Monday, July 13, 2015

Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” Website Explains Natural Selection

Secrets Of The Trade

With a small army of evolutionists working on it, and several National Science Foundation grants funding it, the University of California at Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” website has a surprising number of errors. One of the more egregious ones is on a page that is intended to clarify the concept of natural selection. It is entitled “Misconceptions about natural selection,” but it begins with what is perhaps the worst of all: “natural selection can produce amazing adaptations.”

While it is true that the species display a wide assortment of amazing adaptations, they have nothing to do with natural selection. Remember the chameleon that changes color? A recent study discovered the incredible mechanism responsible behind it:

Many chameleons, and panther chameleons in particular, have the remarkable ability to exhibit complex and rapid colour changes during social interactions such as male contests or courtship. It is generally interpreted that these changes are due to dispersion/aggregation of pigment-containing organelles within dermal chromatophores. Here, combining microscopy, photometric videography and photonic band-gap modelling, we show that chameleons shift colour through active tuning of a lattice of guanine nanocrystals within a superficial thick layer of dermal iridophores.

Wow—active tuning of a lattice of guanine nanocrystals. Biology students will recognize guanine as one of the four main bases used to form the chemical letters in our DNA. The chameleon forms crystals of guanine to control the reflected light. In an outer layer of skin, the chameleon has guanine nanocrystals in a triangular shape in special light-reflecting cells called chromatophores. Then, in a deeper layer the chromatophores contain brick-shaped guanine nanocrystals. The active control occurs in the outer skin layer. Using some sort of cell signaling, such as hormones, the triangular guanine nanocrystals are excited, altering the crystal spacing and with it the wavelength of the reflected light and so changing color.

It is a fantastic mechanism and, needless to say, natural selection plays no role in it.

What about the origin of this mechanism? Did it evolve via random mutations and natural selection? According to the paper it did. In fact the authors write that they have demonstrated such an incredible feat:

Combining histology, electron microscopy and photometric videography techniques with numerical band-gap modelling, here we show that chameleons have evolved two superimposed populations of iridophores [chromatophores] with different morphologies and functions

Is that true? Does the paper “show that” this incredible active color control mechanism evolved?

No.

In fact this claim is utterly false. The paper shows nothing of the sort. In fact the authors admit they cannot even settle on an “evolutionary scenario.”

They also admit that the mechanism is an evolutionary novelty:

This combination of two functionally different layers of iridophores [chromatophores] constitutes an evolutionary novelty that allows some species of chameleons to combine efficient camouflage and dramatic display, while potentially moderating the thermal consequences of intense solar radiations.

But it gets worse.

Not only do the authors lack a convincing evolutionary scenario for what must be an evolutionary novelty, but they fail to present an explanation for how this fantastic active color control mechanism evolved.

I’m not saying their explanation is weak. I’m not saying it lacks credibility. I’m not saying it is yet another “just-so” story. I’m not saying it is improbable. I’m not saying any of those things for the simple reason that there is no explanation given. Nothing. Nada. What the research does show is some of the details of how this fantastic mechanism works.

Believe it or not, for evolutionists, elucidating structure, mechanism and function equates with demonstrating that it evolved.

Newcomers to evolutionary literature might be nonplussed. How can a research paper unequivocally state that it “shows” X, and then do nothing of the sort? Nothing at all.

In fact this rather strange literary device runs throughout the evolutionary genre. Researchers make utterly unfounded claims of discovering, demonstrating, confirming and proving evolutionary events, and then journalists follow along with popular articles rehearsing the refrain. Evolution is demonstrated yet again.

And not just evolution.

Evolutionists also say that examples such as this are demonstrations of natural selection—demonstrations of natural selection producing amazing adaptations.

This brings us back to the UC Berkeley “Understanding Evolution” website. It abuses science in its utterly unfounded claim that “natural selection can produce amazing adaptations.”

In fact natural selection, even at its best, does not “produce” anything. Natural selection does not and cannot influence the construction of any adaptations, amazing or not. If a mutation occurs which improves differential reproduction, then it propagates into future generations. Natural selection is simply the name given to that process. It selects for survival that which already exists. Natural selection has no role in the mutation event. It does not induce mutations, helpful or otherwise, to occur. According to evolutionary theory every single mutation, leading to every single species, is a random event with respect to need.

129 comments:

  1. Excellent observations, Cornelius. That page also has this to say:

    "Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution."

    Actually, the result is extinction of some rather than others, but not "evolution". Natural selection doesn't actually "change" heritable traits; it merely preserves some but not others, or eliminates some but not others, depending on how you look at it.

