Project Steve's 10th Anniversary

That was a lot of fun. As I recall it was Matt Inslay (Sp?) who made the initial suggestion. Wasn't Stephen "Steve" Hawkings the first noble holder to sign? (And the first person not a biologist).

Ill fate bestowed on me, to mention the 's'...
Yes, I am a nitpicker from way back, I am burdened with an eye for typos.

Hawking signed, but doesn't have a Nobel.

Rolf, I don't see it.

Right! I can't keep all these guys straight.

For a change, Byers is somewhat coherent. He's merely catastrophically wrong in fact.

He applies a particularly disgusting double standard to the ICR vs Project Steve. Both lists of signatories include scientists who are not evolutionary biologists, but Byers criticises only Project Steve for this, and ignores the fact that the ICR's list includes many who are not working scientists at all. He also ignores the fact that the signatories to the ICR's list are not actually endorsing creationism, whereas the signatories to Project Steve are specifically endorsing evolution.

With the complete insouciance of the severely deranged, he also simply ignores his own earlier vox populi arguments. Faced with the undeniable fact that the opposition to evolution among actual scientists is vanishingly negligible, he tells us that it doesn't matter. But Byers has spent years here pushing the idea that creationism must be true, because a lot of Americans believe it. He only introduces this counterargument now because it is convenient to him.

He wants evidence, he says. This is simply untrue. There is no evidence that would satisfy Byers. He shows no sign of understanding it or even admitting it into existence.

What does he want demonstrated? Common descent? The SINE insertion data is unequivocal evidence for it. Deep time? Sedimentary stratification alone was enough to convince the first real geologists; since then the evidence has gone from convincing to overwhelming to undeniable several times over. Speciation? Observed in the field multiple times: The London Underground mosquito; the apple maggot fly; several others. Morphological change over deep time? The fossil record provides a huge amount of evidence. There are studies from sediments in African lakes that plainly show detail changes appearing, spreading through a population and new species radiating.

Watch this space. If he's allowed to, Byers will simply ignore or deny it all.

As of October 2012, the NCSE list had 1229 names, compared with 840 on the Discovery Institute list. If we count only those persons on these two lists who had a Ph.D. degree and/or professional position in a core field closely related to evolution (Anatomy, Anthropology, Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Botany, Ecology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Genetics, Geology, Geophysics, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Neurophysiology, Paleontology, Physiology, Taxonomy, Virology or Zoology), who thus are particularly well-qualified to make such a declaration, then 683 (55.6%) of the names on the NCSE list were so qualified, compared with only 236 (28.1%) of the Discovery Institute list, according to a detailed check performed by the present author. If we then further limit the Discovery Institute core field list to those persons named Steve or one of the variants above, so that the size of this list can be directly compared with the NCSE core field list, then only two signers remain (in general agreement with the fact that persons named Steve or one of the above variants constitute roughly 1% of the U.S. population).

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: It should be noted that the DI keeps C. Steven Murphree on their Dissent from Darwinism list although he left the dark side to become the 1184th Steve back in January 2012. David H. Bailey has a nice graph on his pages displaying the following facts

As of October 2012, the NCSE list had 1229 names, compared with 840 on the Discovery Institute list. If we count only those persons on these two lists who had a Ph.D. degree and/or professional position in a core field closely related to evolution (Anatomy, Anthropology, Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Botany, Ecology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Genetics, Geology, Geophysics, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Neurophysiology, Paleontology, Physiology, Taxonomy, Virology or Zoology), who thus are particularly well-qualified to make such a declaration, then 683 (55.6%) of the names on the NCSE list were so qualified, compared with only 236 (28.1%) of the Discovery Institute list, according to a detailed check performed by the present author. If we then further limit the Discovery Institute core field list to those persons named Steve or one of the variants above, so that the size of this list can be directly compared with the NCSE core field list, then only two signers remain (in general agreement with the fact that persons named Steve or one of the above variants constitute roughly 1% of the U.S. population).

Since Bailey doesn't mention him it seems likely that he counted Murphree as one of the two Steves on the DI list.

If Byers wants to respond, he will need to reply on the BW. Several have already replied there starting here:

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300106

Richard B. Hoppe said: Hawking signed, but doesn't have a Nobel. Rolf, I don't see it.

Sorry Rolf. The life of a copy editor sucks.

there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred

or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.

Variation + selection effects + feedback loops -> occasional creativity

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred

Depends entirely on how "evolution" is defined since virtually all creationists accept that living organisms can change/evolve within natural limits. The NCSE can't seem to do something as basic as that.

or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.

Natural selection is not a "mechanism". It is just the inevitable outcome of differential reproduction. It explains why things stay the same rather than why they change. It fails to account for creativity in evolution.

DS said: There is no scientific doubt as to a single origin of life or descent with modification. Those who are too obstinate to admit it notwithstanding.

Now where have we heard this nonsense about natural selection before? Get another string for your bango.

Depends entirely on how “evolution” is defined since virtually all creationists accept that living organisms can change/evolve within natural limits. The NCSE can’t seem to do something as basic as that.

Natural selection is not a “mechanism”. It is just the inevitable outcome of differential reproduction.

It explains why things stay the same rather than why they change.

It fails to account for creativity in evolution.

I call POE. Unless this is yet another cretin trying to quote mine Gould. Now who would do such a thing? I wonder.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: all creationists accept that living organisms can change/evolve within natural limits

So is W. Ford Doolittle not a scientific voice of doubt on the subject of universal common ancestry?

It isn’t “nonsense” to deduce that natural selection works by reducing variation and preserving DNA sequences. You need to read up on Stephen Jay Gould:

DS said: I call POE. Unless this is yet another cretin trying to quote mine Gould. Now who would do such a thing? I wonder.

co said: There's a good chance for you to explain exactly what a "natural limit" is.

harold said: 2) Not only an appeal to authority, but a special type of appeal to authority that creationists love, which is even more flawed than typical appeal to authority. Hypocritical ppeal to authority of one individual, while ignoring the view of other experts with the same qualifications. Here it doesn't matter, since you've lied about the writer's intent to begin with.

Gross misunderstanding of the subject matter and misrepresentation of another person's views again.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

co said: There's a good chance for you to explain exactly what a "natural limit" is.

I would strongly recommend reading this explanation of the limits to biological change by natural selection offered by two evolutionary biologists: Limits to natural selection: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf Enjoy.

It is just a fact that natural selection has conserved DNA sequences right across the phylogenetic board. Those in comparative genomics know this only too well.

It's been a glorious ten years for Project Steve. I thought it was a very fitting and clever response when it first came out, and the same still holds true today.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

harold said: 2) Not only an appeal to authority, but a special type of appeal to authority that creationists love, which is even more flawed than typical appeal to authority. Hypocritical ppeal to authority of one individual, while ignoring the view of other experts with the same qualifications. Here it doesn't matter, since you've lied about the writer's intent to begin with.

You are aware that the subject of this thread is precisely about an appeal to scientific authority by the NCSE? This "objection" you raise is a joke on your part, right?

Gross misunderstanding of the subject matter and misrepresentation of another person's views again.

It is just a fact that natural selection has conserved DNA sequences right across the phylogenetic board. Those in comparative genomics know this only too well.

I would strongly recommend reading this explanation of the limits to biological change by natural selection offered by two evolutionary biologists: Limits to natural selection: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf Enjoy.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Nor does the linked paper suggest that's the case. Nowhere does it suggest that the various forms of constraints it describes make evolutionary theory unable to account for the observed phenomena.

Now contrast that with the so-called "theory" of intelligent design. It places no constraints whatsoever on the actions of the putative designer(s). As a consequence, it is untestable. By being able to explain absolutely anything, by placing no constraints on what the putative designer(s) can do, it explains nothing at all.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Nor does the linked paper suggest that's the case. Nowhere does it suggest that the various forms of constraints it describes make evolutionary theory unable to account for the observed phenomena.

The authors of the paper have this to say: "The most obvious limit to natural selection is that suitable variation may not be available." They cite some examples of where this is a real problem. It is an extremely pertinent point to note because natural selection can only work with what is available, and not with the variations that some evolutionary biologists speculate might be possible.

Now contrast that with the so-called "theory" of intelligent design. It places no constraints whatsoever on the actions of the putative designer(s). As a consequence, it is untestable. By being able to explain absolutely anything, by placing no constraints on what the putative designer(s) can do, it explains nothing at all.

The authors go on to say this: "Darwin's strongest evidence for the power of natural selection was by analogy with the dramatic success of artificial selection." Except that human experience with artificial selection has shown that there are indeed limits to the manner in which we can induce change in organisms, as any breeder is aware. And, moreover, artificial selection is a form of intelligent design. We can't get pigs to grow wings and fly even if we wanted to achieve this (ask Jerry Fodor).

The anonymous commenter wrote:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Nor does the linked paper suggest that's the case. Nowhere does it suggest that the various forms of constraints it describes make evolutionary theory unable to account for the observed phenomena.

The authors of the paper have this to say: "The most obvious limit to natural selection is that suitable variation may not be available."

They cite some examples of where this is a real problem. It is an extremely pertinent point to note because natural selection can only work with what is available, and not with the variations that some evolutionary biologists speculate might be possible.

RBH: Now contrast that with the so-called "theory" of intelligent design. It places no constraints whatsoever on the actions of the putative designer(s). As a consequence, it is untestable. By being able to explain absolutely anything, by placing no constraints on what the putative designer(s) can do, it explains nothing at all.

Anonymous commenter: The authors go on to say this: "Darwin's strongest evidence for the power of natural selection was by analogy with the dramatic success of artificial selection." Except that human experience with artificial selection has shown that there are indeed limits to the manner in which we can induce change in organisms, as any breeder is aware. And, moreover, artificial selection is a form of intelligent design. We can't get pigs to grow wings and fly even if we wanted to achieve this (ask Jerry Fodor).

In a broad sense, this is clearly why different lineages are constrained to particular ways of life: almost all of the multiple changes needed to allow a pig to fly would be deleterious. However, there is a sequence of ancestral phenotypes that connects pigs with bats and birds, and a combination of appropriate environments and appropriate genetic variability has taken organisms along this path.

Joe's deliberate misunderstanding for the day is to pretend to believe that scientists think that biological evolution has no limits.

Although Joe is unique in many ways, here he exhibits the creationist tendency to project their own flaws (which they must unconsciously recognize) onto scientists.

It is creationists who believe in sudden poofing into existence of modern species, fire-breathing dragons as historical facts, and so on. They are the ones who believe in a process that has no limits.

What about the limits to intelligent design? Isn't is limited by the intelligence and capabilities of the designer? So, what we can conclude from the evidence is that, if there is indeed a designer, she is no more able to overcoming the limitations than natural selection. She appears to be constrained by historical contingency, just like natural selection. She appears to recycle old and inappropriate designs and to rely on exaptation, just like natural selection. In short, she is a completely unnecessary hypothesis. And we can tell all of this by simply looking at the limits of natural selection. Glad that's settled.

Mr. Masked,

I would like to ask you what kind of barrier exists that prevents one species from varying enough, over time, to give rise to a distinctly separate species. Is it:

A) some physical barrier, perhaps a code in the DNA, that allows only minor variation and "knows" to prevent variation beyond a predetermined(?) point; or

B) a supernatural (spiritual, divine, miraculous, magical, etc.) effect that observes all reproduction events and 1) prevents ones with too much variation, or 2) aborts all offspring with too much variation, or 3) repairs any DNA variation beyond the allowable limit, or 4) some combination of the above; or

C) some other barrier?

If the barrier is in fact physical, is it in principal detectable? Should we be able to discover the DNA barrier that is in every species which prevents an impermissible degree of variation?

About item A), it would also have to somewhere keep a record of either where it started, so that the amount of change could be checked, or the point at which to block further change. In either case there would have to be some way of calculating the alleged limit point.

Natural selection is like a sculpter. By itself it never adds anything new and yet it produces the most beautiful works of art, all from the stone that just happened to be there all along.

