Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God dunit doesn't explain and most importantly predict anything.
The unity and diversity of life only makes sense when you understand descent with modification.
http://doug-speaks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/life4CK.jpg (broken link)
You're redefining "chance" according to your limitations and evolving debating needs.
He's going to have a field when he realizes what those evil atheist scientists are trying to get away with using statistical thermodynamics. Why limit god to just the chance in creating new species when you can have her pushing around every single "randomly" moving molecule?
Quote:
Unfortunately for you, your steadfast refusal to accept all the evidence: fossil, biochemical, DNA genome maps, geological and lab-based leaves you no further ahead, but rather firmly (and apparently happily..) stuck in the past. There's no point in trying to explain it further.
This is really the point. You can raise all sorts of theoretical objections based on what you think must happen - philosophy's really good at this. It's much harder to debate away the facts, which is where science separates itself from idle philosophy and gets real work done.
According to your definitions, it's "a purely event of nature". No human is involved to restrict the possibilities. And it's "a series of unending chances" since each generation has a new combination of genetic material and new mutations.
In the context of this discussion:
I want you to give me the exact references where I say what you say I say as regards what is chance, because you are not being precise with my words and thoughts.
You say:
Quote:
Chance is involved when an experiment is made whose results can't be accurately predicted (by humans). It's impossible to know which new mutations a child will have, therefore mutations are random.
I want you to know that in the theory of evolution there is nothing about an experiment by man but it is all in nature; so please leave out all mention of experiment unless you can do an experiment of chance mutation and natural selection in the laboratory.
You say:
Quote:
Mutation is a "copying mistake" in the DNA, when the DNA of a child is different from the DNA of its parent(s). A sufficiently large number of mutations over numerous generations in two separated populations may cause speciation.
I am happy that you are pinpointing where the change is in chance mutation and how it is chance, namely:
The change is in the DNA of the child which child's DNA is different from its parents' DNA.
The chance factor is that the change comes about owing to a copying mistake.
That is very good, namely, that chance mutation means a copying mistake of the parents' DNA results in a different DNA in their child.
I want you to know that in the theory of evolution there is nothing about an experiment by man but it is all in nature; so please leave out all mention of experiment unless you can do an experiment of chance mutation and natural selection in the laboratory.
It's not only been done in the labs, but man has been manipulating the evolutionary process for thousands of years...Take a look around at domestic animals, pets, grains, fruits and many other things...They exist because of man messing with the evolutionary process. Many fruits and vegetables are almost inedible in their natural state..Animals have been modified to give more milk, lay more eggs, have better wool, or more meat.
Quote:
That is very good, namely, that chance mutation means a copying mistake of the parents' DNA results in a different DNA in their child.
Is that correct?
Not necessarily...One of the parents may have a recessive gene that caused the mutation. A mutation is not always a bad thing. Humans have a mutation that allows us to digest milk as adults, for instance.
It probably needs to be stated that mutations are the reason we are not clones of our parents.
Exactly...If we were, that would mean that we have stopped evolving, but it is a fact that humans are evolving at a much more rapid pace than anytime in recorded history.
Explosive population growth is driving human evolution to speed up around the world, according to a new study.
The pace of change accelerated about 40,000 years ago and then picked up even more with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the study says. Human Evolution Speeding Up, Study Says
I want you to know that in the theory of evolution there is nothing about an experiment by man but it is all in nature; so please leave out all mention of experiment unless you can do an experiment of chance mutation and natural selection in the laboratory.
I meant "experiment" in a broad sense; humans don't have to be involved. I'm using the word as it is used in probability theory. When a child is born with random mutations, it is, in that sense, an experiment.
Quote:
That is very good, namely, that chance mutation means a copying mistake of the parents' DNA results in a different DNA in their child.
Is that correct?
Yes. (Well, there are other cause for a mutation than copying mistakes but that's accurate enough for this discussion.) Really, any dictionary would have told you the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krone
It probably needs to be stated that mutations are the reason we are not clones of our parents.
That and the fact that we inherit the version of some genes from our father and the version of other genes from our mother, in a random combination. Mutations actually don't account for much (if any) of the visible differences between two brothers. (Except if "we" are a bacteria, in which case you are entirely correct ).
It probably needs to be stated that mutations are the reason we are not clones of our parents.
It's not the only reason.. Thanks to mitosis and meiosis 2 parents could have more children then every human that ever lived, and they could all have different dna even if there wasn't any mutations.
edit: the likely hood of having the same DNA as our parents is very very low...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).