    And:

    "At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!"

    Actually, I think that there's an important sense in which even natural selection is a random process, because, just as with random variations, selection pressures "shape" change without respect to the benefit of the organism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I think that there's an important sense in which even natural selection is a random process, because, just as with random variations, selection pressures "shape" change without respect to the benefit of the organism.

      You need to be more precise with your terminology. Natural selection is stochastic in that you can't predict if any specific individual will survive or not. However the ones carrying beneficial mutations will have a statistically higher chance of surviving and passing on their genes. That means in the long run those genes will spread through the population.

      It's like roulette. You can't predict what number any given spin of the wheel will produce. However the green 0 and 00 give the house a 5% advantage which will guarantee the house makes money in the long run.

      Delete
    2. Beneficial is relative and changes with the times. Also there can be several different and competing beneficial mutations. And beneficial usually comes with a loss of function.

      Delete
    3. Beneficial is relative and changes with the times.

      Beneficial is determined by the effect on reproductive fitness it has in the local environment, yes,

      Also there can be several different and competing beneficial mutations.

      Yes. So?

      And beneficial usually comes with a loss of function.

      They also sometimes produce gain of function too. Loss or gain doesn't matter, all that matters is the changes keep the population at or near a local fitness maximum.

      Delete
    4. "You need to be more precise with your terminology."

      Actually, it was the pro-evolution website that needs to be more precise, as I pointed out.

      The observation I made is quite precise, as I see it:

      What makes genetic variations "random"? It's because they occur without respect to the benefit (or detriment) of the organism.

      What makes natural selection pressures "random"? The very same reason, i.e. they occur without respect to the benefit (or detriment) of the organism.

      To say that natural selection is "NOT random" is to offer an exquisite example of imprecision.

      ~Sean

      Delete
    5. They also sometimes produce gain of function too.

      Such as?

      Delete
    6. GR: "They also sometimes produce gain of function too."

      Virgil: "Such as?"


      Nylonase, chloroquine resistance, antibiotic resistance, etc.

      Delete
    7. The last two involve losses of function and nylonase is a great example of a "built-in response to an environmental cue".

      Delete
    8. Joe,

      "The last two involve losses of function and nylonase is a great example of a "built-in response to an environmental cue"."

      Isn't it amazing how out of touch these guys are? They insist on using long refuted arguments as if they are knock down effective.

      Delete
    9. You have to play the cards you are dealt. And that is why they also pound the table:

      "If you have the facts you pound them with the facts. If you have the law then you pound them with the law. And if you have neither well then you pound the table." :)

      Delete
    10. Virgil: "The last two involve losses of function..."

      Function: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or

      Chloroquine and antibody resistance, by definition, are new functions.

      Virgil: "...and nylonase is a great example of a "built-in response to an environmental cue"."

      A built-in response to a compound that never existed until man made it? Thank you for providing me with my daily laugh.

      Delete
    11. Evolution works by modifying existing structures. When cetaceans gained the function of being able to travel efficiently in and under water they lost the ability to walk on land. Creationists will scream about 'SEE, LOSS OF FUNCTION!!" while never acknowledging the gains.

      Delete
    12. Chloroquine and antibody resistance, by definition, are new functions.

      Via loss of existing functions, moron.

      A built-in response to a compound that never existed until man made it?

      Man made carbon? Really?

      Delete
    13. When cetaceans gained the function of being able to travel efficiently in and under water they lost the ability to walk on land.

      There isn't any way to test the claim that cetaceans evolved from land animals. It is not a scientific claim.

      Delete
    14. WS/Acartia: "A built-in response to a compound that never existed until man made it?"

      Joe/Virgil: "Man made carbon? Really?"

      Carbon = Poly[imino(1,6-dioxohexamethylene) iminohexamethylene]? Really?

      But for a guy who claims that wavelength = frequency, I guess this makes sense.

      Delete
    15. All of the bonds there are found in nature. The carbon it is trying to utilize is found in nature.

      You are just an imbecile.

      Delete
    16. "All of the bonds there are found in nature. The carbon it is trying to utilize is found in nature."

      So is the carbon and bonds found in diamonds. And they have existed for a few billion years longer than nylon. Why haven't the bacteria responded to this "environmental cue"?

      Good thing that you are restricted to repairing toasters, and not teaching children.

      Delete
    17. So is the carbon and bonds found in diamonds.

      So what?

      Why haven't the bacteria responded to this "environmental cue"?

      In what way is it an environmental cue? Do bacteria bathe in a diamond environment in which there is not much of anything else to exist on? Or are you just a desperate dolt?