Except that the stone used by a sculpture doesn't change internally (or grow new parts) during the process.

DS said: Natural selection is like a sculpter. By itself it never adds anything new and yet it produces the most beautiful works of art, all from the stone that just happened to be there all along.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Well, of course. Variation is the raw material on which selection operates. But that statement doesn't imply that there was insufficient variation over billions of years to produce the biogical diversity we see.

What specific examples are you referring to here?

Once again, of course there are limits: not everything is possible to be evolved by natural selection operating on random variation, and we don't see pigs flying precisely because of constraints on what is possible. Evolution is descent with modification.

But once again, the authors do not suggest that precludes accounting for the diversity of biological life that we observe.

Pigs don't fly, but their evolutionary cousins do. And we know why extant pigs won't evolve to fly. Intelligent design "theory" gives us no reason to suppose that some intelligent agent couldn't produce flying pigs. After all, an intelligent agent could skip over all those pesky intermediate forms.

In addition, we're back to the "if it's an experimental outcome, it's intelligent design" foolishness. And I'll also note that "human experience" spans a tiny fraction of the time available for the diversification of life.

DS said: Natural selection is like a sculpter. By itself it never adds anything new and yet it produces the most beautiful works of art, all from the stone that just happened to be there all along.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Some of the best evidence for evolution comes through a directed process of design by artificial selection rather than by the blind working of natural selection:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: Natural selection is like a sculpter. By itself it never adds anything new and yet it produces the most beautiful works of art, all from the stone that just happened to be there all along.

Except that this is not a fitting analogy when describing proteins (like collagen) encoded in genes that were not in any form present in the genome of the primordial organism.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: Natural selection is like a sculpter. By itself it never adds anything new and yet it produces the most beautiful works of art, all from the stone that just happened to be there all along.

Except that this is not a fitting analogy when describing proteins (like collagen) encoded in genes that were not in any form present in the genome of the primordial organism.

Joe has been provided with references that demonstrate that all of his hand waving and and baseless assertions are meaningless. He refuses to learn and simply repeats his mistakes over and over. He is not concerned with evidence or reality, he has only his own incredulity. Well Joe, I'm incredulous as well. I can't believe that anyone could actually believe anything so stupid, so I have concluded that you don't. Piss off.

The anonymous commenter said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Well, of course. Variation is the raw material on which selection operates. But that statement doesn't imply that there was insufficient variation over billions of years to produce the biogical diversity we see.

Well, we may not know much about variation that occurred in the distant past, but we do know enough about random variation as it occurs today. We know that mutations in our own DNA are either harmful, and so cause disease, or else contribute to largely neutral and non-adaptive differences among us. What these random variations do not seem to provide is any raw material for significant evolutionary change by way of natural selection.

Richard B. Hoppe said: What specific examples are you referring to here?

(1) enzyme catalysis by the rate of diffusion of substrates to the active site, (2) mutation rate by the thermodynamics of base pairing, (3) reaction times by the speed of propagation of nerve impulses, and (4) the acuity of the eye by spherical aberration.

Once again, of course there are limits: not everything is possible to be evolved by natural selection operating on random variation, and we don't see pigs flying precisely because of constraints on what is possible. Evolution is descent with modification.

Yes. And the question that has been posed since Darwin's time is whether the accumulation of "slight modifications" can (at least in principle) generate the manifold "endless forms most beautiful and wonderful" evident in the living world. There is scant evidence for this.

RBH said: But once again, the authors do not suggest that precludes accounting for the diversity of biological life that we observe.

I would be shocked if they did, considering that the authors are both eminent evolutionary biologists. What is noteworthy is that they are prepared to admit this limitation in a way in which the NCSE does not appear to be prepared to acknowledge.

RBH said: Pigs don't fly, but their evolutionary cousins do. And we know why extant pigs won't evolve to fly. Intelligent design "theory" gives us no reason to suppose that some intelligent agent couldn't produce flying pigs. After all, an intelligent agent could skip over all those pesky intermediate forms.

Anonymous replied: There are mechanics involved that make some designs good and others less than optimal. A flying pig would, for simple physical reasons, be a flawed engineering design and would thus not be viable. You build things to last, not to fail (hence intelligent design).

Anonymous said:

RBH said: In addition, we're back to the "if it's an experimental outcome, it's intelligent design" foolishness. And I'll also note that "human experience" spans a tiny fraction of the time available for the diversification of life.

Some of the best evidence for evolution comes through a directed process of design by artificial selection rather than by the blind working of natural selection: http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v10/n12/abs/nrm2805.html ftp://ftp.dbkgroup.org/pub/pdf_direvol/jackel_arb08.pdf

Scott F said: Why do you characterize "artificial selection" as "directed", yet you characterize "natural selection" as "blind"? The adjectives appear to be arbitrary bias on your part.

In "natural selection", the implicit selection criteria (or rather one of the many selection criteria) is "reproduces more offspring in the current environment". In what sense is this criteria "blind"? "Blind" to what? How is such selection not "directed" by reproductive success?

Also, the adjective "Blind" would suggest that there is some Living Being with "Sight", and that this "Sight" is somehow inhibited from working. No one characterizes rocks or rain as "blind", for example. Why would you anthropomorphize a non-living process such as "Natural Selection" as "Blind"?

In general, how could humans possibly "direct" that certain mutations come into existence, and "direct" that other mutations not come into existence? Specifically, how did humans "direct" the creation of the original mutation for Belgian Blue cattle? Sure, human breeders can ensure that such cattle survive by artificial means (such as caesareans), but are you saying that humans "directed" the mutation to occur in the first place? In 1807?

Richard B. Hoppe said: Most mutations in already fit populations in relatively stable selective environments will be neutral or more-or-less deleterious. That's a consequence of the topography of fitness landscapes: populations near peaks can't get much higher on average. However, in varying fitness landscapes, more mutations will be advantageous. In humans, for example, the change in the fitness landscape occasioned by the advent of pastoral farming, with the attendant availability of milk beyond infancy, has enabled the occurrence and spread of lactose tolerance mutations.

And I note the weasel word "significant." "Significant evolutionary change" almost always comes as the consequence of a series of incremental changes, none in itself necessarily particularly striking, but in the aggregate generating significant change. (An exception, perhaps, is polyploidy, which particularly in plants can produce single-generation speciation.)

The evidence from paleontology, molecular biology, comparative genetics, and evolutionary developmental biology is very far from "scant."

Eminent evolutionary biologists have not been reluctant to study the issue. As the history of biology since the resurrection of Mendel's work just after the turn of the 20th centurt shows, that's been a question that's absorbed a good deal of attention. See, for example, the debates between mutationists and selectionists in the early part of that century.

Which, of course, utterly fails to explain why roughly 99% of the allegedly designed critters have gone extinct. Some designer!

The source of the selective pressure is irrelevant; the process works whether that source is humans or nature.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Wrong. So wrong. Artificial selection has no constraints other than the availability of the variation itself. Darwinian natural selection, however, requires that variation should improve reproductive success/fitness whereas artificial selection does not. Hence, artificial selection is more effective.

Okay, why is "A Masked Panda (1686)" using that particular screen name? Doesn't this forum already have "A Masked Panda"? Who is very obviously not "AMP (1686)" (whoever he is)? This isn't someone pulling "a Poe". This is someone pulling "a con". And a really bad one, at that.

Gsparky2004 said: Okay, why is "A Masked Panda (1686)" using that particular screen name? Doesn't this forum already have "A Masked Panda"? Who is very obviously not "AMP (1686)" (whoever he is)? This isn't someone pulling "a Poe". This is someone pulling "a con". And a really bad one, at that.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Wrong. So wrong. Artificial selection has no constraints other than the availability of the variation itself. Darwinian natural selection, however, requires that variation should improve reproductive success/fitness whereas artificial selection does not. Hence, artificial selection is more effective.

Mike Elzinga said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Wrong. So wrong. Artificial selection has no constraints other than the availability of the variation itself. Darwinian natural selection, however, requires that variation should improve reproductive success/fitness whereas artificial selection does not. Hence, artificial selection is more effective.

Let me ask the question a different way. Are you suggesting that “artificial” selection is “more effective” at producing traits than “natural” selection? What about the proboscis monkey or the platypus? Some humans might like such exaggerated features or such a bizarre mix of features; but there weren’t any humans who produced the proboscis monkey or the platypus.

An ability to drink milk beyond infancy (through the loss of a control mechanism) is hardly evidence that there exist natural variations that can explain the diversity of life.

We know that mutations in our own DNA are either harmful, and so cause disease, or else contribute to largely neutral and non-adaptive differences among us.

And what evidence specifically? To date, I have seen no detailed explanation for how such and such a structure or part came to be through the accumulation of random mutations.

Yes. And the NCSE glosses over the fact that many evolutionary biologists are not as comfortable with the idea that natural selection can explain diversity as they imply.

This is a really silly argument to make. Extinction does not occur because organisms are badly designed or maladapted, but because of factors that include competition for resources, excessive predation or catastrophes. The dinosaurs weren’t badly designed because an asteroid hit the earth and killed them any more than we would be badly designed if we became extinct through nuclear warfare.

Wrong. So wrong. Artificial selection has no constraints other than the availability of the variation itself. Darwinian natural selection, however, requires that variation should improve reproductive success/fitness whereas artificial selection does not. Hence, artificial selection is more effective.

"However, environmental pressures tend to fluctuate and so are directionless."

There. Right there. Read that, and straight away you're in fruitloop territory.

That's like saying that ocean levels tend to fluctuate and so are directionless, so littoral animals can't evolve to exploit the tides. Winds tend to fluctuate and so are directionless, so birds can't use wind patterns for migration. Patterns that fluctuate don't select for lifeforms that exploit the fluctuations. It's so wrong that it's idiotic, even at that level.

But it's also wrong at another level. "Environmental pressures tend to fluctuate." That's to say, there are no long-term trends in the environment. Climates don't change in one direction (out of several) over the long term. There are no such things as ice ages. There is no such thing as relief rainfall patterns which change according to continental drift. No mountains ever rose or were eroded down. There is no such thing as long-term global warming. The Earth's ice caps were always there, just as they are today.

There is no such thing as the appearance of new environmental niches, newly created by other living things. Couldn't happen. Never happened. Forests can't replace grasslands and start selecting for living things that climb trees. Vice-versa, and the grasslands can't select for living animals that did climb trees, but now must move over open terrain. Can't happen.

Nonsense on stilts. Ignorance taken to the level of dismissal of reality.

Flint said: I think he's saying that artificial selection is more efficient. And there's no question that it is far more efficient. Of course, "artificial" selection is nothing more than a reproductive environment, where the desired traits most emphatically "improve reproductive success/fitness". Artificial selection is like natural selection on steroids. Under artificial selection, ALL variants (and mutations) meeting the breeding goal are selected, and ALL variants (and mutations) not doing so are culled. The difference from natural selection IS efficiency, pretty much nothing else (except insofar as natural selection takes so much longer than more mutations will become available for selection).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

The source of the selective pressure is irrelevant; the process works whether that source is humans or nature.

Wrong. So wrong. Artificial selection has no constraints other than the availability of the variation itself. Darwinian natural selection, however, requires that variation should improve reproductive success/fitness whereas artificial selection does not. Hence, artificial selection is more effective.

Extinction does not occur because organisms are badly designed or maladapted, but because of factors that include competition for resources, excessive predation or catastrophes.

As an analogy, saying that "Natural Selection" can't produce novel features because "Artificial Selection" is so much more effective, is like saying that rivers can't use "Natural Erosion" to find a way to transport water to lower elevations, because only "Intelligent Designers" can use "Artificial Earth Moving" to carve the land just so, in order to create aqueducts that use gradual changes in elevation to take advantage of gravity to move the water. It takes an "Intelligence" to understand how water behaves and to direct that water to where it is needed as "effectively" as possible. Obviously, "Natural Erosion" can't possibly move water to where it is needed, therefore the whole idea of "Natural" rivers is "silly". Heck, if left to "Nature", such water might end up puddling in valleys, or falling over sheer cliffs. Where's the effectiveness in that?

