nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 159:
Line 159: − Line 169:
Line 168: + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 15:27, June 29, 2008
, 15:27, June 29, 2008→More replies to archived comments: Exceptions to the rule, and creatures with longer generation times can't evolve.
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Philip,
:::::Philip,
Philip, I see your point about how the creation of new information through mutation does not necessarily contradict creationism at all. However, it hardly seems like evidence ''for'' it; and extrapolating as you did (trying to claim the timeframe for these bacteria applies equally to the supposed evolution of humans) honestly seems like mostly speculation... Which I admit is often overused by evolutionists as well, but it still isn't a good basis for deciding which theory the evidence favors. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip, I see your point about how the creation of new information through mutation does not necessarily contradict creationism at all. However, it hardly seems like evidence ''for'' it; and extrapolating as you did (trying to claim the timeframe for these bacteria applies equally to the supposed evolution of humans) honestly seems like mostly speculation... Which I admit is often overused by evolutionists as well, but it still isn't a good basis for deciding which theory the evidence favors. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
: BenP, it's possible to have both a rule and exceptions to that rule. For all practical purposes, mutations don't create new information. However, that doesn't rule out that, once in a blue moon (actually, far less often), you might actually get ''something'' simple that is new. And yes, I guess that there is then a debate about how frequently mutations produce new genetic information, which is sort of what I've been discussing here, in pointing out that ''in this case'' it took 31,500 generations, and even that assumes that this ''did'' happen, which I think is a long way from being accepted. But the question is not ''really'' how long it takes, but whether or not the extremely rare one is going to be swamped by all the deleterious ones. And especially with more complex creatures, it is easily going to get swamped, especially in creatures with sexual reproduction. That is, even if, once in 30,000 generations, there was the odd information-gaining mutation, then what's the chances that that mutation will get passed on to the next generation? Especially given that this won't be the only mutation being selected for (or against).
: Feebasfactor, why is not not evidence ''for'' creation? If that's the prediction that it best fits, then it ''is'' evidence for it! You're right about the timeframe not applying to humans. Because humans reproduce sexually, and therefore the next generation will not necessarily inherit the mutation, and because natural selection favours ''individuals'', not ''mutations'', then a less-fit ''individual'' will be selected ''against'' even with the odd "good" mutation. So really, it will occur a lot ''slower'' for humans than for bacteria.
: For more information on this, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4473 this] brief description of "Haldane's Dilemma".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==
==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==