      Delete
    18. "In what way is it an environmental cue? Do bacteria bathe in a diamond environment in which there is not much of anything else to exist on?"

      Yes. Far more exposure to diamonds than they have ever had with nylon. But don't let facts get in the way of your strange theory. You never have before.

      Delete
    19. Far more exposure to diamonds than they have ever had with nylon.

      Evidence please. No one believes anything you spew.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. Joey: "No one believes anything you spew."

      Well, it is nice to know that we have something in common.

      Delete
    22. I support my claims. Just because you can ignore that support just proves that you are willfully ignorant.

      Now produce the evidence for bacteria bathing in diamonds or admit that you are a lying troll.

      Delete
    23. Diamonds have been used by humans for at least 3000 years (google it if you don't believe me). And unless they have always been handled using level four containment procedures, they have been "bathed" in bacteria since then. And, given the nature of human hygiene, there has also been no shortage of other nutrients to assist the bacteria. As an aside, I might also note that one of the more common items found in sewage plants are diamond engagement rings.

      Nylon was first produced in 1935 . Nylonase was discovered in 1975.

      So, 3000 years of bacteria being exposed to diamonds did not result in a single enzyme that can use the carbon in a diamond. But 40 years of bacterial exposure to nylon resulted in nylonase.

      So, would you like to modify your claim? An intelligent person would. Which is why this is a rhetorical question.

      Delete
    24. LoL! Obviously you are too stupid to understand my claim.

      Do bacteria bathe in a diamond environment in which there is not much of anything else to exist on?

      And like the moron you are, you said:

      And, given the nature of human hygiene, there has also been no shortage of other nutrients to assist the bacteria.

      Absolutely hilarious.

      Delete
    25. Joe, your knowledge of evolution is only dwarfed by your knowledge of microbiology. Please tell me that you wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

      Delete
    26. Joe: "Do bacteria bathe in a diamond environment in which there is not much of anything else to exist on?"

      You do realize that bacteria cannot survive on a pure carbon environment, don't you? No, of course you don't.

      Delete
    27. You do realize that bacteria cannot survive on a pure carbon environment, don't you?

      You are one desperate asswipe.

      Look you have already proven that you are an imbecile. You don't need to keep proving it.

      Delete
    28. Joe, your knowledge of evolution is only dwarfed by your knowledge of microbiology

      I know more about evolution and microbiology than you ever will.

      Delete
    29. "I know more about evolution and microbiology than you ever will."

      How do you know more than me about a theory that you claim does not exist? You really have to try to be more consistent.

      Delete
    30. The "theory" you are unable to link to? LoL!

      One can know about evolution absent any theory of evolution. You are obviously just an ignorant fool.

      Delete
    31. YEC joey-virgil drooled:

      "Look you have already proven that you are an imbecile. You don't need to keep proving it."

      Hey joey-virgil, self-awareness isn't your strong point, is it?

      Delete
    32. Hey YEC joey-virgil, have you ever heard of Google? How about books and scientific papers? Information about the 'theory of evolution' or 'evolutionary theory' is easily available to anyone who has internet access and/or access to books/papers about evolution.

      For example: a Google search for the theory of evolution turns up 340,000,000 results. A search for evolutionary theory turns up 40,500,000 results. A search for evolution turns up 452,000,000 results. For something that you say doesn't exist, that's a lot of results. Not that that will matter to you though, because you'll surely continue to display your incorrigible ignorance.

      Delete
    33. LoL! Google does NOT turn up the theory of evolution, just people talking about it as if it exists.

      Where is the actual theory, moron?

      Delete
    34. In what form do you expect the ToE to be, joey-virgil? Stone tablets? LOL

      Hey joey-virgil, I'm curious, where is the actual designer-creator-god? A lot of people talk about it as if it exists. And where is the actual theory (as in ' scientific' theory) of intelligent design?



      Delete
    35. I expect it to be in the form of a scientific paper, as Einstein's relativity is.

      Delete
    36. YEC joey-virgil says:

      "There isn't any way to test the claim that cetaceans evolved from land animals. It is not a scientific claim."

      Well then, if that's true (it's not) then there's no way to test the claim that cetaceans evolved (from land animals or otherwise) via intelligently designed-created-guided evolution.

      Don't you often say that ID is NOT anti-evolution, joey-virgil? If ID is NOT anti-evolution then you IDiots should and would be supportive of the strong evidence of cetaceans evolving from land animals, and the only difference between you IDiots and real scientists would be that you would claim that cetacean evolution from land animals was/is intelligently designed-created-guided by your chosen sky daddy.

