That's why it's refered to as random mutations.
Jim: influences the environment had on a particular organism there would
still
be this random series of genetic mutations that would have to happen either
at conception or in the genetic material before conception. Let's say
were looking at the formation of an eye. What an amazing set of events
that would have to occur! First the safe guards behind keeping the DNA
code highly accurate would have to be changed. Why? Because it's going to
That is incorrect. Mutations, as you admit, happen all the time, you just
refer to them as 'birth defects'. So we know that mutations can happen
without the need of changing the safeguards that keep the DNA accurate.
Jim: take millions of mutations to form a code for an eye from totally
random....not your ordinary random. The chances would never increase for
Are you sure it takes millions and millions of changes ? Perhaps could you
give a reference to how many mutations are required for an eye ? And are
you sure that the intermediate steps are all random ? After all you are
ignoring that if the step is in the wrong direction, natural selection can
wipe out this step.
Jim: forming this eye since mutations would only occur when the genetic
material
(in the reproductive organs) was duplicated. So each time the genetic
Not true either. Mutations are not limited to duplication of the genetic
material.
Jim: material is duplicated the whole sequence for an eye would have to be
formed in completion since the DNA machinery does not know which base pairs
from the previous generation are usefull.
Incorrect as well. You are assuming the instantaneous formation of the
eye, ignoring the stepwise formation of such a structure. Even Darwin
realized how such a structure could have evolved in small steps. If the
change is detrimental natural selection can act on it, if it is neutral
natural selection cannot have any effect and if it is positive natural
selection can act on it.
Jim: Lets say the whole sequence was formed. This same generation would
have
to also carry with it processes that follow the replication of DNA more
closely or the genetic material for the eye will be lost in the following
generation.
Incorrect again. Duplication of the genetic material is straightforward
and does not depend on changing together with the DNA material.
But you did not address the following ?
>Is it ? What is different between mutations leading to 'birthdefects' and
>mutations leading to 'something useful' ? What if mutations leave the
>organism with an advantage ? Why do you insist that the only form of
>evolution is the formation of new limbs/organs ?
Nor have you given any references to the following.
>Why would the body's safeguards have to evolve back and forth ? You are
>making some interesting assertions but perhaps could you give some
>references to research indicating that this is a requirement for mutations
>to happen ? After all birthdefects (sic) happen and there was no
>requirement for the body to evolve and evolve back after the
>'improvements' were made.