Hi Russ
Evolution is the mathematical absurdity. Natural selection occurs after evolution.No Russ you have, yet again, misunderstood or misrepresented ToE. Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution. In each individual generation there will be variations produced by mutation in all its forms and mixing of the previous generations traits. Most of these changes are minuscule, virtually undetectable in fact, but they are there. Natural selection works on these variations to select the winners who go into the next round. Evolution is the result as the mix of genes in the next generation will be different to that of the previous but not just randomly different and that’s where ToE comes in they will be different in very specific and statistically predictable ways.
You have been going on and on about statistical improbability and presenting this straw man of evolution time and again to try to make it look improbable and in fact it would be improbable to the point of absurdity if evolution worked as you describe but, of course, it does not.
Mutation produces mostly very small changes in organisms. Mutation does not have to, nor is it capable of producing a fully formed arm or wing (as two examples) in one generation. That is indeed, as you keep saying, mathematically impossible.
Most mutations are probably silent. They produce no change in the progeny, no change in the proteins for which the DNA codes.
A small percentage of mutations are harmful, they produce creatures which are less fit due to a ‘deformity’ or some other change that reduces their ability to survive and reproduce.
An even smaller percentage of mutations are beneficial. Yes we’ve observed these so we know that they occur.
Now you spin this as if that’s all there was too it and selection comes in much later, say after a wing has been produced by mutation. This is indeed effectively impossible and mathematically absurd.
The reason you are wrong is really very simple, evolution 101 in fact. At each and every step, each and every generation in other words, Natural selection will remove the failures. Rather than all of the steps having to appear in a very specific order without any wrong steps in between each step can occur at any point so long as it is not harmful to the organism and if any harmful or detrimental steps, any wrong steps in your terms, do occur anywhere along the way Natural selection will weed them out then and there. Mutation produces the raw material for Natural Selection to work on and Natural selection works, much as a ratchet does, to collect and build on each successful mutation while at the same time rejecting or filtering out any unsuccessful mutations (which is most of them).
It is indeed mathematically absurd to suggest that mutation could produce a new trait then natural selection will work on it but it is even more absurd to suggest that this is how ToE says that life works.
We’re back to the question I asked you in another thread Russ T. Are you ignorant of what ToE says in building your straw man or are you a liar doing so purposefully with the full knowledge of the falsehoods you are spreading? If you are merely ignorant then please tell me, there are a few here who could help you to overcome that, I for one would be willing to take you through the basics of ToE in more detail than I have just done so you can overcome this ignorance. We were all born ignorant of this stuff so it’s no crime to be so. If you are indeed a liar then I don’t know what to say Russ. You should think long and hard about why you spread such falsehoods to a lay audience who may well include some who can’t see through your lies.
One further point you keep raising despite the error of it having been pointed out to you is the “Symmetry is impossible to evolution” argument. Firstly this is wrong because we know that HOX gene’s and their like take a single ‘description’ of a body part and produce a right and a left one or many more in some cases (just look at millipedes they don’t have an individual description in their DNA for each leg you know) from one plan so evolution does not have to produce two identical hands (for example) merely a single hand and a mirror image routine. Secondly this is wrong as convergent evolution shows that evolution is in fact perfectly capable of independently building two features that are virtually identical if there is just an evolutionary driver to do so.
And we have, again, the false Darwin quotes Russ. Yes at least this time Darwin did indeed say this but there is more to quoting that just accurately transcribing someone’s words, quoting is about conveying the intent of the original author. Darwin, time and again, opens a chapter in Origin’s with a challenging question that he believes others will struggle with when looking at his theories. Here are two examples from different chapters of Origins. Yes you got the citation wrong again, you’ve stitched two passages from different chapters of Origins together with just one page number but that’s not the worst of this. Russ, do you realize that Darwin did not think at all the way you have portrayed him too here? Do you realize that it is dishonest to quote him thus? Darwin goes on in those two chapters to answer these self challenging questions in great detail. Is that why you don’t cite him fully and correctly ever, so your readers can’t easily look up what he really said in context. I know it’s a standard YEC tactic but, as it is a very dishonest one, would it be asking too much that you try to rise above it and deal honestly, fully and openly with what these people say Russ?
Here are the links to the chapters that contained these two quotes for those who want to know what Darwin actually thought.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.htmlhttp://talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.htmlPlease think very hard about what it is that drives you to continually repeat these really obvious falsehoods Russ.
In reason
Russell