      The thing is, you and the rest of the IDiot-creationists argue against any and all evidence of evolution of any organisms. You obviously believe that cetaceans and everything else were poofed into existence by your chosen sky daddy, and you really, really, really believe that humans were/are specially poofed.

      You really need to make up your inconsistent, contradictory, extremely limited mind, joey-virgil. If you're going to argue against any and all evidence of evolution and assert that there's no such thing as evolutionary theory and that there's no way to test evidence of evolution and that evolutionary theory (that you claim doesn't exist) is not scientific, then you are thoroughly demonstrating that you are anti-evolution, and that includes intelligently designed-created-guided evolution.

      One minute you and/or other IDiots say 'Everything (except diseases and deformities, according to you joey) evolved via intelligent design!' and the next minute you and/or other IDiots say 'There's no way to even test for evolution, it's not scientific!'.

      And you wonder why you're called IDiots.

      Delete
    37. There can be evolution without land animal to cetacean evolution. Duh

      Delete
    38. Well sure, there "can be", but then why are you and other IDiotcreationists so freaked out about cetaceans evolving from land animals? Doesn't your chosen sky daddy have the ability to design-create-guide the evolution of cetaceans from land animals? What have you got against whales, joey-virgil?

      As usual, you just don't get it. My points stand because they're true. You and your fellow ID-god pushers make fools of yourselves on a daily basis, arguing against reality, distorting whatever is convenient to distort, contradicting yourselves, producing no evidence for your claims, endlessly re-asserting the same old refuted garbage, lying, preaching, equivocating, pontificating, maliciously bashing science and scientists, falsely rewriting the history of science, digging up dead people to falsely add to your crew, stealing ideas and accomplishments, quote mining, pretending to be promoting and doing science, pretending to not be anti-evolution, pretending to be open and honest, pretending to not be theocrats/dominionists, pretending to care about truth and reality, pretending to follow the evidence to where it leads, and every other self-serving, dishonest, rotten tactic in the book of tard in your agenda to force your religious and political beliefs onto everyone whether they like it or not. You're not fooling anyone with a clue, but I'm sure that that won't stop you.

      Delete
    39. There isn't any evidence that cetaceans evolved from land animals and there isn't any way to test the claim.

      We don't argue against reality. Imagination is not real. You and yours are the biggest liars in the world. And all you do is project.

      Obviously you and science don't mix.

      Delete
    40. I said:

      "You're not fooling anyone with a clue, but I'm sure that that won't stop you."

      Prediction fulfilled.

      Delete
    41. Umm I am not trying to fool anyone but anyone who accepts evolutionism is a fool. And anyone who says there is evidence tat land animals evolved into cetaceans is a liar.

      Delete
    42. Be careful, joey-virgil, you're insulting the ability of your designer-creator-god that guided the evolution of cetaceans from land animals. You don't want to fry for eternity, do you?

      "I expect it to be in the form of a scientific paper, as Einstein's relativity is."

      That's hilarious, really. For one thing, the theory of evolution/evolutionary theory and many, many details regarding evolution and the ToE/evolutionary theory are described/defined, discussed, questioned, scrutinized, revised, etc., in an enormous number of published, peer-reviewed, scientific papers and of course many other places. It's also funny because you expect and demand, as usual, that which you are unwilling and unable to provide for your own claims and agenda.

      Like I said, joey-virgil, you REALLY need some new material.



      Delete
    43. You are quite dim. I only said that there isn't any evidence for such a thing. And there isn't. Grow up.

      If there was a theory of evolution you would be able to link to it. You can't link to it so you lose, as usual. Also evolutionism is devoid of details and there aren't any peer-reviewed papers that support unguided evolution.

      Delete
  2. Natural selection does not and cannot influence the construction of any adaptations, amazing or notThis is clearly not true.
    If a mutation provides a substantial fitness boost, then natural selection will drive the frequency of this mutation to a higher level, even to fixation. The species would then be more adapted to its environnement.

    You are merely picking on nuances here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natural selection is nothing more that contingent serendipity. It doesn't do anything beyond conserving whatever works.

      Delete
    2. And eliminating what doesn't work too.

      Delete
    3. Elimination is just that and doesn't help the population gain adaptations.

      Delete
  3. Natural selection doesn't select, it eliminates the less fit. Whatever is good enough get s to survive and has the chance at reproducing.

    WHATEVER IS GOOD ENOUGH. Eliminating the less fit is a far cry from selecting the most fit. Selection can drive a population towards something. Mere elimination cannot.

