Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)

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.

No. Natural selection favors good genes over bad ones. Obviously, other things being equal, there is more genetic variability in two species than in one. 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. 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. Take for example the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This is scarcely "wishful fantasy", and it is certainly good for the bacteria.

How can there be a genetic disease which is not selected against?

Well, obviously it does count, because that's an example of many, many beneficial mutations. 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.

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.

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

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.

So, you want to discuss "evolutionary processes" in a subforum devoted to "theological creationism".I'm intrigued by your mental processes. Do explain.

That was weird.Formally, your argument seems to be:You say A is an example of X.
A has property Y
Not all examples of X can have property Y
Therefore, A is not an axample of X.By parallel reasoning, an aardark is not an example of an organism, since it eats ants, and life could not exist if all organisms ate ants.Still, if you don't like sickle-cell, how about the gene for lactose tolerance in adults, as found a pastoralists and their descendants?