Originally Posted by Russell2
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?
Show you the mechanism? Show me the mechanism that prevents a gasoline engine from revving to 300,000 RPM.

No mechanism is needed to prevent a thing from doing something it lacks the capacity to do.

Quote
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.
What you "expect to see" is distorted by both your evogoggles and your false assumption that bacteria produce clones.

Furthermore, if evolution were true, it would account for lifeforms that reproduce sexually, and there ought to by some observations available by now. They've sure harmed enough fruit flies over the years.

But you think the clone myth allows you to trick folks into accepting bacterial "evolution", and you'll con them into extrapolating this onto all forms of life. Even if the clone myth were true, your argument is fatally flawed, and your strategy betrays that this is known.

Quote
Actually the vast majority of mutations are neutral having no discernable effect on the individual who carries them.
An argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know what harm is done does not mean no harm is done.

It's an exact parallel to the vestigial organ argument. Just because they don't know an organ's function, it must not have a function. Same "logic" - new application.

Quote
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).
Darwin didn't even know what mutations were. Your devotion to your prophet is noted.

Quote
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.
Conjecture. Actually, that's a compound conjecture, since the 'benefits' are themselves conjectural.

Quote
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,
Cute. Send Russ off on a wild goose chase. There is no evidence evolution works. I doubt this stunt will work.

Quote
how DNA behaves, how mutation occurs, that sort of evidence not ad homonym complaints against people far removed from the issue.

In Reason

Russell
I missed those complaints. I scroll up the page, not suffering from the odd plague, but they aren't there. Do evogoggles produce hallucinations?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson