Re: Out-dated theory

Ken Down wrote:

In message <87pslcxqgz.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What a bizarre question. Why genetic engineering? Because it
can do what it does faster and more reliably than selective
breeding.

I know that you Evolutionists just love to dream up unlikely chains of
events to explain things like the bombarier beetle and how dinosaurs started
to fly, but this one seems to hold out endless opportunities for amusement.
Would you care to suggest an even half-way plausible method by which natural
selection could get a goldfish gene into a carrot?

Followed by Gareth avoiding the question.

If you would care to give me any reason why I *should* be
able to suggest a half-way plausible method by which natural
selection could get a goldfish gene into a carrot, I'll gladly
try to address it.

Kindly make up your mind: is it, or is it not, your opinion
that genetic engineering would be unnecessary "if evolution
really could produce genuine novelty"? Yesterday you said
it would. Today, you say that of course genetic engineering
is necessary because evolution can't do *the exact same things*
as it does.

I fail to see any contradiction between my statements on the two days. The
fact that there is genetic engineering is evidence that the scientists don't
think that simple cross-breeding and random mutations (which are how
evolution works) are capable of producing genuine novelty.

No it isn't. They are evidence that some kinds of genuine
novelty are more easily achieved by genetic engineering
than by selective breeding.

(I am not claiming that everything genetic engineering can do
is something ordinary evolution could plausibly bring about.)

That could only "confirm the creationist position" if it were
contrary to what evolution predicts. As you know (even though
you apparently like to suggest otherwise), that isn't so.

Evolution predicts that no matter how much mosquitoes "evolve" they will
never be anything other than mosquitoes? You do surprise me.

Yet again I say something and you instantaneously transform it
into something entirely different.

No, I point out to you the (unintended, I think) consequences of your
statements.

You must be using some notion of "consequences" very different
from those I'm familiar with.

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Breeding Errors smack down Natural Selection in Evolutionary
    ... as animal breeding, husbandry, and health in livestock. ... deliberate selection of certain ones can backfire. ... Not all that relevant to evolution, ... know that humans are related by common descent to all other life. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Out-dated theory
    ... If Evolution really could produce genuine novelty, ... | events to explain things like the bombarier beetle and how dinosaurs started ... | selection could get a goldfish gene into a carrot? ... you say that of course genetic engineering ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Using evolutions effects
    ... "Breeding" cows has nothing to do with evolution. ... Wrong.....it's artificial selection as opposed to natural selection. ... The breeders design nothing....all they do is select the best milk ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Evolutionary Theory
    ... controlled random mutations and contingent selection ... Evolution and Natural Selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)