Originally Posted by Russell2
Hi CTD

You say mutation provides the mojo, but the tenets of your religion say it is recombination that does it.
Actually the modern understanding of ToE says that both play a role, exactly what percentage is due to each varies from situation to situation, in large diploid species such as ourselves recombination and crossover mixing of existing genetic code accounts for a significant percentage of the change that occurs in DNA and thus in our phenotypes while in the bacterial experiments I have discussed with you earlier where there is no duplicate DNA strands involved recombination and crossover mixing don’t occur at all so all of the change is due to pure mutation. Horse for courses.

I’m still baffled why you would think that quoting the opinion of one person from 70 years ago should be seen to define and/or constrain the entire modern field of evolutionary biology? That’s was the point I was making.
So, you see this as a 70 year old opinion and RAZD sees it as that of a wiki author.

What it actually is is the treaty written up to assure peace between evolutionists and geneticists. It's the latest document I know of which arguably represents a consensus on evolutionism. If there's something newer, I'd be happy to take a look.

I do not maintain that contemporary evolutionists are familiar with it, nor do I particularly care. Persons on both sides were fully aware that mutations occur, yet the word chosen for use in this treaty is clearly 'recombination'.

I am also aware that this treaty was not signed by both sides, but rather published in a book which was subsequently promoted by both sides. Historians understand how to look at actions when assessing motives. Antihistorians prefer to focus on words alone.

Quote
It’s not an ad homonym fallacy to point out that your opponent in a debate is presenting false evidence only to suggest that his ideas should be ignored because of his character. You’ll note that I did not do that to you. I pointed out that you were wrong simply because you presented false information.
You asserted that I do not understand evolutionism. Understanding evolutionism and understanding your cockeyed 'arguments' are two separate and distinct issues.

I see that you have taken my advice and assumed people cannot scroll. You now say "I pointed out that you were wrong simply because you presented false information." Anyone can verify what you actually said by using their scroll feature.
Quote
Most folks who frequent forums have enough sense to read what's been copied & pasted. Had you done so, you would see that it does not match the propaganda either you or RAZD have presented.
Quote
Oh I read it. I’m not about to defend Wiki, it’s not a definitive source on this stuff though there is a detailed article on Genetic Recombination on Wiki if you care to look as RAZD pointed out and another linked right within the one you cited that explains crossover. You write off one of these ideas while accepting others for no apparent reason, all form part of our current understanding of genetics and so form part of our current ToE.
I should hope folks are sharp enough to ask me (or read what I actually say) if they want to know what I reject, what I accept, and what my reasoning is. It's really pretty simple: I accept legitimate science and I reject evolutionism.

The issue of defending wiki? Well, it's looking like we now have 3+ versions of evolutionism under discussion. You and RAZD each have one, wiki gives the closest thing to an 'official' one, and of course that one was an arrogant lie. I generally prefer to discuss the real article. You may each in turn cry "straw man", but you'll defend it as best you can.
Quote
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.
Sure, there are several. The maximum mixture throughput of the induction system limits maximum RPM by restricting the amount of fuel and oxygen that can reach the engine. Unloaded this still accounts for a very high RPM but there is a limit. Exhaust restrictions also limit the maximum RPM an engine can reach due to the back pressure caused by the systems inability to clear the combustion gasses from the last cycle during the open time of the exhaust valve. Many modern fuel injected engines have RPM limiters programmed into them to avoid engine damage. This system works by reducing the amount of fuel injected or in some cases by not firing all of the cylinders on every cycle again limiting the maximum RPM an engine can reach by reducing the power generated on each stroke.
Those are not mechanisms. Those are just what you're about to call them, 'factors'.

Quote
If all of these factors are removed and the throttle is opened to the max the engine may speed up to the point of failure. This point is determined by the limiting strength of the weakest component usually in the engine’s primary drive train (main bearings, bearing caps, crank shaft, con rods, big end bolts, gudgeon pins pistons etc). The weakest of these will fail and thus limit the maximum RPM that a given engine will reach in a catastrophic failure.
And this is just what I said: a matter of capacity - not a mechanism.

A governor is an actual mechanism, which you managed to mention, but not recognize as the only 'mechanism' in the bunch.

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.
If you read what I said I explained that it was no discernable harm. Of course we know that many mutations are silent because they don’t code for a change in protein sequences. Proteins are coded for in DNA by three bases each of which can be one of four possible DNA bases which gives 64 combinations. There are however only 20 amino acids coded for. Many amino acids are coded for by a number (up to six) different combinations. The first form of silent mutation is thus those which do not change in any way the protein coded for by simply changing the DNA code from one sequence that codes for a given amino acid to another which codes for the same. Given code similarity between them this is a common occurrence.
The term 'neutral' is in this case not appropriate. 'Indeterminate' is the correct term, or 'unknown'. This would prevent erroneous arguments like RAZD's claim that mutations have been accurately counted and categorized, so we can clearly see why there is a preference for 'neutral'.

Quote
Another form of silent mutation is mutations which occur in non coding DNA. This is harder to quantify as it’s hard to tell for sure what DNA sequence is really silent but there are some long stretches in the human body which do not contain start or stop codons and for which no protein equivalents are ever detected so chances are that many if not most of these are silent.
Yet the category is labeled 'neutral'. Doesn't real science pride itself on accurate and precise language?

Speaking of language, I note that you and RAZD apply some terms differently. If you think this will contribute to confusion and misunderstandings, I expect the practice to continue. Be advised, I shall be using terms properly to the best of my ability, so the definitions may differ substantially from those of evolutionists. Meanings will be easily obtained from the context and/or my comments.

I may from time to time ohyea or hehehe
when your disagreements grant merit to the practice.
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.
Do you really believe that Russ’s counter to my point which discussed the motivations of people many years after the establishment of evolutionary theory and which did not discuss that theory itself were a reasonable answer to my explanations of how recombination and mutations work as part of ToE?
Ah... so you think he wasn't being reasonable, and you retaliated by sending him to seek that which cannot be found. I get it now.

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