quote:
I think you misunderstand. How did you calculate the odds? Did you consider that there are astronomical numbers of experiments running simultaneously and that this has been occurring for a couple of billion years?
quote
Attempting to cut the numbers by appealing to populations isn't relevant to the issue. Consider: Ten species with 100,000 individuals each. For simplicity, lets say they reproduce at the same rate and produce one offspring per generation. Each generation can be considered as 1 million genetic experiments-- ie, each generation produces 1 million individuals, each with a mutation or two. That these mutations do not cross species does not cut the total number of mutations. It does mean that the mutation is limited to the offspring of originating population. Perhaps nine of the ten species die out, but the tenth survives as it had the lucky mutation.
The problem I see with that line of reasoning is that if you take into account that a new species can only arise from a previous species, according to evolutionary theory, then you can only take into account the mutations that occur within the parent species. That would lower the mutation rate significantly.
If species A has a mutation, however it has no way to pass the mutation to species B that survives in the immediate area, the mutation would have no significance in population B. Therefore the populations that are affected and have the ability for mutation decrease significantly.
quote:
Funny, you want student to understand biological systems but do not wish to expose them to a key component of biology.
The key component I would want them to know before knowing any theory is the scientific method. I am not opposed to exposure of students to evolutionary theory, but I am opposed to teaching it as fact especially since so much depends on mutation rates in various populations.
quote:
But what is with the "coding for amino acid which is coding for a protein" part? Amino acids don't code for anything. They are components, like Lego.
I'm sorry I mispoke, I meant to say build. I just meant that if the right amino acid was not in place then the protein would most likely be an irrelevant part of the organism.
quote:
The reason creationists opt for this restricted definition is that mutation can and does modify existing protein and this happens quite a lot. So really, you've cut the rope from under yourself.
My contention would be that the existing protein is not modified all that frequently because the point mutations that would be most likely to survive often do not even change the protein. If you are looking at the codes for amino acids there can be several variations of bases that code for each one thus lowering the frequency of mutations that cause protein changes. I would certainly not argue against natural selection, I would however argue that it is acting on variation that is already present in the population. The gene frequency of a population may change. However, it is difficult to argue that an organism has changed without seeing the actual physical change in comparison to a genetic change. I would especially argue this point in complex organisms where one change might affect many systems.