And it seems that there are two disparate views here.
If the only way for Evolution to work is for you to change the rules then someone is grasping at straws.
Evolutionary change has always been a single deviation. Introducing herd dynamics only emphasises the “problem” of giving birth to a creature who is incompatible with it’s parent. In fact it works against what you are trying to prove, not promotes it.
It all boils down to “crossing” the species divide. And nobody here has offered the least proof that it is physiologically possible. All I hear is Mathematics and rhetoric.
wow. That is just fantastic! (and completely contrary to any other system, including letters ad language, that exists.) I might even call it naive but that might be contrary to forum rules.
But it is clearly a false claim because genetic failures exist. (macro world!)
I have shown you several but you will not see them. You cannot see them, If you did it would contradict your certainty.
Flippant and not appropriate.
Nope. And I do not have to. It involves itemising a process that you cannot do. It involves understanding DNA in a way that is not currently possible.
All I am doing is casting doubt on your assertion that it must be true. It is up to you to prove that there is none.
And I would suggest that you look up the definition of Application.
As for what is and what is empirical? Your field of study is only in the microcellular part of Biology. There is no empirical evidence in the macro world. (and you do not seem to understand the significance of this)
I think it is a valuable service to demonstrate just how insufficient rationality alone really is. Fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes or Mr Spock make it seem that mere rationality is quite a force to be reconned with. But those characters do not show the struggle and skill it takes to reconcile the momentum of implication with what is reasonable, as well as how easily it can be hijacked to deliberately mislead
Which is why letters and language are really bad analogies for genetics and evolution. And why arguing by analogy is pointless.
I think your bigger problem is not violating forum rules, but that the statement was factually (and trivially) true.
‘There are lots of ways to bake a cake.’
‘That’s clearly a false claim, because if I substitute motor oil for vegetable oil, the cake is a failure.’
In other words, huh?
6 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
175
So let me get this straight. Because there are mutations that are deleterious this means that there can’t be any mutations which are neutral or beneficial? Is that your stance?
You have shown me claims. I am asking for evidence which you have yet to show us.
Then your claims are without evidence.
I have never made that claim.
Have you ever heard of Gregor Mendel? He empirically measured allele frequencies in populations, and his work led to a much greater understanding of genetics, even before DNA was understood. I can name thousands and thousands of examples where empirical observations are used to test hypotheses about the biological natural world.
What blows me away is that you claim to have some sort of education in the biological sciences. Surely you learned about empiricism and statistics during your time at university?
Forget analogies, They clearly are not your forte.
Whether you like it or not genetic failures happen, which means that not every combination is viable, which means that there are not how ever many quadrillions of viable variations.
There is no argument here.
Traditional reasoning suggests that there is not only a finite number of viable variatons it is relatively small, which corresponds to virtually every other sytem in creation. How many exceptions does it take to make this theory work?
Richard
PS does the theory of possible/impossible include life on Mercury, Saturn, or Pluto?
(I was going to try Uranus but that brought up a wicked thought)
Everybody else is understanding and applying the analogies just fine, Richard.
If all you’re going to continue offering up is this - then we may look at wrapping this thread up as well. There are many here who’ve been exceedingly patient, and we don’t need to burn them out continually responding to someone who’s already decided he what he thinks regardless of any presentation of evidence.
There have been professional scientists with a broad range of expertise as well as other practiced logicians participating, but @RichardG is not hearing any of it (including the neutral theory), so you definitely have my vote in favor of shutting this down!
To which I would add “at least the God that Christians believe in.”
Now the problem, as I see it, is that EC does not put enough distance between the version of evolution that it accepts as true and Dawkins’ point of view. As far as I can see Dawkins does not have a viable understanding of natural selection. A real understanding of natural selection based on the science of ecology can be the basis for a true understanding of evolution and Evolutionary Creation.
Anthropic Principle says that those aspects of nature are structured in such a way as to make possible, and even probable, humanity as we know it. Therefore, it seems to me that these aspects of nature affirm the existence of God Who created humanity in God’s own Image.
Dawkins’ understanding of evolution does not indicate that it takes place under any real constraints.
…as science, says nothing about God. Science.is.neutral.about.God. There are purveyors of ‘atheistic science’ such as Dawkins, but that does not change the science.