    Evos like Elizabeth Liddle and Glen Davidson are too dim to grasp that fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you keep elminating the less fit then obviously you will tend to have fitter and fitter individuals until a fitness maximum.
      You shoudl look at fitness landscape.

      At least here you don't say that there is no theory of evolution since you are talking about it.

      Delete
    2. Evolution via RM+NS is an optimizing system because it optimizes for fitness. As such, it suffers from the same serious problems that are known to plague all optimising systems. For examples: overfitting, getting stuck in local minima/maxima, or being stopped dead by a combinatorial explosion. The latter problem is the main reason that genetic algorithms are not very useful in the real world. It is also the main reason that Darwinian evolution is just silly crackpottery from mediocre minds.

      Delete
    3. If you keep elminating the less fit then obviously you will tend to have fitter and fitter individuals until a fitness maximum.

      No. Every generation will produce new less fit individuals. Even the organisms that were fit can become less fit once the climate changes.

      And there isn't any theory of evolution- I challenge you to link to it

      Delete
    4. YEC joey, it wouldn't surprise if you're the only person on Earth who says that there isn't any theory of evolution.

      Oh, and your "any" does mean any, doesn't it? Ya see, joey-virgil, your "any" would include "any theory" about intelligently designed-created-guided evolution. So, thanks for stating that there isn't "any theory" of intelligently designed-created-guided evolution.

      Delete
    5. That should be wouldn't surprise me, in the first sentence in my comment above.

      Delete
    6. Wow, strange that I can quote scientists who say that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. And even stranger is that you cannot link to it.

      You must be the biggest moron ever.

      Delete
    7. Hey YEC joey-virgil, I see that you added the word "scientific" to "theory of evolution" this time. It doesn't matter though because what I pointed out before still stands. By your saying that "there isn't any theory of evolution" or "there isn't any scientific theory of evolution" you're including "any" theory of intelligently designed-created-guided evolution. You just don't know when to quit pwning yourself and your ID-creationist agenda, do you?

      I'm a tiny bit curious, joey-virgil, who are those "scientists" and let's see the quotes (and links) where they say "there isn't any theory of evolution" or "there isn't any scientific theory of evolution". And in your appeal to authority you won't stoop to bogus quote mines or quoting any people who have been dead for hundreds of years, will you? Nah, a gentleman like you would never do things like that. LOL

      joey-virgil, your constant bleating of "there isn't any theory of evolution" is so stupid, so worn out, so ignorant, so insane, so childish, so astoundingly delusional that, well, you REALLY need some new material, and it would be a good thing if that material were not just more evidence of your psychoses.

      Delete
    8. It is very telling that you cannot link to the theory of evolution.

      You must be an ignorant coward.

      Delete
    9. And if the theory of evolution isn't a scientific theory then obviously evolution isn't science, duh.

      You must be one of the most ignorant people on this planet.

      Delete
    10. "And if the theory of evolution isn't a scientific theory then obviously evolution isn't science, duh."

      YEC joey-virgil, your desperation is showing, as usual. No matter how much you distort, dodge, baldly assert, threaten, insult, equivocate, drool, deny, whine, bark, cry, lie, demand, preach, ignore, throw tantrums, etc., in your attempts to push your theocratic/autocratic ID-creationism agenda, you'll never succeed at anything other than making a fool of yourself.

      Delete
    11. Nice cowardly projection.

      Delete
    12. "Nice cowardly projection."

      Says one of the wussiest projectors on Earth.

      By the way, joey-virgil, are you on your way to Portland yet? LOL

      Delete
    13. You are the wussiest projector on earth. Why would I go to Portland?

      Delete
    14. Because I live near Portland (Oregon) and you've asked me more than once where I live so that you can come here to teach me a lesson (i.e kick my ass, end my existence, or something like that). You know, just like you've threatened other people. Of course it's all bluff since you're way too much a coward to actually back up your threats.

      So, when will you arrive in Portland? LOL

      Delete
    15. I don't believe you as you are a known pathological liar.

      Delete
    16. "I don't believe you as you are a known pathological liar."

      Well, joey-virgil, if you fly (oh wait, you said you're were going to drive) to Portland and I don't show up at an agreed upon location (such as the Portland airport as I suggested before) you would be able to make legitimate fun of me like you've been made fun of for not showing up at the places and times that you've said you would to settle things with other people that you've challenged/threatened. We can even meet at a parking lot if it makes you feel more at home. LOL

      Delete
    17. I can make legitimate fun of you now as you are one of the most ignorant cowards evah.

