Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 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)
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 143 of 218 (340437)
08-16-2006 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
02-14-2005 5:37 PM


Re: Considering rapid rate of mutation
You asked:
First, are you accepting the rest of what I said, that is, that except for mutation and immigration all the "evolutionary processes" produce decreased variability, or less ability to change, which would seem highly incompatible with the theory of evolution?
'Except for mutation and immigration', I might. But that's the catch.
'Except for the fact that the sun comes up every day, Mr Copernicus, isn't it night all the time--and doesn't a never-ending night cause a problems for the theory that the earth revolves?'
Well, uh, yeah.
But most of us would say Copernicus can rest easy.
You have two big fallacies, as I see it, to iron out.
The first you know: the fallacy of ignoring facts that falsify, or at least materially complicate, the conclusion you want to demonstrate. 'Except for mutation'...'except for the sun coming up'... You see. Mutation is a fact. Any argument concerning biological change over time has to deal with that fact. (Socially speaking, you also have an obligation not to shunt aside a subject your heading says you intend to consider.)
The second fallacy is your woolly use of the word 'variability.' You use it to mean two different things: anatomical variety in a single population and as a synonym for 'ability to change,' by which you mean potential for genetic mutation across generations. Using the same word for two different ideas can give the illusion of a connection. But until you establish one, no logical argument exists.
The good news is that you can overcome both problems in the same post. All you have to do is address--directly--the subject of mutation.
Mutation has been observed. It has also been observed that small mutations can add up to substantial changes over time. On that basis scientists see no reason to doubt that, given enough time, mutations can add up to create changes sufficient to explain all the biodiversity we see.
You seem to believe there is good reason for scientists to doubt this. If so, state the reason. If you believe a boundary exists on the extent to which genes mutate, state where the boundary is. Propose a test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 02-14-2005 5:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 08-18-2006 12:51 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 08-18-2006 1:17 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 172 of 218 (341416)
08-19-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
08-19-2006 2:26 PM


Re: Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes
Faith asks:
What makes your wisdom teeth mutation "beneficial" in any sense of the word?
No lower wisdom teeth to extract or get impacted? Are you kidding?
I'll take that mutuation any day.

Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 2:26 PM Faith 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