(January 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.

I'm by no means an expert on genetics, but I would still say, based on my laymen's understanding, that "blind" overstresses the case quite a bit. After all, mutations are physical processes and are thus constrained by physical laws; no matter the actual nature of the changes, they're still using the same sets of chemicals, within the framework of an existing genetic structure. So you're never going to get a mutation set that would require, say, a fifty percent change to the overall genetic structure; all mutations need to be viable within the context of the organism they're happening to, which isn't the sort of infinite vista of possibilities that creationists want to characterize it as.

(January 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.

I'm by no means an expert on genetics, but I would still say, based on my laymen's understanding, that "blind" overstresses the case quite a bit. After all, mutations are physical processes and are thus constrained by physical laws; no matter the actual nature of the changes, they're still using the same sets of chemicals, within the framework of an existing genetic structure. So you're never going to get a mutation set that would require, say, a fifty percent change to the overall genetic structure; all mutations need to be viable within the context of the organism they're happening to, which isn't the sort of infinite vista of possibilities that creationists want to characterize it as.

That's part of the answer. This article says it better than I can:

Why Evolution Isn't Chance

Good luck having a conversation about evolution with a person who thinks the choices are either "god" or "chance". In their mind, it's magic either way.

(January 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.

I'm by no means an expert on genetics, but I would still say, based on my laymen's understanding, that "blind" overstresses the case quite a bit. After all, mutations are physical processes and are thus constrained by physical laws; no matter the actual nature of the changes, they're still using the same sets of chemicals, within the framework of an existing genetic structure. So you're never going to get a mutation set that would require, say, a fifty percent change to the overall genetic structure; all mutations need to be viable within the context of the organism they're happening to, which isn't the sort of infinite vista of possibilities that creationists want to characterize it as.

Me neither of course, unless a real biologist stumbles in we're just passionate laypeople.

To me the literal meaning of "mutations are blind" is that mutations do not "see" anything, i.e. what their own consequences are or even their goals would be, and that they therefore occur independenly of any of that. Chemically impossible mutations are obviously excluded -do we really need to mention that separately?-, and mutations which lead to a broken organism indeed occur, but are not carried on via procreation, which is a form of natural selection. Many mutations at once are statistically unlikely, has imho also nothing to do with blindness.

Well ok, if we assume extremely biased readers, who will read "blind" as "violating the laws of genetics" in order to discredit it, additional clarification is required - but calling muations not blind because there are chemical constraints and natural selection, muddies the language in my opinion. It would be to me like calling a crapshoot "not blind" just because you can't roll a 7 with one die and some throws lose.

I also wouldn't call several modifications of the genome at different places "one mutation" (because you mention a mutation not being able to change 50% of the genome), but I'm not sure.

(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.

Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?

How did it come into being?

First off 1 hydrogen atom wouldn't create anything so... i mean its pointless to ask that question.

(January 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.

Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?

How did it come into being?

First off 1 hydrogen atom wouldn't create anything so... i mean its pointless to ask that question.

OK, then - make it a teapot.

(January 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Davka Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm)dyresand Wrote: First off 1 hydrogen atom wouldn't create anything so... i mean its pointless to ask that question.

OK, then - make it a teapot.

Well one would need some type a sentient beings to make it first.

(January 15, 2015 at 6:42 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Davka Wrote: OK, then - make it a teapot.

Well one would need some type a sentient beings to make it first.

No, this is a self-generating teapot. An uncaused teapot. The teapot at the end of the Universe. So long and thanks for all the tea.

(January 16, 2015 at 12:10 am)Davka Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 6:42 pm)dyresand Wrote: Well one would need some type a sentient beings to make it first.

No, this is a self-generating teapot. An uncaused teapot. The teapot at the end of the Universe. So long and thanks for all the tea.

empty teapot i can deal with.

No one knows, or if they do, they haven't chosen to share that info with me.
People used to chalk the weather up to gods, simply because they didn't understand.
We shouldn't make the same mistake with how our universe came to be.