Historical contingency in the evolution of <i>E. coli</i>

Behe must now admit that he was completely wrong or lose all credability. Random mutation produced all three mutations necessary for the evolution of a new beneficial trait. This is exactly the example that he asked for, the documentation of every mutation in the step-wise process along with population sizes and selection coefficients.

The problem with the God of the gaps approach is that the gaps keep getting smaller. Pretending the gap still exists will not save Behe now.

Nitpick time:

When you said, "This is the lesson: the likelihood of certain mutations arising is strongly affected by historical contingencies"

What you meant to say was

"This is the lesson: the likelihood of certain substitutions occurring is strongly affected by historical contingencies."

Behe has no credibility, not as a scientist anyway. Perhaps he's more credible than Ken Ham. On second thought, no.

What is incredible, though, is that Behe states the conclusion of the research, then in breathtaking inanity creates a "just so" story that supports his hallucination.

Maybe that's why he's a creationist; he just creates stuff.

Reed A. Cartwright said: Nitpick time: When you said, "This is the lesson: the likelihood of certain mutations arising is strongly affected by historical contingencies" What you meant to say was "This is the lesson: the likelihood of certain substitutions occurring is strongly affected by historical contingencies."

movethegoalposts: If you are claiming that research has been proven to show that gene duplication creates new functional genes that have NOT been previously found in an existing organism, please cite your paper. Otherwise, it's just empty claim.

Xylitol is also not normally metabolized, but Mortlock and his colleagues were able to develop strains (generally through spontaneous mutations, but sometimes with u.v. ray or chemical induced mutations) that could use it because ribitol dehydrogenase (which is usually present in the cells to convert ribitol to D-ribulose) was able to slightly speed up the conversion of xylitol to D-xylulose, for which metabolic pathways already exist. The ability of the strains to utilize xylitol was increased as much as 20 fold when first production of ribitol dehydrogenase was deregulated (the enzyme was produced all the time, not just when ribitol was present), then duplication of the ribitol dehydrogenase genes occurred, then the structure of the enzyme was changed such that its efficiency at working with xylitol was improved, and finally, in at least one case, a line regained control of the modified ribitol dehydrogenase gene so that the enzyme was only produced in the presence of xylitol. Here we have a complete example of a new metabolic pathway being developed through duplication and modification of an existing pathway.

Was the citrate a part of the growing medium, or was it produced through glucose metabolism?

I'm not a Yank a Yank a [omitted for diplomatic purposes] tank but will attempt a bash at the history of those erudite and exceptional peoples. What if A. Lincoln's son, Robert, hadn't failed an entrance examination to Harvard, prompting his father to to visit him - and, Father, in need of $200, accepted a lecture engagement to coincide with visiting his son. This lecture, staged in New York, was pivotal in setting Lincoln on the road to the presidency.

The republican nomination battle for Illinois then happened to be carried in Lincoln's favour through the showmanship of one R.J. Oglesby, who arranged for two old fence palings split by Lincoln to arrive on stage at a pivotal moment.

Then we have the legendary failure of a printer to deliver tally sheets by 9pm on the night of the deciding vote, Chicago, 1860. The vote was adjourned - and the foregone conclusion of who would become the republican nominee was turned on its head over the time space of a few hours.

Fate? Predestination? A confluence of environmental factors? This is one of the mysteries of the Universe. One can speculate until the big crunch renders speculation unnecessary.

What would have become of Man, if horses, dogs, sheep, cattle, and flowering plants hadn't happened put in an appearance at the appropriate moment in geologic time?

R. Owen pointed out such obvious facts before Darwinism, and deduced that something along the lines of "pre-ordination" was at work.

That doesn't mean that the "pre-ordination" empirically establishes the existence of a "Pre-Ordinator" in a test-tube. Neither does the pursuit of nature study require any particular religion. And "pre-ordination" doesn't rule out environmental happenstance and response to environmental happenings.

One can argue over chance, fate, and pre-ordination, forever - but there can be no removal of any one of those possibilities from the science scene - including pre-ordination.
Rapidly morphing microbes of hazy descent and classification that obviously respond to environment and are seemingly an accident of history aren't entirely novel and are a standing testimony to the way the universe functions. That's life. They couldn't respond to environment and pick up a programming factor during the course of their existence if there wasn't a technology furthering the procedure. Science's task is to find the technology, not merely to catalogue something and then provoke an argument over chance vs. pre-programming.

PBH has been drinking again I see :)

Great paper PZ, thank you for explaining in terms we layman can appreciate.

The citrate+ trait was first observed in the population called Ara-3 at roughly generation 33,000. By looking back at the frozen populations, they determined that the initial mutation that enabled growth on citrate actually appeared sometime between generation 31,000 and generation 35,000.

(Behe) "If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem." And what if more than two are needed?

Henry J said: p.s. "Behe" and "Coli" aren't in the spell checker.

I would think that the likelyhood of a mutation (substitution) occuring would be independent of the genotype, but the likelihood that a mutation would be benificial and fixed would be.

Not too long ago panselectionists were citing these experiments as proof of the all-dominating powers of natural selection. Which is funny because there has always been a drift component in taking only a sample of survivors, instead of just pouring the next round of glucose over all surviving bacteria. Without this repeated founder effect, populational fixation of any mutation would probably be much, much slower. Natural selection alone is simply much less effective when it comes to accumulating a potentially adaptive "string" of mutations.

I also find very interesting that the citrate-eaters had "ups and downs" in their populational frequencies rather than a simple story of steady increase. Competition simply was not sufficient to eliminate the existence of these "minorities", even though they could be described, in function of their lower frequency, to be "less fit" or "not-so-well-adapted". Yet there they were.

Alexander Vargas said: Without this repeated founder effect ...

HDX said: I would think that the likelyhood of a mutation(substitution) occuring would be independent of the genotype, but the likelihood that a mutation would be benificial and fixed would be.

This was a "Holy Crap" paper, the kind you only see once every few years. Papers like this are why I love science.

PBH wrote:

"They couldn’t respond to environment and pick up a programming factor during the course of their existence if there wasn’t a technology furthering the procedure. Science’s task is to find the technology, not merely to catalogue something and then provoke an argument over chance vs. pre-programming."

But they in fact did exactly that. Your hypothesis is conclusively falsified. Unless of course you can demonstrate this "technology" and how it operated in this experiment. Come on Phil, here is your big chance. You can run this exact experiment yourself and prove to everyone exactly what mechanism you are yapping about. It is your task to "find the technology" and yours alone.

Of course, until you provide some evidence, random mutation and natural selecetion, (demonstrable processes that are fully capable of producing this result), are all that is required. There were no photons "processed" in a magnetic field, no "information technology", no intelligence in the sun directing the bacteria to be better, no poof miracles, just good old evolution in action. Once again, you were completely wrong. Just admit it and go away.

Behe seems to have turned off comments to his posting.

PvM said: Behe seems to have turned off comments to his posting.

I love these kinds of papers because they are so real and are something a physicist can really identify with.

These creationists demand a repeatable, molecule-by-molecule reenactment of a stochastic evolutionary process before they will believe it, and yet this very demand betrays their profound ignorance of these processes and how they are studied by working scientists.

It’s getting harder and harder for me to believe that Behe was ever a real working scientist. And Lehigh’s Biology Department disclaimer about Behe’s claims becomes even more significant the more Behe sticks his flagellating hoof in his mouth.

I don't find Behe that baffling. He's basically saying predestination + unlikelihood-of-any-one-outcome = design. As always. Apparently his need for God's need to make humans is so ingrained, he can't see how it colors his thinking. As long as I can remember, creationists have argued "X just happened, and X is virtually impossible", ignoring that the same is true of a shuffled deck of cards. The confusion is between "we can assume X, since we know it happened", and "we could have assumed X, in principle, at any point in history"

It’s still E. Coli!!!

“Behe” and “Coli” aren’t in the spell checker.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Jul 1;88(13):5882-6. Links Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations: mutations involving base substitutions.Hall BG. Biology Department, University of Rochester, NY 14627. A previous study has demonstrated that adaptive missense mutations occur in the trp operon of Escherichia coli. In this study it is shown that, under conditions of intense selection, a strain carrying missense mutations in both trpA and trpB reverts to Trp+ 10(8) times more frequently than would be expected if the two mutations were the result of independent events. Comparison of the single mutation rates with the double mutation rate and information obtained by sequencing DNA from double revertants show that neither our classical understanding of spontaneous mutation processes nor extant models for adaptive mutations can account for all of the observations. Despite a current lack of mechanistic understanding, it is clear that adaptive mutations can permit advantageous phenotypes that require multiple mutations to arise and that they appear enormously more frequently than would be expected.

1: Genetics. 1989 Dec;123(4):635-48. Links Erratum in: Genetics 1990 Mar;124(3):791. DNA sequence analysis of artificially evolved ebg enzyme and ebg repressor genes.Hall BG, Betts PW, Wootton JC. Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs 06268. The ebg system has been used as a model to study the artificial selection of new catalytic functions of enzymes and of inducer specificities of repressors. A series of mutant enzymes with altered catalytic specificities were previously characterized biochemically as were the changes in inducer specificities of mutant, but fully functional, repressors. The wild type ebg operon has been sequenced, and the sequence differences of the mutant enzymes and repressors have been determined. We now report that, contrary to our previous understanding, ebg enzyme contains 180-kD alpha-subunits and 20-kD beta-subunits, both of which are required for full activity. Mutations that dramatically affect substrate specificity and catalytic efficiency lie in two distinct regions, both well outside of the active site region. Mutations that affect inducer specificity of the ebg repressor lie within predicted sugar binding domains. Comparisons of the ebg beta-galactosidase and repressor with homologous proteins of the Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae lac operons, and with the galactose operon repressor, suggest that the ebg and lac operons diverged prior to the divergence of E. coli from Klebsiella. One case of a triple substitution as the consequence of a single event is reported, and the implications of that observation for mechanisms of spontaneous mutagenesis are discussed.

panselectionists

I doubt you get a founder effect when you reseed the next day’s cycle with billions of individuals.

Wow! Mountains from molehills! This sort of change is called "micro-evolution I recall and no one doubts it. Are these population still bacterium? Yep!

Moreover, I'd be interested in James Shapiro's take on the actual mechanism since he is not a complete dolt like Pee Wee and has established for bacteria rapid change mechanisms having essentially nil to do with RM and NS.

So he wouldn't have to use doublespeak BS like NEUTRAL mutations that cause change, predisposition to change, blah, in direct contradiction to the definition of same.

All hat and no cattle with this guy.

Behe's nonsense depends on a lot of hidden asumptions. Hidden because he doesn't care enough to read the literature or learn anything about science.

If one starts selecting spontaneous mutations, it doesn't take long to pick up "mutator phenotypes." These are strains that have mutations in DNA replication and repair enzymes and higher mutation frequencies. These are common and known for many genes.

So really what you were selecting for is bacteria with higher mutation frequencies which then yield the mutations one was selecting for.

With mutator strains, his numerology crashes big time. But data like this is never a problem for creo crackpots. They just ignore it, wave their hands, or move the goal posts. This is neither honest nor science.

keith said: All hat and no cattle with this guy.

Right on time, the troll Keith jumps in.... Wow! Mountains from molehills! This sort of change is called “micro-evolution I recall and no one doubts it.

Are these population still bacterium? Yep!

Reed A. Cartwright said:

HDX said: I would think that the likelyhood of a mutation(substitution) occuring would be independent of the genotype, but the likelihood that a mutation would be benificial and fixed would be.

A substitution is a mutation that got fixed.

HDX said: Thats a new one to me. I would call insertions, deletions and substitutions as mutations whether they are fixed or not. An insertion mutation that is fixed is not called a substitution.

I said

"there has always been a drift component in taking only a sample of survivors, instead of just pouring the next round of glucose over all surviving bacteria"

This is, of course, an extra step that is regardless of the sample size.

If you can't understand why this part of the protocol is not the same as natural selection, well, I can't help you.

Larsson: when someone says selection is not everything, or that selection is not the main mechanism, he is not saying selection is total crap. This is on the accout of your panselectionist paranoia. Selection (an importnat factor of evolution) must be put in perspective rather than abusing it like an amateur to explain anything.

