Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Mutations
John
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 344 (37856)
04-24-2003 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Quetzal
04-24-2003 12:12 PM


Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
My question is, what form of mutation isn't, colloquially speaking, recombination? Maybe I'm way off here, but basically every mutation is a shuffling of amino acid sequences with some addition and subtraction in the mix. The idea that mutations don't happen because the 'mutations' are only recombinations smacks of an argument by definition. Define mutation as recombination. Claim that recombination isn't mutation thereby setting up a false dichotomy. And then claim that there are therefore no (beneficial) mutations.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Quetzal, posted 04-24-2003 12:12 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 04-25-2003 2:14 AM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 344 (37858)
04-24-2003 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
04-24-2003 12:13 PM


Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
quote:
A tool, or protein, has no function in the absence of the elements that it acts upon.
Right... the phillips screwdriver in the absense of phillips screws would have no purpose. It could still be co-opted for something else though, which is how evolution works. A freak accident hands you a tool. It has no designed purpose, like the phillips screwdriver, but something can sometimes be found to do with it, like, say... the screwdriver could serve as a weapon.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2003 12:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2003 1:57 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 344 (37877)
04-24-2003 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
04-24-2003 1:57 PM


Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
We agree. Prolly has something to with evidence vs. exegesis... hmmmm.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2003 1:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 344 (40698)
05-19-2003 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Unknown Author
05-19-2003 4:00 PM


Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
quote:
Purpose is most definitely connected by function, only evolutionists deny this.
You are equivocating on the word 'purpose.' In English there are two (relevant) definitions of purpose. One definition involves intent. One definition concerns what an object does. To illustrate, take the sentence, "You did that on purpose." The 'purpose' in this case is 'intent.' You could instead say, "You did that intentionally." The sentence works just fine. But "You did that functionally." Just doesn't work. Likewise, it doesn't work the other way around either. "The capacitor's purpose is to do some electrical stuff." Substitute 'function' and the sentence works. Substiture 'intent' and it doesn't.

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Unknown Author, posted 05-19-2003 4:00 PM Unknown Author 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