Does evolution happen by chance?

<< < (5/6) > >>

mentari (April 02, 2009, 16:33:18 PM):
Molecular biology teaches us that genotype determines phenotype. So gradual phenotypic changes in subsequent generations must have its basis in genetic variation.


rephrase:
Genes determines the characteristic of an organism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

Gradual changes in generations has its basis in genes. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

The abstract authority Mr.Molecular biology doesn't teach anything, who is the individual that influenced your mind to think truistically ?
Rigil Kent (April 02, 2009, 18:14:18 PM):
Molecular biology is hardly an abstract authority. It is a discipline that investigates and applies biochemical knowledge about macromolecules, and routinely finds application in fields such as agriculture and medicine. For instance, by introducing a new piece of DNA into a yeast cell, a molecular biologist can have the yeast cell produce a new protein that it normally has no business producing. I hope the mere though sends shivers down your spine, because it should. It is a massively exciting principle!

But lets take it one step at a time:

Can we agree that the appearance of any organism is determined by its genetic constitution?

Mintaka
mentari (April 02, 2009, 19:05:17 PM):
Can we agree that the appearance of any organism is determined by its genetic constitution?

Mintaka


We agree but your sentence is a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism. Also see the Wikipedia article on Tautology the bulk of which I wrote. They censored about half but the essence remains, there I explained in more detail what a tautology is and how it relates to a Truism. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for the uncensored version.
Rigil Kent (April 02, 2009, 19:27:17 PM):
Ok hang on. Then we don't quite agree. Are you calling my sentence a logical fallacy because genotype implies phenotype, and it is therefor a tautology?

By the way, are you equating "tautology" with circular reasoning?

Mintaka
Mefiante (April 02, 2009, 23:24:23 PM):
… I have queried Luthon's definition of evolution as a field of study in my previous post. … I still think her definition will lead to unnecessary confusion.
Actually, the definition is one favoured by biologists. I merely restated it slightly – perhaps inadequately so. By way of an analogy, the layman will possibly be puzzled by the definition of a computer (Turing machine) as “a device for manipulating symbols,” yet that is exactly what a computer does. By thinking of a computer as a powerful calculator or arithmetical contraption, you are, in fact, limiting your view unnecessarily.


rephrase:
Genes determines the characteristic of an organism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

Gradual changes in generations has its basis in genes. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism
Who says that either (or both) of the above is a truism (which neither of them is)?

The abstract authority Mr.Molecular biology doesn't teach anything, who is the individual that influenced your mind to think truistically ?
Tell that to molecular biologists. I’m sure they’ll have a good chuckle. Who is the individual who taught your mind to conjure up such flawed drivel?


By the way, are you equating "tautology" with circular reasoning?
Please, if I may? Despite evolution having been described to this person amply and repeatedly and in many different ways, mentari/metari1/backspace has a proven track record of saying anything in an attempt to discredit evolution. (S)He seems to have a particular liking for the idea that criticising the rigour of the terminology is criticism of the theory itself. Like all creationists, (s)he is very selective about where (s)he applies those standards. Specifically, (s)he’s completely loose about answering questions and defining his or her god who is supposed to be an answer to everything (s)he doesn’t understand.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page