Russell
Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005
|
| Quote | | ToE advocates NEED beneficial mutations for their theory to work, but the ironic thing is that the term "beneficial" or "harmful" or neutral implies value judgments that are being made about organisms. |
Well, now, that's just silly. Get over the shorthand that biologists use, Dave. When we say a "beneficial" virus mutation, obviously we're not talking about "the greater good" or whether or not God is pleased by this development. We're talking about whether this mutation is helpful or hurtful for that organism's survival and reproduction. How many times do you suppose this point has been made in this thread? ? ?
| Quote | | I believe that humans are "at the pinnacle of God's creation" which has all kinds of implications: humans have civil rights, receive sophisticated medical care, are punished for committing murder, and so on.[/ I observe that there is such a thing as a "harmful mutation." This necessarily implies design. Why? Because how else would you be able to tell if it is harmful or not? |
Now, does this make any sense, in light of what I just explained to you, for the Nth time? ? ?
But if you're going to use your anthropocentric, nonscientific criteria, can't you at least be consistent? Look: If you can only judge harmful or helpful by the intent of the putative designer, which would you choose for a benchmark for a better Apo-A: (1) one that does a better job at keeping the circulatory system healthy, or (2) one that has a particularly high ration of isoform 1 to isoform 2?
| Quote | | 1) Isn't the monomeric form an unnatural, genetically engineered form? Isn't the natural form a dimer? |
No
| Quote | | 2) Is the natural form a better antioxidant? |
Huh? I thought that part was clear: Apo-AIM is better at antioxidant activity than the non-mutant.
| Quote | | 3) Is Better Antioxidant Properties = Increased Specificity? (AIG claims it is not ... how do you refute their claim?) |
First, who cares? (see above). Does it do a better job from your precious teleological perspective, or not? Second, if you really want to go down this road, we're going to need numbers. How do you quantify "specificity"?
| Quote | | It seems entirely possible to me that "Increased Antioxidant Behavior" = "Beneficial" only because we are considering it within the context of the extreme circustances in which western culture finds itself in -- lousy eating and exercise habits and commensurate high incidence of heart attacks. |
That's just ridiculous. Look. I, personally, get a fair amount of exercise, I'm really careful about what I eat (and drink), I'm not overweight, I don't smoke, and I have high cholesterol. If I happened to have the gene for apo-AIM, I probably wouldn't.
Oh, and can we all just drop the "information theory" stuff? It's clear we're talking past each other, and it's also clear that the terminology is confusing even for people relatively well informed on the topic, as Schneider points out. Let alone people who haven't a clue.
--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.
|
