Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis

Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:


So now you've redefined random mutation to include normal variation. No
wonder the "T"oE can't be falsified.



No he hasn't.

Normal variation is the range of different alleles present in the gene
pool of a population.

The source of this normal variation is mutation, which we know (because
we have done rather a lot of scientific research on the subject) is
random in respect of fitness.

If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool,
and we would all be clones.

Get it now?


No. I don't "get it". What evidence points to the variation in the gene pool of 'humans' as being the result of random mutations as opposed to the result of normal sexual reproduction? Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? When the very first human 'couple' mated, they produced an offspring that differed from both of them. This was due to *normal* sexual reproductive process - not a "random mutation".

Random mutation is a part of "normal sexual reproductive process." Specifically, it is the part that makes two children from the same parents different. Kain was not Abel. Why? Mutation. If there was no mutation involved, all children of Adam and Eve would have been exactly alike in physical properties. That's what's to "get" in explanation.


I guess if you see the world through evolutionary colored glasses, some things seem self evident - but for those of us who are not so indoctrinated, this needs explaining. To my mind, a random mutation is an error - a mistake. It's the cause of disease and genetic *defects*. I've always understood it to be an *unintended* consequence. If you're going to classify the normal variation produced during sexual reproduction as "random mutation", then why is it commonly stated that most mutations are harmful?

That is only commonly stated by people who are attempting to refute the theory of evolution. Mutations average to a fitness-neutral survival advantage.


By your ever-shifting definitions, most mutations are beneficial or neutral - since the normal variation produced by sexual reproduction *usually* produces an offspring of equal or greater 'survivability' than it's parents.

That's not an ever-shifting definition. That's how it has been defined for years.


It's very confusing trying to follow your logic!

I stand by my statement that because of such shifting-sand definitions as these, the "T"oE cannot *ever* be falsified.

There are no shifting-sand definitions involved. Your inability to understand them do not prove the ToE unfalsifiable.

- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... to the result of normal sexual reproduction? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... random mutation to thank for it. ... Mutation is the root cause of all variation. ... When the very first human couple mated, their offspring differed from each of them - due to the way sexual reproduction works - not due to a random mutation. ...
    (talk.origins)