Re: Haldane's Dilemma -- talk.origins rehash
john (khchen@mail.utexas.edu)
Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:14:51 -0600>Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:12:06 -0600
>To: "Pim van Meurs" <entheta@eskimo.com>, john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu,
>evolution@calvin.edu
>From: khchen@mail.utexas.edu (john)
>Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma -- talk.origins rehash
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>pim---
> You still dont get my point. The logic can go both ways...its
>random. Can a very ordered set of information can become more ordered
>every generation(what would of had to happened for us to get here) through
>random mutations? I get your reasoning that bad mutations would not
>propogate, but the chances become even more 'out of this world' each
>generation that some random mutation will actually improve upon what was
>previously improved upon.
> This type of lottery type improvement would had to have happened
>for millions of generations.
> john queen
>
>
>At 9:37 AM 6/17/97, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>JQ: What amazes me is the lack of discussion of the effects of random
>>mutations on the genome. Natural selection is named as proof but even this
>>makes no sense. Even if there were were some favorable mutations by random
>>
>>Natural selection is not named as proof but as a hypothesis or theory
>>explaining the mechanism(s) of evolution.
>>
>>
>>JQ: chance, what about the non-favorable mutations? If we say these did
>>not
>>happen or somehow dont count then we are fooling ourselves.
>>
>>
>>Nobody claims they do not happen. On the contrary. But the idea is that
>>non-favorable mutations will reduce the likelihood of the organism to
>>survive and thus will not propagate.
>>
>>
>>JQ: New generations(using the evolutionist models) would only provide more
>>opportunities for random mutations.
>>
>>
>>Cool. More opportunities for mutation, more opportunities for evolution.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Pim
>