RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1234
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,10:06   

[quote=Southstar,Dec. 08 2011,08:12]
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 07 2011,21:03)
 

The main tactic is as follows:
They do not argue that these mutations don't exist and they do not argue that microchanges are natural but just that  99% of these are loss of function and the 1% is mostly deleterious, the remaining slice is positive, but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution. Therefore evolution is false. They do not (at this moment) indicate that there is a designer anywhere along the line but simply that the theory is a hoax.

marty


Since most mutations are neutral, it is hard to cram that probability in between the alleged 99% loss of function and 1% mostly deleterious.  They don't know enough about how genotype affects phenotype to have a sensible conversation.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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