Richard B. Hoppe said: It precisely refutes your claim.

Ah, yes. The "explain precisely how this rock in a landslide came to occupy this particular position" demand of Behe. Dealt with here.

Citation required.

Thus the population becomes maladapted and goes extinct. A genuinely good design would have mechanisms to allow populations to deal with those changes more effectively and rapidly. Some designer.

Pure B.S. Artificial selection employs strong controls on reproductive success. Try to artificially select for some trait in a population without controlling the reproductive success of variants.

You'll fail miserably. Artificial selection is more effective precisely because it controls reproductive success more stringently than natural selection generally does. Selection is generally stronger in artificial selection than in nature.

The anon commenter has not yet provided any evidence that the constraints on variation identified in the linked review prevent the theory of evolution from accounting for the diversity of life we see. That there are constraints is obvious; that the constraints are too narrow is not.

Mike Elzinga said: Let me ask the question a different way. Are you suggesting that “artificial” selection is “more effective” at producing traits than “natural” selection?

Just Bob said: I would like to ask you what kind of barrier exists that prevents one species from varying enough, over time, to give rise to a distinctly separate species. Is it: A) some physical barrier, perhaps a code in the DNA, that allows only minor variation and "knows" to prevent variation beyond a predetermined(?) point; or B) a supernatural (spiritual, divine, miraculous, magical, etc.) effect that observes all reproduction events and 1) prevents ones with too much variation, or 2) aborts all offspring with too much variation, or 3) repairs any DNA variation beyond the allowable limit, or 4) some combination of the above; or C) some other barrier? If the barrier is in fact physical, is it in principal detectable? Should we be able to discover the DNA barrier that is in every species which prevents an impermissible degree of variation?

A Masked Panda 1686 -

Although you show misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, I would like to know what your explanation for the diversity of the biosphere is, and what positive evidence - not arguments against evolution, positive evidence - you have to support it.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who or what is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) If you claim that "CSI" or "irreducible complexity" is proof of design, how do you define those terms, and how do you show that those traits can never be the result of evolution?

harold said: A Masked Panda 1686 - Although you show misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, I would like to know what your explanation for the diversity of the biosphere is, and what positive evidence - not arguments against evolution, positive evidence - you have to support it.

I told you it was worthless arguing with the invincibly deluded. This guy will never change his tune no matter what.

I also think it is interesting that it has been allowed to troll up this thread with page after page of irrelevant off-topic crap. This kind of jackass is precisely what the bathroom wall was created for.

Is there anyone who doesn't think that this is once again Bozo Joe, flaunting his ignorance and antisocial pseudo personality? Same old arguments from incredulity, same old avoidance of any real evidence, same old lack of any viable alternative.

DS said: I told you it was worthless arguing with the invincibly deluded. This guy will never change his tune no matter what.

DS said: I told you it was worthless arguing with the invincibly deluded. This guy will never change his tune no matter what. I also think it is interesting that it has been allowed to troll up this thread with page after page of irrelevant off-topic crap. This kind of jackass is precisely what the bathroom wall was created for. Is there anyone who doesn't think that this is once again Bozo Joe, flaunting his ignorance and antisocial pseudo personality? Same old arguments from incredulity, same old avoidance of any real evidence, same old lack of any viable alternative.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: I told you it was worthless arguing with the invincibly deluded. This guy will never change his tune no matter what.

What would convince me is evidence based on demonstrable, testable and falsifiable investigation. What will not convince me is speculation, extrapolation and a profound lack of empirical evidence that natural selection can explain biodiversity and complexity. I think that the likes of Doug Futuyma, and other Darwinians, say it all when they claim that evolution by natural selection is "one of the most important ideas in the history of human thought—“Darwin’s dangerous idea,” as the philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995) has called it—for it explains the apparent design of the living world without recourse to a supernatural, omnipotent designer." http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Evolution--Futuyma--chap11.pdf The IDEA appeals to their atheistic and naturalistic prejudices more than any actual evidence in support of it. The NCSE does not want to admit its own atheistic/non-theistic agenda, but that is what it is trying to sell to the public through its "educational" efforts.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: I told you it was worthless arguing with the invincibly deluded. This guy will never change his tune no matter what.

What would convince me is evidence based on demonstrable, testable and falsifiable investigation. What will not convince me is speculation, extrapolation and a profound lack of empirical evidence that natural selection can explain biodiversity and complexity. I think that the likes of Doug Futuyma, and other Darwinians, say it all when they claim that evolution by natural selection is "one of the most important ideas in the history of human thought—“Darwin’s dangerous idea,” as the philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995) has called it—for it explains the apparent design of the living world without recourse to a supernatural, omnipotent designer." http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Evolution--Futuyma--chap11.pdf The IDEA appeals to their atheistic and naturalistic prejudices more than any actual evidence in support of it. The NCSE does not want to admit its own atheistic/non-theistic agenda, but that is what it is trying to sell to the public through its "educational" efforts.

Scott F said: So now, instead of "evidence", you argue that an idea is "wrong" because people you don't like believe it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Just Bob said: I would like to ask you what kind of barrier exists that prevents one species from varying enough, over time, to give rise to a distinctly separate species. Is it: A) some physical barrier, perhaps a code in the DNA, that allows only minor variation and "knows" to prevent variation beyond a predetermined(?) point; or B) a supernatural (spiritual, divine, miraculous, magical, etc.) effect that observes all reproduction events and 1) prevents ones with too much variation, or 2) aborts all offspring with too much variation, or 3) repairs any DNA variation beyond the allowable limit, or 4) some combination of the above; or C) some other barrier? If the barrier is in fact physical, is it in principal detectable? Should we be able to discover the DNA barrier that is in every species which prevents an impermissible degree of variation? [emphasis added]

Our experience with breeding plants and animals shows us that there are indeed real limits to the way in which we can change them. This is likely because of developmental constraints due to the complex relationship between interacting gene networks. We can alter the size and color of a dog, for example, but we can't modify it to the point where it becomes something other than a dog. I would suggest that you read the "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe that properly describes the limits I refer to.

DS said: I told you it was worthless arguing with the invincibly deluded. This guy will never change his tune no matter what. I also think it is interesting that it has been allowed to troll up this thread with page after page of irrelevant off-topic crap. This kind of jackass is precisely what the bathroom wall was created for. Is there anyone who doesn't think that this is once again Bozo Joe, flaunting his ignorance and antisocial pseudo personality? Same old arguments from incredulity, same old avoidance of any real evidence, same old lack of any viable alternative.

natural selection can explain “apparent design”

From the viewpoint of the organism undergoing artificial selection, the distinction with "natural" selection is moot. Some variations survive to breed again, some do not. The fact that human breeding decisions ARE the environment is irrelevant to them. The fact that other environments exists, in which they couldn't cope well, is also irrelevant to them.

The only thing natural selection can do that artificial selection does not, is wait for new mutations for selection. If one wished to breed cats to glide like flying squirrels, they could breed for small size and tree climbing ability, since those variations already exist. But for the webbed skin between limbs, they might have to wait a while.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: The IDEA appeals to their atheistic and naturalistic prejudices more than any actual evidence in support of it. The NCSE does not want to admit its own atheistic/non-theistic agenda, but that is what it is trying to sell to the public through its "educational" efforts.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Scott F said: So now, instead of "evidence", you argue that an idea is "wrong" because people you don't like believe it.

No. What I am explaining is that the IDEA that natural selection can explain "apparent design" (without need for a supernatural designer) matters more to some ideologically-driven scientists than any evidence for it. Without Darwinian selectionism, the case for atheism becomes much harder to sustain, and Paley's argument becomes irrefutable.

I would suggest that you read the “Edge of Evolution” by Michael Behe that properly describes the limits I refer to.

A masked panda said: The NCSE does not want to admit its own atheistic/non-theistic agenda, but that is what it is trying to sell to the public through its "educational" efforts.

Just Bob said: I would like to ask you what kind of barrier exists that prevents one species from varying enough, over time, to give rise to a distinctly separate species...

DS said: What I am explaining is that the theoretical and empirical evidence for the importance of natural selection has been well established by the last one hundred and fifty years of research.

You have presented no evidence for the existence of any barrier that prevents this process from producing the diversity of life and no reason to suppose that one exists.

You have presented no alternative, let alone any evidence for any alternative. In short, all you got is "I don't wanna believe it so it ain't true". You want to quote mine scientists who disagree with you, fine, just don't expect anyone to be fooled.

Flint said: From the viewpoint of the organism undergoing artificial selection, the distinction with "natural" selection is moot.

apokryltaros said: And yet, one of the bigger problems you are ignoring is to explain why it is necessary to resort to postulating that the diversities of life are the direct result of the magical tinkering of a supernatural "Intelligent Designer" who literally works in magically mysterious ways beyond the puny ken of stupid mortal scientists, ala GODDIDIT?

Flint said: From the viewpoint of the organism undergoing artificial selection, the distinction with "natural" selection is moot.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Scott F said: So now, instead of "evidence", you argue that an idea is "wrong" because people you don't like believe it.

No. What I am explaining is that the IDEA that natural selection can explain "apparent design" (without need for a supernatural designer) matters more to some ideologically-driven scientists than any evidence for it. Without Darwinian selectionism, the case for atheism becomes much harder to sustain, and Paley's argument becomes irrefutable.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

And is an unintended decrease in the typical adult size of fish due to larger ones being less likely to slip through fishermen’s nets natural or artificial selection?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Flint said: From the viewpoint of the organism undergoing artificial selection, the distinction with "natural" selection is moot.

Let me just repeat this point one more time. Artificial selection is not constrained by reproductive fitness, only the mind of the breeder. This means that "unfit intermediates" can be selected for that natural selection would discard. It means that traits that have no reproductive benefit to the organism can be preserved. This means that artificial selection can explore the full extent of heritable variation while NS cannot.

Scott F said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Flint said: From the viewpoint of the organism undergoing artificial selection, the distinction with "natural" selection is moot.

Let me just repeat this point one more time. Artificial selection is not constrained by reproductive fitness, only the mind of the breeder. This means that "unfit intermediates" can be selected for that natural selection would discard. It means that traits that have no reproductive benefit to the organism can be preserved. This means that artificial selection can explore the full extent of heritable variation while NS cannot.

And "Natural Selection" can do the same. Genetic drift. Neutral mutations.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: It has been researched, and real limits and constraints to natural selection have been found.

Well, there is a viable alternative - directed evolution. But finding evidence in the past for its application is not feasible.

Scott F said: So, are you saying that scientists espouse the IDEA of natural selection, not because they think it is true, or correct, or (you know) useful, but instead because it makes them feel better about being atheists?

"It's arguably the best idea that anyone has ever had.". Richard Dawkins

Er...no. Random genetic drift is not natural selection and often interferes with natural selection. Neutral variations are liable to be lost as they confer no reproductive benefit.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Flint said: From the viewpoint of the organism undergoing artificial selection, the distinction with "natural" selection is moot.

Let me just repeat this point one more time. Artificial selection is not constrained by reproductive fitness, only the mind of the breeder. This means that "unfit intermediates" can be selected for that natural selection would discard. It means that traits that have no reproductive benefit to the organism can be preserved. This means that artificial selection can explore the full extent of heritable variation while NS cannot.

"It's arguably the best idea that anyone has ever had.". Richard Dawkins

I admit it is an intriguing idea that a blind and purposeless process could generate the diversity and complexity of life on earth....but it's also an idea that belongs in the realm of imagination and speculation, and not that of observation and demonstration.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Scott F said: So, are you saying that scientists espouse the IDEA of natural selection, not because they think it is true, or correct, or (you know) useful, but instead because it makes them feel better about being atheists?