Unfortunatley, amateurs are very prone to this becuase they are misled by people like Dawkins into thinking that if they understand selection, they understand evolution. Further they are fooled into believeing this is the only way we can say evolution is "explained" such that without it we'd be the happless victims of creationists.

The result is that amateurs will point to any evolutionary process and say "natural selection". This is just sad, since evolutionary biology should not be distorted in function of looming creationism.

PBH wrote: One can argue over chance, fate, and pre-ordination, forever - but there can be no removal of any one of those possibilities from the science scene - including pre-ordination.

Keith wrote: This sort of change is called “micro-evolution I recall and no one doubts it.

Alexander Vargas said: I said "there has always been a drift component in taking only a sample of survivors, instead of just pouring the next round of glucose over all surviving bacteria" This is, of course, an extra step that is regardless of the sample size. If you can't understand why this part of the protocol is not the same as natural selection, well, I can't help you. Larsson: when someone says selection is not everything, or that selection is not the main mechanism, he is not saying selection is total crap. This is on the accout of your panselectionist paranoia. Selection (an importnat factor of evolution) must be put in perspective rather than abusing it like an amateur to explain anything. Unfortunatley, amateurs are very prone to this becuase they are misled by people like Dawkins into thinking that if they understand selection, they understand evolution. Further they are fooled into believeing this is the only way we can say evolution is "explained" such that without it we'd be the happless victims of creationists. The result is that amateurs will point to any evolutionary process and say "natural selection". This is just sad, since evolutionary biology should not be distorted in function of looming creationism.

I hope you are not another dumb "information" creationist (they have a mill producing those at the DI).

Tell me what observable biological change you would consider an additon of "information"

Then perhaps I can answer your question as to what other things (other than selection alone) are required for that change

dumb “information” creationist

What is that?

The debate over the definition of "substitution" and "mutation" I find unsatisfying. These terms can be used in different ways. For example, hemoglobin A (normal) just needs one base pair substitution to become hemoglobin S (sickle cell). Is substitution the mutation event, or the comparison between a normal protein and a variant? As for the requirement that the change has to be fixed in a population, that might reflect the difficulty in finding a change in just a few individuals.
In the example of citrate utilization, I would say that mutation adequately described the event, substitution (short for base pair substitution) describes what the change is. I feel both terms are acceptable.

David Stanton said: Behe must now admit that he was completely wrong or lose all credability. Random mutation produced all three mutations necessary for the evolution of a new beneficial trait. This is exactly the example that he asked for, the documentation of every mutation in the step-wise process along with population sizes and selection coefficients. The problem with the God of the gaps approach is that the gaps keep getting smaller. Pretending the gap still exists will not save Behe now.

Keith wrote:

"Wow! Mountains from molehills! This sort of change is called “micro-evolution I recall and no one doubts it. Are these population still bacterium? Yep!"

Actually, this is exactly the thing that Behe said could not happen. It also conclusively disproves the assertation that no novel functions can arise through random mutation and natural selection. Sure, some creationists claim that "microevolution" is no problem, but when they define what they mean by this they are usually seriously underestimating what has already been demonstrated.

Also, Torbjorn may have a point. Maybe these bacteria would not be considered to be E. coli if they were detected in an environmental screen. Maybe they could be classified as a new species. Oh well, if they really are a new species, then another creationist claim bites the dust.

"likelyhood of a mutation(substitution) occuring would be independent of the genotype, but the likelihood"

Isn't that a neutral mutation right there? An 'i' was substituted for a 'y', but it didn't adversely affect the reading of the sentence. What's the likelihood of that?!

And one more: "p.s. “Behe” and “Coli” aren’t in the spell checker"

Behe isn't in the fact checker either if judged by what he says and writes!

Stevroni still lives with his head up his butt ..as always.

A reading of Behe's response demonstrates the utter yawn of this result and Behe's contention that multiple point mutation events all contributing to "fitness" and being thus selected approach the limits of microevolutionary change by RM and NS.

Nothing in the paper says otherwise, on close inspection.

The more believable mechanisms for cumulative change and rapid adaptation is quite indifferent to RM and NS as explained by J. Shapiro in the bacterium world. But that would mean you are reading and understanding the most current research and understanding on the subject....quite non-darwinian.

Only a butthead moron like you would use logic that says if a man can jump over a coffee can , later a barrel, then "tall buildings at a single bound" are just a matter of time.

Well our species has been around a while and I have yet to see the 100 foot broad jump, the 6.0 sec 100 m dash, the 2 minute mile or the 20 foot high jump.

It seems the physical processes in biology all have diminishing returns under all known paradigms, in the real world.

Put your head back up your butt and come back later.

Keith stares in slack-jawed incomprehension at the results of a scientific experiment and automatically recites the same mantra he learned in his catechism (it ain’t “macro-evolution”; it’s “micro-evolution).

Our self-proclaimed “expert in thermodynamics” has never provided an explanation of why there is some kind of “barrier” that prevents evolution from continuing right up through the production of new species. All he is capable of doing is making insults and calling people names.

Keith is an example of a sectarian who cannot cross an impenetrable sectarian boundary to a deeper understanding of anything. His sectarianism is itself a form of non-evolution. For people like keith, not even “micro-evolution” is possible.

keith said: Wow! Mountains from molehills! This sort of change is called "micro-evolution I recall and no one doubts it. Are these population still bacterium? Yep! Moreover, I'd be interested in James Shapiro's take on the actual mechanism since he is not a complete dolt like Pee Wee and has established for bacteria rapid change mechanisms having essentially nil to do with RM and NS. So he wouldn't have to use doublespeak BS like NEUTRAL mutations that cause change, predisposition to change, blah, in direct contradiction to the definition of same. All hat and no cattle with this guy.

Before we continue with feeding the troll, was the citrate the mutant E. coli fed upon a part of the growing medium, or a by-product from their glucose metabolism?

citrate was part of the growing medium (low glucose and available citrate = the selective environment)

Only a butthead moron like a creationist would use logic that says if a man can jump over a coffee can , later a barrel, then “tall buildings at a single bound” are just a matter of time, since that's an obviously false strawman analogy.

jasonmitchell said: citrate was part of the growing medium (low glucose and available citrate = the selective environment)

Stanton said: Before we continue with feeding the troll, was the citrate the mutant E. coli fed upon a part of the growing medium, or a by-product from their glucose metabolism?

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions.

A reading of Behe’s response demonstrates the utter yawn of this result and Behe’s contention that multiple point mutation events all contributing to “fitness” and being thus selected approach the limits of microevolutionary change by RM and NS.

Only a butthead moron like you would use logic that says if a man can jump over a coffee can , later a barrel, then “tall buildings at a single bound” are just a matter of time.

Your entire argument rests on the idea that there is some magical mechanism that prevents a man from walking across the state because he has only demonstrated he can walk across the town. This despite the fact that there are footprints all over the planet.

Stevroni still lives with his head up his butt ..as always.

Creationist: mutations are harmful

Biologist: here is a neutral mutation

Creationist: mutations are not beneficial

Biologist: here is a beneficial mutation

Creationist: two neutral mutations can not create a beneficial trait

Biologist: here are two neutral mutations that create a beneficial trait

Creationist: three neutral mutations can not create a beneficial trait

Biologist: here are three neutral mutations that create a beneficial trait

Creationist: four...

Now THAT'S evolution

keith said: Only a butthead moron like you would use logic that says if a man can jump over a coffee can , later a barrel, then "tall buildings at a single bound" are just a matter of time.

David Stanton said:Behe must now admit that he was completely wrong or lose all credability. Random mutation produced all three mutations necessary for the evolution of a new beneficial trait.

D P Robin said: Does that not mean that the citrate is in the formula for the growing medium and not a waste product of the E. coli? If my conclusion is wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. dpr

Behe's numerology with it's hidden asumptions failed to take into account simple biology.

He assumes that multiple mutation systems require simultaneous mutations before anything has a selective advantage. Most of the time that is going to be wrong. One mutation might help a little, and additional mutations might be additive or synergistic. In a billion years this can turn a single celled eukaryote into a biosphere.

Resistance to a malaria combo ends up being due to 5 mutations.

The other process he ignores is sexual recombination. This allows continual shuffling of the entire gene pool of a species and at least 2 copies of every gene to be present in organisms. The ubiquity of the process shows how important it is.

His analysis is just another version of proving that bumble bees can't fly.

Is there any evidence or thinking that the ability to evolve efficiently might be one the the traits that would be selected for over time?
How would that affect the probabilities?

keith cried: Only a butthead moron like you would use logic that says if a man can jump over a coffee can , later a barrel, then "tall buildings at a single bound" are just a matter of time.

stevaroni said: Behe's contention, at least the part of it that he testified to under oath in Dover, was that there was simply no way useful mutations requiring multiple points could arise - the numbers were too daunting.

Q. Could you read into the record the text to the end of the paragraph beginning with, we strongly emphasize? A. We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes, such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations, would be more or less efficient. Q. So it doesn't include recombination, it doesn't include insertion/deletion of the mutations? A. That's correct. Q. And those are understood as pathways for Darwinian evolution? A. They are potential pathways, yes. Q. This study didn't involve transposition? A. No, this focuses on a single gene. Q. And transpositions are, they are a kind of mutation, is that right? A. Yes. They can be, yes. Q. And so that means, this simulation didn't examine a number of the mechanisms by which evolution actually operates? A. That is correct, yes. Q. And this paper, let's be clear here, doesn't say anything about intelligent design? A. Yes, that's correct. It does imply irreducible complexity but not intelligent design. Q. But it doesn't say it? A. That's correct. Q. And one last other question on your paper. You concluded, it would take a population size of 10 to the 9th, I think we said that was a billion, 10 to the 8th generations to evolve this new disulfide bond, that was your conclusion? A. That was the calculation based on the assumptions in the paper, yes. MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. What I've marked as Exhibit P-756 is an article in the journal Science called Exploring Micro-- A. Microbial. Q. Thank you -- Diversity, A Vast Below by T.P. Curtis and W.T. Sloan? A. Yes, that seems to be it. Q. In that first paragraph, he says, There are more than 10 to the 16 prokaryotes in a ton of soil. Is that correct, in that first paragraph? A. Yes, that's right. Q. In one ton of soil? A. That's correct. Q. And we have a lot more than one ton of soil on Earth, correct? A. Yes, we do. Q. And have for some time, correct? A. That's correct, yes.

Q. Okay. So if we exclude some of the processes by which we understand evolution to occur, it's hard to get there for multicellular organisms? A. I'm sorry. Q. If we exclude some of the mechanisms by which we understand evolution to occur, like recombination, it's hard to get there? A. Yes.

{Keith: seriously. Do you have to observe life evolving for a billion years before we can conclude it evolves? By the same logic we could differentiate between micro-gravity (which moves small objects) and macro-gravity (which moves large objects) and refuse to conclude that gravity influences the motion of the moon/earth, until someone drops a moon-sized object into a planet. Sometimes it is acceptable to actually use logic when reaching conclusions. Honest.}

Gravity is one of the few physical forces that have a very long constant rate of functioning. Most do not. Take the speed of light. How tall animals can grow and probably most have 'barriers'. To assume that evolution has no barriers is illogical.

chuck said: Is there any evidence or thinking that the ability to evolve efficiently might be one the the traits that would be selected for over time? How would that affect the probabilities?

raven this thread: If one starts selecting spontaneous mutations, it doesn’t take long to pick up “mutator phenotypes.” These are strains that have mutations in DNA replication and repair enzymes and higher mutation frequencies. These are common and known for many genes.

from the paper itself: At the same time, there has also been some divergence between populations. Four have evolved defects in DNA repair, causing mutator phenotypes (3, 33).

raven said:

raven this thread: If one starts selecting spontaneous mutations, it doesn’t take long to pick up “mutator phenotypes.” These are strains that have mutations in DNA replication and repair enzymes and higher mutation frequencies. These are common and known for many genes.

from the paper itself: At the same time, there has also been some divergence between populations. Four have evolved defects in DNA repair, causing mutator phenotypes (3, 33).

