Yerda
Veteran Member
I thought I'd have a pop at a syllogism. It's a bit rough and ready so constructive comments are welcome.
Premise 1: The differences between species are accounted for by differences in genome.
Premise 2: The nature of genome replication means it cannot proceed without some mutation creeping in.
Conclusion: Differences will naturally arise between populations.
Does the conclusion follow from the premises? I'm not sure, but it could probably be refined into something better.
Are the premises good/useful? Give reasons.
It seems to me that P1 is solid, but P2 is maybe not so. I haven't talked about adaptation through natural selection, selective pressure, etc so it's a pretty simplifying argument.
Edit: I should have said P2 difficult to argue against, not so sure about P1.
Premise 1: The differences between species are accounted for by differences in genome.
Premise 2: The nature of genome replication means it cannot proceed without some mutation creeping in.
Conclusion: Differences will naturally arise between populations.
Does the conclusion follow from the premises? I'm not sure, but it could probably be refined into something better.
Are the premises good/useful? Give reasons.
It seems to me that P1 is solid, but P2 is maybe not so. I haven't talked about adaptation through natural selection, selective pressure, etc so it's a pretty simplifying argument.
Edit: I should have said P2 difficult to argue against, not so sure about P1.
Last edited by a moderator: