(February 11, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Zone Wrote: I think it is just about possible to argue against the neo-darwinian model of evolution based on natural selection operating on random mutations that work to create change on the phenotype or macro evolutionary scale of mult-cellular organisms. I don't think it's particularly easy to argue against it but I don't think that aspect of evolutionary theory is quite 100% concrete fact. Neither is abiogenesis even if there are some very good hypotheses on how that could have come about. Natural selection and an old Earth aged 4 billion years are hard facts that can't be argued against by anyone with a shread of some sanity.

You can argue against the sun coming up in the morning. That doesn't mean your argument is valid or sound.

(February 11, 2013 at 5:27 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: You can argue against the sun coming up in the morning. That doesn't mean your argument is valid or sound.

Because validity has anything to whether something is true or not

(February 11, 2013 at 5:27 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: You can argue against the sun coming up in the morning. That doesn't mean your argument is valid or sound.

We don't really have an example of a random mutation adding a useful physical advantage. There are small internal adaptations based on variation already within a population. But you can't point to something and say "That animal is advantaged because of it's mutation" like something out of X-Men. You don't really see anything like that in the fossil record either. So it's possible that hypothesis could be wrong you can present a valid case against it.

(February 11, 2013 at 6:46 pm)Zone Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 5:27 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: You can argue against the sun coming up in the morning. That doesn't mean your argument is valid or sound.

We don't really have an example of a random mutation adding a useful physical advantage.

We don't?

• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);

• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);

• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);

• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);

• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

Quote:There are small internal adaptations based on variation already within a population. But you can't point to something and say "That animal is advantaged because of it's mutation" like something out of X-Men.

I can point to genetically modified corn and say, "That plant is advantaged because of its mutation. It has a more robust root system that it allows it to produce viable seeds under drought conditions that would kill most other corn. It's like something out of X-Men."

Quote:You don't really see anything like that in the fossil record either.

Quote:So it's possible that hypothesis could be wrong you can present a valid case against it.

There is only one option to you sharing a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. God created both of you with random sequences of virus DNA inserted into the exact same locations in the genetic code of both of you. He did the same thing with gorillas and orangutans. He did it in such a way as it would appear that all four species shared a subset of those insertions before orangutans branched off and started getting different insertions than the other three. Then the same thing happened with gorillas. Finally chimps and humans split. Now if you want to believe that then go right ahead. I think I'll pass though.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/greatest...1416594796




Granted it is a difficult read for adherents of the invisible sky-daddy and their big book of fables but life sometimes requires sacrifices and if they won't stretch their brains on occasion they'll just have to be left behind.

(February 11, 2013 at 8:29 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: We don't really have an example of a random mutation adding a useful physical advantage.

We don't?

• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);

• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);

• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);

• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);

• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

[/quote]

Even a Young Earth Creationist will accept this form of evolution on the microbe scale. It doesn't show that a giraffes neck is a product accumulative mutations. There are alternative ideas such epigenetics and other odd concepts such as Rupert Sheldrakes morphic fields. I'm just saying is that we don't everything about evolution at this point for certain there is some speculation and assumption involved. Evolution did actually happen we have hard evidence we can see for that.A Young Earth Creationist may point out that while you may be able to breed all kinds of different looking dogs they will always be dogs.

(February 11, 2013 at 8:29 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: I can point to genetically modified corn and say, "That plant is advantaged because of its mutation. It has a more robust root system that it allows it to produce viable seeds under drought conditions that would kill most other corn. It's like something out of X-Men."

Though that would be an artificially genetically modified organism so not a good example.

(February 11, 2013 at 8:29 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

It doesn't prove that random mutation had anything to do with it. Natural selection would have been involved for certain but the question is where the original genetic modification came from. That's still questionable as we haven't demonstated it beyond doubt it's more a best guess. In a few hundred years perhaps we will have a different idea and our current science would seem antiquated.

(February 11, 2013 at 8:29 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: There is only one option to you sharing a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. God created both of you with random sequences of virus DNA inserted into the exact same locations in the genetic code of both of you. He did the same thing with gorillas and orangutans. He did it in such a way as it would appear that all four species shared a subset of those insertions before orangutans branched off and started getting different insertions than the other three. Then the same thing happened with gorillas. Finally chimps and humans split. Now if you want to believe that then go right ahead. I think I'll pass though.

I didn't say anything about God creating anything I just said it's not necessarily concrete fact that random mutation has large part to play in the evolutionary process. I think if random mutation is the initial source of variation then that would pretty much kill God dead unless we're talking about a deistic God which would still be possible.