Told you so. QED

chuck said: Is there any evidence or thinking that the ability to evolve efficiently might be one the the traits that would be selected for over time? How would that affect the probabilities?

stevaroni said: You may, in fact, very well be the last man (troll?) on earth actually listening to him try to explain away another piece of data invalidating his theory, the rest of us gave up on his crap the third or fourth time he was unable to support it.

Q. And we have a lot more than one ton of soil on Earth, correct?

Larry Boy said: ...since it is difficult to see how mutations can be carefully directed.

raven said: Some have maintained that the "junk" DNA of eukaryotes is just that, in part. Not all of it, all of the time. Spare parts for further evolution.

Alexander Vargas said: Larsson: when someone says selection is not everything, or that selection is not the main mechanism, he is not saying selection is total crap. This is on the accout of your panselectionist paranoia. Selection (an importnat factor of evolution) must be put in perspective rather than abusing it like an amateur to explain anything. Unfortunatley, amateurs are very prone to this becuase they are misled by people like Dawkins into thinking that if they understand selection, they understand evolution. Further they are fooled into believeing this is the only way we can say evolution is "explained" such that without it we'd be the happless victims of creationists. The result is that amateurs will point to any evolutionary process and say "natural selection". This is just sad, since evolutionary biology should not be distorted in function of looming creationism.

Bernard said: {Keith: seriously. Do you have to observe life evolving for a billion years before we can conclude it evolves? By the same logic we could differentiate between micro-gravity (which moves small objects) and macro-gravity (which moves large objects) and refuse to conclude that gravity influences the motion of the moon/earth, until someone drops a moon-sized object into a planet. Sometimes it is acceptable to actually use logic when reaching conclusions. Honest.} Gravity is one of the few physical forces that have a very long constant rate of functioning. Most do not. Take the speed of light. How tall animals can grow and probably most have 'barriers'. To assume that evolution has no barriers is illogical.

This is an experiment that revealed a trait that required at least three mutations. Yet there it is, produced by natural evolution, with no intelligent design required; and when the experiment is re-run with populations that had the initial enabling variant, they re-evolved the ability multiple times.

To assume that evolution has no barriers is illogical.

Flint said: Uh, guys, why can't this experiment be held up as showing the Designer in action? If Behe says 3 (or more) interacting mutations require a Designer, and here we have, and can repeat, that very scenario, then we have demonstrated the Designer.

OT but...

Just a reminder, Ken Miller's New book, "Only A Theory - Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul"
will be available in stores tomorrow. For those of you with advance copies, I think you will agree, it is a must read.

ISBN - 978-0-670-01883-3

He will also be on The Colbert Report, June 16.

"But I’m not sure it’s all about “distortion” or “looming creationism.”

But as far as debating the creationists, that is all. And this happens to be one of the amateur's favorite passtimes

"Natural selection is the exciting part of evolution for most people. "

But not all people. It's the reasons for this excitement that we are debating. Looming creationism, I agree, is not the only. However, it is one of the reasons, which is not 100% scientific

"I think it can fairly be said that, while there are other important mechanisms in the absence of which selection would not operate as we observe, selection does most of the “heavy lifting” when we’re looking for an explanation of what historical process led to a given instance of adaptive complexity"

I don't agree, that's more some sort of as opinion thna an actual a scientific fact. The experiment discussed right here testifies to the importance of contingency for the "heavy lifting" of an adaptive transition. Remember, those 11 other colonies were under the same selective pressure.

"Popularizers like Dawkins are tapping into the sexy side of the topic, and surely we’d rather have a public excited about a somewhat truncated version of modern evolutionary theory than a few knowledgeable biologists among the oblivious masses."

No. I'd rather people KNEW when they have no idea, rather than think they know something when it is, in fact, a false or cartoonish view of evolution (and further tend to be dogmatic, which is juts laughable)

"Other authors like Sean Carroll, in Endless Forms, and Matt Ridley in Genome and The Red Queen, have also written accessible works that bring to light other aspects of the story, and no one, I should hope, limits themselves to the output of only one author on any topic."

Unfortunately, many readers of dawkins look no further into natural history or evolution becuase they are not interested in evolution much more than a justification of atheism. Also, the authors you cite are quite darwinian and conservative. To read someone with more critical bite, and a much better understanding of non- darwinian views, I recommend Gould's big fat book (as well as "his eight little piggies book").

I guess I have another question.

Suppose a gene mutates and causes a change that kills it's owner just before it reaches reproductive age.

Is that "selection?"

.....a strain carrying missense mutations in both trpA and trpB reverts to Trp+ 10(8) times more frequently than would be expected if the two mutations were the result of independent events.

chuck said: I guess I have another question. Suppose a gene mutates and causes a change that kills it's owner just before it reaches reproductive age. Is that "selection?"

This sure sounds as if the mutagenesis is being driven by some internal source.

Hall paper: Despite a current lack of mechanistic understanding, it is clear that adaptive mutations can permit advantageous phenotypes that require multiple mutations to arise and that they appear enormously more frequently than would be expected.

None of this chatter about theory matters. Once we start making interventions in the germline of humans, the "theory" of evolution, natural selection, etc. is replaced by the *fact* of the actual intelligent designer: man.

[Of course whales can’t live on land, now. That doesn’t mean they didn’t evolve from an early land-dweller, and there is NO barrier to that evolution.]

How do you know there is no barrier?

[If there are barriers, what are they? Why hasn’t anyone pointed to them? Why are there no peer-reviewed works that prove “This is as far as this organism can go in this direction”?]

These things should be studied. Are you really saying there are absolutely no barriers in evolution? And you have proven there are no barriers by experimentation?

One of the biggest "barriers" to evolution is historical contingency. Gould is famous for pointing out exactly that. This study shows exquisitely how important historical contingency is in evolution.

That having been said, historical contingency is only a barrier in that in constrains evolution in certain ways. It doesn't prevent evolution or even make it impossible for certain combinations of traits to eventually arise. What is does is dramatically affect the probability that certain combinations of traits will evolve in a given lineage.

"Poof" is not constrained by historical contingency, but evolution is. Still, Behe is wrong. Historical contingency did not prevent mutations from accumulating and leading to the evolution of citrate metabolism. Nor did it prevent whales from returning to the aquatic environment. It might however make it difficult for them to evolve flight at this point.

Dale Husband said:

PvM said: Behe seems to have turned off comments to his posting.

Sure, that's what liars do when they are too chicken to let themselves by exposed on their own territory.

Bernard said: [Of course whales can’t live on land, now. That doesn’t mean they didn’t evolve from an early land-dweller, and there is NO barrier to that evolution.] How do you know there is no barrier?

[If there are barriers, what are they? Why hasn’t anyone pointed to them? Why are there no peer-reviewed works that prove “This is as far as this organism can go in this direction”?] These things should be studied. Are you really saying there are absolutely no barriers in evolution? And you have proven there are no barriers by experimentation?

David Stanton said: One of the biggest "barriers" to evolution is historical contingency. Gould is famous for pointing out exactly that. This study shows exquisitely how important historical contingency is in evolution. That having been said, historical contingency is only a barrier in that in constrains evolution in certain ways. It doesn't prevent evolution or even make it impossible for certain combinations of traits to eventually arise. What is does is dramatically affect the probability that certain combinations of traits will evolve in a given lineage. "Poof" is not constrained by historical contingency, but evolution is. Still, Behe is wrong. Historical contingency did not prevent mutations from accumulating and leading to the evolution of citrate metabolism. Nor did it prevent whales from returning to the aquatic environment. It might however make it difficult for them to evolve flight at this point.

commenter said: None of this chatter about theory matters. Once we start making interventions in the germline of humans, the "theory" of evolution, natural selection, etc. is replaced by the *fact* of the actual intelligent designer: man.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Yeah, and I'm still trying to find a comment I made about a henhouse on I think it was a Mr. Cartwright's thread. PvM is versed in hen houses.

Of course whales can’t live on land, now. That doesn’t mean they didn’t evolve from an early land-dweller, and there is NO barrier to that evolution.] How do you know there is no barrier?

Phil,

You have been proven wrong about "technology" being involved. Either demonstrate the "technology' responsible for producing citrate metabolism or admit you were wrong. "Verbalizing" the same nonsense over and over will not convince anyone. Only evidence will convince anyone, you have none, why is that?

At the risk of feeding the troll, I should also point out that "moving protons in organic molecules" is not required for point mutations. Tautameric shifts in bases of DNA is one mechanism, base analog incorporation is another, along with slipped strand mispairing, etc. No photons are processed in magnetic fields and no protons need move around. This happened right there in the test tube in the lab. The sun God and his magic processing had nothing to do with it.

Alexander Vargas said: Larsson: when someone says selection is not everything, or that selection is not the main mechanism, he is not saying selection is total crap.

Alexander Vargas said: This is on the accout of your panselectionist paranoia.

amateurs

Bronson said: But what other than natural selection can add new information to an organism?

Of course whales can’t live on land, now. That doesn’t mean they didn’t evolve from an early land-dweller, and there is NO barrier to that evolution.]

How do you know there is no barrier?

Silly. It happened, whales exist and evolved from hoofed ungulates, therefore it happened. Your question is equivalent to asking how you know you are alive.

Or you probably mean it was impossible and gods evolutionary biologist flocks of angels were pushing them into the water. AKA as the variant of creationism, the misnamed ID. ID is over 2,000 years old and hasn’t produced any evidence or gone anywhere. These days it is just a tool for christofascist Dominionists to attempt to destroy our society.

[ It seems like you are saying you know there is no barrier because 'it happened' But how can we prove that 'it happened' thru natural selection and not some yet to be discovered mechanism? ]

PBH: "Historical contingency doesn’t move protons in organic molecules. There is a technology involved - get it?"

Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean?

Move is what protons do. Dissolve an acid in water and the little fellows whizz around. Life functions on the ready movement of protons. Does PBH actually mean covalently bonded hydrogen atoms?

But how can we prove that ‘it happened’ thru natural selection and not some yet to be discovered mechanism?

It seems like you are saying you know there is no barrier because ‘it happened’ But how can we prove that ‘it happened’ thru natural selection and not some yet to be discovered mechanism?

Bernard said: Gravity is one of the few physical forces that have a very long constant rate of functioning. Most do not. Take the speed of light.

Also, you are comparing processes of a fundamental force (gravity) with a process of various biochemical and environmental mechanisms (evolution). You shouldn’t try to compare ranges and rates between those

[actually someone else used the gravity analogy which I responded to. I also agree using gravity as a comparison to evolution is erroneous ]

raven said:

It seems like you are saying you know there is no barrier because ‘it happened’ But how can we prove that ‘it happened’ thru natural selection and not some yet to be discovered mechanism?

Pretty hard to prove a negative. Fortunately, that is not how science works. Natural selection exists, we can demonstrate it easily and often. The principles are used to improve crops and feed 6.7 billion people. The only other proposed mechanism is goddidit. It lacks any proof, data, or evidence whatsoever. The burden of proof is on the creos to prove their "mechanism", not on scientists to do so. Of course, in 2,000 + years they have gone nowhere and much of what they claimed has been proven wrong. The earth is much older than 6,000 years, for example. BTW, you are probably the polyID troll Jacob, George, etc.. Someone else can take the troll bait, I'm too busy to bother.

Jeez, Larsson. I only answered your false accusation that I maintain that selection is "total crap". Just in case anybody heeds you... But, on second thought, that is quite unlikely. So take care now. Bye bye then

GuyeFaux said:

But how can we prove that ‘it happened’ thru natural selection and not some yet to be discovered mechanism?

Science is not in the business of proving things. Secondly, you can't prove the universal non-existence of anything. Thirdly, an unknown mechanism is possible but as of yet un-evidenced. Fourthly, nothing is stopping you or anybody else from looking for such evidence, why haven't you tried?

Bernard said: It seems like you are saying you know there is no barrier because 'it happened' But how can we prove that 'it happened' thru natural selection and not some yet to be discovered mechanism?

