Pop, goes the weasel...
Printable View
Pop, goes the weasel...
QM is not even worth looking into but after the fact. Considering a-priori design by analogy to events within the fact is even far more stupid.
As far as the bacteria mutations from which a lot of you are extrapolating. On the bacterial mutations, Kevin Anderson, said, "Bacteria frequently develop mutations that enable them to survive and adapt to a variety of environmental conditions. These mutations are generated by many different mechanisms, and provide a wide range of phenotypic modifications. However, most of these modifications can be classified as a form of antagoninistic pleiotropy. Some existing systems are sacrificed as a means for surviving certain environments..... If the environmental conditions change, the mutation usually becomes less beneficial and perhaps even detrimental. Hence, these mutations do not provide a genetic mechanism that account for the origin of biological systems and functions".
True faith was never based, nor it will ever be based but on the mystery at the point where facts begin to appear. We have no way and will never have a way to solve this genuine mystery. O, yes. We write mysteries that we set up to solve in a theater completely divorced from the genuine mystery. To no avail, except to exercise the mind in solving puzzles. Who killed Popoff? Broccoli? Goldfinger? Hollywood? Who discovered Topaz at the end of the story? Wasn't Topaz, like Popoff, already discovered from the very beginning?
True Calofini, the facts are made to fit the paradigm. Evolution is a religion, even though its adherents see it as an anti-religion.
I don't follow here...Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I think you just mixed up ID and evolution. No evolutionary facts have been "made to fit the paradigm" at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtuoso
Oooh, I would imagine the only place a buzz will be caused is in the very small, already-believe-ID camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillCarneyKlans
You don't really think anyone is going to take it seriously, do you? You know, the 10,000,000 pieces of scientific evidence vs 0 pieces of scientific evidence.
I know. You don't follow here nor there. ROFLMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Well Anderson, whatever his qualifications are because I can only find reference to him on Answering Genesis, is wrong. As I already said the nylonase gene arose from a duplication followed by a frameshift so it is not pleiotropic, we can forgive Anderson for not knowing this because he apparently stopped reading about the bacterium in 2006, we wouldn't want to think he was so dishonest that he deliberately ignored any research that contradicted his asinine apologetics. His entire argument in that article is ridiculous given that we know that very harsh niches promote specialization which makes organisms susceptible to environmental changes, it doesn't follow logically from this observation that these kinds of mutations could not produce new systems and functions (the latter of which is a bizarre statement because new functions are described in his own damn essay). If you took a worm from a hydrothermal vent it would immediately die in any other environment, despite its ability to survive at extremely high temperatures and pressure at the bottom of the ocean.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtuoso
Wow, just imagine! Even if the overwhelming number of mutations were harmful rather than just neutral (and they're not) then those mutations are culled out by natural selection, leaving the small number that are fortuitously beneficial to spread through the gene pool. Who knew! :coolgleamA:Quote:
Originally Posted by virtuoso
Fortuitously beneficial, but not nearly enough to form a biological system with complex functions.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by virtuoso
Hey, if natural selection weeds out the deleterious mutations, does nothing to the neutral mutations and effectuates the spread of the mutations that give an advantage in a particular environment, can you guess which mutations spread? :coolgleamA:
See the discussion on frameshift mutations and nylon-eating bacteria for a perfect example.
If evolution were bogus then the name of the scientist to debunk it would be as famous as Darwin's. It wouldn't have entire university departments devoted to its study. People who don't believe in evolution simply have no conception of how the scientific establishment works. Paradigm shifting research brings with it fame and grants. Dishonestly propping up an existing paradigm provides absolutely no benefit to a scientist at all. People who do not accept evolution are believers in the greatest conspiracy any nut has ever madly postulated.