Re: Superb web site

From: Ralph Krumdieck (ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU)
Date: Fri Sep 15 2000 - 16:28:57 EDT

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "Superb web site"

    > >>Susan (from superb website)
    > >> >"However, mutations appear to be spontaneous in most instances. That
    > does
    > >> >not mean that they
    > >> > occur without cause but, rather, that the specific cause is almost
    > always
    > >> >unknown." It seemed like the *true* agnostic position.
    > >
    > >Bertvan:
    > >>So we can on occasions agree, Susan. Cause unknown! (Might or might
    > not be
    > >>design.) Could even be God. The only evolution I ever questioned was "a
    > >>gradual accumulation of micro evolution, small random mutations, without
    > >>design or purpose, creating complexity by natural selection". If the cause
    > >>is unknown, no one knows whether or not variations are random. No one
    >knows
    > >>whether the "watchmaker" was blind or whether he knew exactly what he was
    > >>doing. If the variations are not random, they have no need for natural
    > >>selection. They work the first time they appear.
    >
    > >Ralph:
    > >They work the first time they appear? Yet one of the prime arguments that
    > >creationists and other free spirits have used is that "most mutations are
    > >harmful". Why would that be if the mutations are not random? "Bad"
    > >mutations are random and "good" mutations are designed? I just love
    > >having my cake and eating it, too. :)
    >
    >Bertvan:
    >Those mutations that someone claims to add complexity are apparently so rare,
    >and even those are being argued, that I don't see how anyone could declare
    >whether or not they are "random". Biologists are not required work under a
    >design inference. However those scientists who choose to work under a design
    >inference would regard harmful mutations as not adhering to the design.
    >Mistakes. They wouldn't regard a beneficial mutation, if we ever identify
    >one, a mistake, but part of the design.

    Harmful mutations are "mistakes", beneficial mutations are
    "part of the design". Good cake. :) Why, though, are you so skeptical
    about the occurrence of beneficial mutations? Aren't they necessary to carry
    out the design? Or is it optional that the design be realized?
    ralph



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 16:28:50 EDT