Bernard said: ... (1,) Most functions have asymptotes. It would be reasonable to assume that evolution does also. (2,) Until we can devise a way to test that assumption we have to assume the data is insufficient to come to a conclusion. THATS how science works.

Bernard said: actually someone else used the gravity analogy which I responded to. I also agree using gravity as a comparison to evolution is erroneous

raven said: BTW, you are probably the polyID troll Jacob, George, etc..

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: And number of genes certainly doesn't predict in a simple way complexity of traits, also observed in the same populations. Which brings us back to raven's observation. Neat, huh?

OK Larsson, you scandinavian excuse for a troll hahaha

Obviously you think natural selection is more important than I do. You even panic a little when this is put into question. I'll explain to you why this is so.

Recently on Sandwalk you dished one crackpot just-so-story about the evolution of consciousness that was much lacking in biology and natural history and much abunding in selectionist, game-theory and information-theory explanations. This makes me realize 1) you are indeed "fan" of selection 2) you make the typical mistake of attributing powers to selection that it does not have 3) you know jack about biology and natural history. You use other means to become an "evolutionary expert" despite of this.

Like all anticreationist adaptationists (veiled or explicit) you probably think that natural selection alone is what explains adaptive complexity such as the vertebrate eye. Thus in my book you're still firmly rooted within panselectionist adaptationism.

That's OK, Larsson, you're just an amateur and still too few among biologists themselves progress to question such "darwinian truths" (unless you are in Chile, or Brazil)

Or Spain!

Bernard said: We can assert that there is a high probablity that a function will have an asymptote since in our sampling of functions almost all do. All most all progressive sequences have dead ends. So the burden of proof should be on those who contend they do not.

Larry Boy said:

Bernard said: We can assert that there is a high probablity that a function will have an asymptote since in our sampling of functions almost all do. All most all progressive sequences have dead ends. So the burden of proof should be on those who contend they do not.

As has been pointed out several times, there is no reason to assume that a thing is true, unless there is some reason to assume that it is true. (geez, you would think that tautology was obvious.) In other words, we neither assume that a function has an asymptote nor do we assume that a function does not have an asymptote until there is a reasonable argument one way or the other. You reasoning is absurdly flawed. Simply because most things are one way, it does not logically imply that all things are that way, nor is there any merit in assuming that any given thing is likely to be the way other things are. For example, dice rolls are independent of previous dice rolls, so the state of past dice rolls gives you no information about future dice rolls. Unless you can point to some form of logical dependence of natural selection on asymptotic functions, your argument is vapid. Further more, your premise is unsupported. I can make the claim that most natural functions do not have an asymptote, and by your logic we can assume that natural functions do not have asymptotes until asymptotes are discovered. My list of non-asymptotic functions: momentum, gravitational-mass, sea-level, number of books written, size of computer programs. Ok, now the person with the longer list wins. (that's me!) The only default position in science is "your opinion is crap" until proven otherwise by careful reasoning and empirical examples. Allow me to demonstrate: Evolution has no barrier: That's crap, prove it! Natural selection should be a Markovian process, i.e. it should only be dependent on the current state of affairs, and should not be dependent on the path taken to reach that state. This results from the fact that the genes of an organism fully specify that organism. If a mutation can accumulate in an organism, then because evolution is a Markovian process, infinitely many mutations can accumulate. (This assumes that conditions remain favorable for the accumulation of mutations for an infinite time, simply because the process is Markovian does not mean that there cannot be movement in parameter space.) Evidence: A large number of selection experiments have been done, and none have found there to be a total limit to the response to selection pressures in organisms. There rate of response varies over the course of an experiment for obvious reasons, but organisms have not shown a barrier to evolution. Evolution has a barrier: That's crap, prove it! Your turn.

Alexander Vargas said: OK Larsson, you scandinavian excuse for a troll hahaha Obviously you think natural selection is more important than I do. You even panic a little when this is put into question. I'll explain to you why this is so. Recently on Sandwalk you dished one crackpot just-so-story about the evolution of consciousness that was much lacking in biology and natural history and much abunding in selectionist, game-theory and information-theory explanations. This makes me realize 1) you are indeed "fan" of selection 2) you make the typical mistake of attributing powers to selection that it does not have 3) you know jack about biology and natural history. You use other means to become an "evolutionary expert" despite of this. Like all anticreationist adaptationists (veiled or explicit) you probably think that natural selection alone is what explains adaptive complexity such as the vertebrate eye. Thus in my book you're still firmly rooted within panselectionist adaptationism. That's OK, Larsson, you're just an amateur and still too few among biologists themselves progress to question such "darwinian truths" (unless you are in Chile, or Brazil)

I have no idea what troll means, but Larsson had just called me that. I guess it's some kind of internet addiction? Guilty as charged.

"In my opinion, and the opinion of most others I have talked too, Gould overstated the importance of historical contingency in evolution. Historical contingency is important, but adaptation is far more important"

I think you're wrong. Again, see the experiment above.

Plus Gould's critique of adaptatitonism goes way beyond contingency; It's about developmental constraints too. Homology and parallelism vs convergence, for instance

I thought we already established that evolution has barriers. And also established science does not 'prove' things.

Tell me about one of these 'experiments'. And of course time is a barrier you will admit that I hope. Species cannot make large changes in say 1000 years can they.

Nope, you have not. If I can have one beneficial mutation, why can’t I have a gigilion?

[ time limitations ]

Bernard said: Nope, you have not. If I can have one beneficial mutation, why can’t I have a gigilion? [ time limitations ]

Alexander Vargas said: I have no idea what troll means, but Larsson had just called me that. I guess it's some kind of internet addiction? Guilty as charged. "In my opinion, and the opinion of most others I have talked too, Gould overstated the importance of historical contingency in evolution. Historical contingency is important, but adaptation is far more important" I think you're wrong. Again, see the experiment above. Plus Gould's critique of adaptatitonism goes way beyond contingency; It's about developmental constraints too. Homology and parallelism vs convergence, for instance

Bernard said:

Bernard said: Nope, you have not. If I can have one beneficial mutation, why can’t I have a gigilion? [ time limitations ]

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Larry Boy said:

Bernard said:

Bernard said: Nope, you have not. If I can have one beneficial mutation, why can’t I have a gigilion? [ time limitations ]

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

If you'd like to contribute anything constructive that requires thought on your part, feel free.

I think the case can be made that Gould was a bit contradictory about the extent of the implications of his critique. Some like me, feel he was too selectionist. Others think he overdid his criticism of selectionism or somehow proceeded frivolously about it (you have expressed disagreement with Gould's emphasis on contingency, for instance). All things said, you are correct in pointing out that Gould did decide to root himself in selection (though it would be simply unfair to call him an adaptationist, either)

On of these contradictions is how he failed to fully introduce the notions of spandrels and expatation; while these clealry prove there is something else to adpataion than natural selection, Gould would still consider natural selection to be sufficnet to explain adpataion, and thus perhaps unkowingly relegated these other porcesses into the anecdotal freak event category.

However, exaptation is frequently (and increasingly) documented in evolution, and specially so in the evolution of complex adpatations.

Alexander Vargas said: However, exaptation is frequently (and increasingly) documented in evolution, and specially so in the evolution of complex adpatations.

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Alexander Vargas said: "I think it can fairly be said that, while there are other important mechanisms in the absence of which selection would not operate as we observe, selection does most of the “heavy lifting” when we’re looking for an explanation of what historical process led to a given instance of adaptive complexity" I don't agree, that's more some sort of as opinion thna an actual a scientific fact. The experiment discussed right here testifies to the importance of contingency for the "heavy lifting" of an adaptive transition. Remember, those 11 other colonies were under the same selective pressure.

"Popularizers like Dawkins are tapping into the sexy side of the topic, and surely we’d rather have a public excited about a somewhat truncated version of modern evolutionary theory than a few knowledgeable biologists among the oblivious masses." No. I'd rather people KNEW when they have no idea, rather than think they know something when it is, in fact, a false or cartoonish view of evolution (and further tend to be dogmatic, which is juts laughable)

"Other authors like Sean Carroll, in Endless Forms, and Matt Ridley in Genome and The Red Queen, have also written accessible works that bring to light other aspects of the story, and no one, I should hope, limits themselves to the output of only one author on any topic." Unfortunately, many readers of dawkins look no further into natural history or evolution becuase they are not interested in evolution much more than a justification of atheism.

Also, the authors you cite are quite darwinian and conservative. To read someone with more critical bite, and a much better understanding of non- darwinian views, I recommend Gould's big fat book (as well as "his eight little piggies book").

"I seriously doubt there is any evidence for adaptation without natural selection. Please cite some sources. (I am admittedly more poorly read than I would like"

This is a flawed request, since negative or "purifying" selection is always present. On the other hand, if you want me to demonstrate that positive, "creative" directional selection is not required, I can dish you out a bunch of perfectly "goldschimdtean" cases of the origin of an adaptation by a single mutation.

I think you have a confusion about the scenarios by which selection supposedly "creates" adaptation. These are scenarios of DIRECTIONAL selection, the perfecting of ONE function. Exaptaion is a total change in direction, and further, you must acknowelegde the contingential nature of this shift; if you can hold a window open with a screwdriver, that just ahppens to be your fortunate circumstance; it is not an example of the action of natural selection.

GuyeFaux said:

"joseph" wrote: How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Be more specific in your criteria and maybe there is an example. Therefore define "major", "body", and "plan".

Alexander Vargas said: I have no idea what troll means, but Larsson had just called me that. I guess it’s some kind of internet addiction? Guilty as charged.

From Wikipedia: "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"*

GuyeFaux said:

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Be more specific in your criteria and maybe there is an example. Therefore define "major", "body", and "plan".

A. A DID go to B so therefore it was possible. You really do not see the faultiness of that logic?

Bernard said:

GuyeFaux said:

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Be more specific in your criteria and maybe there is an example. Therefore define "major", "body", and "plan".

Nostril from tip to middle of snout. Shortening of limb by 50%. Evolution takes a lot of time thru NS. But here is how the argument goes. Q. Was there enough time for A to go to B via NS in 50 million years? A. A DID go to B so therefore it was possible. You really do not see the faultiness of that logic?

Stanton said:

Bernard said:

GuyeFaux said:

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Be more specific in your criteria and maybe there is an example. Therefore define "major", "body", and "plan".

Nostril from tip to middle of snout. Shortening of limb by 50%. Evolution takes a lot of time thru NS. But here is how the argument goes. Q. Was there enough time for A to go to B via NS in 50 million years? A. A DID go to B so therefore it was possible. You really do not see the faultiness of that logic?

He does not see any faultiness in that logic because there is no faultiness about it in the first place. The points are charted because the points represent data gathered from real-world/real time observations. And real-world/real time observations showed that whales went from marsh-dwelling predators to fully aquatic animals within the expanse of 10 to 20 million years, not 50 million. Perhaps you would see things more clearly if you actually took the time to read books and scientific articles.

"joseph"/"george"/"bobby"/"Bernard" said: You really do not see the faultiness of that logic?

GuyeFaux said:

A. A DID go to B so therefore it was possible. You really do not see the faultiness of that logic?

The logic is quite sound: X happened, therefore X is possible. What's the issue? Now, if you're saying that the proposed mechanism does not explain it, you have to explain where you see the problem. That is, explain how the proposed mechanism contradicts the facts. You haven't done this in 50 times you posted here, and I'm pretty sure you violated the rules of this blog by posting under different names.

Bernard said:

GuyeFaux said:

A. A DID go to B so therefore it was possible. You really do not see the faultiness of that logic?

The logic is quite sound: X happened, therefore X is possible. What's the issue? Now, if you're saying that the proposed mechanism does not explain it, you have to explain where you see the problem. That is, explain how the proposed mechanism contradicts the facts. You haven't done this in 50 times you posted here, and I'm pretty sure you violated the rules of this blog by posting under different names.

The logic is quite sound: X happened, therefore X is possible. What's the issue? You quote mined. I said how do we know X happened thru NS.

Bernard said: Nope, you have not. If I can have one beneficial mutation, why can’t I have a gigilion? [ time limitations ]

For instance: what is the barrier that prevented two ape chromosomes from combining into human chromosome 2 in the last 10 million years? What evidence should lead us to reject this combination as biologically impossible?

