xian

as much as you like to skirt the issue, my ORIGINAL statement remains:

abiogenesis = Life arose spontaneously from nonlife through chance.

now, it was this view that was originally challenged.

Before I answer your post, I want to pose a question:

what is the randomness, if any, in a mutation?

is it possible that the exact chemicals combined in a mutation could result in a different mutation? or will it ALWAYS be the exact same mutation? is this your claim?

Babylon Sister

YOU ARE the one who said it was a supernatural power. It's even the title of this thread. Started by YOU.

Put up or shut up.

Hawkingfan

xian,

Did you ever answer this? (posted by Amaranth):


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously there is no UNANIMOUS thing atheists have in common other than lack of belief in God- it is only one thing ALL of them have in common.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



and


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheists have more in common than simply lack of belief in god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



are contradictory.

Care to take another shot at it?

beth

Xian, you're still rather vague. Would it be insulting to you if I asked if you were really an atheist who's trolling, trying to make theists look bad? Would you answer truthfully? What religion are you, meaning what denomination are you and what doctrine do you assent to? Why did you even post this thread if you were going to speak in broadly vague terms? How old are you? Thank you.

Mageth

what is the randomness, if any, in a mutation?

is it possible that the exact chemicals combined in a mutation could result in a different mutation? or will it ALWAYS be the exact same mutation? is this your claim?

You seem a bit confused by the notion of "randomness".

Talking about randomness of an isolated event (e.g. one mutation) is a bit misleading. To determine randomness requires a number of events. The generation of a single mutation may indeed be deterministic - i.e. if you exactly duplicated the conditions, the chemicals, or whatever else is involved, the same mutation would occur, though factors that caused the mutation may themselves be "random" (i.e. radiation striking a particular portion of a gene), though I don't think that's necessarily so.

But, when examined as a whole, mutations appear randomly distributed, appear to randomly occur. One cannot predict when, where, or what a particular mutation will be, but statistically one can predict that a certain number of mutations will occur over time.

So mutations may be considered random events, at least some of the causes of mutations may themselves occur randomly, but the effects of those causes may be deterministic - i.e. the same results would occur if the same conditions were duplicated. In addition, one can statistically analyze mutations and determine such things as how often they are likely to occur and what percentages are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial.

Monkeybot

And your "ORIGINAL" statement is inaccurate.

What the hell are you talking about? How do chemicals "combine in a mutation"????

Mageth

as much as you like to skirt the issue, my ORIGINAL statement remains:

abiogenesis = Life arose spontaneously from nonlife through chance.

No one's skirted the issue. We've corrected your strawman definition multiple times.

Apparently, things only get through to you by chance.

xian

trying to avoid my quesiton are you? if you disagree that mutations are chemical processes , please correct the statement and clarify what a mutation is. My understanding has been that the human body is a chemical machine, and that mutations can be stated as biochemical changes in the codons that make up genes.

Now, if this is incorrect, please enlighten me (and the rest of the world). You have something to teach the human race...no?

and for those who are brave enough not to dogde me, i want to reiterate my original question:
please tell me the role of randomness (if any) in a mutation, and would a mutation be identical EVERY TIME if the same chemicals and quantities were repeated?

Mageth

trying to avoid my quesiton are you?

I think monkeybot was trying to get you to clarify the question. The way it was originally stated made you sound a bit ignorant about the subject.

and for those who are brave enough not to dogde me, i want to reiterate my original question:
please tell me the role of randomness (if any) in a mutation, and would a mutation be identical EVERY TIME with if the same chemicals and quantities were repeated?

If you'll bother looking back a couple of posts, I think you'll find I've already submitted an answer.

xian

ahh yes, i see your answer now. sorry, it got buried in irrelevant dodges by some atheists who would rather nitpick redherrings then discuss. i will now address your post