Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: megatherium

Neverthless, evolutionary theory is ultimately based on untestable assumptions; eg., that mutations occur randomly, as opposed to being caused by an intelligent designer.


31 posted on 10/17/2005 6:41:29 PM PDT by I-ambush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: I-ambush
mutations occur randomly, as opposed to being caused by an intelligent designer

How would you test for mutations caused by an intelligent designer? Chemistry? Paleontology? Anthropology? Physics? Biology? Microscopes? DNA? Bible? Faith?

Please, just how would you test this?

35 posted on 10/17/2005 7:05:59 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: I-ambush
evolutionary theory is ultimately based on untestable assumptions; eg., that mutations occur randomly

That's not an assumption. It's an inference based on observable evidence.

Besides, mutations being random is not necessarily inconsistent with them being caused by a designer. Random just means it is unpredictable given the information set available at the present. If God were causing the mutations in unpredictable ways, they would appear random to us.

36 posted on 10/17/2005 7:12:39 PM PDT by curiosity (Cronyism is not conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: I-ambush

"that mutations occur randomly..."

Mutations do occur randomly, as has been shown countless times in laboratory experiments.

Leave the talking points behind and get some facts. You'll be a better bug for it.


37 posted on 10/17/2005 7:15:32 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: I-ambush
Neverthless, evolutionary theory is ultimately based on untestable assumptions; eg., that mutations occur randomly, as opposed to being caused by an intelligent designer.

That's hardly untestable. Rather, it is a very common occurrance. Any scientist working with living cells (bacterial, yeast, animal) knows that they can and do mutate randomly and frequently, and usually interfere with the experimental plan by doing so.

43 posted on 10/17/2005 8:08:25 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: I-ambush
Neverthless, evolutionary theory is ultimately based on untestable assumptions; eg., that mutations occur randomly, as opposed to being caused by an intelligent designer.

Thus I presume you accept the doctrine of descent with modification from common ancestors; and we shall argue as to the mechanism of speciation (design, or random variation with natural selection). I would argue that the mutations are essentially random in nature: in the mid 20th century Fisher, Wright and Haldane worked out the mathematics and statistics of mutations and population genetics. Now we know the actual biochemical mechanisms of mutations. And they do happen at random. (Of course, selection tends to remove deleterious mutations, and favors beneficial ones; but most mutations are neutral.)

My own belief is that God created life; he intended for us to be here. And you may be right -- who can tell whether a random mutation was intended by God. But I believe God mainly did allow random mutations to create life. That is, he created a system of life that creates itself. Perhaps that is a more elegant and beautiful arrangement than for God to have simply created by fiat the various forms of life. It certainly is an arrangement more consistent with the scientific evidence.

52 posted on 10/17/2005 8:37:49 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson