RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2007,13:24   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 20 2007,11:43)
Where specifically did I make this "false assumption"?    

When you assumed that only one gene and one mutation was involved.
Quote
Quote
 In this case, we started without one of the two, and got a completely different new one from a different origin to replace its function. This falsifies your hypothesis.
How does this falsify my hypothesis?  

Because your hypothesis predicts that the same mutation will occur in the same gene. It's not limited to frameshifts or a single species. Your hypothesis is about living things in general.
Quote
How do you know the mutation was random?

Because it was different than the initial one, and in an entirely different gene. Your hypothesis predicts that the same mutations will occur every time. You can't honestly weasel out of it by claiming that it only applies to one species and one gene.

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]