| Subject: |
|
Mutations CAN be beneficial. High school students know this. |
| Name: |
|
akg41470 |
| Date Posted: |
|
Jan 22, 08 - 11:33 PM |
| IP Address: |
|
75.72.23.70 |
| Email: |
|
eolcott@triplo.com |
| Message: |
|
Wow, John. Almost 250 words spent on the definition of the word "primarily". What a fantastic waste of space.
---
There's so many "code words" in here:
>new, "higher levels" of DNA "code"
>SOPHISTICATED CODE
>"purposeful" alignment
All of these are simply projecting an expectation of "intelligence" upon a system that works without any. Take those words out of your argument and you're left with something that's actually readable.
>Further, you refuse to even attempt to answer how the small (380-450cc)
>primitive brain of Australopithecus, with no guiding external agent, can
>morph into a sophisticated human brain weighing 1400cc, with no creative
>addition of DNA code.
John, the "guiding external agent" is easy: the environment.
I'm not sure why you're being as thick-headed as you are about this - high school students can understand this stuff. Mutations in DNA (and we are ALL WELL AWARE of the causes now) cause changes in an organism. Whether they are harmful, neutral, or beneficial depends on the environment, whereby the process of natural selection will allow the beneficial mutations to breed through and create organisms that carry the same mutation.
Given hundreds of thousands of these generations, it would certainly make sense that the mammals that mutated with a larger brain size (and thus perhaps a better capacity to survive) would be able to breed through.
Why is this so difficult for you? This has been explained to you before.
>Neither nature nor species provides it, so how does it come about?
>The obvious answer is that it does not. And it does not, because Darwin
>was wrong, and his devotees are wrong. It is really just that simple.
Sounds like your conclusion is backwards, John. In order to conclude that DNA "can't mutate in a positive fashion", you need to assume that Darwin and his "devotees" are wrong... and it's anything but "obvious". (why, pray tell, IS it "obvious"?)
I'm sorry, but that's simply not a scientific conclusion.
What, exactly, IS preventing from DNA mutating with beneficial results? Why not? Just saying "it doesn't work like that" doesn't cut it. I believe both Brian and I would like some references to some peer-reviewed and published documents that categorically state that DNA mutations cannot be beneficial to an organism is any way.
This is exactly what you are arguing, and it stands directly in the face of modern science as it is understood today. |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com