Most did not die from a bad mutations. They died because of random circumstances. I see we have the obligatory "The Christian just does not get it" retreat. I know at least in general exactly how evolution works. I don't care if the mistakes are fatal within a year of birth we ought to find piles of fossils of them. I once considered taking the beneficial mutation rate, the neutral mutation rate, and the fatal mutation rates, plus the rates at which fossils are left behind and model a predictive system. I realized that every single step would involve an assumption so that any result would be meaningless. Anyway I know how mutation and selection works but I do not find what they predict. At least I am not aware of anyone finding it.
I am not addressing Christianity in particular. I know atheists who do not understand or believe that, either.
I am afraid, you will have to fight your boredom and read specialized literature if you want to understand all these things. I don't think that just listening to debates will suffice.
By right I mean functional. In the range of possible lenses only a narrow band would be right.
How would the genetic anomaly be present in his reproductive material?
Because, if I am not completely wrong, the genetic anomaly is part of the information used to build the phenotipe and it is duplicated all over the place, blindly, until it lands necessarily in the reproductive material. The error occurs before the embryo is built, not afterwards. It is transmission error followed by blind duplication (of the same error).
What you have not done is explain what I asked about. You have attempted to modulate it's emphatic impact. Even if I granted everything you say in every case it does not explain the "paradox'" I mentioned.
Well, a complete explanation would require a book. But the basic idea is still there, I think. Good anomalies remain and are transmitted until everyone has it. At least, that should suffice to see how small "improvements" can arise spontaneously and remain. Until the next small improvement, and so on.
Of course, the central ingredient is the blind duplication of the anomaly and its transmission to the progeny. Its selection follows naturally from the fact that resources are finite and every little advantage can be exploited to actually increase the odds of reproduction (of the anomaly).
This reminds me of a quote from a NASA scientist. He said when the scientists finally cross the last peak and scramble to the top of the mountain of knowledge he will probably find a bunch of theists who have been there the whole time. What about my constant complaints of boredom suggest I am going to pick up a tomb on genetics.
It is your problem, I think. It would be like trying to understand differential geometry while being bored by mathematics. Either you fight your boredom or you will have to leave it to the professionals. Basically.
Again, this is hard work. Debates will not help a lot.
Didn't you say Isaac Quantum replaced Isaac Newton?
That is why I used the attribute "classical". Newton is still a good approximation in this restricted field of mechanics.
Honest maybe but clever is stretching things a bit.
Everybody is clever in something.
There is probably truth to that but my bias seems to be random. I remember many things that are not convenient for my views. Regardless, bias, filters, preference or not I did not make them say what they said. It may be that I was watching theological debates which for reasons that defy atheistic claims are always sponsored by theological societies. They may have only used scientists that had relevant positions which would have been a challenge to Darwinism. But my bias plus their bias would not explain the sheer volume of secular people I have seen support a non-slow evolutionary model.
The sheer volume? I don't think they are so many. But nevertheless, fast or slow, it does not really matter. They still both expect common descent. And a fully naturalistic explnation of life. The question is if you find it more agreeable for your views to come from a fish in few fast jumps or slow motion.
Punctuated equilibrium is like war. Vast stretches of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Where did I heard that?
Hey let me give you a "problem" my PhD boss always mentions. How could a (probiotic) cell reproduce at all. I don't think that is the right word and my boss is buried in code. The idea is that whatever was first was simplistic and any procreation even division is a complicated issue. How did the first extremely simple whatever make a new one. How does lightening and sea water produce a thing that can both create a copy of it's self and harness energy to create complexity? Looking at evolution from a distance it is uncontestable. Looking at many of it's events in detail is often pathetically absurd.
First, you beg the question by assuming that it was a cell. Second, why would a Phd. ask a question that nobody in the scientific community can answer, yet? Unless, he is a Phd in humanities, of course.
By the way. That has nothing to do with evolution which deals mainly with the development of life, once life has started. Which further strengthens the plusibility of the Phd in humanities scenario.
Ciao
- viole