[ I never said there was a barrier to prevent that. The point I am making is that there are potential barriers. The one example I gave was time limitations. There could be various landscape barriers.

You are assuming there are no other mechanisms at work here and I do not see how you can just assume that. Of course NS does do something. But does it do enough? Is there another mechanism at work that we are not looking for.

However, the issue is really whether evolution can produce speciation.

[ Not really. NS can produce at least some speciation. But can it account for that whole sequence of events that led from reptiles to us? This is unjustified extrapolation. ]

Bernard said: And I have read many articles about this. But again you do not see your circular logic. How do you know that it was enough time to come about by NS?

Perhaps you would see things more clearly if you would really walk thru the logical steps you are trying to use to come to your conclusion.

If the points charted only expanded 1 million years would you still attribute it to NS?

How do you know that 20 million years was enough time?

Bernard said: However, the issue is really whether evolution can produce speciation. [ Not really. NS can produce at least some speciation. But can it account for that whole sequence of events that led from reptiles to us? This is unjustified extrapolation. ]

Bernard said: Nostril from tip to middle of snout. Shortening of limb by 50%. Evolution takes a lot of time thru NS. But here is how the argument goes. Q. Was there enough time for A to go to B via NS in 50 million years? A. A DID go to B so therefore it was possible. You really do not see the faultiness of that logic? And I have read many articles about this. But again you do not see your circular logic. How do you know that it was enough time to come about by NS Perhaps you would see things more clearly if you would really walk thru the logical steps you are trying to use to come to your conclusion. If the points charted only expanded 1 million years would you still attribute it to NS? How do you know that 20 million years was enough time?

We have remained on-topic: contingency (and others) vs natural selection

If you want me to avoid (unavoidable) emotional responses (like your own),and offer criticism in lame milquetoast format, sorry. This is far removed from the personality of scientists. We tend to be blunt and accept little nonsense. Even so I think i have remained quite civil.

If you mean that nobody should listen to me, because I supposedly belong in some troll category, I don't care. I'm only interested in debating people that actually care for arguments

As if you were not seeking some emotional response form me by calling me troll! Every troll-calling pinhead is actually a troll: they are not interested in arguments.

Could someone please check the address used by Bernard. This is at least the thrid time that this particular argument has been used, each time the name is different. Each time he claims to have some special equation but he refuses to present it. Each time he runs away and changes his name to start the argument all over agian. He has been asked repeatedly to present this imaginary equation and he refuses. He has never made a comprehensible response to any equation presented to him either.

I suggest that mo one respond to him, no matter what name he uses. If there is evidence that he has been using different names he should be permanently banned.

You quote mined. I said how do we know X happened thru NS.

"Is your disagreement then a differing opinion, or "an actual scientific fact"?

Some people act like if this is something that's been measured in some way, such that we can say "natural selection dominates in nature by 98%". Most attempted exercizes at this are truly laughable and quickly contradicted by some new study.
In my opinion, it is not a measurable thing at all unless we make some truly gross simplifications and assumptions, that will obviously not be shared by the different opinions.
In general, what quite simply happens is that the darwinist simply "assumes" that natural selection MUST have been already somehow demonstrated to be the main, most common thing. But this is simply because that is his favorite explanatory framework

"Dogmatic in relation to whom? Creationists, or biologists with a more nuanced understanding of the multiple mechanisms like contingency and developmental constraints?"

Some biologists can be worse than some creationists. For instance, Jim watson. His racist views are not sustained by data; then what is it? His "scientific" ideas that he has "intelligence genes" that make him superior to blacks.

"Because, in comparison to the creationists they fight with endlessly, it is not true that what I'll call the naive adaptionists "have no idea." They know that all life is related and they know that the present diversity of life arose via the differential replication of variant forms subjected to environmental selection. While that is not the whole story, it's a part of the story --better than the creationist fairy tale"

Hmmm well, they actually don't even know common descent well. For instance, they repeat after Dawkins that we do not descend from apes, but from a "common ancestor" with apes. But in fact, we ARE apes, directly descended from apes. We are just another "type" of ape: gorilla, chimp, human, orangutan... Some apes are closer to us than to other apes.

"However, if you're saying that eager but amateur commentators dogmatically argue with professionals about the subject, well, that is kind of stupid."

It happens all the time. I don't go around waving my diploma, you know. I get called a troll in less than two seconds

"I will try to make my own views known, and ask for explanations when I'm talking with those who know more than I, but arguing for a position in good faith and being open to contradictary information is not dogmatism. Neither is a failure to be automatically swayed by an argument from authority."

Certainly not. And your point is what?

"I think we're dealing a little bit with a selection bias here. Most of Dawkins's readers are not prone to yammering dogmatically at creationists on the web, nor to being dogmatic about what they think they know. You are routinely exposed to a small set of vocal "evolutionists" who, if they weren't online arguing about this, they'd be arguing about something else. This just happens to be one of the hottest arguments going. And many of his (atheist) readers aren't, as you say, looking solely to justify their atheism. There are many who simply do not believe in gods. But having been brought up in cultures saturated with religious pieties and the incuriosity that goes with having all the answers, they are looking for ways to understand the world without the "god lenses." You may identify Dawkins's "intellectual fulfillment" with "justification" but I think that does a disservice to the many genuinely curious people who, finding that they lack faith, wish to enrich their worldview with the answers and explanations science can provide"

Everything you state here just goes to prove how much more than science is brought into play. We should be striving for obejctivity, not indulging in inaccuracy for non-scientific reasons.
Further, if we treat defective or incomplete views of evolution as if they were satisfactory, when they are not, creationists may see this in the very scientific data. They may realize someone has bought it just too cheap by blaming selection for everything. If you add to this that the "darwinist" is a rabid atheist, can we blame the creationist for smelling "something fishy"?

"I don't know if you want "darwinian," there. I think "pan-adaptionist" or "selectionist" covers what you're arguing against. I somewhat doubt that Gould would have agreed to characterize his views as "non-darwinian" without qualification. It certainly occured to me to cite Gould as well, though I still haven't read the "big fat book" (loan me your copy? ;-)."

I said that Gould has a good understanding of non-darwinian views; this is because he concerned himslef with the history of biology, not because he were (too) non-darwinian himself. But notice that despite being (fairly) darwinian, I consider him a a reliable source on non-darwinians (Galton, de Vries, Bateson, Whitman , Goldschmidt).
Adaptationists see selection as the main mechanism, and development as a constraint. These non-darwinian authors considered development as the main mechanism, and selection as the constraint.

Paul. M said: PBH: "Historical contingency doesn’t move protons in organic molecules. There is a technology involved - get it?" Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean? Move is what protons do. Dissolve an acid in water and the little fellows whizz around. Life functions on the ready movement of protons. Does PBH actually mean covalently bonded hydrogen atoms?

Bernard said:

GuyeFaux said:

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Be more specific in your criteria and maybe there is an example. Therefore define "major", "body", and "plan".

Nostril from tip to middle of snout. Shortening of limb by 50%.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Good one. You bet I mean bonded hydrogen atoms. So do the latest developments in physical chemistry mean bonded hydrogen atoms and all the rest of what's involved in the reality of what defines a species.

Eric said: Never mind. I think what PBH has taught me is that its better to drink that one extra beer before I read his posts...

Stanton said:

Bernard said: However, the issue is really whether evolution can produce speciation. [ Not really. NS can produce at least some speciation. But can it account for that whole sequence of events that led from reptiles to us? This is unjustified extrapolation. ]

So, then, if the 290+ million year fossil record of both non-mammalian and mammalian synapsids does not show that the superficially lizard-like ancestors of mammals diverged from true reptiles during the late Carboniferous to become shrew-like animals during the Triassic, then dominate all terrestrial ecosystems after the extinction of all non-avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago, what does it show? Why is extrapolating this from 290+ million years worth of fossils unjustified? Because you refuse to comprehend such a scenario for fear of a nervous breakdown?

Richard Simons said:

Bernard said:

GuyeFaux said:

How long does it take minimum to make a major body plan change?

Be more specific in your criteria and maybe there is an example. Therefore define "major", "body", and "plan".

Nostril from tip to middle of snout. Shortening of limb by 50%.

In dogs, shortening the limb length by 50% is, I understand, due to a single gene mutation. So I suppose the answer is one generation. If you want more information, I suggest that instead of lazily demanding that we answer your ever-repeated questions, you try Google for "response to selection" and study the results.

Are you really saying that the DNA coding in a species for short legs can be changed from medium legs in one generation?

You should emulate E. coli and stick to orange juice.

When I attended university they made us study physics and chemistry whether we liked it or not. I now see why. As Lord Kelvin noted, in science there is physics. Then there are the descriptive disciplines - the stamp collecting.

Unless you have the physical chemistry you have not done the science.

The reason why there is a controversy out there and people are getting steamed up is because the proper science has not been done. Sorry. There are some very good stamp collaters about - it makes no difference. The science on evolution as a quantifiable process is only now just beginning to get done. Sufficient is now known about the complex organic molecules involved and the quantifiable possibilities in physical chemistry, to allow an empirical approach. Surprised? One shouldn't be, if one has a proper grounding in the scientific method.

This is where all the also-rans and the weirdo politico-religious squawk society start to drop off the car of technology.

Yes, as a figurative babe knows, the difference in E. coli before and after it hit the orange extract wagon is physical chemistry. It has to do with arrangements of atoms. It can be measured and expressed empirically. And the latest research findings begin to suggest real pathways in physical chemistry.

They say that science education is in dire straits. I believe it.

If you desire references, go to my site, or merely check SCIENCEDAILY. com, daily - or read NEW SCIENTIST on a semi-regular basis. Literature is chockers with the new developments.

Can you give me an example where a trait like short legs has been programmed into the DNA structure in one generation. They have been trying to do this with dogs for centuries and have never been able to do it. It seems like a major change would take at least 100,000 years if not longer.

Give me an example where a major body plan change has happened in one generation.

Bernard said: Can you give me an example where a trait like short legs has been programmed into the DNA structure in one generation. They have been trying to do this with dogs for centuries and have never been able to do it. It seems like a major change would take at least 100,000 years if not longer. Give me an example where a major body plan change has happened in one generation.

Bernard said: Give me an example where a major body plan change has happened in one generation.

I can't advize you regarding Bernard but isn't it patently obvious that the scientific basis of evolution rests on showing the pathway in physics/chemistry by which the feathered (?) dinosaur representative became a conduit in the series of real, quantifiable events through which eagles got here - having already been created, as information, prior to their automatic appearance?

And, since the recent advances in technology give clear guidance as to how in principle it was done, why continue with a non-existent disagreement?

Bernard said: You are assuming there are no other mechanisms at work here and I do not see how you can just assume that. Of course NS does do something. But does it do enough? Is there another mechanism at work that we are not looking for.

Chuck said: 2, Science doesn’t have to just assume any old crap to be true until it can be dis-proven. How would that even work? Science would become full of patently ridiculous ideas over night.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ...isn't it patently obvious that the scientific basis of evolution rests on showing the pathway in physics/chemistry by which the feathered (?) dinosaur ...

No and yes. I’m sure the current theory is not the whole picture; I’m open to other mechanisms. But I’m also sure that abandoning or modifying the current theory is stupid *unless you have a better alternative.* What’s your better alternative?

[ who is abandoning the theory? i simply said there might be another mechanism. if we refuse to allow any criticism of the present theory how can we ever find out if there is another mechanism? (rhet questions) ]

Bernard said:

Stanton said:

Bernard said: However, the issue is really whether evolution can produce speciation. [ Not really. NS can produce at least some speciation. But can it account for that whole sequence of events that led from reptiles to us? This is unjustified extrapolation. ]

So, then, if the 290+ million year fossil record of both non-mammalian and mammalian synapsids does not show that the superficially lizard-like ancestors of mammals diverged from true reptiles during the late Carboniferous to become shrew-like animals during the Triassic, then dominate all terrestrial ecosystems after the extinction of all non-avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago, what does it show? Why is extrapolating this from 290+ million years worth of fossils unjustified? Because you refuse to comprehend such a scenario for fear of a nervous breakdown?

