Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind.
Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express
his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had
not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism.
For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find
the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M> ****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally
admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error. ****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully
shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the
more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind.
Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express
his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The
following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had
not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism.
For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find
the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally
admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully
shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the
more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life
replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind.
Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express
his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The
following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had
not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism.
For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find
the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally
admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully
shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the
more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life
replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically
impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more
respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind.
Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express
his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The
following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had
not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism.
For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find
the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally
admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully
shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the
more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life
replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically
impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more
respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind.
Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express
his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The >>>> following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had
not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism.
For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find >>>> the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally
admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully
shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the
more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life
replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically
impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in
replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the
processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:30:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind. >>>>> Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express
his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The >>>>> following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had >>>>> not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism. >>>>> For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find >>>>> the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally
admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully
shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the >>>>> more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life
replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically
impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in
replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the
processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
Pedantically, asexual populations have mutations too; just ask your
gut bacteria.
Recombination is responsible mostly for mixing--
different combinations. Technically, different combinations of
mutations aren't themselves mutations. This is one of the errors that
Matt Powell suffers.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:28:44 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:30:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>They do indeed, But *IF* "life is replicated perfectly (zero
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in >>>talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind. >>>>>> Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express >>>>>> his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The >>>>>> following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had >>>>>> not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism. >>>>>> For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find >>>>>> the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally
admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a >>>>>> mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully
shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the >>>>>> more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life
replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically >>>>impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>>>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in
replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the
processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
Pedantically, asexual populations have mutations too; just ask your
gut bacteria.
copy errors)" mutations are "off the table", since mutations
are essentially copying errors (by your statement above "a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error".
Recombination is responsible mostly for mixing
different combinations. Technically, different combinations of
mutations aren't themselves mutations. This is one of the errors that
Matt Powell suffers.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:36:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:28:44 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:30:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>They do indeed, But *IF* "life is replicated perfectly (zero
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in >>>>talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind. >>>>>>> Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express >>>>>>> his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The >>>>>>> following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had >>>>>>> not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism. >>>>>>> For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find >>>>>>> the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally >>>>>>> admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a >>>>>>> mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully >>>>>>> shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the >>>>>>> more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life
replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically >>>>>impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>>>>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in >>>>replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the
processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
Pedantically, asexual populations have mutations too; just ask your
gut bacteria.
copy errors)" mutations are "off the table", since mutations
are essentially copying errors (by your statement above "a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error".
Your comment above describes RonO's point. Your previous point
specified asexual reproduction. There's a difference.
And the statement you quoted was not my statement but Matt Powell's >statement.
--Recombination is responsible mostly for mixing
different combinations. Technically, different combinations of
mutations aren't themselves mutations. This is one of the errors that >>>Matt Powell suffers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 04:37:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:36:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>My post was intended to cite a specific scenario in which
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:28:44 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:30:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:They do indeed, But *IF* "life is replicated perfectly (zero
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in >>>>>talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind. >>>>>>>> Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound
coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express >>>>>>>> his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The >>>>>>>> following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had >>>>>>>> not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism. >>>>>>>> For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find >>>>>>>> the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof
that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally >>>>>>>> admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a >>>>>>>> mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully >>>>>>>> shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the >>>>>>>> more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life >>>>>>> replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically >>>>>>impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>>>>>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in >>>>>replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the >>>>>processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
Pedantically, asexual populations have mutations too; just ask your
gut bacteria.
copy errors)" mutations are "off the table", since mutations
are essentially copying errors (by your statement above "a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error".
Your comment above describes RonO's point. Your previous point
specified asexual reproduction. There's a difference.
the initial comment would be correct, but thanks for the
addendum.
And the statement you quoted was not my statement but Matt Powell's >>statement.You are correct, mea culpa. I got the attributions and
quotes confused.
Recombination is responsible mostly for mixing
different combinations. Technically, different combinations of >>>>mutations aren't themselves mutations. This is one of the errors that >>>>Matt Powell suffers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 04:37:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:36:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>My post was intended to cite a specific scenario in which
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:28:44 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:30:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>wrote:They do indeed, But *IF* "life is replicated perfectly (zero
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in >>>>>>talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind. >>>>>>>>> Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound >>>>>>>>> coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express >>>>>>>>> his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The
following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had >>>>>>>>> not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism. >>>>>>>>> For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find
the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof >>>>>>>>> that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally >>>>>>>>> admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a >>>>>>>>> mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully >>>>>>>>> shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the >>>>>>>>> more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life >>>>>>>> replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically >>>>>>>impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>>>>>>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in >>>>>>replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the >>>>>>processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
Pedantically, asexual populations have mutations too; just ask your >>>>>gut bacteria.
copy errors)" mutations are "off the table", since mutations
are essentially copying errors (by your statement above "a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error".
