No. A mutation is when the gene actually changes. In sexual reproduction, the offspring’s genes come from the parents. Half the genes coming from each parent. Two blue-eyed parents will not produce a brown-eyed child, because the brown-eye trait is dominant over blue-eye trait. Two brown-eyed parents can produce a blue-eyed child, provided they both carry the recessive gene for blue eyes.
I totally agree. There should be way more topless beaches!
Now, I like to bash creationists as much as the next man, but this argument really doesn’t hold water. That we are here does not prove evolution any more than it does creation. Evolution is one theory regarding how we came to be here, creation is another. To use what we’re trying to explain as proof that our explanation is correct just doesn’t work.
Not quite, creationists believe that they are part of the process, it’s God that’s outside of, and observing the process.
You’re right, it doesn’t prove evolution, what the argument does though is disprove the creationist “probability” tactic. In other words, Creationists like to say that the odds are slim (not impossible),and because they are slim evolution is impossible. The counter argument to that is, IMHO, yes the odds are small, but so what? we are here and all evidence points to evolution.
I never thought I’d argue for creationism… at least it feels like that’s what I’m doing.
Let’s say you find a shooting range target with a lot of bullet holes in it. Normally, you’d assume that it’s been hit by someone using the shooting range. However, there is a possibility that a Japanese World War Two fighter slipped through a wormhole, strafed the target and then returned to its own time. This is extremely unlikely, but that doesn’t mean that the presence of the bullet holes disproves that it was a time-travelling Zero that did it.
My point: the fact that we are here is what we’re trying to explain, not proof or disproof (if that’s a word) for any explanation.
I think we are arguing different things. My point is that just because we are here isn’t proof enough.
In conjunction with the other evolution proofs, the “we are here” answer is used to combat the probability argument.
In my experience it seems to be a last defense; “The evidence all points to evolution, but I don’t care because it’s improbable.” To which you say (after having explained all the evidence) “well we are here, so why don’t you try to poke holes in the theory, and not in the probability”.
I agree.
Also, in answer to the OP, I just read a
[QUOTE]
book by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. that asks makes this statement,
Sorry, I hit the ‘submit’ when I meant to hit ‘preview’ I could not find the code to format the math stuff correctlly. Doesn’t matter, I cannot understand those big numbers anyway, just trying to help the OP find his answer.
I’ll get some more coffee and pay more attention…
<HIJACK>
But if what would this lonley flesh eating bacteria eat?
</HIJACK>
:smack:
“There could never be enough “experiments” (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4 to the 1000th power possibilities - that is 10 to the 602nd power (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at “only” 10 to the 100th power). If every atom in the universe represented an “experiment” every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10 to the 100th power of the possibilities for the gene.”
What the hell is he trying to say? How did he come up with 10[sup]602[/sup]?
This could be it, but my friend certainly didn’t phrase it that way…I’m still trying to nail down the argument. In truth I thought I would get a simple, “oh, why that’s trick 4 in the creationist arsenol, right after the 2LOT…”.
Here is a list of common Creationist arguments. Maybe the exact one appears on this list. (Maybe “Life is too complex to have happened by chance.” ?)
And see if you can find the refution of the particular argument here.
Here is the argument and refutation from the first link from Aro. Thanks, Aro.
Rift between mathematicians & biologists
Here’s an interesting story… (I think)… In 1967, a few mathematicians and biologists were chatting over a picnic lunch organized by Victor Weisskopf, prof. of physics at MIT. A “weird” discussion took place as the conversation turned to the subject of evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. The wide rift between the participants led them to organize a conference on “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution”…(skip to the conference)… which opened with a paper by Murray Eden, Prof. of Electrical Engineering at MIT, entitled “The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory”. Eden showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur by chance only once in a billion years --while, if two dozen genes were involved, it would require 10,000,000,000 years, which is much longer than the age of the earth. (See Gordon R. Taylor’s “The Great Evolution Mystery”). "Since evolution does occur and has occurred, something more than chance mutation must be involved. Von Neumann & complexity
It’s hard to see how the described “wide rift” between biologists and mathematicians could exist, since most of the population geneticists I know are mathematicians–like my thesis advisor, a PhD in Statistics. Population genetics is an intrinsically mathematical subject, as my students found with great dismay about 2 weeks into the course I TA’ed on the subject…
I get a little angry when people seem to be implying that evolution is casually refutable and was refuted (by a professor of electrical engineering?) decades ago. Do they really think that two decades of bright, dedicated biologists would stick to a theory that this kind of argument could refute?