Why do you have a blind spot here. Yes there seems to be a progression and fanning out. But the point is: is it due to NS or some other mechanism?

As an aside, looking for novel mechanisms is exactly the sort of thing scientists do. You don't see the irony in implying scientists aren't looking for mechanisms in a thread about a paper that investigated e coli evolution?

The paper investigated one possible instance of race or "strain" development in E.coli. It has zip to say about the speciation event that actuated that particular bacterium here on planet Earth. Just like all the other so-called evidences of evolution. Adam knew about natural selection. What's new? The Public out there is rightly beginning to suspect science fraud in some evolutionist quarters. Define the terms. But not only does this sort of misdefinition cloud the waters in the Public's eyes: it robs the scientists of their own insight. Assume for a moment that response to environment does somehow get written into a species' "memory", in such a way that at speciation this information was utilized in programming a new species. By constantly ignoring the possibility of an information technology of this order of capability, the investigator blinds himself to some obvious possibilities, regarding the speciation event.

Give me an example where a major body plan change has happened in one generation.

I don’t understand what not finding an example would prove. Is this “Show me a turtle gave birth to an eagle or evolution isn’t true?”

[ someone commented that a major body modification can happen in one generation. i do not believe this is true. so i asked for an example of this happening to justify the claim. and we are not talking about the straw man 'turtle gives birth to eagle']

Stanton said:

Bernard said:

Stanton said:

Bernard said: However, the issue is really whether evolution can produce speciation. [ Not really. NS can produce at least some speciation. But can it account for that whole sequence of events that led from reptiles to us? This is unjustified extrapolation. ]

So, then, if the 290+ million year fossil record of both non-mammalian and mammalian synapsids does not show that the superficially lizard-like ancestors of mammals diverged from true reptiles during the late Carboniferous to become shrew-like animals during the Triassic, then dominate all terrestrial ecosystems after the extinction of all non-avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago, what does it show? Why is extrapolating this from 290+ million years worth of fossils unjustified? Because you refuse to comprehend such a scenario for fear of a nervous breakdown?

Why do you have a blind spot here. Yes there seems to be a progression and fanning out. But the point is: is it due to NS or some other mechanism?

If you actually knew how to read, and you do not, given as how you make this stupid statement, you would have already realized that scientists recognize that there are other factors that influence evolution. Natural Selection + Random Mutation is simply the most obvious and most thoroughly studied factor that influences evolution. There are other factors, yes, but that does not invalidate the fact that Natural Selection + Random Mutation exists. It's extremely difficult to tell what other factors influenced evolution just through examining the fossil record. Natural Selection + Random Mutation leaves the most evidence in the fossil record, with sexual selection coming in in a very distant second. So, if you are not here to present an alternative hypothesis that can account for what we see as Natural Selection + Random Mutation in evolution, and if you are not here to learn, then what are you here for?

bernard said: [ who is abandoning the theory? i simply said there might be another mechanism. if we refuse to allow any criticism of the present theory how can we ever find out if there is another mechanism? (rhet questions) ]

<

No, actually it isn't obvious at all.
When Newton extended the idea of gravity from a falling apple to the Moon he explained the Moon's orbit by saying that it was falling just like the apple, it just kept missing. The math he did was all descriptive.
Should we have done without the Newtonian revolution just because he couldn't describe gravitons or space time distortion?
The idea that knowledge has to be complete before it can be scientifically valid is silly.
Science has never worked that way and it never will.
It should be patently obvious that it can't work that way.

Newton passionately pursued alchemy. Strange that his alchemy was rejected but his gravitational theory was embraced. Maybe science works by embracing that which is mathematically based, observable, and logical. When evolution gets to be described in that framework, it will be accepted. Yes, I know gravity can't be captured mathematically. But it acts mathematically and rationally.

1) You still have failed to show why in principle RM+NS cannot produce the required changes 2) Your demands for evidence for the gaps in our knowledge is not sufficient to show this 3) Nobody claims anymore that RM+NS is all there is. Oh yeah, and you lied without apology by posting under different names.

Re the gene governing dog-size, some Googling revealed the culprit to be a gene called IGF-1. So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit, it also shows you to be wrong: a limb can be shortened or lengthened by 50% in one generation.

You can take offense if you like and not make a substantive response.

[ sorry not taking the bait. if you want to be civil i will discuss these issues. see you have framed this that in order to respond i must accept the insult. and many are saying here that evolution can be criticised. well obviously not since even just suggesting there might be other mechanisms is met with hostility.

come back when you can have some manners. ]

well obviously not since even just suggesting there might be other mechanisms is met with hostility.

— Bernard

3) Nobody claims anymore that RM+NS is all there is.

— I

come back when you can have some manners.

— Bernard

Alexander Vargas said: I have no idea what troll means, but Larsson had just called me that.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Newton passionately pursued alchemy. Strange that his alchemy was rejected but his gravitational theory was embraced. Maybe science works by embracing that which is mathematically based, observable, and logical. When evolution gets to be described in that framework, it will be accepted. Yes, I know gravity can't be captured mathematically. But it acts mathematically and rationally.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Alexander Vargas said: I have no idea what troll means, but Larsson had just called me that.

I did not.

GuyeFaux said: Still can't read:

well obviously not since even just suggesting there might be other mechanisms is met with hostility.

— Bernard

versus

3) Nobody claims anymore that RM+NS is all there is.

— I

come back when you can have some manners.

— Bernard

I have impeccable manners. I just don't waste them on a dishonest ignoramus.

Alexander Vargas said: OK Larsson, you scandinavian excuse for a troll hahaha

troll 3 internet Noun a person who posts deliberately inflammatory messages on an internet discussion board

bernard replied to comment from GuyeFaux:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Bernie/Jake/whatever:

This is not an insult, this is a fact:

You are a coward.

If you have a point to make, make it.

What mechanisms might we be ignoring? God? How would we test for that?

You really have no clue what you're talking about,do you?

Re the gene governing dog-size, some Googling revealed the culprit to be a gene called IGF-1. So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit, it also shows you to be wrong: a limb can be shortened or lengthened by 50% in one generation.

So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit,

— Bernard

If you think that is good manners then you really have a problem.

In one individual offspring. Not over a whole population.

Larsson,
If you're not a troll, we need to invent a name for you.
Maybe some other day you will feel more inclined to discuss a little SCIENCE.

bernard said: if we refuse to allow any criticism of the present theory how can we ever find out if there is another mechanism? (rhet questions) ]

GuyeFaux said:

So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit,

— Bernard

If you think that is good manners then you really have a problem.

Reading comprehension = issue. I didn't say that my calling you a dishonest twit was good manners. I said that I have impeccable manners which I choose not to exercise in the presence of lazy dishonest twits. What is rude and intellectually dishonest is to address the weakest points of your opponents' arguments (my displayed manners) and ignore the all the strongest points (e.g., among others, the fact that 50% reduction in size can be achieved in 1 generation in canines).

Henry J said:

Re the gene governing dog-size, some Googling revealed the culprit to be a gene called IGF-1. So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit, it also shows you to be wrong: a limb can be shortened or lengthened by 50% in one generation.

In one individual offspring. Not over a whole population. Henry

Eric said:

bernard said: if we refuse to allow any criticism of the present theory how can we ever find out if there is another mechanism? (rhet questions) ]

Um, by getting out off the internet and doing an experiment? Like what Blount et al. did? As far as I can tell, your entire "criticism" is that asymptotes exist in some math functions so therefore we should assume there are barriers to speciation. You also - in multiple responses - imply that no one is testing evolutionary mechanisms...in a thread discussing the published results of a test of evolutonary mechanisms. And yet somehow you don't see that your implication is wrong. It boggles the mind. You want to criticize? Then apply for a grant. Go into the lab. Investigate this barrier you think exists. Publish your results. Present the hard-won evidence of your barrier at a conference. THATS how you criticize a scientific theory, and it goes on all the time.

Bernard said: Can you give me an example where a trait like short legs has been programmed into the DNA structure in one generation. They have been trying to do this with dogs for centuries and have never been able to do it. It seems like a major change would take at least 100,000 years if not longer.

Richard Simons said:

Bernard said: Can you give me an example where a trait like short legs has been programmed into the DNA structure in one generation. They have been trying to do this with dogs for centuries and have never been able to do it. It seems like a major change would take at least 100,000 years if not longer.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that dachshunds and corgis do not exist?

jacob troll: A good estimate is 100,000 years for a trait to establish itself. Maybe longer.

The point is that most physical progressions have limits. Therefore it is likely that evolution does.

bernard said:

Henry J said:

Re the gene governing dog-size, some Googling revealed the culprit to be a gene called IGF-1. So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit, it also shows you to be wrong: a limb can be shortened or lengthened by 50% in one generation.

In one individual offspring. Not over a whole population. Henry

Yes Henry that is exactly the point. And with all the dog breeding over thousands of years the species has not changed. A good estimate is 100,000 years for a trait to establish itself. Maybe longer.

bernard said:

Richard Simons said:

Bernard said: Can you give me an example where a trait like short legs has been programmed into the DNA structure in one generation. They have been trying to do this with dogs for centuries and have never been able to do it. It seems like a major change would take at least 100,000 years if not longer.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that dachshunds and corgis do not exist?

What I am saying there is no species 'dachshund' with short legs. What will you get if you let the above 2 mate? The point is it takes a very long time for a trait to become fixed in a population. Cannot be done in one generation and probably not 10,000.

bernard said:

Richard Simons said:

Bernard said: Can you give me an example where a trait like short legs has been programmed into the DNA structure in one generation. They have been trying to do this with dogs for centuries and have never been able to do it. It seems like a major change would take at least 100,000 years if not longer.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that dachshunds and corgis do not exist?

The point is it takes a very long time for a trait to become fixed in a population. Cannot be done in one generation and probably not 10,000.

bernard said:

Eric said:

bernard said: if we refuse to allow any criticism of the present theory how can we ever find out if there is another mechanism? (rhet questions) ]

Um, by getting out off the internet and doing an experiment? Like what Blount et al. did? As far as I can tell, your entire "criticism" is that asymptotes exist in some math functions so therefore we should assume there are barriers to speciation. You also - in multiple responses - imply that no one is testing evolutionary mechanisms...in a thread discussing the published results of a test of evolutonary mechanisms. And yet somehow you don't see that your implication is wrong. It boggles the mind. You want to criticize? Then apply for a grant. Go into the lab. Investigate this barrier you think exists. Publish your results. Present the hard-won evidence of your barrier at a conference. THATS how you criticize a scientific theory, and it goes on all the time.

So I am not allowed to talk about it?

bobby whined: The point is that most physical progressions have limits. Therefore it is likely that evolution does. Why is saying that treated like heresy? My great transgression here was to say 'evolution has limits' It is not all powerful. It is not omnipotent all knowing. Can't you see how you are inferring Godlike powers to evolution and if someone just says 'well maybe there is some weakness or limits to it' they are shunned insulted and jeered. Evolution is not a deity. It does not have to be worshipped and believed in in this manner.

Sylvilagus said:

bernard said:

Henry J said:

Re the gene governing dog-size, some Googling revealed the culprit to be a gene called IGF-1. So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit, it also shows you to be wrong: a limb can be shortened or lengthened by 50% in one generation.

In one individual offspring. Not over a whole population. Henry

Yes Henry that is exactly the point. And with all the dog breeding over thousands of years the species has not changed. A good estimate is 100,000 years for a trait to establish itself. Maybe longer.

Hi Bernard. I'm not a regular poster, here, just a lurker trying to learn something. Just out of curiosity could you help me understand how you came to this "good estimate"?

Wow. So many idiots, so little time.

We have bernard, bigbang, FL, Keith Eaton, Philip Bruce Heywood, Alexander Vargas, … (I’ve been everywhere, man; I’ve been everywhere).

Cataloging misconceptions and mischaracterizations is starting to seem more like scatology.

