Joined: July 2007
|Quote (Robin @ Feb. 18 2011,13:48)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,11:59)|
|Quote (Robin @ Feb. 18 2011,11:51)|
| † |
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:22)|
| † |
|Quote (Robin @ Feb. 09 2011,08:51)|
| † † |
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:45)|
† † † †
IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.
Funny...seems to me that the quotes you provided from the University of Utah, Berkeley, and Nature indicate that your claim:
† † † †
| According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.|
is wrong. Do they indicate that "errors and "mistakes" lead to all genetic change? Why no...no they don't! Do they use the terms to describe the ToE? Why no...no they don't!
You might want to actually sit down and read through those sites and learn a little bit there Joey.
Edited: grammatical structure.
OK Robin, if they aren't accidents, errors nor mistakes, what are they? If they are planned then that is ID. If they are anything but errors, mistakes or accidents, that is ID.
Awwww...Joey...are you sore now?
First off, the use of terms like "mistake", "accidents", and "errors" when you chuckleheads is misleading when you post them selectively. Few scientists actually use those terms. Why? Because those (like you Joey-ID-Guy) who don't understand science think they imply that those changes weren't supposed to happen. But of course that's wrong thinking - there is no supposed to happen in biology. There are probabilistic outcomes. DNA replication produces exact copies most of the time, but not always. And when it doesn't, that's called a normal change. That terms like "error" are sometimes used to give people a simplified analogy to computer data copying systems is apparently lost on you. This would be why I asked you to define what you meant by errors, mistakes, and accidents earlier, but you of course declined.
But this is small potatoes. My actual point above that you seem to have not understood or simply failed to address is that those links from Berkley and Utah both point to other causes leading to genetic change. So your claim was factually wrong as well as contextually wrong.
|Please provide a reference that supports your claim that all genetic changes are something other than "accidents, mistakes or errors".|
Why? You already did. Nice own goal there!
Look asshole according to Dawkins, Mayr, Moran et al., muttions are completely in the realm of CHANCE.
|one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation.- Dawkins|
Having reading comprehension problems again there Joey-Joe? Did you miss where I noted just that? What part of "probabilistic outcomes" did you not understand?
So, your whimper above doesn't mean anything as I actually noted that myself. And since that doesn't have address what I did note, you should really try again, dimbulb. Next!
|Read "What Evolution Is" and you will see that Mayr echos that.|
Been there, done that, but unlike you apparently I actually understood it.
|Also I produced references that said mutations are mistakes and errors. What the fuck?|
And since I've addressed why those terms were used AND noted that wasn't what you were factually wrong about, you've missed the point yet again, little wien.
|What other causes do those sites point to? |
LOL! You provided the links, but don't understand them? Why am I not surprised...
|damage caused by mutagens? That would be an accident.|
Nope. They identify specific examples that are not accidents or errors or anything like that, but apparently you can't comprehend the piece. Figures.
|IOW Robin you don't know what you are talking about.|
No Joey-joe-hoe...I'm afraid the evidence demonstrating who doesn't know what he is talking (well, writing) about is most definitive and points only at you. LOL!
Hey Robin, go fuck yourself. There isn't anything in any of the links I provided that identify specific examples that are not accidents or errors or anything like that.
All mutations are chance events. They are not planned. They are not directed.
Again if mutations are not accidents/ errors/ mistakes then that is Intelligent Design. Which means you are saying the links I provided also provided positive evidence for ID.
So please produce that part where they discuss those mutations. That way I can use it when assholes like yo say that ID doesn't have anything to support it.
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t
Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)