Speciation is the root of its problem. In order for the evolution between species to work for advanced animals (those that have few and vulnerable offspring) there must be a sufficient probability of beneficial mutations occurring in a population, while birth defects — what mutations statistically are — remaining at relatively low probability. I have not seen a proof from observation that it is the case. Statistics militate against it: if you have a random copy error and you start with “Hamlet”, you will not statistically speaking end up with “Othello” no matter how long you wait.
That’s all there is to it; there is nothing to psychoanalize evo-skeptics for. Anyone with an engineer’s mind and training, who has the courage to tell the king that he has no clothes, will see through it, and many do.
posted on 05/26/2012 11:58:08 AM PDT
Statistics militate against it: if you have a random copy error and you start with Hamlet, you will not statistically speaking end up with Othello no matter how long you wait.
Quite true. Of course, works of literature, no matter how great, are not biological organisms as you well know. That sorta makes a difference. You analogy isn't as bad as the old "747 in a junkyard" canard, but it's not as good as DNA and RNA either.
If I'm understanding correctly, you've now moved the goalposts even a little farther (to the good). You've singled out "advanced animals (those that have few and vulnerable offspring)..." I don't know why you think they are different than any other living thing, but so be it.
Again, this only leads to a different form of the same exact question I asked earlier. Since you are making the rules here, could you please tell us where, exactly, in the taxonomy that speciation fails according to an engineer's statistical understanding. And, since you (apparently) accept speciation in those organisms with very short generations, your new theory of limited evolution" needs to explain the mechanism as to why we see speciation in so-called "non-advanced animals" but not in your "advanced" animals.
What you are proposing goes against all of biology and you cannot simply SAY it, you must explain the hows and whys.
It's important. I'll warn you though... whichever magic dividing line you choose, I'm 100% confident we can show you the evolutionary speciation that occurred in the next "Most advanced" (your term) species. What then?
posted on 05/26/2012 2:42:43 PM PDT
(Let's keep Conservatism real.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson