Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF against evolution
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 562 (45218)
07-06-2003 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
07-05-2003 7:02 PM


Re: Thread Relocation
quote:
Well, of course, it is assumed the DNA is more than a code of information. As with our PCs there's this box we purchase with these physical boards, wires and chips in them.
I think you are missing a critical difference between DNA and computers. With a computer, the hardware and the software are different things. You can run different software on the same hardware-- Linux and Windows both run on the same physical machines. With DNA, the hardware and the software are the same thing. You can't seperate them. Change one and you automatically change the other.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 07-05-2003 7:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 07-08-2003 12:27 AM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 562 (46219)
07-16-2003 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
07-15-2003 12:29 PM


quote:
1. The point I wanted to make with Nancy Pearcey's (her name spelling, i.e. "cey" is what messed me up on your's) link was that RM must proceed NS in the process of NS and to do so, RM would have to provide the information for NS to progress/and advance the alleged evolution of life. But as Nancy's link states, RM does not produce lots of information.
I was thinking about this, buz. Technically, natural selection does not require random mutation. Any mutation or alteration will do-- directed mutations, genetic manipulation, whatever. It is irrelevant to NS.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 07-15-2003 12:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-16-2003 9:24 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 562 (46289)
07-16-2003 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Minnemooseus
07-16-2003 9:24 PM


quote:
John, are you at risk of being in agreement with Syamsu?
Not really, and I am not sure how you derive that. The comment Buz made earlier was that NS falls if random mutations fall. It doesn't. Natural selection doesn't require random mutation, just some source of heritable variation. Scientists in a lab could cut and splice genes, thereby producing the variation. This is not random mutation. Then put the resulting critters in a pen and see which die. This is NS. The two-- RM and NS-- don't HAVE to go together, though evidence suggests they do.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-16-2003 9:24 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-16-2003 11:04 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 562 (46336)
07-17-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Minnemooseus
07-16-2003 11:04 PM


quote:
I am thinking that the "variation" is a result of random mutation (of course, followed up by natural selection). I, perhaps wrongly, interpreted that Syamsu was denying the existence of random mutation.
From the the bottom of your post...
quote:
The bottom line is probably that I should stay out of the biology discussions.
Nah. That's not it. The bottomline is that you should stay out of Syamsu's head.
Syamsu wants to define NS sans variation, which is an odd thing-- selection without options is hardly selection-- as he has been told several times. He doesn't seem to DENY variation or random mutation ( as far as I can tell ), he just wants such things to be ignored.
quote:
You are downplaying the need for random mutation, by invoking the input of some non-natural guidance into the mutation process. Which is certainly possible, but is going outside of natural processes - You are including the possibilities of natural random mutation, or non-natural directed mutation.
There is a difference between what the process requires and what actually drives it in reality.
quote:
But you sure seem to be nit-picking him, by invoking a "technicality".
The inference is just wrong. Call it nit-picking if you want, but it is silly to formulate an argument that is wrong when with an extra sentence you can formulate one that is right.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-16-2003 11:04 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 07-17-2003 11:02 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 562 (46354)
07-17-2003 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
07-17-2003 11:02 AM


quote:
There's a number of links out there which formulate similar statements as mine which you are nitpicking. Are they all silly?
Yes, unless there is further clarification. Perhaps 'sloppy' is a better word, and scientists do tend to be sloppy with language when not writing for peer reviewed journals. THEY know what they mean, but it doesn't always translate well. That is a dangerous way to write. I'm sorry you don't like precision, buz. Maybe you should think about that.
The fact is that NS does not require random mutation. If it did, and I suspect this is what you are trying to do, you could negate 'random mutation' and conclude that NS does not happen. It doesn't work that way. Consider this scenario. Scientists somehow determine that there are mutations but that NO mutations are random. Hmmm... you still have variation in each generation and thus you can still have NS. Thus, the formulation is incorrect. It allows you to derive the wrong conclusion. Why is pointing that out a problem? Anything derived from the statement that NS requires RM, is invalid. You need to reformulate it such that you cannot derive the wrong conclusion.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 07-17-2003 11:02 AM Buzsaw 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