      Delete
    18. Yeah, joey-virgil, keep shouting 'coward' as you always run away with your tail between your legs. What a man, NOT.

      Delete
    19. You are a coward- I will prove it:

      Tell us your real name and actual address- you won't because you are a coward.

      Delete
    20. chicken little ran away, as predicted.

      Delete
    21. No, joey-virgil, I didn't run away. I had other things to do.

      My real name is none of your business. What you should be concerned with is backing up your claims and threats. When you threaten people and ask them where they live and/or challenge them to meet you somewhere, you aren't going to get out of all that with your lame excuses, unless you believe that it's somehow courageous and honorable to publicly display your cowardice.

      So, joey-virgil, when will you arrive in Portland? LOL

      Delete
    22. By the way, YEC joey-virgil, I've noticed that you haven't posted your "actual address". You know, the one where you actually live, not the one of a parking lot miles away.

      Now, what was that you said about chicken little running away?

      Delete
    23. My real name is none of your business.

      Coward.

      Delete
    24. What you should be concerned with is backing up your claims and threats.

      Tell me your name and where you live and I will back up my claims. Only cowards think I have made threats.

      Delete
  4. Dr Hunter, Elizabeth Liddle seems to think that adaptation is "If a mutation occurs which improves differential reproduction, then it propagates into future generations."

    Too funny....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI adaptation leads to increased fitness. Increased fitness is not the adaptation, as Lizzie wants us to believe. An adaptation is a physical trait.

      Delete
    2. No, increased fitness is how we identify adaptations. Cart before the horse, Virgil.

      But, your parting gift will be an introductory biology text book. Thank you for playing.

      Delete
    3. I will go with what the textbooks say. And they say what I said.

      Delete
    4. References please. And quotes. It is not that I don't believe you, but I don't believe you.

      Delete
    5. Use your head- how does increased fitness occur? Because the organisms have something the others do not. What is that "something"? Most likely an adaptation...

      You claimed I am wrong so you find your references and quotes.

      Wikipedia- adaptation:

      Adaptations enhance the fitness and survival of individuals.

      Delete
    6. No, increased fitness is how we identify adaptations.

      No shit. But those adaptations led to the increased fitness.

      Delete
    7. OK Virgil. A pop quiz for you. Without knowing the environment or the reproductive success, is the following mutation an adaptation of not?

      Loss of the optic nerve.

      OK 150 IQ boy. I await your answer. Yes or no?

      Delete
    8. In the words of Mona Lisa Vito It's a bogus question

      see:
      An adaptation is a characteristic that enhances the survival or reproduction
      of organisms that bear it, relative to alternative character states (especially the
      ancestral condition in the population in which the adaptation evolved).
      Futuyma Evolution, Second Edition 2009

      So we cannot say unless we know if it enhanced the survival or reproduction.

      Stop being such an ass.

      Delete
    9. Sorry, "stop being an ass" isn't a yes or a no.

      How can a mutation be an adaptation if it has not yet had any affect?

      Delete
    10. Yes, you are sorry as "stop being an ass" wasn't the answer.

      Pull your head out of your ass and try again.

      Delete
    11. How can a mutation be an adaptation if it has not yet had any affect?

      The funny thing is you ask that as if I said that mutations can be an adaptation even if it didn't yet have any effect.

      Are you off of your meds or are you taking too much?

      Delete
    12. Joe, thank you for demonstrating, day in and day out, the fundamental irrelevance of ID. Do you ever wonder why the only ID proponent who supports you is Gordon (the world is stalking me) Mullings?

      Delete
    13. William, Thank you for always demonstrating that you are a clueless dolt and an ignorant coward.

      Delete
    14. Joe: "William, Thank you for always demonstrating that you are a clueless dolt and an ignorant coward."

      Coming from you, that is high praise. Thank you.

      Delete
    15. Your posts and lack of substance speak for themselves. Loser.

      Delete
    16. And it is very telling that you had to change socks when I exposed your ignorance wrt adaptations.

      Delete
    17. "And it is very telling that you had to change socks when I exposed your ignorance wrt adaptations."

      Given that I have repeatedly said that Acartia and William are the same person, what is this telling? That you have a problem with comprehension? But while we are on the subject, why do you use Virgil as your name at UD and not telling them that it is Joe?

      How is your refusal to answer a question an exposure of anyone's ignorance, with the possible exception of your own?

      Delete
    18. I answered the question. You are just too stupid to understand the answer.

      Delete
    19. I must have missed it. Was it "yes" or "no".

