The design argument

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
This is an interesting statement, because what you are saying is two things:

1. When DNA is copied, there is a 50% chance of mutation for every base pair.
2. DNA keeps track of its old state, containing a "memory" of its past state it can revert to.

Of course, we know empirically that both statements are false. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ...[text shortened]... bit about evolution. I'm sure other writers have explained the concept more clearly than I can.

I guess it is easy to win an arguments when you change the points so you
can refute them. I think we are done no point going forward if this is all
you got.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've not asked you squat that I can remember, you have been popping in
this asking about things that have not had anything to do with the
discussion, basically meaningless tripe. If you want to engage at least
stay on topic.

So you accuse me of avoiding questions and now admit you can't remember any questions I avoided? Yet you accuse me of going off topic. Charming.

I'll admit I brought up the topic of dinosaurs earlier in the thread which you said was off topic and told me to open another thread which I did. Other than that I've been talking about the Lenski experiment and beneficial mutations ever since, as far as I can remember.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Explain it, he changed something then?

Where's your manners gone?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess it is easy to win an arguments when you change the points so you
can refute them. I think we are done no point going forward if this is all
you got.

I'm not sure I understand what point you think I changed. Did I misrepresent you in some way? Perhaps you have not articulated your point clearly. Do you understand that the theory of evolution does not claim that DNA base pairs have a 50/50 chance of mutating? And that, therefore, a beneficial mutation is not "just as likely" to mutate again rather than remain?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not sure I understand what point you think I changed. Did I misrepresent you in some way? Perhaps you have not articulated your point clearly. Do you understand that the theory of evolution does [b]not claim that DNA base pairs have a 50/50 chance of mutating? And that, therefore, a beneficial mutation is not "just as likely" to mutate again rather than remain?[/b]

They either do or don't mutate, as I pointed out to you no one gets to pick
and choose they just do it when they do. They could mutate and stay or
not, there are several possible outcomes. The one that is least likely is
the one you require, it mutates, it is a good one, and it will build with other
good ones too, that will give us things like eyes, ears, and so on and all the
body parts that make them useful.

I actually don't think this is a worth while discussion any longer, we can
just part ways agreeing to disagree.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So you accuse me of avoiding questions and now admit you can't remember any questions I avoided? Yet you accuse me of going off topic. Charming.

I'll admit I brought up the topic of dinosaurs earlier in the thread which you said was off topic and told me to open another thread which I did. Other than that I've been talking about the Lenski experiment and beneficial mutations ever since, as far as I can remember.

No I accused you of jumping into a discussion and attempt to change it into
something no one was talking about that had nothing to do with what we
were discussing.

I read up on Lenski, trying to get some answers from you. NOT accusing
you of anything I've only just started, and I have every faith in you that
you'll answer as you can.

Originally posted by KellyJay
They either do or don't mutate, as I pointed out to you no one gets to pick
and choose they just do it when they do. They could mutate and stay or
not, there are several possible outcomes. The one that is least likely is
the one you require, it mutates, it is a good one, and it will build with other
good ones too, that will give us things like eyes, ear ...[text shortened]... think this is a worth while discussion any longer, we can
just part ways agreeing to disagree.

Well, I'm trying to understand how you come to the conclusion that "[it] is least likely [that] it mutates, it is a good one, and it will build with other good ones too." If you could explain how you reach this conclusion, I can help you understand better how the theory of evolution works. I presume you no longer question the fact that beneficial mutations occur, so your problem must be with natural selection. Which aspect of natural selection in particular do you dispute? If we can establish what part of the theory you dispute, we can then move on to either agreeing or disagreeing.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I'm trying to understand how you come to the conclusion that "[it] is least likely [that] it mutates, it is a good one, and it will build with other good ones too." If you could explain how you reach this conclusion, I can help you understand better how the theory of evolution works. I presume you no longer question the fact that beneficial mutati ...[text shortened]... lish what part of the theory you dispute, we can then move on to either agreeing or disagreeing.

I've told you my views over and over....maybe I don't express them well
and it is my fault you don't grasp them. Either way, no I think I'm done
here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess it is easy to win an arguments when you change the points so you
can refute them. I think we are done no point going forward if this is all
you got.

In the post of yours Kazet was responding to you said:

It is as likely they get to keep it as it is they lose it next time around or the time after that.

Kazet's response was:

This is an interesting statement, because what you are saying is two things:

1. When DNA is copied, there is a 50% chance of mutation for every base pair.
2. DNA keeps track of its old state, containing a "memory" of its past state it can revert to.

Kazet's two points are direct consequences of your statement. If a point mutation is as likely to be lost on the next generation as it is to occur on the preceding one then either the probability of mutation per base pair is so high per generation that life would basically be impossible or DNA has some sort of memory which allows it to revert point mutations. So I don't think your accusation of a strawman argument is tenable.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In the post of yours Kazet was responding to you said:

It is as likely they get to keep it as it is they lose it next time around or the time after that.

Kazet's response was:[quote]This is an interesting statement, because what you are saying is two things:

1. When DNA is copied, there is a 50% chance of mutation for every base pair.
2. ...[text shortened]... to revert point mutations. So I don't think your accusation of a strawman argument is tenable.

So you are saying if it is so high life couldn't happen, and we know that is
not true because life happen?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you are saying if it is so high life couldn't happen, and we know that is
not true because life happen?

We can measure the rate of mutation. Did you read the article I linked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
We can measure the rate of mutation. Did you read the article I linked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

I've read several links.
The point I have been making is still valid as far as I'm concern.
If it can mutate once and the mutations are not being directed it can either
go back or change into something else later. Nothing is safe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I accused you of jumping into a discussion and attempt to change it into
something no one was talking about that had nothing to do with what we
were discussing.

I read up on Lenski, trying to get some answers from you. NOT accusing
you of anything I've only just started, and I have every faith in you that
you'll answer as you can.

You actually accused me of avoiding questions, it's there in your own writing a few pages back. But nevertheless, it's a side issue. We'll move on.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You actually accused me of avoiding questions, it's there in your own writing a few pages back. But nevertheless, it's a side issue. We'll move on.

Yes I did, I thought it petty of you to jump in avoiding the discussion and
pushing the topic you were pushing just to belittle me.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I did, I thought it petty of you to jump in avoiding the discussion and
pushing the topic you were pushing just to belittle me.

What about -

'I urge you to start using you [sic] own brain and thinking things through'

'You are blind and will remain so'

Do you think those quotes from you are a little belittling and petty?