PROOF against evolution

quote:

---

Technically, natural selection does not require random mutation. Any mutation or alteration will do-- directed mutations, genetic manipulation, whatever. It is irrelevant to NS.

---

John, are you at risk of being in agreement with Syamsu?Maybe the above comment needs to be taken to Syamsu's topic.Moose

Syamsu said (in http://EvC Forum: Destroying Darwinism -->EvC Forum: Destroying Darwinism)

quote:

---

The standard definition of Natural Selection, differential reproductive success of variants, is wrong, for requiring variation to apply. There is no justification for including variation in the definition, so variation should be cut from the definition of Natural Selection.

---

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.Anyhow, Buz seemed to be saying that random mutation was needed, for natural selection to act on. As such, Buz and Syamsu seemed to be on opposite sides of the same argument. Yet both were having their points contested by the biologists of this board.John, you did say:

quote:

---

Technically, natural selection does not require random mutation.

---

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.In general, I think that the study of evolution is a study of natural processes, which includes the natural mutation processes.I'm not really trying to defend Buz's position. I'm not saying his line of argument has any validity in the big picture. But you sure seem to be nit-picking him, by invoking a "technicality".The bottom line is probably that I should stay out of the biology discussions.Moose