Hi Russ

Recombination and crossover during meiosis mix and match not only genes but parts of gene’s to produce sequences that have never existed before. This alone has been shown to be enough to drive evolution to some extent but mutation of germ line DNA is a powerful ingredient of our modern understanding of evolution

Ah, but you forget (actually twist the idea) that the sequences always fall within certain parameters within the original design ("design parameters", as engineers would call them).

They do? Show me the mechanism that limits the sequences to fall within ‘design parameters’ other than the fitness test of natural selection? Do you have a scientific paper on that? Some logic or evidence to back up this claim?

This is really, really important for the continuation of life.

So maybe you do get the idea of fitness just a little. The point is that there is no known limit to the results of mutation or crossover except fitness. Fitness is contingent on current conditions which, obviously, change from time to time so the limiting factor is not static. Remember also the bacterial experiments that I talked about earlier. They started with one individual and so no variability for selection to work on and no crossover as bacteria are not diploid leaving the inventiveness of mutation as the only source of genetic novelty yet thousands of generations later the products were very diverse and very different from their distant ancestor from which the colonies started. If your complaints were true this is not what we would expect to see.

You have to remember that the mechanisms that enable adaptation complicate the original design dramatically, and therefore make evolution less probable than without it (if this is possible). Yes, adaptation is complicated, not simple.

You’ll have to explain what mechanisms enable adaptation and complicate things for evolution. Adaptation is indeed complicated but not in the way you are suggesting.

When you mention combinations that never existed before, you are neglecting to admit that rarely are these adaptations harmful, yet, all (competent) evolutionists admit that the processes that are claimed to be evolution are based on processes that produce harmful mutations almost always.

Actually the vast majority of mutations are neutral having no discernable effect on the individual who carries them. Of the remainder most are indeed harmful and only a minority are beneficial. Darwin’s insight was a mechanism by which the beneficial ones can come to dominate a species while the harmful ones are weeded out (that’s what natural selection does). Just as with compound interest only a tiny percentage of benefit is required and over time these benefits will compound and come to dominate the species.

Do you see the contradiction here? You are confusing 2 entirely different things.

Which two things am I confusing Russ?

This is another example of maintaining mutually exclusive faiths in your mind at the same time. A necessary attribute of evolutionists.

If that were so you’d be able to point out, clearly and concisely, which two ‘mutually exclusive faiths’ I am holding? Can you?

Part of this lecture will help clear it up for you

You’ll have to show me where that has anything to do with what I said. I’m not sure how it affects anything here that a distant descendant of one of the founders of ToE wanted sexual freedom or that David C.C. Watson has issues with the ‘supposed’ motives of some in the scientific community of the late twentieth century.

If you want to counter what I have said I suggest you find evidence relevant to what I have said, evidence regarding how evolution works, how DNA behaves, how mutation occurs, that sort of evidence not ad homonym complaints against people far removed from the issue.

In Reason

Russell