Adaptive change by mutation has been shown in the laboratory and is not in question. It is quite easy to demonstrate in bacteria, and advantageous forms which were generated by the co-occurrence of multiple mutations are quite possible. Three points are usually being missed by people who make Prof. Eden’s mistake:
Disadvantageous forms can persist in the population for a long time;
Multiple ways to the same end (multiple mutations giving the same result) are not only possible but common;
Intermediate steps often have an inobvious advantage in themselves, making them targets of natural selection.
Seriously, there is something badly wrong with the mathematician’s models if this story is true. In the first place, there isn’t really a necessity for each mutation to occur from a blank slate - virtually all species have a fair amount of diversity. In the second place, there is a considerable amount of recombination - even with base pairs on the same chromosome (crossover) (or maybe the mathematician has never heard of sex :-). Thirdly, the rate of mutations can be measured and is significantly higher than what appears to be implied by the fixing of 6 mutations in 1 billion years. Fourthly, if any intermediate forms have any slight advantage (due to partial implementation of the feature), then those forms will be selected – and selection is NOT a random process. Fifthly, many single point mutations have similar/identical effect (that is, it wouldn’t be necessary for 6 specific mutations to occur but one from each of 6 different sets, a much easier problem).
All I can figure is that the model assumes a population of a single homozygous individual whose progeny never exchange any genetic material and in which the mutated genes never recombine by crossover during mitosis. In other words, sort of like analyzing the aerodynamics of racehorses by assuming a spherical horse
Sounds like he’s talking about six simultaneous mutations, which may very well be statistically phenomenal. Not required they be simultaneous by evolution however, and once one mutation is replicating throughout a group of related organisms, the odds then go up that one of them might develop another significant mutation in addition to the one they are now carrying.
Hope this helps.
If God were clever enough to create the world as it appears, would he not be clever enough to hide any traces or clues?
Such as Moon dust depths, radioactive dating, magnetism levels, and other creationist arguements.
“I don’t know, all I know is Mr. Wentworth told me to come in here and say there was trouble at the mill, that’s all.”
Why can’t God use Evolution? That’s what I think. God invented Evolution, so the traces are still there. That’s the brilliance of God. He created all of this stuff that we are only beginning to understand. He made these rules so they would act on their own and he could just sit back and watch it happen. Also, leaving those traces behind encourages us to think and decide for ourselves if evolution is how we were created. We still can’t prove or disprove that evolution is how human beings were created. It’s still a theory. Just like the Creationist theory that the Earth is 10,000 years old. There is no proof besides the Bible, which we all (should) know is probably incomplete, and is difficult to translate and comprehend correctly.
We shouldn`t carry on like this in GQ.
But one thing to add, If God had the power to create the earth then he certainly has the power to provide for us a Bible that is accurate and to his liking.
This is a slight derailment, but:
Maybe God did provide a bible with a step by step process of how he created things at one time, but after centuries the message has been distorted. Much like a game of telephone.
Sorry, I know this is for Great Debates. But if I can just tack this on to the end of this discussion we can keep from having to start a new thread.
If God proved to us that he existed then that would totally invalidate our purpose. He wants us to make decisions for ourselves. He doesn’t want to make the decisions for us. He needs to know that we believe in him. If he proved to us that he exists, then well, who would commit murder? Who would rob, cheat and steal? Who would gamble and beat his wife, or her husband or children? We have to EARN the right to enter heaven. If he proved to us that he existed, then there would be no need for free-will. We would all do the same thing, sit there in Church and sing hymns.
So, I believe that the Bible, with all of its inaccuracies and inconsistencies, IS what God wants. God didn’t write the Bible. People did. It doesn’t have to be perfect. With its, inconsistencies, it gives the potential for both interpretations. You can read the Bible and say, “bull-cocky!” Or you can read the Bible and say, “Of course! It all makes sense now.” So it depends on your faith. In order to interpret the Bible the way God intended, you need to have faith. Without faith, all you will see is the contradictions and myth.
Now I don’t want you to think that faith is the same thing as gullibility. You don’t have to be blind to science to be faithful. The faithful man who earns his faith recognizes the inconsistencies of the Bible and works through them. He attempts to figure out what went wrong. Why the inconsistency. He proves to himself that the Bible is correct.
Sorry for the Sermon.