Your comment above describes RonO's point. Your previous point
specified asexual reproduction. There's a difference.
the initial comment would be correct, but thanks for the
addendum.
Unfortunately, your post cited a specific scenario which doesn't
inform the initial comment, which my post was intended to point out.
Whether via sexual, asexual, or star trek transporter beam, perfect >duplication would prevent evolution, which is the point Matt Powell is
proud not to understand.
--And the statement you quoted was not my statement but Matt Powell's >>>statement.You are correct, mea culpa. I got the attributions and
quotes confused.
Recombination is responsible mostly for mixing
different combinations. Technically, different combinations of >>>>>mutations aren't themselves mutations. This is one of the errors that >>>>>Matt Powell suffers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 14:02:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I'm not sure that is correct. The original comment, to which
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 04:37:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:36:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:My post was intended to cite a specific scenario in which
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:28:44 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:30:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>wrote:They do indeed, But *IF* "life is replicated perfectly (zero
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in >>>>>>>talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>><athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind. >>>>>>>>>> Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound >>>>>>>>>> coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express >>>>>>>>>> his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The
following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had
not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism.
For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find
the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof >>>>>>>>>> that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally >>>>>>>>>> admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a >>>>>>>>>> mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully >>>>>>>>>> shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the
more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life >>>>>>>>> replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically >>>>>>>>impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>>>>>>>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in >>>>>>>replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the >>>>>>>processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
Pedantically, asexual populations have mutations too; just ask your >>>>>>gut bacteria.
copy errors)" mutations are "off the table", since mutations
are essentially copying errors (by your statement above "a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error".
Your comment above describes RonO's point. Your previous point >>>>specified asexual reproduction. There's a difference.
the initial comment would be correct, but thanks for the
addendum.
Unfortunately, your post cited a specific scenario which doesn't
inform the initial comment, which my post was intended to point out. >>Whether via sexual, asexual, or star trek transporter beam, perfect >>duplication would prevent evolution, which is the point Matt Powell is >>proud not to understand.
I responded, was:
"Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that
if life replicated perfectly (zero copy errors) there would
be no such thing as biological evolution."
(I suppose a strict interpretation of "replicated" would
eliminate all *except* asexual reproduction (sexual
reproduction not being "replication"), but that isn't how I
interpreted it.) Anyway, my logic is as follows:
In an asexual population, perfect duplication (or
"replication") would prevent evolution. But in a population
wherein reproduction involves random or semi-random
combination of genes from each partner, some combinations
would result in greater or lesser reproductive success in a
particular environment, with resultant change in the
population. To me (and as I noted I'm no biologist) that
*is* evolution. Of course, I'm open to an explanation
regarding how that is incorrect.
And the statement you quoted was not my statement but Matt Powell's >>>>statement.You are correct, mea culpa. I got the attributions and
quotes confused.
Recombination is responsible mostly for mixing
different combinations. Technically, different combinations of >>>>>>mutations aren't themselves mutations. This is one of the errors that >>>>>>Matt Powell suffers.
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, butthere would be no such thing as biological evolution.I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in
replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the
processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:47:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 14:02:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I'm not sure that is correct. The original comment, to which
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 04:37:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:36:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>wrote:My post was intended to cite a specific scenario in which
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:28:44 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:30:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>>wrote:They do indeed, But *IF* "life is replicated perfectly (zero
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>><athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-04 14:35:11 +0000, RonO said:It should be pointed out that the operative word was "if",
On 2/3/2023 10:32 PM, jillery wrote:
Matt Powell is a close social and business associate of Kent Hovind.
Given that, I have low expectations of his ability to expound >>>>>>>>>>> coherently about scientific topics.
Unsurprisingly, Matt has taken to posting Youtube videos to express >>>>>>>>>>> his opinions about Creationism and how it applies to other topics. The
following is a short 6-minute video where Matt claims something I had
not heard claimed before by anyone, that mutations prove Creationism.
For those who regard this claim as remarkable as I do, they might find
the following video entertaining if not informative:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxBrMxzW8M>
****************************************
@2:36
So when an evolutionist says that mutations are somehow proof >>>>>>>>>>> that we're evolving, they don't even know that they're literally >>>>>>>>>>> admitting that they don't even know what a mutation is. Because a >>>>>>>>>>> mutation by the very definition is a copying error.