More or less. I think natural selection for them represents a naturalistic/atheistic alternative to that of a divine Creator. It doesn't really matter to them that natural selection cannot replace the need for a creative agency in evolution, but the idea appeals to them more than the actual evidence for it. If you read how most evolutionary biologists came to believe in Darwinism, you will find it wasn't through a careful examination of the evidence but because they found the idea to be so appealing:

"It's arguably the best idea that anyone has ever had.". Richard Dawkins

I admit it is an intriguing idea that a blind and purposeless process could generate the diversity and complexity of life on earth....but it's also an idea that belongs in the realm of imagination and speculation, and not that of observation and demonstration.

apokryltaros said:

I would suggest that you read the “Edge of Evolution” by Michael Behe that properly describes the limits I refer to.

You mean Behe's 2nd book on Intelligent Design where he once again neglects to describe how to identify Irreducible Complexity beyond "being too complex for (Behe) to care about understanding"? Or how Behe mentions the phenomenon of Plasmodium sp. evolving quinine resistance as an example of how the Intelligent Design, strongly implied to be God as described in the Bible, hates the collective guts of humans?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

apokryltaros said: And yet, one of the bigger problems you are ignoring is to explain why it is necessary to resort to postulating that the diversities of life are the direct result of the magical tinkering of a supernatural "Intelligent Designer" who literally works in magically mysterious ways beyond the puny ken of stupid mortal scientists, ala GODDIDIT?

It is really quite simple. Life exhibits the appearance of being designed (see Dawkins and Futuyma) and for a purpose. The most parsimonious inference is therefore that life has a designer. The more convoluted and less plausible inference is that there is no designer (just chance and necessity) and that any appearance of design is merely illusory.

Flint said: Except, of course, unlike religion where doctrine comes first and observation must be forced to fit whether it does or not, the idea of natural selection was posited to explain the evidence. Which is to say, the observations and demonstrations.

You don't seem to grasp that science is not religion. In science, theories are based on facts. In religion, facts are whatever fits the doctrine even if they must be fabricated. You have it backwards. Evolution is a fact. Gods themselves are purely speculative.

PA Poland said: End result of many iterations of these simple FACTS OF REALITY : the appearance of design. It will look like the critters were 'designed' SINCE THE LESS EFFICIENT VARIANTS WENT EXTINCT, LEAVING ONLY THE 'BETTER' ONES. If you truly are unable or unwilling to understand (or accept) so simple an idea, you really have no place whining about how 'inferior' evolution is, or how superior your evidence-free, untestable gibberings are.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

PA Poland said: End result of many iterations of these simple FACTS OF REALITY : the appearance of design. It will look like the critters were 'designed' SINCE THE LESS EFFICIENT VARIANTS WENT EXTINCT, LEAVING ONLY THE 'BETTER' ONES. If you truly are unable or unwilling to understand (or accept) so simple an idea, you really have no place whining about how 'inferior' evolution is, or how superior your evidence-free, untestable gibberings are.

Thanks for the recap about what natural selection is all about. Mutations create sub-optimal variations which natural selection filters out. The end result of this process is conservation and stasis, not change and evolution. Natural selection keeps things as they are.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Flint said: Except, of course, unlike religion where doctrine comes first and observation must be forced to fit whether it does or not, the idea of natural selection was posited to explain the evidence. Which is to say, the observations and demonstrations.

"Natural theology", of the Paleyan traditon, is based chiefly upon an observation of the natural world and the inference of a signature of intelligence within it.

You don't seem to grasp that science is not religion. In science, theories are based on facts. In religion, facts are whatever fits the doctrine even if they must be fabricated. You have it backwards. Evolution is a fact. Gods themselves are purely speculative.

"Scientism" is indeed a modern pseudo-religion and wordlview, replete with its own dogmas, assumptions and tenets. I would urge you to read "Science Set Free" by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (a biologist formerly at the University of Cambridge) who argues that science has become a belief system more than a system or open inquiry: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0770436706

phhht said: You assert that design is evident in nature. I assert that you cannot back up that claim with any objective methodology to detect or measure the distinction.

phhht said: Completely baseless assertion. Denial, the number-one tool of the deluded.

phhht said: Completely baseless assertion. Denial, the number-one tool of the deluded.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

phhht said: Can you, yourself, tell us how empirically to distinguish the designed from the non-designed? I think you personally can’t tell the difference. You assert that design is evident in nature. I assert that you cannot back up that claim with any objective methodology to detect or measure the distinction. Go ahead, tell us how you can detect the presence or absence of design in a tornado. Tell us to find out how little or how much design goes into the production of a snowflake. But you can’t, can you? All you can do is to wave your baseless religious delusions and shout Look! Design!

I maintain that the design is real whereas they think it is illusory.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

phhht said: You assert that design is evident in nature. I assert that you cannot back up that claim with any objective methodology to detect or measure the distinction.

I didn't assert that design is evident in Nature - Doug Futuyma and Richard Dawkins did. The only difference is that I maintain that the design is real whereas they think it is illusory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to refute the design inference, you need to provide compelling evidence both against it and for natural selection.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: "Natural theology", of the Paleyan traditon, is based chiefly upon an observation of the natural world and the inference of a signature of intelligence within it.

phhht said: You, yourself, the great advocate of the reality of design in nature, cannot tell the designed from the non-designed. Just as I thought.

Mike Elzinga said: As is the case with every one of these ID/creationist camp followers, they don’t even understand high school science. It is glaringly obvious from the way he expresses himself; and all he can do is copy/paste the thoughts of others. Unfortunately, that also means that he doesn’t have the tools to understand what he is copy/pasting; and that makes his misconceptions all the more obvious.

In an earlier post, MP1686 suggested a reference: The limitations of natural selection http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli[…]misconcep_03

This thread is getting to the point of diminishing returns for lurkers, which is why I left it open. I'll soon move a post or two to the BW and close it here.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Flint said: From the viewpoint of the organism undergoing artificial selection, the distinction with "natural" selection is moot.

Let me just repeat this point one more time. Artificial selection is not constrained by reproductive fitness, only the mind of the breeder. This means that "unfit intermediates" can be selected for that natural selection would discard. It means that traits that have no reproductive benefit to the organism can be preserved. This means that artificial selection can explore the full extent of heritable variation while NS cannot.

Or put another way, "fitness" is not a property of an organism; it's a property of an organism in a particular environmental context.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

phhht said: You, yourself, the great advocate of the reality of design in nature, cannot tell the designed from the non-designed. Just as I thought.

William Paley does so profoundly in "Natural Theology".

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

phhht said: Completely baseless assertion. Denial, the number-one tool of the deluded.

If it were not for natural selection, all sorts of diseases and maladies would be present in a population. By weeding out harmful traits, natural selection maintains reproductive fitness.

Mutations create sub-optimal variations which natural selection filters out. The end result of this process is conservation and stasis, not change and evolution. Natural selection keeps things as they are.

Rolf said: What mechanism is reponsible for ensuring that variations always are sub-optimal, never the other way around? You are postulating an impossible mechanism. If there is anything we know, it is that life is not static! Never was, never will be.

Rolf said: What mechanism is reponsible for ensuring that variations always are sub-optimal, never the other way around? You are postulating an impossible mechanism. If there is anything we know, it is that life is not static! Never was, never will be.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: The first is the direct approach of deploying editing and proofreading enzymes to correct these mistakes in the gene sequence.

Mike Elzinga said: All ID/creationists reify metaphors.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Nature uses two ways...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Now, as regards "beneficial mutations", you should realize that the wild or normal type of a gene is the one which by default has the optimal function. Any variations in it either make no difference to the function or degrade it. However, in some extreme environments, a variation that reduces or even destroys the function of a gene can confer a survival advantage.

creationist: Thanks for the recap about what natural selection is all about. Mutations create sub-optimal variations which natural selection filters out.

This loon is Ray Martinez. Ray's the one who thinks that Paley is just the bee's knees.

Two hundred years ago, his fellow natural philosophers pointed out the basic error in logic that Paley had made, viz, "Design is characterised by a purposeful arrangement of parts; living things exhibit a purposeful arrangement of parts; therefore, living things are designed."

The gaping hole in that is childishly obvious; Paley did not demonstrate that "a purposeful arrangement of parts" is necessarily produced only by design, and unless that is demonstrated, the argument breaks down. Paley was destroyed by that criticism alone; Darwin's contribution was (at this level) to demonstrate another mechanism that produces this apparently purposeful arrangement, but is not design.

The current loon's statement that William Paley had "profoundly" given a way to tell design from non-design is simply false.

Natural selection keeps things as they are.

I continue to hypothesize that religious belief occurs because of some cognitive mechanism failure(s) which impair the accuracy of that distinction.

apokryltaros said: "A Masked Panda" is a catch-all pseudonym for people who use yahoo mail accounts to sign in.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Or put another way, "fitness" is not a property of an organism; it's a property of an organism in a particular environmental context.

harold said:

I continue to hypothesize that religious belief occurs because of some cognitive mechanism failure(s) which impair the accuracy of that distinction.

I'm no more religious than you are, but do you have any evidence for this rather extraordinary assertion? Not evidence of neurobiological substrates of religious belief, which trivially must exist, evidence that, in all human populations, there is a significant association of religious belief, broadly defined, with cognitive deficits? Also not an argument that supernatural beliefs aren't really true, which I already agree with. Evidence that all people who hold such beliefs, whether true or not, have some kind of cognitive problem? According to recent polls, a strong majority of Americans want less religion in politics, but 92% of Americans claim some kind of belief in a god. http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm Incidentally, I think you might get a surprisingly similar result in "less religious" societies; you certainly would in Canada. A lot of very progressive and intelligent people have some kind of "spiritual" belief. I'm not one of them, but they do. You make a lot of good points here, and there is certainly a strong association between authoritarian religious beliefs, bigotry, disrespect for the rights of others, and denial of scientific reality in favor of self-serving deluded. However, that is a specific type of religious belief that attracts and creates a specific type of person. It is quite unfair to generalize from the likes of Joe, IBIG, FL, and so on to all religious people. I realize that you personally have been massively over-exposed to the most obnoxious type of authoritarian religious bigotry. Let me make it clear; I don't consider anybody's religious beliefs convincing. Otherwise I would be religious, obviously. But for whatever reason, a vast number of people do have some sort of religious belief. What is cognitively normal is defined by comparison to the human norm, not to some imaginary standard of philosophical purity. Chimpanzees can't talk or do basic math; that doesn't mean that they all have cognitive deficits, it means that most of them are cognitively normal chimpanzees. Humans are primates with a few extra layers of frontal cortex, primarily motivated by seething emotional and instinctive drives that we take so completely for granted that we almost forget that they are there. A set of perfectly logically defensible beliefs is not the norm.

harold said:

I continue to hypothesize that religious belief occurs because of so me cognitive mechanism failure(s) which impair the accuracy of that distinction.

I'm no more religious than you are, but do you have any evidence for this rather extraordinary assertion?

I continue to speculate that religious belief occurs because of some cognitive mechanism idiosyncracy which impairs the accuracy of that distinction .

According to recent polls, a strong majority of Americans want less religion in politics, but 92% of Americans claim some kind of belief in a god. http://www.p ollingreport.com/religion.htm Incidentally, I think you might get a surprisingl y similar result in "less religious" societies; you certainly would in Canada. A lot of very progressive and intelligent people have some kind of "spiritual" b elief. I'm not one of them, but they do.

No. An idiosyncrasy is an oddity, a peculiar or individual quirk or habit. Harold was at pains to show evidence that a belief in God, if not participation in formal religion, is held by a large majority of Americans, and therefore cannot be so described. That is, it might be false, but it is not idiosyncratic.

What you mean is something like "error" or "falsehood" or "illogicality" or "incapacity". Hence, perhaps:

"I continue to hypothesize that religious belief occurs because of some error in the cognitive mechanism which impair(s) the accuracy of that distinction." (ie, between "the real and the imaginary".)