Mike Elzinga said: Wow. So many idiots, so little time. We have bernard, bigbang, FL, Keith Eaton, Philip Bruce Heywood, Alexander Vargas, … (I’ve been everywhere, man; I’ve been everywhere). Cataloging misconceptions and mischaracterizations is starting to seem more like scatology.

bernard said: So I am not allowed to talk about it?

The point is that most physical progressions have limits. Therefore it is likely that evolution does.

Why is saying that treated like heresy?

Can't you see how you are inferring Godlike powers to evolution and if someone just says 'well maybe there is some weakness or limits to it' they are shunned insulted and jeered.

I can't believe you guys are letting Jacob/bobby/Bernard Trollmaster take you for a ride again. Do not answer any question he asks until he spells out EXACTLY what other mechanisms he thinks exist, or what mathematics EXACTLY he thinks provides evidence for barriers to evolution. Force him to defend his points, but ANSWER NO QUESTIONS HE ASKS.

We've all been down this path at least twice now, so no excuses to yielding to troll-feeding.

Mike Elzinga said: Wow. So many idiots, so little time. We have bernard, bigbang, FL, Keith Eaton, Philip Bruce Heywood, Alexander Vargas, … (I’ve been everywhere, man; I’ve been everywhere). Cataloging misconceptions and mischaracterizations is starting to seem more like scatology.

I have certainly come up with a better theory than Common Descent Darwinism. Or should I say, modern science enables a much better theory than Common Descent. It's called Signalled Evolution. It is not only up to speed with modern technology, it concurs with the biblical narrative and renders the fulmination re. Origins unnecessary by 60yrs or more.

When you look it up at my site, remember hard line YEC; I am obliged to convince such people, and the only way to do it is to make it watertight in terms of being biblically accurate. But you will see that all reference to religion can readily be deleted for purposes of a user friendly orgins model.

As for being technically accurate; it only awaits the fine detail, which fills in as it were day by day. When the full story of DNA, immune systems, and the organic chemistry of species definition is in, so will Signalled Evolution be understood in detail. The clock cannot be turned back.

ROTFL, Heywood, you're funny. Signalled evolution, the quantum computing tree and other 'technically' accurate claims...
I am sure it may be biblically accurate, but scientifically speaking it has no merrits.

You see, it already has a public following. Thanks PvM; that sure beats being labelled New Age, pantheistic,and being told to go to AIG where I quote "might learn something!" You're kinda funny, yourself. How's that?

phantomreader42 said:

bernard said:

Eric said:

bernard said: if we refuse to allow any criticism of the present theory how can we ever find out if there is another mechanism? (rhet questions) ]

Um, by getting out off the internet and doing an experiment? Like what Blount et al. did? As far as I can tell, your entire "criticism" is that asymptotes exist in some math functions so therefore we should assume there are barriers to speciation. You also - in multiple responses - imply that no one is testing evolutionary mechanisms...in a thread discussing the published results of a test of evolutonary mechanisms. And yet somehow you don't see that your implication is wrong. It boggles the mind. You want to criticize? Then apply for a grant. Go into the lab. Investigate this barrier you think exists. Publish your results. Present the hard-won evidence of your barrier at a conference. THATS how you criticize a scientific theory, and it goes on all the time.

So I am not allowed to talk about it?

You are allowed to talk about it. But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to have some actual evidence. You need to do some work. But you know that already. You're just too lazy and dishonest to admit it. You've already been through this bullshit before under multiple names.

bobby whined: The point is that most physical progressions have limits. Therefore it is likely that evolution does. Why is saying that treated like heresy? My great transgression here was to say 'evolution has limits' It is not all powerful. It is not omnipotent all knowing. Can't you see how you are inferring Godlike powers to evolution and if someone just says 'well maybe there is some weakness or limits to it' they are shunned insulted and jeered. Evolution is not a deity. It does not have to be worshipped and believed in in this manner.

You know this is a load of bullshit. Quit lying. You're doing nothing but screeching at your own strawmen. You're not being persecuted. You're not being accused of heresy. People are just asking you for the slightest shred of evidence in support of your asinine claims. And you wail in abject terror at the thought of it. Because you know you don't have any evidence. You never have. You never will. If you had any evidence, you would have provided it. If you even THOUGHT you had any evidence, you would have at least tried. You didn't. Which just shows you've got nothing, and you know it, and you're a liar. You are being insulted because you are dishonest. And because of that dishonesty, you deserve to be insulted. If you think this "barrier" of yours exists, explain what it is. Explain how you know about it. Present your evidence. Put up or shut up. You won't even try, because we all know you're full of shit.

phantomreader42 said:

bernard said:

Eric said:

bernard said: if we refuse to allow any criticism of the present theory how can we ever find out if there is another mechanism? (rhet questions) ]

Um, by getting out off the internet and doing an experiment? Like what Blount et al. did? As far as I can tell, your entire "criticism" is that asymptotes exist in some math functions so therefore we should assume there are barriers to speciation. You also - in multiple responses - imply that no one is testing evolutionary mechanisms...in a thread discussing the published results of a test of evolutonary mechanisms. And yet somehow you don't see that your implication is wrong. It boggles the mind. You want to criticize? Then apply for a grant. Go into the lab. Investigate this barrier you think exists. Publish your results. Present the hard-won evidence of your barrier at a conference. THATS how you criticize a scientific theory, and it goes on all the time.

So I am not allowed to talk about it?

You are allowed to talk about it. But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to have some actual evidence. You need to do some work. But you know that already. You're just too lazy and dishonest to admit it. You've already been through this bullshit before under multiple names.

bobby whined: The point is that most physical progressions have limits. Therefore it is likely that evolution does. Why is saying that treated like heresy? My great transgression here was to say 'evolution has limits' It is not all powerful. It is not omnipotent all knowing. Can't you see how you are inferring Godlike powers to evolution and if someone just says 'well maybe there is some weakness or limits to it' they are shunned insulted and jeered. Evolution is not a deity. It does not have to be worshipped and believed in in this manner.

You know this is a load of bullshit. Quit lying. You're doing nothing but screeching at your own strawmen. You're not being persecuted. You're not being accused of heresy. People are just asking you for the slightest shred of evidence in support of your asinine claims. And you wail in abject terror at the thought of it. Because you know you don't have any evidence. You never have. You never will. If you had any evidence, you would have provided it. If you even THOUGHT you had any evidence, you would have at least tried. You didn't. Which just shows you've got nothing, and you know it, and you're a liar. You are being insulted because you are dishonest. And because of that dishonesty, you deserve to be insulted. If you think this "barrier" of yours exists, explain what it is. Explain how you know about it. Present your evidence. Put up or shut up. You won't even try, because we all know you're full of shit.

Sylvilagus said:

bernard said:

Henry J said:

Re the gene governing dog-size, some Googling revealed the culprit to be a gene called IGF-1. So other than this showing you to be a lazy dishonest twit, it also shows you to be wrong: a limb can be shortened or lengthened by 50% in one generation.

In one individual offspring. Not over a whole population. Henry

Yes Henry that is exactly the point. And with all the dog breeding over thousands of years the species has not changed. A good estimate is 100,000 years for a trait to establish itself. Maybe longer.

Hi Bernard. I'm not a regular poster, here, just a lurker trying to learn something. Just out of curiosity could you help me understand how you came to this "good estimate"? I read a while back of a mutation in cats that causes extremely short legs, much small than 50% the normal leg length. There are now large numbers of these cats; you can even buy them. The change happened in one generation due to a specific mutation. The rate at which it spreads through the population would seem to me to depend on many factors such as population size, etc. I don't see how you can come up with a single specific number like 100,000 years. The other question I have is this: how can 100,000 years be necessary for fixation of a new trait in a population when punctuated equilibrium models, and computer simulations of such, suggest that whole new species can arise in as little as 20,000 years. We even have historical evidence of mouse speciation (Faro Islands)taking only hundreds of years. These species differ by more than a single trait, so it would seem logical that individual traits can fix far faster than that even.

Bernard said: No use answering this incivility. Shows the character of the responder.

Boo said:

Bernard said: No use answering this incivility. Shows the character of the responder.

Well then, permit me to ask, in a civil manner: would you please provide evidence of this barrier whereof you speak?

Bernard,

It seems to me that you are confusing fixing a trait in a population with speciation. The two are different.

Fixing a trait within a population is done all the time in plant breeding. That is what enables one variety of wheat, say, to be distinguished from another variety and is more or less essential before the variety is put on the market. A recessive trait can be identified in the F2 generation and by selecting only those plants which show it, it can be fixed by the F3 generation. No-one, however, would claim that different varieties are different species as there is not the slightest problem in getting them to interbreed.

You say, talking of the number of generations required perhaps for fixation of traits but more likely speciation (it is not clear) "Of course the number is a ball park estimate. 20,000 is also reasonable. I think 1000 is not."

In your next comment you say that the evidence for a barrier to speciation is "The fixity of species that we have observed in the last 3000 years."

Given that most of the species looked at in sufficient detail over the past 3000 years have a generation time of 6 months or more do you not see a problem here?

Bernard said: No use answering this incivility. Shows the character of the responder.

Bernard said: You are vulgar and ignorant. I would not send a sixth grade science student to this site. You should be ashamed of yourself and your posts should be deleted.

Bernard said: No use answering this incivility. Shows the character of the responder.

Bernard said: Of course the number is a ball park estimate.

20,000 is also reasonable.

I think 1000 is not.

The body types seems exceedingly fixed. Very little plasticity.

I think this is political.

To challenge Darwinism gives some points to the 'creationists' I am shocked by the lack of objectivity of so many proclaimed 'scientists'.

Richard Simons said: Bernard, It seems to me that you are confusing fixing a trait in a population with speciation. The two are different. ..... OK lets use dogs as an analogy. how could we fix the trait 'long ears' in bassets? Fixing a trait within a population is done all the time in plant breeding. That is what enables one variety of wheat, say, to be distinguished from another variety and is more or less essential before the variety is put on the market. A recessive trait can be identified in the F2 generation and by selecting only those plants which show it, it can be fixed by the F3 generation. No-one, however, would claim that different varieties are different species as there is not the slightest problem in getting them to interbreed. You say, talking of the number of generations required perhaps for fixation of traits but more likely speciation (it is not clear) "Of course the number is a ball park estimate. 20,000 is also reasonable. I think 1000 is not." In your next comment you say that the evidence for a barrier to speciation is "The fixity of species that we have observed in the last 3000 years." Given that most of the species looked at in sufficient detail over the past 3000 years have a generation time of 6 months or more do you not see a problem here? ... please rephrase

A recessive trait can be identified in the F2 generation and by selecting only those plants which show it, it can be fixed by the F3 generation. No-one, however, would claim that different varieties are different species as there is not the slightest problem in getting them to interbreed.

.... if we let F2s breed with F3s would not the trait be 'unfixed'?

Bernard, go away. You're an idiot.

Fixation refers to the status of an allele in a population. It is not the same as the status of an allele in a single cross -- homozygosity in selected individuals in a Mendelian cross is not fixation.

You're done. You've derailed this thread enough. I'll be sending your ignorant comments to the bathroom wall henceforth.

.…. OK lets use dogs as an analogy. how could we fix the trait ‘long ears’ in bassets?

… please rephrase

.… if we let F2s breed with F3s would not the trait be ‘unfixed’?

Bernard really is a troll, as, only a troll would be arrogantly stupid enough to presume that he has the authority to lecture about elementary genetics to a professor of genetics, like Professor Myers.

Bernard said: And you deleted a very good wiki quote. Why? I know it did not agree with your interpretation. Is your only tactic to delete opposing views?

Science Avenger said:

Bernard said: And you deleted a very good wiki quote. Why? I know it did not agree with your interpretation. Is your only tactic to delete opposing views?

Is your only tactic to ask inane, intellectually dishonest questions?

Jeez Larry boy... "thanks" (I guess?).

Many people that show an incapacity to follow my scientific arguments desperately want to relegate me into some troll category. Reasoning is replaced by a "clique" mentality. This just worsens the image I have of this kind of amateurs and their unscientific contaminations.

PZ: Censorship does not work as a response to scientific nonsense, even if malicious. You should perhaps just let these threads go on until their spontaneous death. You martirize a mere cynic (to doubt and doubt again is the easiest exercise in the world) and seem to have suffered some sudden fit of righteousness.

