Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Mutataions

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/31/2008 8:56:35 P.M. Central Standard Time, _Morrowitz@wmconnect.com_ (mailto:Morrowitz@wmconnect.com) writes: But for arguments sake,
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 1/31/2008 8:56:35 P.M. Central Standard Time,
      _Morrowitz@..._ (mailto:Morrowitz@...) writes:

      But for arguments' sake, let us say that only 1% of
      mutations are lethal. You actually want me to "show you the math" and which
      falsifies your claim "there is no known limit to the accumulation of those
      mutations". And you actually can not understand how the immediate death of
      an organism
      prevents it from breeding, and that is an absolute "limit to the
      accumulation
      of mutations"? Ok, here is the math,

      An Organism X has arrived and with an aggregate of 1000 mutations.
      Next generation Organism Y dies almost at birth with lethal mutation.

      1000 times 0 = 0

      Total mutations conserved and accumulated = ZERO
      ************
      Pi:
      Using your logic, there would be no third generation, "Organism Z". Yet we
      s
      Morrowitz:
      I'll end this discussion with Piasan who now pretends he cannot understand
      how an organism which quickly dies young, does not "continue to produce
      generations on and on".
      *************
      Pi:
      Still cutting out my posts, Morro?


      I understand completely.

      You say "Organism X has arrived and with an aggregate of 1000 mutations"
      therefore, it's offspring "Organism Y dies almost at birth with a lethal
      mutation" .

      OK. Fine. I stated (and you quote above):
      "Using your logic, there would be no third generation, "Organism Z".

      It looks like I specifically pointed out that "an organism which quickly
      dies young" would not produce a "third generation, 'Organism Z'".

      Obviously you have a reading comprehension issue since I specifically
      pointed out exactly what you claim I "cannot understand". Not only that, but you
      cited me stating specifically what you said I "cannot understand".

      The problem, Morro, is that what you claim is NOT what we see. We do see
      that third generation, and a fourth, and a fifth.... Since you claim that
      "nearly ALL" mutations are lethal (which you also conveniently deleted), and
      since ALL organisms have (many) mutations, it would follow that life on this
      planet would quickly end.

      On the other hand, if we accept the other position you have proposed "that
      only 1% of mutations are lethal", then the other 99% of organisms (which also
      have mutations) will live and produce that third, fourth, fifth... generations
      and they would carry on the mutations passed down to them by their
      ancestors. In that case, the lethal mutations would not prevent other mutations from
      being passed on.

      So, if "nearly ALL" mutations are lethal and all organisms have mutations,
      life would end on Earth because there would be no survivors. On the other
      hand, if ALL organisms have mutations and only 1% of them die due to lethal
      mutations, then the other 99% will live to have offspring and the lethal
      mutations would not prevent the accumulation of mutations in further generations.

      Either way, you lose.




      **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
      http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • tinroad66
      ... taking ... no known ... impossible ... natural ... are ... are lethal, ... to the ... limiting ... prevent the ... lethal? How ... Tin: WRONG ! Most
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@... wrote:
        >
        > > Pi:
        > > The problem with this claim is that we directly observe mutations
        taking
        > > place by purely natural processes all the time. Further, there is
        no known
        > > limit to the accumulation of those mutations. Therefore, it is
        impossible
        > to
        > > determine if a specific feature is the result of design, or the
        natural
        > > mutations we already observe.
        >
        > labbbim
        > > > Let's quickly test Piasan claims. What percentage of mutations
        are
        > > > beneficial and what percentage LETHAL, Piasan? Since so many
        are lethal,
        > > then
        > > > immediately falsifies your conclusion "there is no known limit
        to the
        > > accumulation of
        > > > those mutations". The death of the organism is certainly "a
        limiting
        > > factor".
        > >
        > > ***********
        > > Pi:
        > > I don't know what percentage are lethal. Since you claim they
        prevent the
        > > h
        >
        > You really don't have any idea what percent of mutations are
        lethal? How
        > about nearly ALL of them.


        Tin: WRONG !

        Most mutations are neutral.

        Labmo are you ever right about anything ?
      • njcubewnie
        ... mutations ... is ... mutations ... limit ... Lethal to what? Bruce
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad66"
          <tinroad66@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
          > >
          > > > Pi:
          > > > The problem with this claim is that we directly observe
          mutations
          > taking
          > > > place by purely natural processes all the time. Further, there
          is
          > no known
          > > > limit to the accumulation of those mutations. Therefore, it is
          > impossible
          > > to
          > > > determine if a specific feature is the result of design, or the
          > natural
          > > > mutations we already observe.
          > >
          > > labbbim
          > > > > Let's quickly test Piasan claims. What percentage of
          mutations
          > are
          > > > > beneficial and what percentage LETHAL, Piasan? Since so many
          > are lethal,
          > > > then
          > > > > immediately falsifies your conclusion "there is no known
          limit
          > to the
          > > > accumulation of
          > > > > those mutations". The death of the organism is certainly "a
          > limiting
          > > > factor".
          > > >
          > > > ***********
          > > > Pi:
          > > > I don't know what percentage are lethal. Since you claim they
          > prevent the
          > > > h
          > >
          > > You really don't have any idea what percent of mutations are
          > lethal? How
          > > about nearly ALL of them.
          >
          >
          > Tin: WRONG !
          >
          > Most mutations are neutral.
          >
          > Labmo are you ever right about anything ?
          >

          Lethal to what?

          Bruce
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.