****************************************
Unsurprisingly, there are several Youtube videos which rightfully >>>>>>>>>>> shred Matt's comments and reasoning. The following IMO is one of the
more coherent and comprehensive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4qj-mqm50>
Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that if life >>>>>>>>>> replicated perfectly (zero copy errors)
As Alan Fersht pointed out many years ago that is chemically >>>>>>>>>impossible. However, I doubt whether the creationists have any more >>>>>>>>>respect for chemistry than they have for biology.
as in "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when
he jumped". Pointing out the a bullfrog *doesn't* have wings
in no way addresses the point. Just sayin'...
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, but
there would be no such thing as biological evolution.
I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each >>>>>>>>generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in >>>>>>>>replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the >>>>>>>>processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
Pedantically, asexual populations have mutations too; just ask your >>>>>>>gut bacteria.
copy errors)" mutations are "off the table", since mutations
are essentially copying errors (by your statement above "a
mutation by the very definition is a copying error".
Your comment above describes RonO's point. Your previous point >>>>>specified asexual reproduction. There's a difference.
the initial comment would be correct, but thanks for the
addendum.
Unfortunately, your post cited a specific scenario which doesn't
inform the initial comment, which my post was intended to point out. >>>Whether via sexual, asexual, or star trek transporter beam, perfect >>>duplication would prevent evolution, which is the point Matt Powell is >>>proud not to understand.
I responded, was:
"Probably the saddest thing about his weird notion is that
if life replicated perfectly (zero copy errors) there would
be no such thing as biological evolution."
(I suppose a strict interpretation of "replicated" would
eliminate all *except* asexual reproduction (sexual
reproduction not being "replication"), but that isn't how I
interpreted it.) Anyway, my logic is as follows:
In an asexual population, perfect duplication (or
"replication") would prevent evolution. But in a population
wherein reproduction involves random or semi-random
combination of genes from each partner, some combinations
would result in greater or lesser reproductive success in a
particular environment, with resultant change in the
population. To me (and as I noted I'm no biologist) that
*is* evolution. Of course, I'm open to an explanation
regarding how that is incorrect.
And the statement you quoted was not my statement but Matt Powell's >>>>>statement.You are correct, mea culpa. I got the attributions and
quotes confused.
Recombination is responsible mostly for mixing
different combinations. Technically, different combinations of >>>>>>>mutations aren't themselves mutations. This is one of the errors that >>>>>>>Matt Powell suffers.
I acknowledge your point, that the phrase "replicated perfectly"
technically and strictly doesn't apply to sexual reproduction, as >recombination precludes the offspring from being exact duplicates of
either parent.
Having said that, the meaning of that phrase as used in the video and
in RonO's post is in the sense of having a lack of mutations, and not
about making perfect duplicates. So it's good that you acknowledge
your point isn't based on that pedantic point.
I acknowledge your expressed reasoning, that recombination would over
time enable purifying selection to remove less fit combinations of
traits, and by so doing alter the frequency of alleles over time aka >evolution.
Having said that, my understanding is the different combinations would
become well-mixed in populations over several generations, and once
that happened allele frequencies would remain static aka no evolution.
My understanding is drift is poor at removing combinations of alleles
unless the population is exceptionally small, and so over time most >populations would exhibit no evolution. I acknowledge I am not a
biologist either, so my understandings could be wrong.
Having said that, there is a larger problem with your expressed
reasoning, that it presumes asexual species don't also have mechanisms
for distributing different alleles within populations:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer>
Keep in mind, unlike eukaryotes, protists suffer strong selection
pressure to limit their genome size. The constantly remove bits of
their genomes even as they pick up new bits via HGT, balancing the
risk of bloated, slow to reproduce genomes with the risk of not having
useful alleles.
HGT creates lineages with different combinations of alleles analogous
to sexual recombination. Whether a population reproduces sexually or >asexually, both types share similar issues. Using the strict
definition of "replicated perfectly", HGT disqualifies protists just
as recombination disqualifies eukaryotes. Using the meaning from the
video and RonO's post, neither HGT nor recombination introduce
mutations, and in both cases I would expect the number of combinations
in a population without mutations to become static after several
generations.
On 04/02/2023 18:30, Bob Casanova wrote:
As I understand it, that logic would actually apply, butthere would be no such thing as biological evolution.I understand that and you understand that, but does Matt Powell understand it?
*only* for a asexual population; no recombination each
generation = no possibility of advancement if zero errors in
replication. Of course, I could well be misunderstanding the
processes involved; I'm a retired EE, not a biologist.
In the hypothetical absence of sources of new variation evolution would
still proceed for a while in a genetically diverse population, but
selection and drift would eventually tend to fixation at all alleles,
though frequency dependent selection and environmental heterogeneity in
time and space might delay this for a very long time.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 26:21:35 |
| Calls: | 8,036 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,034 |
| Messages: | 5,829,398 |