It's not like there is anything anybody could say that we should be "afraid of", no matter how stupid or false (those are particularly harmless for obvious reasons). Further, nobody will ever read more than the last two comments.

If some have the bad habit of debating people that have made up their mind for good, on a topic they don't even properly CARE about...well, so be it. I agree that it is optimal to just leave these types alone (I myself practically never engage them) , but hey, its a form of entertainment. It's not the world in play here.

Jeez Larry boy... "thanks" (I guess?).
Many people that show an incapacity to follow my scientific arguments desperately want to relegate me into some troll category. Reasoning is replaced by a "clique" mentality. This just worsens the image I have of this kind of amateurs and their unscientific contaminations.

PZ: Censorship does not work as a response to scientific nonsense, even if malicious. You should perhaps just let these threads go on until their spontaneous death. You martirize a mere cynic (to doubt and doubt again is the easiest exercise in the world) and come off as if you suffered some sudden fit of righteousness.

It's not like there is anything anybody could say that we should be "afraid of", no matter how stupid or false (those are particularly harmless for obvious reasons). Further, nobody will ever read more than the last two comments.

If some have the bad habit of debating people that have made up their mind on a topic they don't even CARE about...well, so be it. I agree that it is optimal to just leave these types alone (I don't engage them) , but hey, its a form of entertainment. It's not the world in play here.

Jeez Larry boy... "thanks" (I guess?).
When people that show an incapacity to follow my scientific arguments desperately want to relegate me into some troll category, you can imagine how this merely "clique" mentality impresses me

PZ: Censorship is not the response to scientific nonsense, even if malicious. You martirize the censored and come off as if you suffered some sudden fit of righteousness.
It's not like there is anything anybody could say that we should be "afraid of", no matter how stupid or false (those are particularly harmless for obvious reasons)

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I have certainly come up with a better theory than Common Descent Darwinism. Or should I say, modern science enables a much better theory than Common Descent. It's called Signalled Evolution. It is not only up to speed with modern technology, it concurs with the biblical narrative and renders the fulmination re. Origins unnecessary by 60yrs or more. When you look it up at my site, remember hard line YEC; I am obliged to convince such people, and the only way to do it is to make it watertight in terms of being biblically accurate. But you will see that all reference to religion can readily be deleted for purposes of a user friendly orgins model. As for being technically accurate; it only awaits the fine detail, which fills in as it were day by day. When the full story of DNA, immune systems, and the organic chemistry of species definition is in, so will Signalled Evolution be understood in detail. The clock cannot be turned back.

Alexander Vargas said: Jeez Larry boy... "thanks" (I guess?). When people that show an incapacity to follow my scientific arguments desperately want to relegate me into some troll category, you can imagine how this merely "clique" mentality impresses me.

PZ: Censorship is not the response to scientific nonsense, even if malicious. You martirize the censored and come off as if you suffered some sudden fit of righteousness. It's not like there is anything anybody could say that we should be "afraid of", no matter how stupid or false (those are particularly harmless for obvious reasons)

"It’s the same reason there is such a thing as an officers’ club, and why we don’t allow children to use the chess tournament room as a playground"

???

These guys are weird.

and the only way to do it is to make it watertight in terms of being biblically accurate.

Alexander Vargas said: "It’s the same reason there is such a thing as an officers’ club, and why we don’t allow children to use the chess tournament room as a playground" ??? These guys are weird.

I think that if you had a psychologist check these people you would find no evidence of mental imbalance, if anything, perhaps a problem of internet addiction similar to cable addiction or nicotine addiction.

So, you're exaggerating. I won't delve too much into the fact the excuse you use ("mental illness") is a sciencey-looking excuse (but actually, BS).
I agree upon their dishonesty, though. But even so, do you think people can talk into thin air, when nobody answers? Even good ole stupid "copy-pasters" get bored and go away if no one answers.

The only thing that keeps these types going is that they are fascinated with the fact they can keep a discussion with so many articulate, helpful, intelligent, and extremely well-educated people...by just shamelessly talking out of their ass!! The anticreationist is the niche of the creationist.

The best thing, upon detecting insincerity, is to ignore these people. I think PZ knows that, but he takes a completely wrong choice in using censorship to substitute for that.

Alexander Vargas said: I think that if you had a psychologist check these people you would find no evidence of mental imbalance, if anything, perhaps a problem of internet addiction similar to cable addiction or nicotine addiction. So, you're exaggerating. I won't delve too much into the fact the excuse you use ("mental illness") is a sciencey-looking excuse (but actually, BS). The only thing that keeps these types going is that they are fascinated with the fact they can keep a discussion with so many articulate, helpful, intelligent, and extremely well-educated people...by just shamelessly talking out of their ass!! The anticreationist is the niche of the creationist. The best thing, upon detecting insincerity, is to ignore these people. I think PZ knows that, but he takes a completely wrong choice in using censorship to substitute for that.

Perhaps a nice alternative to the "bathroom" would be functionality as follows: once a contributor is deemed a troll, each of their posts are replaced with a small alternatively-colored reply that might contain some (or all) of the following:

1) the handle (and maybe known aliases) of the troll that has posted

2) the "category" of troll it is (disruptive, abusive, flaming, ad-bot, etc)

3) a brief explanation of what trolls are and why their posts are regulated to 2nd class citizenry (or a link to such information) and

4) a link to click on that will restore that single response

Thoughts?

Alexander Vargas said: I think that if you had a psychologist check these people you would find no evidence of mental imbalance, if anything, perhaps a problem of internet addiction similar to cable addiction or nicotine addiction. So, you're exaggerating.

Can someone deny evolution and not be classified as a troll?

Balanced said: Can someone deny evolution and not be classified as a troll?

Has there ever been a non-troll evo-denier here in your memory?

What would be a non-troll comment that an evo-denier could make?

Balanced wrote:

"What would be a non-troll comment that an evo-denier could make?"

Good question. Perhaps I can illustrate with an example.

Suppose that someone came to this thread and claimed that the probability of three simultaneous and coordinated mutations was so low that it could no possibly happen by chance, therefore no new genes could arise by random mutation. Now suppose that it was suggested that that person read the paper that was the topic of this thread.

An honest evolution denier would then admit that his view of the processes involved in evolution was incorrect and that he had used an erroneous argument. He would promise not to use the argument again and to correct others who used this argument. Even if he were not convinced by the evidence in the paper, he would have to admit that that no one was arguing that the mutations had to be simultaneous or coordinated.

A troll would continue to insist that the mutations would have to be simultaneous and coordinated. When it was pointed out to him that this was not the argument, he would continue to use the argument and start to insult anyone who responded with personal attacks in order to distract everyone from realizing that he was using an erroneous argument. He would then use the same argument on every other theread no matter what the topic for months to come, until everyone ignored him out of pure disgust.

I will leave it to you to decide the moitivation of each individual.

Balanced said: Has there ever been a non-troll evo-denier here in your memory?

Hey, wait a minute ... are you telling me that this evolutionary process is not only "testable" but also "verifiable" by repeated testing? Does that mean evolution fits the "scientific method"? My Creationist friends will be aghast!

There is another explanation though ... the mutations are being directed by the creative power of God. Obviously, the scientists have captured Him and are forcing Him to mutate the bacteria at the appropriate times.

Balanced wrote:

"Has there ever been a non-troll evo-denier here in your memory?"

Most evolution deniers have already decided that they will not be convinced by any evidence. So no, very few would actually come here to learn anything. Instead their only agenda seems to be to disrupt and derail threads.

The only exception that comes to mind is Mark Hausam. He was here for one purpose and one purpose only, to witness to non-believers about his faith. He was not a troll in the classic sense. he just had no idea of how science works or even the definition of evidence. All he wanted to do was quote the Bible, as if that proved something scientifically. Oh well, at least he did promise to read some books that were recommended to him. The fact that he gave no evidence of having done so after two months of religious rants is what finally made everyone give up on him.

Anyone who is interested in actually learning something moves on from their original position. They modifiy their arguments based on the evidence presented, that is how real scientists behave. Anyone who uses the same arguments, even after they have been shown to be contrary to the evidence in nothing but a disruptive and dishonest person. This is why the scientific community is so fed up with the likes of Behe and Dembski.

As for Keith, Sal, bigbang, PBH, realpc and others who change names on a weekly basis, you be the judge. Do they keep spouting the same unsubstantiated nonsense thread after thread, or do they modify their views based on evidence? Do they present evidence in defense of their hypotheses, or do they simply insult and attack until no one wants to deal with them anymore? Do they do any research, or even read the scientific literature, or do they depend on the ignorance of others in order to try to persuade people? Do they cite scientific references to back up their claims, or do they spout nonsense from Newsweek and Science Daily?

I honestly don't know what such people hope to accomplish. Perhaps they are simply emotionally incapable of dealing with the fact that not everyone agrees with them.

btw, Heddle does not deny evolution. He's a cosmological-ID guy.

Evolutionist trolls? Sure. A brilliant parody-persona by the name of poachy just got banninated at UD. What is the point of your (un)balanced line of questioning?

Balanced wrote:

"Have there even been evolutionist trolls?"

That would be unlikely, since people who want to learn and teach usually don't have anything to gain by lying, ignoring evidence anbd repeating the same arguments over and over.

There are some however who do seem more interested in promoting their own web sites or books or reviews than they are in the science. Of course, those don't usually stoop to insults or personal attacks so readily.

After a while around here your troll detector gets about as much use as your irony meter. By the way, block quoting large sections of text and posting one line responses is an established troll tactic, as is trying to derail the thread from it's original topic. Got any thoughts on historical contingency and it's importance in evolution?

Just seems to be bias here. Seems like ‘Don’t believe in Darwinism’ = ‘troll’.

Balanced said: Just seems to be bias here. Seems like 'Don't believe in Darwinism' = 'troll'.

Science should not be biased.

Find me an evolution denier who will admit that the "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" argument is moronic, and we might have a candidate for non-troll.

Yep, making up his own definitions of common words, that's Jacob/bobby/Bernard all right. Ban his ass.

Science Avenger said: Based on posts with five straight questions, complete disregard for the answers, and quoting of massive previous material, it seems like we have another incarnation of bobby/Jacob/Bernard here.

Jacob/Bobby/Bernard/Balanced wrote:

"Just seems to be bias here. Seems like ‘Don’t believe in Darwinism’ = ‘troll’. Stanton has just about stated as much."

If you are referring to me, I wrote no such thing. I merely pointed out the characteristics of trolls and scientists. If from that you conclude that those who don't believe in evolution should be labelled as trolls, so be it. I specifically said that it was up to you to decide, apparently you have.

Now, if this guy can be shown to be the troll Jacob/Bobby/Bernard then he should be permanently banned and his address automatically blocked. This is a clear violation of the rules of this blog. Also note that in his various personas, he has acted exactly as I have described in regards to trolls. Now he claims that science is "biased" if we don't give lying trolls equal respect. Respect has to be earned. He hasn't earned it. If he thinks that is "biased", so what?

I never said science was biased. Stop lying.

How in the world do they let you rant on here incoherently?

Now that is bias.

Balanced said: I never said science was biased. Stop lying. How in the world do they let you rant on here incoherently? Now that is bias.

Balanced,

If you don't have a comment about historical contingency, go away.

Balanced wrote:

David Stanton said: Balanced, If you don't have a comment about historical contingency, go away.

Then you should also tell sylvilagus to go away since he is the one that requested info from me.

sylvilagus wrote: Hi Balance - I thought several of the posts above did a quite reasonable job of responding to your question about trolls. They seemed to be making an honest attempt at responding to your concern with reasioned arguments. Just wondering if it helped you at all. Did you learn anything from their responses or have any thoughtful reponses of your own? Or was that not the point?

Balanced wrote: Which post do you think was the most reasonable response?

Balanced wrote: Why don't you go away? You add nothing here.

PZ / PvM / Anybody... anybody?

Has PT abandoned its "no sock puppets" rule entirely?

Alexander Vargas said: Maybe some other day you will feel more inclined to discuss a little SCIENCE.