Dave Luckett said: No. An idiosyncrasy is an oddity, a peculiar or individual quirk or habit. Harold was at pains to show evidence that a belief in God, if not participation in formal religion, is held by a large majority of Americans, and therefore cannot be so described. That is, it might be false, but it is not idiosyncratic. What you mean is something like "error" or "falsehood" or "illogicality" or "incapacity". Hence, perhaps: "I continue to hypothesize that religious belief occurs because of some error in the cognitive mechanism which impair(s) the accuracy of that distinction." (ie, between "the real and the imaginary".)

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: No. An idiosyncrasy is an oddity, a peculiar or individual quirk or habit. Harold was at pains to show evidence that a belief in God, if not participation in formal religion, is held by a large majority of Americans, and therefore cannot be so described. That is, it might be false, but it is not idiosyncratic. What you mean is something like "error" or "falsehood" or "illogicality" or "incapacity". Hence, perhaps: "I continue to hypothesize that religious belief occurs because of some error in the cognitive mechanism which impair(s) the accuracy of that distinction." (ie, between "the real and the imaginary".)

I don't think error will do for harold. It's too pejorative. And besides, there is a secondary meaning for idiosyncratic: "the idiosyncrasies of the prison system", as St Wiki puts it.

I continue to hypothesize that religious belief occurs because of some idiosyncracies in the cognitive mechanism which impair(s) the accuracy of that distinction." (ie, the capacity to distinguish between "the real and the imaginary".)

I speculate that religious belief occurs because of idiosyncracies in cognitive mechanisms which impair the capacity to distinguish between "the real and the imaginary".

we're starting to wander pretty far afield, folks.

Richard B. Hoppe said: we're starting to wander pretty far afield, folks.

phhht said: ... the capacity to distinguish between "the real and the imaginary". .

Why? Because chihuahuas exploit an environmental niche

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

Rolf said: What mechanism is reponsible for ensuring that variations always are sub-optimal, never the other way around? You are postulating an impossible mechanism. If there is anything we know, it is that life is not static! Never was, never will be.

Rolf said: What mechanism is reponsible for ensuring that variations always are sub-optimal, never the other way around? You are postulating an impossible mechanism. If there is anything we know, it is that life is not static! Never was, never will be.

Nature uses two ways of ensuring that gene variations (i.e copying mistakes) are filtered out. The first is the direct approach of deploying editing and proofreading enzymes to correct these mistakes in the gene sequence. The second is that of natural selection which tends to eliminate those variations that are the most harmful in terms of fitness. Now, as regards "beneficial mutations", you should realize that the wild or normal type of a gene is the one which by default has the optimal function. Any variations in it either make no difference to the function or degrade it. However, in some extreme environments, a variation that reduces or even destroys the function of a gene can confer a survival advantage. An obvious example of this is a mutation in a bacterium which deletes a gene that is the target of an antibiotic. It is this flexibility/versatility which is necessary for life to adapt to adverse conditions. But it does comes at a cost.

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000261 From a transcript made at the DDD3 conference in 2002: Question from the audience: I’d be interested in hearing you tell us a little bit about what your theory of intelligent design is, as opposed to what evolution isn’t. Behe replies: Well, that’s a great question, and I know folks on the other side who are sceptical of intelligent design often get frustrated, but I try to be as conservative as I can and I don’t go out beyond what the data can support because I think overreaching is the bane of theories of design. You say that flagellum looks designed so everything is designed, or that everything that looks complex was designed, or something like that. I think the short answer to your question is, for all of those things, I don’t know. There not enough data. For the elephant, we have primelephus, the ancestral elephant of the Asian and African elephant, and mammoth. Well, could that happened by random mutation and natural selection? My instinctive answer is sure - it sure looks like it. It doesn’t look like any big deal. The more careful answer, the actual answer, is I don’t know - cause I don’t know what’s involved in making one versus the other. I don’t know what molecular changes are necessary to make the small anatomical differences in those different species. Suppose one believed that those things could have happened by natural selection, but maybe the origination of mammals needed some extra information - how would that have happened - how would the designer have done that? Would it have been, say, information embedded into nature at the big bang, or whenever nature started, or might it have been manipulations along the way, or some sort of input along the way? The short answer is “I don’t know.”

Henry J said:

Why? Because chihuahuas exploit an environmental niche

Acting in advertisements for Taco Bell?

Here is a real life example of how genetics really work.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

phhht said: You, yourself, the great advocate of the reality of design in nature, cannot tell the designed from the non-designed. Just as I thought.

William Paley does so profoundly in "Natural Theology". http://web.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evolucionmolecular/homes/pdfs/WilliamPaley_1802_NaturalTheology.pdf Why don't you read it?

One question may possibly have dwelt in the reader's mind during the perusal of these observations, namely, Why should not the Deity have given to the animal the faculty of vision at once? Why this circuitous perception; the ministry of so many means; an element provided for the purpose; reflected from opaque substances, refracted through transparent ones; and both according to precise laws; then, a complex organ, an intricate and artificial apparatus, in order, by the operation of this element, and in conformity with the restrictions of these laws, to produce an image upon a membrane communicating with the brain? Wherefore all this? Why make the difficulty in order to surmount it? If to perceive objects by some other mode than that of touch, or objects which lay out of the reach of that sense, were the thing proposed; could not a simple volition of the Creator have communicated the capacity? Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect of power. This question belongs to the other senses, as well as to sight; to the general functions of animal life, as nutrition, secretion, respiration; to the economy of vegetables; and indeed to almost all the operations of nature. The question, therefore, is of very wide extent; and amongst other answers which may be given to it; beside reasons of which probably we are ignorant, one answer is this: It is only by the display of contrivance, that the existence, the agency, the wisdom of the Deity, could be testified to his rational creatures. From pages 38-40 of William Paley, Natural Theology; or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearance of Nature (12th edition)

raven said: This is false. It is just a lie. Mutations can and often do create beneficial mutations. Our whole agricultural system depends on this. Mutations beneficial to their hosts are a huge problem in medicine and frequently treatment limiting, e.g. drug resistance of microbial pathogens.

And there you have it folks, the old "no beneficial mutations" bullshit. It's only one hundred years behind the times. Still no references, still no evidence, just "I says it so it's true bullshit.

And of course the asshole completely ignores the fact that the exact same objection applies to artificial selection and that the main benefit of longer term selection is that it can take advantage of BENEFICIAL mutations that eventually do arise. But who cares? All you have to do is warp the definition of "beneficial" enough so you can ignore all of that. The fact that mutations have an effect relative to the environment and that the environment can change means that, by definition, beneficial mutations must occur. But just forget all that and take to word of a liar and charlatan with no evidence whatsoever.

Any further responses by me to anything Joe has to say will be on the bathroom wall. IF he ever attempts to provide any evidence that is. Until then, all I have to do is say he's wrong and that makes it true.

And there you have it folks, the old “no beneficial mutations” bullshit.

DS said: And there you have it folks, the old "no beneficial mutations" bullshit. It's only one hundred years behind the times. Still no references, still no evidence, just "I says it so it's true bullshit.

"All known mechanism of antibiotic resistance are associated with costs that cause a reduction in competitive ability, transmission and virulence in the absence of antibiotics (Andersson, 2006; Andersson and Hughes , 2010; Andersson and Levin 1999)."

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Mutations are always harmful in some way to an organism.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: And there you have it folks, the old "no beneficial mutations" bullshit. It's only one hundred years behind the times. Still no references, still no evidence, just "I says it so it's true bullshit.

You want references? http://www.discoverymedicine.com/R-Craig-MacLean/2010/08/04/the-evolution-of-antibiotic-resistance-insight-into-the-roles-of-molecular-mechanisms-of-resistance-and-treatment-context/

"All known mechanism of antibiotic resistance are associated with costs that cause a reduction in competitive ability, transmission and virulence in the absence of antibiotics (Andersson, 2006; Andersson and Hughes , 2010; Andersson and Levin 1999)."

You see, folks, there is no such thing as a "free lunch" in biochemistry - see Dembski. If these "beneficial mutations" were so beneficial then they would have become fixed in the genome by now. But they are only "beneficial" in an extreme environment where defective mutants have a reproductive advantage over the non-defective wild types.

"All known mechanism of antibiotic resistance are associated with costs that cause a reduction in competitive ability, transmission and virulence in the absence of antibiotics (Andersson, 2006; Andersson and Hughes , 2010; Andersson and Levin 1999)."

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

raven said: This is false. It is just a lie. Mutations can and often do create beneficial mutations. Our whole agricultural system depends on this. Mutations beneficial to their hosts are a huge problem in medicine and frequently treatment limiting, e.g. drug resistance of microbial pathogens.

No, it is not a lie. Mutations are always harmful in some way to an organism. In a cruel and unusual environment, however, some mutations prove to be harmful but at the same time allow the organism to survive. Antibiotic resistance in microbes often occurs the deletion of the gene targeted by the antibiotic so that it cannot bind to it and induce death.Thus, they are only "beneficial" in that they cause defects that fortuitously allow the organism to survive. It is a bit like saying that a man born without an arm is at less risk of dying from malaria because there is less chance of him being bitten by a mosquito.

“All known mechanism of antibiotic resistance are associated with costs that cause a reduction in competitive ability, transmission and virulence in the absence of antibiotics (Andersson, 2006; Andersson and Hughes , 2010; Andersson and Levin 1999).”

sbc.ubc.ca Reversal of resistance by removal of antibiotics from use was an idea that was put forth. Generally mutation in a bacterial gene to confer resistance often results in a loss of fitness leading to slower growth. Therefore it was believed that removal of antibiotics would cause selection against these bacteria when competing with non-resistant, fit bacteria. Unfortunately, for the most part, this has been shown to be ineffective. Bacteria often acquire compensatory mutations that allow them to grow as fast as or even faster than wild type, non-resistant bacteria. Consequently, the selective advantage of the non-resistant bacteria and the selection against the resistance mutation is eliminated.

raven said: What one commonly sees when selecting antibiotic resistant mutants is a decrease in growth rate. Then the microbes pick up a compensatory mutation and end up growing at the same rate they were before the antibiotic mutation.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

raven said: What one commonly sees when selecting antibiotic resistant mutants is a decrease in growth rate. Then the microbes pick up a compensatory mutation and end up growing at the same rate they were before the antibiotic mutation.

Compensatory mutations simply reverse or mitigate the harmful effect of the previous mutation that conferred the resistance to the antibiotic. However, the organism is still likely to have compromised some of its original functionality despite the compensatory effect identified.

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2013 Mar;83(3):622-31. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12019. Epub 2012 Nov 6. Escherichia coli adapts to tetracycline resistance plasmid (pBR322) by mutating endogenous potassium transport: in silico hypothesis testing. Hellweger FL. SourceDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. Abstract Antibiotic resistance exerts a metabolic cost on bacteria and presumably a fitness disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics. However, several studies have shown that bacteria can evolve to eliminate this cost. Escherichia coli can adapt to the plasmid pBR322 carrying the tetA tetracycline-resistance gene (codes for the TetA efflux pump) by a chromosome mutation, which requires an intact tetA gene on the plasmid. The TetA pump can mediate potassium uptake. Here, the hypothesis that TetA replaces the endogenous K(+) uptake system Trk is explored using a multi-level modeling approach that explicitly resolves relevant intracellular processes (e.g., metabolism and K(+) uptake) and simulates individual bacteria in competition. The general behavior of the model is consistent with observations from the literature (e.g., growth rate and K(+) limitation). In competition experiments without tetracycline, the model correctly predicts the fitness advantage of naive susceptible over naive resistant, evolved resistant over naive resistant and evolved resistant over evolved susceptible strains. Trk takes up about 10 times the K(+) required, which costs energy. TetA takes up less K(+) , which is more efficient and leads to the evolution of the Trk mutant. The evolved Trk mutant relies on TetA to take up K(+) , and thus, carrying the plasmid is advantageous even in the absence of the antibiotic.

raven said:

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2013 Mar;83(3):622-31. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12019. Epub 2012 Nov 6. Escherichia coli adapts to tetracycline resistance plasmid (pBR322) by mutating endogenous potassium transport: in silico hypothesis testing. Hellweger FL. SourceDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. Abstract Antibiotic resistance exerts a metabolic cost on bacteria and presumably a fitness disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics. However, several studies have shown that bacteria can evolve to eliminate this cost. Escherichia coli can adapt to the plasmid pBR322 carrying the tetA tetracycline-resistance gene (codes for the TetA efflux pump) by a chromosome mutation, which requires an intact tetA gene on the plasmid. The TetA pump can mediate potassium uptake. Here, the hypothesis that TetA replaces the endogenous K(+) uptake system Trk is explored using a multi-level modeling approach that explicitly resolves relevant intracellular processes (e.g., metabolism and K(+) uptake) and simulates individual bacteria in competition. The general behavior of the model is consistent with observations from the literature (e.g., growth rate and K(+) limitation). In competition experiments without tetracycline, the model correctly predicts the fitness advantage of naive susceptible over naive resistant, evolved resistant over naive resistant and evolved resistant over evolved susceptible strains. Trk takes up about 10 times the K(+) required, which costs energy. TetA takes up less K(+) , which is more efficient and leads to the evolution of the Trk mutant. The evolved Trk mutant relies on TetA to take up K(+) , and thus, carrying the plasmid is advantageous even in the absence of the antibiotic.

