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.)
works of literature, no matter how great, are not biological organisms as you well know. That sorta makes a difference
Then the evolutionists should be able to explain the difference. The advance of genetics was precisely to explain that reproduction is a copying of certain chromosomal text where gene are like letters. This discovery, along with the discovery that acquired traits do not get inherited, is what made evolution plainly unscientific.
you've now moved the goalposts even a little farther (to the good). You've singled out "advanced animals
I always restricted my skepticism to advanced animals; I am well aware of mutating microorganisms and genetically engineered crops. I also made that clarification to another poster on this thread.
could you please tell us where, exactly, in the taxonomy that speciation fails according to an engineer's statistical understanding [...] you must explain the hows and whys.
I don't know. I did not claim to have an origin of species theory. I criticize the prevailing theory as pseudo-scientific junk. That is all I am doing.
However, the method of producing offspring would seem to matter in the statistical equation, would it not? When the genome is complex, offspring is few and requires attention from the parents for a long time, the chances that the miraculous monkey with "Othello" rather than "Hamlet" written in its DNA lives, and finds another "Othello" monkey to mate with, go down.
posted on 05/27/2012 7:55:39 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson