Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, August 28, 2009, 02:14 (5364 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Claim: Mutations are generally deleterious. 
> > Evidence (rounded) 33% good, 33% neutral, 33% deleterious.
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> > Using your exact original numbers, 30%G 35%N and 35%B, you still cannot claim "generally deleterious" for the reasons above. If 65% of mutations do nothing all the way to being beneficial, that still means they don't die.
> 
> 
> I think we are arguing about the hole in the doughnut. We must agree that most mutations are not good. We don't know how neutral mutations will eventually end up, good or bad, or still neutral. Further, I have not mentioned before, but mutations are usually recessive. (see Jeffrey Schwartz, "Sudden Origins",pg. 7, 1999). I must admit that using the word deleterious as I did must have mislead your thinking, but your statement that most mutations were good needed to be set straight. Even the good ones have to figure out how to become dominant. Please remember I believe evolution occurred, and I think Darwinism has a litle of the truth. The real truth, to me lies in the DNA/RNA coded mechanism and where did that come from. From the beginning of time a large number of genes can be traced from the simplest organisms to the most complex. It is combination of genes and how they are organized that makes most of the differences in morphology. - David, please reread the post: - http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=2024 - I said that most mutations are generally fine... that's not the same as saying "good." - You don't need to qualify your position here, it wasn't what was in focus.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"