Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis

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".

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?

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.

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.

--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

.

Relevant Pages