      Delete
    20. In the words of Mona Lisa Vito It's a bogus question

      see:
      An adaptation is a characteristic that enhances the survival or reproduction of organisms that bear it, relative to alternative character states (especially the ancestral condition in the population in which the adaptation evolved). Futuyma Evolution, Second Edition 2009

      So we cannot say unless we know if it enhanced the survival or reproduction.

      Stop being such an ass.

      Delete
    21. "And it is very telling that you had to change socks when I exposed your ignorance wrt adaptations.'

      Hey YEC joey, that's pretty funny coming from you John Paul, Jim, ID Guy, frisbee kid, and Virgil Cain. LOL

      Delete
    22. You must be an imbecile incapable of following a discussion.

      Delete
  5. It is truly amazing how all those millions of scientists can keep being so wrong about everything concerning evolution. Or maybe their critic is the one who is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If those scientists had some actual evidence then no one could criticize them. However they can't even model natural selection producing an adaptation.

      Delete
    2. It is not the first time that an entire field of science has been wrong. Not too long ago, the entire AI community was convinced that intelligence was just symbol manipulation. They were all wrong. The whole fiasco cost us more than half a century of wasted effort and countless billions of dollars. Amazingly, the current AI craze, deep learning, is nothing but symbolic AI in a new shiny dress and makeup. Deep learning requires that the data samples be correctly pre-labeled, i.e., associated with a symbol.

      Delete
    3. YEC joey-virgil spewed without thinking (as usual):

      "If those scientists had some actual evidence then no one could criticize them. "

      Well, if that's true (and it's not) then the HUGE amount of (negative) criticism that ID-creationism and IDiot-creationists get from scientists, science supporters, and even many religious people is indicative of the ABSENCE of actual evidence for ID-creationism.

      Delete
    4. YEC joey-virgil spewed without thinking (as usual):

      "If those scientists had some actual evidence then no one could criticize them. "

      Well, if that's true (and it's not) then the HUGE amount of (negative) criticism that ID-creationism and IDiot-creationists get from scientists, science supporters, and even many religious people is indicative of the ABSENCE of actual evidence for ID-creationism.

      Delete
    5. I don't know why my comment above showed up twice. I've noticed that it sometimes happens with comments from other people too. I also don't know why there are sometimes large spaces between words in some of my comments or others.

      Delete
    6. It is true as evolutionism isn't supported by any evidence.

      Delete
    7. No, YEC joey-virgil, what you said about criticism is not true, because theocratic/autocratic, fantasy-pushing loons like you will always (negatively) criticize any reality that doesn't neatly fit into your delusions, even when evidence for the reality is STRONG.

      Delete
    8. Evolutionism has nothing to do with reality you ignorant twit.

      Delete
  6. According to evolutionary theory every single mutation, leading to every single species, is a random event with respect to need.

    According to evolutionism every mutation is an accident, error or mistake- random here means happenstance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe G

      According to evolutionism every mutation is an accident, error or mistake- random here means happenstance.


      No. When animals reproduce they naturally produce DNA sequences that have variations from the originals. Such variations would only be "accidents, errors, or mistakes" if the process was supposed to produce identical copies. It isn't.

      That's a concept most laymen have a hard time grasping. Evolution wouldn't happen if all animals made perfect copies of their DNA. You need the variation for selection to act on.

      Delete
    2. In fact natural selection, even at its best, does not “produce” anything. Natural selection does not and cannot influence the construction of any adaptations, amazing or not

      You seem to have misunderstood the Understanding Evolution article rather badly. In general usage the term natural selection refers to the overall evolutionary process that includes genetic variation, differential reproductive success, and heritability. The Berkeley site has a whole page explaining that concept here.

      If you are talking about just the 'selection" differential reproductive success part of the natural selection evolutionary process you need to make it more clear.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider: ...if the process was supposed to produce identical copies. It isn't.

      So then if I am to understand the genius of academicians' how do they prove what they suppose is "supposed" to be produced? Is 'supposed' tantamount to proven?

      Or to use the word 'supposed' in colloquial fashion:

      So we are left with two scenarios if I am to try as I might understand the genius operating in certain academics' minds:

      (1)The process is supposed to not produce identical copies.

      (2)The process produces copies with random differences and is supposed to do such.

      So am I to get this right, that life, with no goal oriented basis to evolution, and ultimately meaningless, requires reference to something that is "supposed" to be or not to be?

      Delete
    4. MSEE

      So am I to get this right, that life, with no goal oriented basis to evolution, and ultimately meaningless, requires reference to something that is "supposed" to be or not to be?


