ksc writes:
Nope, once again you are incorrect. It has to be the winners offspring that hit the lotteryy or else the mutations could not build upon them selves.
...
As I said, the next winner needs to be in the linage of the first to mimic the T.O.E.
Karl, you're contradicting yourself here. First you say it has to be the winner's offspring, then you say it only has to be a descendent, which is precisely what *I* said. Though you quoted what I said, you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. How else would a positive mutation spread through a population if not through descendents?
Now to make things more interesting, the lottery ticket must also be purchased from the same state. That is if in our analogy each state represents the coding for seperate changes to different body parts or systems. For example, a mutation in the echo-location system (a ticket purchased in Texas) will not effect the leg to flipper transition.(a ticket purchased in New York)
This is the fallacy of post facto reasoning again. If it is your requirement is that those in the line of descent eventually win the Oklahoma state lottery 100 times, then that is not as likely as the actual situation for evolution. But it's always unlikely when you preordain the outcome. It's the same reasoning presented by SLP about the unlikelihood of producing Karl, which you also didn't appear to understand.
When the outcome is not preordained, when the only goal is to produce a better adapted organism no matter through what combination of state lotteries and no matter in what state the eventual descendent ends up in, then the likelihood is much greater.
Here's another example of the same kind of false reasoning that you're engaging in. What are the odds that you will have a son, and that your son will have a son, and that your son's son will have a son, and so forth forward for 1000 generations? Pretty tiny, right?
Well, guess what. Every male on this earth is the product of thousands of generations of sons producing sons.
Why is the first scenario unlikely while the second is inevitable? It's the fallacy of post facto reasoning again. When you preordain the outcome, namely that it is you and only you that must have a son, and then it must be that son and only that son that must have a son, and so forth for a thousand generations, then it's very unlikely. But when all you care about is that at least some in each generation produce sons for a thousand generations then it isn't unlikely at all.
I find it rather ironic how you present large mutation banks associated with organisms that will produce change......unless it is a living fossil. You gotta love the T.O.E.
This is a content-free argument from personal skepticism. Why not address what was said?
--Percy
™ Version 4.2