OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Aug. 13 2012,16:05) | Kevin, you ignorant slut. My post pertained to the "random" in random mutaions ONLY.
[/quote]
Then perhaps you should state that explicitly.
| Quote |
However it can easily be said that natural selection, a result of three random inputs, is also random.
|
What are the 3 random inputs for natural selection? I can't wait to hear this one.
| Quote |
Ya see if that virus isn't present then the organism is OK with that mutation. And if that small increase in muscle efficiency comes at a cost of lost sight, then it ain't so beneficial.
|
Wow, so now you need to make up stuff to make your case. Please explain where 'lost sight' comes from and explain, in detail, the genetic linkage between increase in oxygen transport efficiency and development of sight.
Of course, you can't do that because you're just making shit up... as usual.
But let's get to the crux of the matter here. In your first statement you admit that some mutation are harmful and some mutation are neutral. In your second sentence you state that some mutations can (indeed) be beneficial.
Which pretty much goes against the entire group of intelligent design notionists. Ya see, if mutation can generate beneficial effects, then there's no need for a designer. Oh and you might talk to that clown on UD who's always spouting off about genetic entropy, because you jsut refuted everything he's said on the subject.
Thanks BTW.
And at last, we keep demanding why we stay on the subject of the OP, because whenever you talk about one thing, you invariably destroy the arguments used before on other subjects.
Ya see, unlike ID, science is this vast interconnected framework. Everything from fossils, to genetics, to distribution of animals and geology supports the principles of evolution. On the other hand, one post might support some small part of ID, but it refutes 4 or 5 other arguments.
| Quote |
What is beneficial one day isn't beneficial the next- ecosystems change.
|
Which, is what evolution has been saying all along. You really need to explain this to the other IDists. They have it all bass ackwards.
| Quote |
AND as I have supported with actual references, according to the theory of evolution ALL genetic changes are random/ happenstance. YOU don't get to tell me I am wrong and then not support it. I have supported MY claims you fucking moron.
|
You have quotemined people. That's not support.
My claims are so fundamentally basic that they aren't even discussed anymore. You're about 50 years behind the times here dear boy.
| Quote |
All that said your spewage about your position being "evolution", that your position is NOT the blind watchmaker and ID is anti-evolution, is exposed as ignorance for the mere fact that the ONLY way ID could be considered anti-evolution is if "evolution" is defined as the blind watchmaker thesis!
|
True, but then, that's what all the ID people (including you) define ID as. So, that works out now doesn't it.
The only time you don't define evolution as the blind watchmaker hypothesis is when you start trying to talk about science.
[quote]
IOW Kevin- you are one confused and ignorant fuck. |
No Joe. I'm not. You haven't done anything, ever, that might even suggest that.
Do we need to go over our debate again? Have you forgotten the sound drubbing you got... so sound you didn't even bother with a conclusion?
But let's get back to this idea of randomness.
What are the three 'inputs' to natural selection?
How are they random?
I am willing to grant that some aspects of selection appear to be random, but then, I'm pretty sure you don't really know what random means.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