Here is one example of antibiotic resistance not resulting in a fitness cost. 1. E. coli acquiring tet resistance by plasmid shows a fitness cost. 2. It then picks up a compensatory beneficial mutation that restores fitness. These are two examples of beneficial mutations and demonstrate a common evolutionary pathway. BTW, the creationist is likely to be Ray Martinez. He is known to be immune to logic or reason so don't expect anything from him.

J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005 Sep;56(3):544-51. Epub 2005 Jul 22. Assessment of the fitness impacts on Escherichia coli of acquisition of antibiotic resistance genes encoded by different types of genetic element. Enne VI, Delsol AA, Davis GR, Hayward SL, Roe JM, Bennett PM. SourceBristol Centre for Antimicrobial Research, Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Bristol, Medical Sciences Building, Bristol BS8 1TD, UK. v.i. Abstract OBJECTIVES: Little is known of the fitness cost that antibiotic resistance exerts on wild-type bacteria, especially in their natural environments. We therefore examined the fitness costs that several antibiotic resistance elements imposed on a wild-type Escherichia coli isolate, both in the laboratory and in a pig gut colonization model. METHODS: Plasmid R46, Tn1 and Tn7 and a K42R RpsL substitution were separately introduced into E. coli 345-2 RifC, a rifampicin-resistant derivative of a recent porcine isolate. The insertion site of Tn1 was determined by DNA sequencing. The fitness cost of each resistance element was assessed in vitro by pairwise growth competition and in vivo by regularly monitoring the recovery of strains from faeces for 21 days following oral inoculation of organic piglets. Each derivative of 345-2 RifC carrying a resistance element was grown in antibiotic-free broth for 200 generations and the experiments to assess fitness were repeated. RESULTS: RpsL K42R was found to impose a small fitness cost on E. coli 345-2 RifC in vitro but did not compromise survival in vivo. R46 imposed a cost both before and after laboratory passage in vitro, but only the pre-passage strain was at a disadvantage in vivo. The post-passage isolate had an advantage in pigs. Acquisition of Tn7 had no impact on the fitness of E. coli 345-2 RifC. Two derivatives containing Tn1 were isolated and, in both cases, the transposon inserted into the same cryptic chromosomal sequence. Acquisition of Tn1 improved fitness of E. coli 345-2 RifC in vitro and in vivo in the case of the first derivative, but in the case of a second, independent derivative, Tn1 had a neutral effect on fitness. CONCLUSIONS: The fitness impact imposed on E. coli 345-2 RifC by carriage of antibiotic resistance elements was generally low or non-existent, suggesting that once established, resistance may be difficult to eliminate through reduction in prescribing alone.

Enhancement of host fitness by the sul2-coding plasmid p9123 in the absence of selective pressure. Enne VI, Bennett PM, Livermore DM, Hall LM. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004 Jun; 53(6):958-63. Epub 2004 Apr 21.

J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004 Jun;53(6):958-63. Epub 2004 Apr 21. Enhancement of host fitness by the sul2-coding plasmid p9123 in the absence of selective pressure. Enne VI, Bennett PM, Livermore DM, Hall LM. SourceBristol Centre for Antimicrobial Research, Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Bristol, Medical Sciences Building, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD. v.i. Abstract OBJECTIVES: Despite a 97% reduction in clinical sulphonamide usage, the prevalence of sulphonamide resistance among Escherichia coli has remained constant in the UK. Genetic linkage of sulphonamide resistance to other resistances is thought important for this maintenance, but the finding also implies that sulphonamide resistance exerts little fitness cost. To test this hypothesis, we examined the fitness impact of four naturally occurring sul2-coding plasmids upon their hosts. METHODS: The fitness impact of the plasmids upon E. coli was determined by pairwise growth competition in a minimal medium. The DNA sequence of plasmid p9123 was obtained by primer walking and PCR. RESULTS: Three of the four sul2-coding plasmids studied imposed fitness costs on their hosts. The fourth plasmid, a 6.2 kb resistance element carrying sul2, strA and strB designated p9123, conferred a 4% fitness advantage upon its original clinical host and also on E. coli K12 JM109. The complete sequence of p9123 revealed eight open reading frames, including five of unknown function. There was no obvious gene to which the fitness advantage might be attributed. CONCLUSIONS: The novel finding that p9123 can improve host fitness may explain why this plasmid and its close relatives are so widespread among enteric bacteria. In addition to other factors such as co-selection of sulphonamide resistance by other agents, the fitness advantage conferred by plasmids such as p9123 may have contributed to the maintenance of sulphonamide resistance in the UK in the absence of clinical selection pressure. These data indicate that once antibiotic resistance has been established on mobile genetic elements, it may be difficult to eliminate.

eric said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Mutations are always harmful in some way to an organism.

So, if an animal has a copy number variation that changes sequences ABC to ABBC has undegone a mutation. That must be harmful. Its kid then undergoes a copy number variation that changes sequence ABBC to ABC, another mutation. That must also be harmful too, eh? Your argument doesn't even pass the low low bar of logical consistency, let alone the higher bar of empirical support.

j. biggs said: You should also consider nylonase. Nylon is an artificial substrate only recently produced by humans, yet there are now bacteria which have evolved this enzyme which can use nylon as a growth medium. Also nylonase enzymes are known to have evolved separately in both flavobacterium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. So your argument that beneficial mutations don't happen or have some otherwise deleterious effect is patently false, and these are three well documented counter examples to your mendacious claim.

raven said: Here is one example of antibiotic resistance not resulting in a fitness cost. 1. E. coli acquiring tet resistance by plasmid shows a fitness cost. 2. It then picks up a compensatory beneficial mutation that restores fitness. These are two examples of beneficial mutations and demonstrate a common evolutionary pathway.

how is lactose tolerance in adult humans not a beneficial mutation?
IF a mutation is beneficial or not is relative. relative to the environment, relative to competing organisms, etc.

to say mutaions can ONLY decrease fitness is just silly - as fitness is also a relative term.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: In an extreme or unusual environment, like that near a factory, these mutants will thrive but likely with some biochemical cost. In a normal environment they will be selected against. Like I say, there is no free lunch.

eric said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: In an extreme or unusual environment, like that near a factory, these mutants will thrive but likely with some biochemical cost. In a normal environment they will be selected against. Like I say, there is no free lunch.

So what you're saying is: this mutation provides a net benefit in certain environmental conditions. In others, it doesn't. This is absolutely correct. Fitness is local. And this is one of the reasons why your "no mutation is beneficial" claim is not just empirically wrong but logically impossible.

BTW, the last paragraph was addressed to the troll not eric.

FL is just taunting and throwing feces; he has no clue what he is talking about.

He doesn’t even have a middle school or high school understanding of science; it’s all bluff and bluster. He can’t do any calculations because he doesn’t know any high school algebra. He doesn’t know what to do with a formula. He didn’t learn anything in any science or math course ever.

He needs to go back to the Bathroom Wall and have his nose rubbed in his claim that the television program Unsolved Mysteries proves faith healing. That program is the highest level of science he has ever been exposed to; and he didn’t even learn anything from that.

Mike Elzinga said: FL is just taunting and throwing feces; he has no clue what he is talking about. He doesn’t even have a middle school or high school understanding of science; it’s all bluff and bluster. He can’t do any calculations because he doesn’t know any high school algebra. He doesn’t know what to do with a formula. He didn’t learn anything in any science or math course ever. He needs to go back to the Bathroom Wall and have his nose rubbed in his claim that the television program Unsolved Mysteries proves faith healing. That program is the highest level of science he has ever been exposed to; and he didn’t even learn anything from that.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: You are aware that the subject of this thread is precisely about an appeal to scientific authority by the NCSE?

"Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution"

60187mitchells said: how is lactose tolerance in adult humans not a beneficial mutation? IF a mutation is beneficial or not is relative. relative to the environment, relative to competing organisms, etc.

Tenncrain said:

Mike Elzinga said: FL is just taunting and throwing feces; he has no clue what he is talking about. He doesn’t even have a middle school or high school understanding of science; it’s all bluff and bluster. He can’t do any calculations because he doesn’t know any high school algebra. He doesn’t know what to do with a formula. He didn’t learn anything in any science or math course ever. He needs to go back to the Bathroom Wall and have his nose rubbed in his claim that the television program Unsolved Mysteries proves faith healing. That program is the highest level of science he has ever been exposed to; and he didn’t even learn anything from that.

Perhaps you meant to post this in the "Montana Creationism Bill: dead in committee" thread. Otherwise, we couldn't agree with you more.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

60187mitchells said: how is lactose tolerance in adult humans not a beneficial mutation? IF a mutation is beneficial or not is relative. relative to the environment, relative to competing organisms, etc.

Actually drinking milk beyond infancy is probably not good for us at all. Hence the loss of (what I see) as a designed control mechanism to disable production of lactase beyond suckling age is most likely harmful. We are not supposed to tolerate lactose in adulthood but this mutation allows us to harm our health by eating ice cream. http://www.naturalnews.com/031255_milk_health.html http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/ The term "beneficial mutation" is somewhat of a contradiction due to the fact that copying errors in code that is designed to be optimal can only ever mess things up. Only in bizarre, unusual or extreme situations can a mutation prove to be advantageous. Once this situation is removed, the mutation then becomes useless.

Scott F said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

60187mitchells said: how is lactose tolerance in adult humans not a beneficial mutation? IF a mutation is beneficial or not is relative. relative to the environment, relative to competing organisms, etc.

Actually drinking milk beyond infancy is probably not good for us at all. Hence the loss of (what I see) as a designed control mechanism to disable production of lactase beyond suckling age is most likely harmful. We are not supposed to tolerate lactose in adulthood but this mutation allows us to harm our health by eating ice cream. http://www.naturalnews.com/031255_milk_health.html http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/ The term "beneficial mutation" is somewhat of a contradiction due to the fact that copying errors in code that is designed to be optimal can only ever mess things up. Only in bizarre, unusual or extreme situations can a mutation prove to be advantageous. Once this situation is removed, the mutation then becomes useless.

