Summations Only

Zi Ko, if you're not going to discuss the topic, why are you posting here?--Percy

Can isuppose,after Percy's intervention, you agree that it is not so?

Percy,
Only few messages before ( 127) i have posed a question ) clearly inside the topic),which i recieved no clear answer yet, though it relates to the central question of biology.Your hastiness to close the issue, seems to me rather curious...

Hi Zi Ko,Now you're being ridiculous in addition to already being obvious. Your favorite topic is guided evolution, and even though this thread is about novel features you're trying to discuss guided evolution, just as you've done in other threads. Unless you are planning to argue for guided evolution causing novel features you are off topic.I'm not moderating this thread. I'm just asking you to stop before reporting this over at Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0.--Percy

I agreed that it is not so before Percy's intervention... in a post you've replied to.From Message 132:

quote:

---

But that's beside the point that the photype acts as a barrier between the envoronment and the genome, and thus prevents the evironment from directly mutating the genome. Granted, you could nuke your balls in the microwave, or something like that, but I don't think that's what we're talking about.

---

In the context of what you are talking about, some sort of guided evolution, the evnironment doesn't reach the genome. There are certain and specific cases where it does happen, and you could make it happen if you wanted to (nuclear tanning bed or something).... but in the context of the evolution of species in general: particular mutations are not caused by the environment directly. They're random.That's all that matters. Your pet idea is wrong.But far be it from me to convince you otherwise or stop you from bringing it up in every single topic that you post in.

Or, so you say. What if we don't have the means to find the evidence...proper technology? What if we are wrong about what true evidence should look like?

Without the ability to consider the evidence, we have no choice but to ignore it.It might be a problem if we were finding that science didn't really work all that well, but it does... like, really well.

I'm sorry but what is "true evidence"?

What if creationists are pathologically incapable of posting on-topic? Or is it a skill you worked on? A strategy you're purposefully employing? An odd mental quirk? Maybe we could discuss this question too in every thread, along with guided evolution and philosophical questions about the nature of evidence. Why have forums and threads, anyway? Why not just go to a single thread with a few hundred thousand messages?How did you guys become so amazingly consistent at posting off-topic anyway. How is it that you are able somehow or other to look at a thread title and an introductory post and the following discussion, and then post about something completely different?Please take questions about the nature of evidence to a thread in the Is It Science? forum, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.Sheesh!--Percy

I did more than say. I demonstrated with evidence. We have known since the 1950's that mutations are random with respect to fitness because that is what the evidence DEMONSTRATES. We do have the proper technology. We have the technology to determine how mutations occur, when mutations occur, and how they affect fitness. The evidence clearly indicates that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

We don't need to know where the first life came from in order to determine that mutations are random with respect to fitness. As an analogy, we don't need to know where matter came from in order to determine that the roll of the dice in Craps is random with respect to the bets on the table. All we need to do is compare the results when money is on a certain bet and when it isn't, and then compare the results. As it turns out, the odds of rolling craps is not affected by whether your bet is on the Pass line or the Don't Pass line. The result is random with respect to your bet. In the same way, mutations are random with respect to fitness.

So far the evidence that we have supports the theory that we have.The theory existed before we had any knowledge of DNA or the technology to resolve genomes to their molecular components. Everything we've since learned about DNA has supported the theory - it didn't need to, it could have completely shattered it - it could have proved common descent to be wrong very simply. But it didn't, it confirmed it.Now it maybe that the theory is still wrong and it maybe that a new technology or evidence will crop up that we have no inkling of at the moment that will prove it wrong - but I wouldn't bet a penny on it and I'm betting that you wouldn't either.In the meantime, 'what ifs' will be ignored because they come with absolutely no supporting evidence. Get some evidence and you have something to discuss.

This reminds me of a brilliant piece written by Ernst Mayr:"By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigmnor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."
--"80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery", Ernst Mayr, 2004The essay is quite short and well worth a read, for evolutionists and creationists alike.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Can you clarify please if about similar environmental changes cause about similar or not mutations on other members of the species?

Can you clarify please how this relates to the topic or even makes grammatical sense?--Percy