Okay, you've supplied a believable mechanism by which changes might occur.
But this leads me to ask: how likely is it, really, that DNA coding errors will lead to a beneficent mutation which occurs simultaneously in enough members of a population that they're able to breed into a new species? You invoke studies of moths: is this actually something that's been tested, and is empirically verified, or is it something that "can" happen according to someone's theoretical calculation? Big difference there.
And what about that pesky fossil record? You seem to imply that it really isn't much good for proving anything. Lack of evidence does not prove any theory (although it may disprove some theories).
I hold no brief for creation science, so called. But neither will I accept statements on faith from people who often have theological (or perhaps, anti-theological) subtexts lurking behind their scientific research.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2002-11-18 12:54 pm (UTC)But this leads me to ask: how likely is it, really, that DNA coding errors will lead to a beneficent mutation which occurs simultaneously in enough members of a population that they're able to breed into a new species? You invoke studies of moths: is this actually something that's been tested, and is empirically verified, or is it something that "can" happen according to someone's theoretical calculation? Big difference there.
And what about that pesky fossil record? You seem to imply that it really isn't much good for proving anything. Lack of evidence does not prove any theory (although it may disprove some theories).
I hold no brief for creation science, so called. But neither will I accept statements on faith from people who often have theological (or perhaps, anti-theological) subtexts lurking behind their scientific research.