It's called "calories". In northern winters, with scarce food supplies, the ability to digest lactose (a sugar) provided a source of energy for those peoples, using a "renewable" resource. That is, you didn't have to kill the cow (or goat), and the cow could live off of plant resources that the humans could not. You could also store the cheese for long periods of time without refrigeration. Even if there are some undesirable side effects, being able to get more calories might avoid the undesirable side effect of death. Also, the osteoporosis problem is something that shows up mostly in the later years of life, typically after menopause, meaning after the point where natural selection has any noticeable effect. Reproductive fitness kind of ends after you can no longer reproduce. (This ignores the indirect effects of natural selection provided by kin relationships, especially the "grandmother" hypothesis.) The point is, that Natural Selection would select for the strong benefit of being able to use a new food source (hence avoiding early death), while it would not be too concerned with the weak cost of brittle bones in our dotage. The point is that there is always a trade off between the benefit and the cost. When the benefit is strong, and the cost is weak, Natural Selection will select for the "strong". But let's say for the sake of argument that you are right, that Natural Selection is wrong, and had no effect on our ability to digest lactose. How do *you* explain the presence and prevalence of the mutated lactose gene(s) in Caucasian populations? Did God magically give that mutation to all white-skinned peoples? I also note that the referenced web sites are against eating animal proteins of any kind, they are against any processed foods, and they tend to be full of conspiracy theories: "What else aren't "they" telling us about drinking milk?" They also don't seem to understand that both "cows" and "humans" are "mammals". The reason that we get any benefit at all from cows milk is that our respective biologies are very closely related, because of common ancestry. But of course, you (and most likely they) don't believe in common ancestry. You believe in unique and special creation of all animals separately. Therefore, any similarities in biology are all (to you) simple accidents, or unintended by-products of the separate and unique "designs" of God. So while I can't (yet) discount their hypothesis based on the underlying studies (which I haven't yet read), the general information that is presented is not persuasive. (And I will read them, because I consume a lot of dairy products.)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

raven said: Here is one example of antibiotic resistance not resulting in a fitness cost. 1. E. coli acquiring tet resistance by plasmid shows a fitness cost. 2. It then picks up a compensatory beneficial mutation that restores fitness. These are two examples of beneficial mutations and demonstrate a common evolutionary pathway.

Compensatory mutations don't restore the organism to the same level of fitness as they originally had. They are just stop gaps which help to mitigate the deleterious effect of the previous "beneficial" mutation. They almost certainly produce some other deleterious effect, although not one which is greater than the effect they compensate for. Backmutations, however, do restore the original function but also reverse any adaptive benefit.

Interesting, A Masked Panda (1686) ignored my two posts on page 5.

BTW, I don't think it my be Ray. He doesn't even recognize natural selection, his position has always been "The concept of natural selection is not seen in nature." I haven't checked talkorigins the past few months, though.

Rolf said: Interesting, A Masked Panda (1686) ignored my two posts on page 5. BTW, I don't think it my be Ray. He doesn't even recognize natural selection, his position has always been "The concept of natural selection is not seen in nature." I haven't checked talkorigins the past few months, though.

Thanks guys. I'm doing a series on debunking the weaknesses of evolution as presented by Texas creationists. This discussion covered 3 of the 'weaknesses' and provided me with some excellent references and links.

I for one am most appreciative.

And for a blatant plug: http://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/

ogremk5 said: Thanks guys. I'm doing a series on debunking the weaknesses of evolution as presented by Texas creationists. This discussion covered 3 of the 'weaknesses' and provided me with some excellent references and links. I for one am most appreciative. And for a blatant plug: http://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/

harold said:

ogremk5 said: Thanks guys. I'm doing a series on debunking the weaknesses of evolution as presented by Texas creationists. This discussion covered 3 of the 'weaknesses' and provided me with some excellent references and links. I for one am most appreciative. And for a blatant plug: http://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/

I also found this a surprisingly good thread. At this point it is, of course, in permanent loop mode. We all, including Joe, define "mutation" as a change in nucleotide sequence, relative to parent sequence. The problem is the definition of "beneficial". As I noted above, "beneficial" is a subjective term, but the science supporters here are implicitly using an objective definition. A mutation is beneficial if it can, in a given environment, be associated with greater expected reproductive rate, relative to expected reproductive rate in the same individual, in the absence of the mutation. Joe isn't using that definition. His definition of "beneficial" is "Joe will say that it looks beneficial to Joe". And by that standard, no mutation can ever, ever look beneficial to Joe. In this way, unlike some of his idols at the DI, he is internally consistent, but absurd. Joe can be presented with an infinite number of beneficial mutation examples. But they can never be "beneficial" in his mind. Period.

In this way, unlike some of his idols at the DI, he is internally consistent, but absurd.

I'm actually kind of surprised Joe didn't pull out the 'no new function' card. Of course, that's easily refuted by Lenski's work. Indeed, citrate metabolism is not only a new function, but it's massively beneficial.

I argued with Joe about this a year or so back and his claim was that the reproduction rate of the citrate consuming bacteria was lower than the non-cit+ bacteria means that the cit+ mutation wasn't beneficial.

Obviously, he has a vested interested in proclaiming it to be non-beneficial. Anytime a population (or organism) can utilize a completely untapped energy source, then it's massively beneficial. Competition would be non-existent and the population would face no significant pressures other than itself.

DS said: So, given those constraints, no mutation can ever be beneficial, no new function or new structure can ever arise and no gene can ever get any better than it was at some unspecified time in the past. And the justification for all of this, everything was designed perfect in the first place and reality can only make things worse.

DS said: Why he finds the prospect of "beneficial" mutations so frightening i don't know...

Just Bob said:

DS said: So, given those constraints, no mutation can ever be beneficial, no new function or new structure can ever arise and no gene can ever get any better than it was at some unspecified time in the past. And the justification for all of this, everything was designed perfect in the first place and reality can only make things worse.

Hmm, I guess that would mean that all those dinosaurs and other ancient extinct creatures were more perfect than modern creatures, since they weren't as far removed from the original perfection of creation! And Homo habilis and Neanderthals were more perfect (had fewer harmful mutations) than we do. Damn.

Dave Lovell said:

DS said: Why he finds the prospect of "beneficial" mutations so frightening i don't know...

Presumably because his entire world view is predicated upon the idea that only an intelligent creator can inject an organism with the information required to "improve" it. He sees that conceding a beneficial outcome, however small, can arise through a random process can only lead him to the impossible conclusion that he is wrong.

Only in bizarre, unusual or extreme situations can a mutation prove to be advantageous. Once this situation is removed, the mutation then becomes useless

Sorry, should be “situation is not removed or maybe even aggravated", ...

Only in bizarre, unusual or extreme situations can a mutation prove to be advantageous. Once this situation is removed, the mutation then becomes useless

DS said:

Just Bob said:

DS said: So, given those constraints, no mutation can ever be beneficial, no new function or new structure can ever arise and no gene can ever get any better than it was at some unspecified time in the past. And the justification for all of this, everything was designed perfect in the first place and reality can only make things worse.

Hmm, I guess that would mean that all those dinosaurs and other ancient extinct creatures were more perfect than modern creatures, since they weren't as far removed from the original perfection of creation! And Homo habilis and Neanderthals were more perfect (had fewer harmful mutations) than we do. Damn.

That's exactly the point. Joes nonsense is inconsistent with the genetic evidence, but also with the fossil record. If he were correct, what one would expect to see would be a maximum number of species six thousand years ago, followed by a reduction in species numbers due to extinctions since. This is of course completely contrary to the actual fossil record. But so what? If you can ignore one entire field of science, it isn't much more work to ignore them all.

Compensatory mutations don’t restore the organism to the same level of fitness as they originally had. They are just stop gaps which help to mitigate the deleterious effect of the previous “beneficial” mutation. They almost certainly produce some other deleterious effect, although not one which is greater than the effect they compensate for. Backmutations, however, do restore the original function but also reverse any adaptive benefit.

Rolf said: A Masked Panda (1686) said:

Compensatory mutations don’t restore the organism to the same level of fitness as they originally had. They are just stop gaps which help to mitigate the deleterious effect of the previous “beneficial” mutation. They almost certainly produce some other deleterious effect, although not one which is greater than the effect they compensate for. Backmutations, however, do restore the original function but also reverse any adaptive benefit.

How comee you never cite your sources and tell us where you have your information from? Am I supposed to believe whatever you say? Not good enough, I don't believe a word of what you say, it looks very suspiciously like creationist misconceptions, distortions and straight ignorance.

I am afraid the thought that he might be wrong never enters his mind. We are offtopic, but for the noble purpose of educating a creationist.

DS said: Sure. And he doesn't want to start down the slippery slope to reality. That could lead to dancing.

Drat. "You don't need reality...."

DS said:

Rolf said: A Masked Panda (1686) said:

Compensatory mutations don’t restore the organism to the same level of fitness as they originally had. They are just stop gaps which help to mitigate the deleterious effect of the previous “beneficial” mutation. They almost certainly produce some other deleterious effect, although not one which is greater than the effect they compensate for. Backmutations, however, do restore the original function but also reverse any adaptive benefit.

How comee you never cite your sources and tell us where you have your information from? Am I supposed to believe whatever you say? Not good enough, I don't believe a word of what you say, it looks very suspiciously like creationist misconceptions, distortions and straight ignorance.

That's because whenever he does cite his sources, they turn out to refute his preposterous contentions.

Rolf said: I am afraid the thought that he might be wrong never enters his mind. We are offtopic, but for the noble purpose of educating a creationist.

Indeed.

Frank J said: As you know, the way the word "creationist" is defined on these boards, a "creationist" is either too hopelessly compartmentalized to be educated, or is educated already and knows he's lying. Unless the purpose is to inform fence-sitting lurkers, and correct their misconceptions, these boards are 100% a waste of time.

Rolf said: How come you never cite your sources and tell us where you have your information from? Am I supposed to believe whatever you say? Not good enough, I don't believe a word of what you say, it looks very suspiciously like creationist misconceptions, distortions and straight ignorance.

Proteins are finicky molecules; they are barely stable and are prone to aggregate, but they must function in a crowded environment that is full of degradative enzymes bent on their destruction. It is no surprise that many common diseases are due to missense mutations that affect protein stability and aggregation.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: If you mess about with the sequence of finely-designed and carefully-crafted molecules, shit happens.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Frank J said: As you know, the way the word "creationist" is defined on these boards, a "creationist" is either too hopelessly compartmentalized to be educated, or is educated already and knows he's lying. Unless the purpose is to inform fence-sitting lurkers, and correct their misconceptions, these boards are 100% a waste of time.

That last is indeed the purpose. I hold no illusions that the creationists who post here can be persuaded that they're wrong; that's a very infrequent occurrence (it happened maybe a couple of times--once for sure--in my 10+ years on Internet Infidels Discussion Board). But we get several thousand readers a day here, and well thought out refutations of the nonsense propagated by our resident creationists is a service to those readers.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:However, my belief is based on the fact that mutations can only ever degrade the highly specified and complex functionality found in genes. The notion that a compensatory mutation can be entirely beneficial is theoretically unsound. There is a cost associated with all mutations, although this is variable.

My belief is based on the fact that your belief is full of shit. I don't have a reference so you'll just have to take my word for it. And I can easily ignore all references to the contrary, even claiming that they actually support my beliefs if I think I that no one will notice they actually don't.

DS said: My belief is based on the fact that your belief is full of shit. I don't have a reference so you'll just have to take my word for it. And I can easily ignore all references to the contrary, even claiming that they actually support my beliefs if I think I that no one will notice they actually don't.

Richard B. Hoppe said: I hold no illusions that the creationists who post here can be persuaded that they're wrong.

Oh what the hell. HEre is a reference that proves Joe wrong, again.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03173.x/full

There is a hight frequency of compensatory mutations and many different types are known. They increase the fitness of the bacteria in certain environments. They are, by any reasonable definition, beneficial, at least to the bacteria. They are not all associated with overwhelming costs, in fact most of them increase in frequency due to selection.

Now of course these bacteria might have eaten the magic apple and fallen form bacterial grace, but they are still better off than they used to be and all due to random mutations. Imagine that!

phhht said: But the molecules which make up our bodies ARE NOT finely-designed. They ARE NOT carefully-crafted. This fallacy is called "begging the question."

A brave, nameless, yahoo lurker yelps... I do have confidence that some lurkers sitting on the fence can be persuaded that the current paradigm of evolution is just plain wrong in so many ways.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

phhht said: But the molecules which make up our bodies ARE NOT finely-designed. They ARE NOT carefully-crafted. This fallacy is called "begging the question."

