RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 5:00 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm by Alex K.)
(January 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:Me neither of course, unless a real biologist stumbles in we're just passionate laypeople.(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.
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.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition