That suggests that ‘deviations’ means the morphological changes that result from mutations during replication. The time scale over which ‘deviations’ are generated remains unspecified (single generation, multi-generation or long term), which is a problem. The link to mutations suggests single generation, but the first example given was placental mammals, which was very long term.
As for this:
Yes. It would no longer be the case that mutations are random with respect to fitness, and there would be no weeding out of detrimental mutations by natural selection, since there would be no detrimental mutations (unless the entity doing the guiding was incompetent, uncaring or sadistic). It might also lead to different results from statistical analysis of mutation types, especially when comparing neutral vs non-neutral mutations.
Since both detrimental mutations and randomness of mutations w.r.t. fitness are observed, we can conclude that either no such guidance occurs, or it occurs very infrequently - so infrequently that not only can we not detect it, but it would be swamped by all the non-guided mutations and overwhelmed by the random component of natural selection.
There’s no basis for claiming that, for example, some of the ‘deviations’ caused by point mutations in a population are guided and some aren’t, when some species have sufficiently large populations that every possible point mutation occurs multiple times every generation. If there was enough bias towards some mutations and away from others to have any effect, we’d probably have noticed by now.
Smart. If The Guide were performing statistically undetectable genetic engineering, it would be, is being, overwhelmed by the natural mutational noise.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
154
The null hypothesis and pragmatism are important scientific concepts. When testing for guidance the null hypothesis is randomness. If the observations are consistent with randomness then the null hypothesis is accepted. Without this type of falsification we can’t do science. There is also the pragmatism of sufficient explanations. If randomness is a sufficient explanation and no other mechanism is evidenced then the pragmatic conclusion is randomness.
You have no idea what you are talking about, because you have no idea what sort of guidance is proposed. Put it this way, we are not talking all or nothing (we never are!)
TE does not mean every change is made by God.
TE does not mean there is no element of chance factored in.
TE does not mean there are neve any false or detrimental mutations.
TE is exactly what you see but with a different overall explanation
What you argue against is the proverbial strawman version of TE.
That’s because despite multiple requests in this thread for you to provide details of what this guidance was and when, where and how it occurred occurred, you have not done so.
Until you do, your claims are too vague to be worth anything.
For it to be a strawman version there has to be a non-strawman version to compare to. What is it?
P.S. The most well-known version of TE includes that “No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way”. That doesn’t match your version.
I do not have to define anything. A general description suffices.
How can I define, in terms that you can see, something that you cannot see?
I don’t know! (How TE works precisely) I doubt if anyone does, All I know is it isn’t ToE.
however I wish to congratulate you on an early post
I wish you could explain that to @St.Roymond (et al)
Richard
As I have said many times. I have been arguing TE for much longer than anyone here, No one has the authority to tell me that I am wrong or that their description is better or definitive. Especially as there is no body or authority to ratify it.
I suspect that this is a concept that is not being grasped. The idea of mutations strikes me as more in line with X-Men than with actualy biology, as though sudden large physical changes are what comprise mutations.
Then maybe you should lay that out, something you have not done since I’ve been here at the least.
But there’s another problem with your idea: it leaves the door open to detrimental mutations, which leaves God as being just as cruel as what you reject evolution for. In fact if God is adding beneficial changes but leaving bad ones, he’s even worse because that makes Him inconsistent!