If they were not, you would be probably be dead by now...you might even spontaneously explode. Your body's catalytic chemistry has to be just right for you to live.

Frank J said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Frank J said: As you know, the way the word "creationist" is defined on these boards, a "creationist" is either too hopelessly compartmentalized to be educated, or is educated already and knows he's lying. Unless the purpose is to inform fence-sitting lurkers, and correct their misconceptions, these boards are 100% a waste of time.

That last is indeed the purpose. I hold no illusions that the creationists who post here can be persuaded that they're wrong; that's a very infrequent occurrence (it happened maybe a couple of times--once for sure--in my 10+ years on Internet Infidels Discussion Board). But we get several thousand readers a day here, and well thought out refutations of the nonsense propagated by our resident creationists is a service to those readers.

I hope so. The catch-22 is that lurkers are unlikely to post, especially if they realize how they have been misled. I tried to coax some on Talk.Origins a few years back, just to get an idea of the demographics. Unfortunately the few who "delurked" mostly had no problems with evolution before lurking, leading me to suspect that they were not representative of lurkers as a whole. The one exception was obviously an anti evolution activist (or troll) in-training. I have had much greater, albeit still modest, success in personal life, where I convinced a few people that the "weaknesses" they had been fed were nothing but misrepresentations. Even the few committed deniers admitted that the evidence was not there for their brand of creationism, thus baclpedaling into Omphalism.

DS said: Oh what the hell. HEre is a reference that... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03173.x/full

The biological cost conferred by chromosomal mutations causing antibiotic resistance can be reduced by additional mutations.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: If they were not, ... you might even spontaneously explode.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: Oh what the hell. HEre is a reference that... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03173.x/full

From the paper you cited (but clearly did not read):

The biological cost conferred by chromosomal mutations causing antibiotic resistance can be reduced by additional mutations.

I accept that there are "compensatory" mutations that can antagonistically interfere in order to reduce the cost of an "adaptive" mutation, but where in the paper does it state that these compensatory mutations do not themselves incur some sort of cost?

stevaroni said: Like Einstein said, all it takes is one good piece of evidence. Um... so... got any of that?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: There is no one silver bullet that can kill the monster of Darwinism.

DS said: Doesn't have to. It show the mutations are beneficial. Deal with it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: All "beneficial" mutations ... improve fitness by messing up something else.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: Doesn't have to. It show the mutations are beneficial. Deal with it.

BUT NOT WITHOUT A COST. Deal with that. All "beneficial" mutations turn out to be examples of antagonistic pleiotropy. They only improve fitness by messing up something else.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

phhht said: But the molecules which make up our bodies ARE NOT finely-designed. They ARE NOT carefully-crafted. This fallacy is called "begging the question."

If they were not, you would be probably be dead by now...you might even spontaneously explode. Your body's catalytic chemistry has to be just right for you to live.

1686 said:

DS said: Oh what the hell. HEre is a reference that... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03173.x/full

From the paper you cited (but clearly did not read):

The biological cost conferred by chromosomal mutations causing antibiotic resistance can be reduced by additional mutations.

I accept that there are "compensatory" mutations that can antagonistically interfere in order to reduce the cost of an "adaptive" mutation, but where in the paper does it state that these compensatory mutations do not themselves incur some sort of cost?

Think of it this way Joe. It is well established that whales evolved from terrestrial ancestors. The mutations that transformed their forelimbs into flippers had a cost, whales can no longer walk on land. Now Joe, are you seriously trying to claim that those mutations are not beneficial to the whales? Really? Really? Give it up Joe, you're a loony and everybody knows it.

1686 said:

stevaroni said: Like Einstein said, all it takes is one good piece of evidence. Um... so... got any of that?

There is no one silver bullet that can kill the monster of Darwinism.Its demise will be slow and gradual.

1686 quibbled vociferously:

DS said: Doesn't have to. It show the mutations are beneficial. Deal with it.

BUT NOT WITHOUT A COST. Deal with that. All "beneficial" mutations turn out to be examples of antagonistic pleiotropy. They only improve fitness by messing up something else.

DS said: Think of it this way Joe. It is well established that whales evolved from terrestrial ancestors. The mutations that transformed their forelimbs into flippers had a cost, whales can no longer walk on land. Now Joe, are you seriously trying to claim that those mutations are not beneficial to the whales? Really? Really? Give it up Joe, you're a loony and everybody knows it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: Doesn't have to. It show the mutations are beneficial. Deal with it.

BUT NOT WITHOUT A COST. Deal with that. All "beneficial" mutations turn out to be examples of antagonistic pleiotropy. They only improve fitness by messing up something else.

What about the blow hole Joe. You know it would have a significant cost on the golf course. A dolphin could be in serious trouble if a golf ball got caught in there. So I guess there is a cost to the blow hole, right?. So, according to you, the position of the blowhole is not beneficial in dolphins, right?

Why don't you shut your own blow hole Joe? The cost is way too high.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

stevaroni said: Like Einstein said, all it takes is one good piece of evidence. Um... so... got any of that?

There is no one silver bullet that can kill the monster of Darwinism.Its demise will be slow and gradual.

stevaroni said:

1686 said:

stevaroni said: Like Einstein said, all it takes is one good piece of evidence. Um... so... got any of that?

There is no one silver bullet that can kill the monster of Darwinism.Its demise will be slow and gradual.

So then... no. No evidence. Thought so. Just checking.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

stevaroni said: Like Einstein said, all it takes is one good piece of evidence. Um... so... got any of that?

There is no one silver bullet that can kill the monster of Darwinism.Its demise will be slow and gradual.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

DS said: Doesn't have to. It show the mutations are beneficial. Deal with it.

BUT NOT WITHOUT A COST. Deal with that. All "beneficial" mutations turn out to be examples of antagonistic pleiotropy. They only improve fitness by messing up something else.

There is no one silver bullet that can kill the monster of Darwinism.Its demise will be slow and gradual.

apokryltaros said: What did you expect from a group of science-hating science-deniers who whine that they're actually not obligated to do science/explain anything with Intelligent Design? Magic bullets? Sorcerery spitballs?

DS said: What about the blow hole Joe. You know it would have a significant cost on the golf course. A dolphin could be in serious trouble if a golf ball got caught in there. So I guess there is a cost to the blow hole, right?. So, according to you, the position of the blowhole is not beneficial in dolphins, right? Why don't you shut your own blow hole Joe? The cost is way too high.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said:

apokryltaros said: What did you expect from a group of science-hating science-deniers who whine that they're actually not obligated to do science/explain anything with Intelligent Design? Magic bullets? Sorcerery spitballs?

I think Darwinism will collapse due to its own internal contradictions and failures, rather like how Communism collapsed. When the end/liberation does come, I expect it to happen quite quickly. Thereafter, a new paradigm and scientific regime will take hold.

So that would be a no. Joe has no answer for the reference I provided. Funny, since he provided none of his own. You lose again Joe. You should stick to watching the Flintstones. Your are no biologist of any kind.

Banned Troll bullshitted:

apokryltaros said: What did you expect from a group of science-hating science-deniers who whine that they're actually not obligated to do science/explain anything with Intelligent Design? Magic bullets? Sorcerery spitballs?

I think Darwinism will collapse due to its own internal contradictions and failures, rather like how Communism collapsed. When the end/liberation does come, I expect it to happen quite quickly. Thereafter, a new paradigm and scientific regime will take hold.

This thread is a good example of Schiller’s famous observation "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.". Googling around I also found an old favourite, the great Isaac Asimov and a novel I would like to read. Think I deserve a relief from the stoopid.

His name is not Steve. The insanity of Joe Bozorgmehr:

Joe says: “Btw, just killing is part of my religion. Did not the prophet Elijah slaughter 450 priests of the false god, Ba’al (1 Kings 18:40)?”

Joe says: ”…wiping out a conference of evolutionary biologists but reasoned that it would not produce the intended result.”

Joe says: “I will admit that it did occur to my mind that conferences were ideal places to wipe out all of the current dinosaurs within the scientific establishment in one fell swoop”.

Joe fails on the age of the Earth: “By my calculations, there is a disparity between the age of the planet and the material it is made from. …But if you had to press me, I would say the planet is between 0.8bn to 1.5 bn years old. … It is based on iridum dating for isotopes 191Ir and 193Ir. I have also studied lava flows and rock formations. The figure of 4.6bn years is much too high. … The math is beyond the ken of everyone here. I can’t reduce it to baby steps. There is some serious calculus involved with double integrals and the like. … Like I say. It is complicated. I would need 4 pages of pure math just to explain it to you. It also involves some very taxing stochastic differentiation.”

Foolish Joe: Where is the math? Where is the evidence?

Joe says: “… The fusion of chromosome 2a and 2b, again, does not indicate common ancestry. It could so easily refer to the fact that Adam had 48 chromosomes but Noah and his descendants had 46 thanks to a translocation…”

Joe says: “Morphogenetic fields are non-energetic organizing principles that impose order on otherwise indeterminate structures.”

Joe says: “… I am not here to be liked - I am here to shatter the idols of ignorance and to pave the way for a new era in science and philosophy. Like it or not, I represent the future of humanity whereas you represent only the fossilized remains you examine.”

Joe says: “I’m gloating, all right. I just can’t wait to see the full data when it is made available. I am giggling like a little girl.”

Joe jokes: “I am not just some guy who rattles his keyboard on talk forums. I am a bigtime player and I’m playing to win.”

Joe says: “So what if I have a healthy sense of self-confidence? I know I’m right, but it is hard to convince everyone here to think the way I do.”

Years ago Joe says: “… Bozorgmehrism is going to take just a few years to become mainstream. You’ll see.”

Merriam-Webster’s definition of megalomania: a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

Outstanding summary rob.

Until Joe can once again be banned, any responses by me to him will be on the bathroom wall. If the administrators cannot or will not ban him permanently and make it stick. they might as well close down the site. No more discussion of science will ever occur here.

1686 said: For example, natural selection has acted fairly stringently to preserve the sequence of the ubiquitin protein among all eukaryotes: the protein in yeast is 96% identical with that of humans. -snip- What Natural selection does not do is explain the diversity of the protein repertoire and, more importantly, the diversity of form and patterns of behavior among organisms.

DS said: No more discussion of science will ever occur here.

stevaroni said: HuH? Evolution fails because a) there is too much commonality to explain and b) there is too much diversity to explain. Do you actually read what you write, 1686?

And yet, you make this pronouncement without ever having done any research, Atheistoclast. Too busy writing up your list of people to murder publicly execute when you take power at the universities?

1686 said: Natural selection has acted against change in the vast majority of protein sequences. It is an anti-evolutionary force. It keeps things, like ubiquitin, as they are.

1686 said: It is very simple. Natural selection has acted against change in the vast majority of protein sequences.

stevaroni said: It is an anti-evolutionary force. It keeps things, like ubiquitin, as they are. Unfortunately, the Neo-Darwinists don't view natural selection as the conserving force in biology that it really is, but instead as a creative agency that (although blind and dumb) can somehow circumvent the need for an intelligent designer.

This got trapped on the bottom of my last comment, because I was sloppy with my cutting and pasting

It is an anti-evolutionary force. It keeps things, like ubiquitin, as they are. Unfortunately, the Neo-Darwinists don’t view natural selection as the conserving force in biology that it really is, but instead as a creative agency that (although blind and dumb) can somehow circumvent the need for an intelligent designer.

For the record: I missed the review button for proofreading.

I find it both ironic and irritating that a troll using the name "... panda ..." has derailed this thread from more important issues and personages obviously germane to the topic at hand.

To wit: why has it been so long since we've seen posts by and/or reports on the activities, researches, and adventures of Prof. Steve Steve?

Pierce R. Butler said: I find it both ironic and irritating that a troll using the name "... panda ..." has derailed this thread