• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Evidence for Random Mutations

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Eh? What does "seen"and "unseen" have to do with anything? There is evidence for the fields of Quantum Electrodynamics, if that is what you mean by "unseen energy". Any inferences that are made are necessary to enable the model to make the successful predictions that it does make. In other words, the model would not work (make successful prediction of how nature behaves) without them.

So, if you assert there are additional variables or factors at work that are not captured in a current scientific model for something (e.g. evolution), you need to show that they enable further correct predictions that could not be made without them.

In short, that they are necessary. That is Ockham's Razor for you. If you can't do this, your additional hypotheses are scientifically worthless - though they may give you, personally, some metaphysical satisfaction.

P.S. I don't understand the reference at the end to Catholics - it seems not to have anything to do with the discussion. Ockham's Razor is nothing to do with Catholicism - although William of Ockham was a Catholic friar (OFM) of course. :)
Like I said Catholic is a cult of books!!! What you didn't think I already knew that about Occam? He'll I know the entire history of christianity I have a degree in an idiotic discipline. The first degree in modern universities, it was "the queen of sciences". Apparently my degree was the original degree in European culture the mother of all sciences... guess the degree..

Btw random realistically rendered.
ES_Quetzalcoatl (1).jpg
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Like I said Catholic is a cult of books!!! What you didn't think I already knew that about Occam? He'll I know the entire history of christianity I have a degree in an idiotic discipline. The first degree in modern universities, it was "the queen of sciences". Apparently my degree was the original degree in European culture the mother of all sciences... guess the degree..

Btw random realistically rendered.
View attachment 21246
Frankly it is hard to discern from your posts that you know anything much at all. But maybe that is because English is not your first language.

If you know about William of Ockham (I spell it like the village in Surrey he came from), you should know about Ockham's Razor and its applicability in science. If you know this, why do you make arguments that try to reverse the burden of proof for additional hypotheses?
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Like I said Catholic is a cult of books!!! What you didn't think I already knew that about Occam? He'll I know the entire history of christianity I have a degree in an idiotic discipline. The first degree in modern universities, it was "the queen of sciences". Apparently my degree was the original degree in European culture the mother of all sciences... guess the degree..

Btw random realistically rendered.

Could you please try to address the topic of the thread?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Mutations.
As I have stated here I am first and.foremost a naturist..I find naturalism vs supernatural entertaining.as a naturist I have to laugh. It's Like two city folks on a back country trail ... really flip flops and striped Bermudas ? Its raining you don't need pure zinc oxide on your nose...

Btw Made the term naturist up. To indicate none of the above... I am a none.....


HumbugForest3 (best)_img.jpg
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
What does this have to do with the topic?

The observed mechanisms that produce mutations right here and right now have a bias towards transitions and CpG mutations. The observed differences between species are biased towards transitions and CpG mutations. Scientists interpret this as evidence for the observed mechanisms of mutation being responsible for the differences between species. If you disagree, please show why this interpretation is wrong.
Yeah, toward degraded mutations, hindering function.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Except it isn't, because it's precisely what's observed to happen in naturally reproducing systems.

Let's be accurate.

"Observed"? No, no series of mutations has ever been observed resulting in an organism evolving into higher taxa.

Remember Drosophila melanogaster? Even under controlled conditions, i.e., alterations from intelligence, the mutations degraded the organism.

Darwin's finches, were still finches. And creating a dog breed, still keeps it a dog.

You also corrected Threepwood when saying most mutations are neutral. You're right, but that doesn't change the facts, since neutral mutations don't change the organism.

FACT: Deleterious changes far outweigh functional mutations. Changes enhancing functionality are exquisitely rare.

They're certainly not enough to produce from unicellular life the diversity of organisms we have today!
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Let's be accurate.

"Observed"? No, no series of mutations has ever been observed resulting in an organism evolving into higher taxa.

Remember Drosophila melanogaster? Even under controlled conditions, i.e., alterations from intelligence, the mutations degraded the organism.

Darwin's finches, were still finches. And creating a dog breed, still keeps it a dog.

You also corrected Threepwood when saying most mutations are neutral. You're right, but that doesn't change the facts, since neutral mutations don't change the organism.

FACT: Deleterious changes far outweigh functional mutations. Changes enhancing functionality are exquisitely rare.

They're certainly not enough to produce from unicellular life the diversity of organisms we have today!
But I notice that, as in almost all creationist arguments, you make no mention here of the effect of natural selection on winnowing out the deleterious changes and amplifying the ones beneficial in handling an environmental stress.

Not to take this crucial aspect of theory into account will quite obviously lead to drawing wrong conclusions about how evolution is said to work.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
As I have stated here I am first and.foremost a naturist..I find naturalism vs supernatural entertaining.as a naturist I have to laugh. It's Like two city folks on a back country trail ... really flip flops and striped Bermudas ? Its raining you don't need pure zinc oxide on your nose...

Btw Made the term naturist up. To indicate none of the above... I am a none.....


View attachment 21251
No you didn't.

A naturist is someone who goes around with no clothes on: What does naturist mean? definition and meaning (Free English Language Dictionary)
:D
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
But I notice that, as in almost all creationist arguments, you make no mention here of the effect of natural selection on winnowing out the deleterious changes and amplifying the ones beneficial in handling an environmental stress.

Not to take this crucial aspect of theory into account will quite obviously lead to drawing wrong conclusions about how evolution is said to work.
How long do you think evolution has been at work?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How long do you think evolution has been at work?
14 billion years as such it's not literally a something in action upon existence nor contained by any definition since what exactly happens to definitions? They change. It's Interconnected change singular.

St francis called it "family of God"... scientifically he was inaccurate he had everything brother sister, really it's cousins which is scientifically accurate. Lol 650 years before Darwin. Wow evolution deep stuff.
 
Last edited:
Top