Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Joe G @ Aug. 12 2012,11:17)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 12 2012,10:23)|
|So Joe, you haven't answered my questions on your blog, so I'll repost them here. That way you can run from them in two places.|
1) Since certain areas of DNA have a higher than average mutation rate and certain areas of DNA have a lower than average mutation rate, are the mutations over all of the DNA still random? Explain your answer (you, not a link).
2) Assume two mutations occur. In one organism, the mutation results in a 10% greater efficiency in oxygen transport in the blood. In another organism, a mutation results in a 10% greater vulnerability to a particular common virus. Is the differential survival of one organism over the other random? Explain your answer (you, not a link).
Fuck you Kevin. YOU need to answer my questions
What questions? You consistently ask questions that make no sense and have no bearing in reality. I correct you and then you cry because I don't answer your questions.
Your questions are either unanswerable or meaningless because they don't actually mesh with what the actual science is. For example, the question "Why don't you support your blind watchmaker hypothesis?"
The reason I don't answer that question (as has been pointed out to you many, many times) is because I don't have that
'hypothesis'. Therefore, I don't have to support it.
The fact that you THINK (hah!) that's what my hypothesis is, is of no actual concern to me.
But, I note that you can't actually shut up and you contradict yourself... again. So, let's explore that OK?
|So if one section of DNA has a higher likelihood of mutation than another section... is it still random?|
Most likely that is by design.
And you evidence of this is?
However, in the context of the OP and the theory of evolution, ALL genetic changes are random/ happenstance.
Wrong... sort of. It depends on how you define your terms, which, you never do.
Certain areas of the bacterial genome can be influenced by outside factors to radically increase the mutation rate. That is not random, that is a fact of biology. Further, it only applies to certain areas of the genome, so that's not really random either.
The actual mutation that results. Yes, that's random. However, as we shall see, the survival of the bacteria is not random.
Tha is if we listen to evolutionary biologists such as Jerry Coyne, Dawkins and Ernst Mayr.
Quote them, with page numbers, links, and full paragraphs.
|if one organism survives because it was born with a gene that increased its muscle efficiency by 0.1%|
What is the mutation or mutations?
Doesn't matter. Why do you think it does? Because you read the rest of my question and realized that you better start backtracking and distracting as fast as possible?
Or is this just hypothetical?
Doesn't matter. It's possible, that's all that matter. And yes, it does happen. I suggest you start exploring the various differences between the varieties of hemoglobin.
And what does it have to do with the OP? Be specific
Because, you made a very specific claim and your answers to these questions show that you're an idiot. That's why.
You made the claim that everything with respect to evolution is random. It isn't, but you can't admit that without realizing that your entire argument is built on a bed of very, very loose sand.
|another organism died because it was born with a mutation that left it susceptible to a particular virus|
What is the mutation or mutations? And if the virus is never present in that organism's eco-system the organism has no worries.
So, you're saying that the presence of the virus it's vulnerable to is what determines it's survival... I thought you said it was all random?
Survival depends on many variables, Kevin.
No, according to you, survival is completely random. According to you, evolution is completely random. I know that you think this because every freaking time over the last 3 years anyone has brought up the concept of differential survival as being non-random, you freak out and cry that it is.
The simple fact that survival is non-random (i.e. based on deterministic factors) destroys your entire view of evolution.
Mutations are random, the locations of mutations may or may not be, selection (by definition) is not random. Which you have just admitted to.
However you don't understand genetics not evidence so it is all moot.
I can't even parse this sentence. I assume it's some kind of mental cutdown. Coming from someone who thinks "mol" = "molecule" and 'mya' = "millennia years ago", I think everyone will agree that it isn't that much of a cutdown.
That way YOU can run from that in two places.
You think I run? Seriously? I've been begging you to have an adult conversation on the subject for 3 years, but you can't. As we observed during our debate. I think we both mostly handled that like adults. The fact that you got your ass handed to you, just made you cry and rant and rave like a 5-year-old who doesn't get his cake.
Why is it that you are too much of a coward to stick with the actual TOPIC?
This IS the topic, stupid. I'm showing you that you are wrong. Heck, you yourself made an own goal.
As soon as you admit that not everything in evolution is completely random, then you have destroyed your own entire structure. Yep, you just added a hurricane's worth of water to the sand your entire argument is built on.
I think you actually understand that.. However, your massive ego and megalomanical complex prevents you from admitting to a mistake or even admitting that you don't know everything already.
Joe, there's a reason that several hundred million scientists disagree with you. And it's not a global conspiracy to keep your massive intellect down.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.