3 ms·

So... why the high standards?

by M_Grey 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
So... why the repeated questions? You obviously think there's something at stake here, and you don't like the distinction I'm drawing. Why? Why are you so touchy on this subject? There is a difference between creating new genes and merely shifting the distribution of existing genes within a population. Regardless of what terms you want to use for it, those are different things. You seem to be trying very hard to push the point that the difference doesn't matter; perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but it does to some people. In particular, if you're ever going to talk to a creationist (instead of just mocking them), you'd better understand the distinction. I explained this in my previous post, which you seemed to reply to very quickly but without actually seeming to listen to what I said. I suspect you aren't going to listen to this one, either. (Feel free to prove me wrong.)
- splawn 10y ago
  If only creationists make the distinction and not biologists, then why exactly is it relevant? Do you think this article is a bible study?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- M_Grey 10y ago
  "So... why the repeated questions?" Because you didn't answer it. As for talking to a creationist, I try to avoid it at all costs, and don't expect to have to deal with them on Hacker News.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There is a difference between creating new genes and merely shifting the distribution of existing genes within a population. On one level, there is -- creating new genes (most of which aren't useful and are rapidly selected out, but a very small percentage of which are useful and retained) is what mutation does. OTOH, substantively, the means by which new features get distributed after mutation creates them (either selected out or retained and spread) is exactly the same way in which the distribution of existing features changes (since it is a change in distribution of existing features, once the mutation happens), so there's little practical difference once you accept that mutation exists, which is well established separately.

So... why the high standards?

by M_Grey 10y ago

So... why the high standards?

So... why the repeated questions? You obviously think there's something at stake here, and you don't like the distinction I'm drawing. Why? Why are you so touchy on this subject? There is a difference between creating new genes and merely shifting the distribution of existing genes within a population. Regardless of what terms you want to use for it, those are different things. You seem to be trying very hard to push the point that the difference doesn't matter; perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but it does to some people. In particular, if you're ever going to talk to a creationist (instead of just mocking them), you'd better understand the distinction. I explained this in my previous post, which you seemed to reply to very quickly but without actually seeming to listen to what I said. I suspect you aren't going to listen to this one, either. (Feel free to prove me wrong.)

splawn 10y ago
If only creationists make the distinction and not biologists, then why exactly is it relevant? Do you think this article is a bible study?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
M_Grey 10y ago
"So... why the repeated questions?" Because you didn't answer it. As for talking to a creationist, I try to avoid it at all costs, and don't expect to have to deal with them on Hacker News.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> There is a difference between creating new genes and merely shifting the distribution of existing genes within a population. On one level, there is -- creating new genes (most of which aren't useful and are rapidly selected out, but a very small percentage of which are useful and retained) is what mutation does. OTOH, substantively, the means by which new features get distributed after mutation creates them (either selected out or retained and spread) is exactly the same way in which the distribution of existing features changes (since it is a change in distribution of existing features, once the mutation happens), so there's little practical difference once you accept that mutation exists, which is well established separately.