicts some particular future event of interest to you. (For example, the theory of gravity does not allow you to predict the fall of dice, nor does the theory of aerodynamics allow you to predict the weather more than a few weeks ahead.)
The theory of evolution makes many testable predictions in morphology, embryology, paleontology, and genetics, all of which are confirmed by observation, but it does not predict what the human race will be a million years hence, and if it did, this would be of no interest to the EvC debate, since we could not test such a prediction by observation.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 161 of 218 (341333)
08-19-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
08-19-2006 3:02 AM


Far from ignoring the point, this IS the point. Since the defective genes are passed on we have a state of increasing genetic disease in the population.
No. Natural selection favors good genes over bad ones.
And what I am saying is that this means that evolution is really impossible, since not only does speciation lead to decreased genetic variability...
Obviously, other things being equal, there is more genetic variability in two species than in one.
but the passing on of diseases in the population leads to overall lack of vigor that all by itself tends to extinction rather than to anything that could produce a healthy species as evolution implies must happen.
No: see my first comment. Such genes would not lead to the extinction of the species, but to the extinction of the group within that species carrying those genes, keeping that species healthy. One animal is not harmed by the bad genes of another.
This is a very odd trend if you think about it. It would seem to lead to a proliferation of genetic diseases in the population to such an extent that over a few millennia there couldn't be a healthy species left on earth.
And since even creationists admit to "a few millenia", it is clear that your reasoning must be wrong, since there are in fact no "unhealthy species", except for those which have had their gene pool dramatically bottlenecked by human activity --- the cheetah, for example.
The supposed "good" mutations are pretty much a wishful fantasy so far.
Take for example the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This is scarcely "wishful fantasy", and it is certainly good for the bacteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 3:02 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 218 (341571)
08-19-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
08-19-2006 3:19 PM


I do have a bad habit of thinking outside the evolution box. I'm trying to get away from the reproductive fitness definition to point out that any disease process that is allowed to accumulate in a population, simply because it escapes the selection processes ...
How can there be a genetic disease which is not selected against?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 3:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 218 (341579)
08-19-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:27 PM


There are NO examples ANYONE has produced yet of a TRULY beneficial mutation, one that produces health and vigor.
Except for bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and this doesn't count.
Well, obviously it does count, because that's an example of many, many beneficial mutations.
And again, even if you could produce a dozen beneficial mutations, this would be interesting certainly, but it still would not meet the requirement that beneficial mutations outstrip destructive mutations by some enormous percentage if a species is going to survive and evolve.
There is no such requirement. Bad mutations can outnumber good mutations by thousands to one. The good will be selected FOR, the bad will be selected AGAINST.
I don't see what it is that you don't see, but the words "NATURAL SELECTION" probably loom large in the explanation.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 211 of 218 (341597)
08-19-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:58 PM


Would you please just read the whole argument. This has been answered umpteen times by now.
No, it hasn't.
It hasn't been answered once.
Will you try to answer it, or will you admit that you haven't a leg to stand on?
Perhaps you think you have answered it. If so, please point out the post in which you believe you have done so, and I will point out your trivial error in reasoning.
Cheers.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 213 of 218 (341614)
08-20-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


So, you claim to have an answer but you can't say what it is.
Creationist integrity at its very best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 218 (341626)
08-20-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by MangyTiger
08-20-2006 12:06 AM


While we're waiting, I'll point out that neither keratoconus and diabetes is "neutral" (nor, for that matter, entirely genetic in its etiology, but that is by the by.)
Being ill is bad for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 12:06 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024