      No. Evolutionary processes aren't "supposed' to do anything. The fact is biological reproduction normally produces genetic variation. Laymen mistakenly tend to think the process should act like human designed copying where 100% fidelity is a design goal. Genetic variation is no more 'suppose' to happen or not happen than gravity is 'suppose' to pull objects towards the Earth

      Delete
    5. Well you were the one saying something is not supposed to happen or not supposed to exist. You did not answer whether supposition is the basis of an airtight, rock hard science. Oh look what I just wrote, hard science.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider- Ernst Mayr and every evolutionary biologist says the mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. I will go with them. Thanks anyway.

      Delete
    7. MSEE

      Well you were the one saying something is not supposed to happen or not supposed to exist.


      No I didn't. I said laymen who don't understand evolution mistakenly think the processes must have a "purpose" when in fact they don't. You demonstrated that lack of understanding quite nicely.

      Delete
    8. Purposeless evolution cannot be modeled nor does it have any predictive power.

      Delete
    9. Hey YEC joey-virgil, let's see your 'model' of the intelligent design and creation (the 'origin') of the universe by allah-yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost, including but not limited to the intelligent design and creation (the 'origin') of many of the particulars such as the planet Earth, the first prokaryote, the first eukaryote, the Cambrian explosion, the Grand Canyon, the first dinosaur, the first insect, the first mammal, the first fish, the first sponge, the first bird, the first plant, the first flower, the first disease, the first human, the first cloud, the first storm, the first ocean, the first grain of sand, the first volcano, the first earthquake, the first rainbow, the first boson, the first atom, the first light, the first sound, the first ecosystem, the first consciousness, the first moral, the first death, the first pain, the first mutation, the first sexual reproduction, the first extinction (and all other extinctions), and the first religion. After all, according to you ID is "all about origins", and don't forget that you also say that "to model something you have to thoroughly understand it". So, get busy with demonstrating your 'model' of ID-creation. Don't spare the details.

      Delete
    10. YEC joey-virgil, what is the 'purpose' of evolution?

      Delete
    11. Hey YEC joey-virgil, mutations are random in regard to fitness. The 'in regard to fitness' part is one of the many things that you conveniently ignore and don't understand about evolution and evolutionary theory.

      Frankly, I don't like the use of words like mistakes and errors when describing mutations. It's essentially a comparison to perfection, and nature is far from perfect. The word 'random', however, is appropriate for describing mutations in regard to fitness.

      Of course you believe that mutations are intelligently designed-created-guided by allah-yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost, except for the mutations that cause diseases and deformities. The bad mutations are Darwin's fault, eh?

      Tell you what joey-virgil, add your beliefs about the allegedly designed-created-guided mutations and the Darwin's fault mutations into your demonstration of your 'model' of ID-creation-guidance. And again, don't spare the details.

      Delete
    12. Both genetic and evolutionary algorithms model intelligent design evolution, ie evolution with a purpose.

      Why is it that you are just a tantrum-throwing assmuncher?

      Delete
    13. Now three of my comments have been deleted. Censorship and letting joey-virgil run amok are par for the course here.

      And you IDiot-creationists wonder why you're called IDiots and censors.

      Delete
    14. You don't say anything so you aren't censored, moron.

      Delete
    15. mutations are random in regard to fitness.

      According to evolutionary biology mutations are all accidents, errors and mistakes.

      I will go with what they say over what a known imbecile spews.

      Thanks anyway.

      Delete
    16. Hey Cornelius, take a look at what your buddy and fellow IDiot-creationist joe g says in this thread:

      https://occamsrazormag.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/what-is-a-cuckservative-nrx/comment-page-1/#comment-7773

      Delete
  7. Ok, nothing new here. We heard it all before. Actually, I believe it was one of my blog entries here that first clarified this misconception in a debate with an evolutionist. I don't recall it being mentioned previously by CH, or anyone else.

    But one thing this blog clarifies is why the rank and file twitter evo-idiots make the same mistaken claims. If the professional 'scientists' can't understand this distinction how on earth is your average grade 12 biology evolutionist on Twitter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok, nothing new here. We heard it all before. Actually, I believe it was one of my blog entries here that first clarified this misconception in a debate with an evolutionist. I don't recall it being mentioned previously by CH, or anyone else.

    But one thing this blog clarifies is why the rank and file twitter evo-idiots make the same mistaken claims. If the professional 'scientists' can't understand this distinction how on earth is your average grade 12 biology evolutionist on Twitter.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As Lynn Margulis admitted:

    Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create ... neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism...I believed it until I looked for evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She must have been a heretic. :)

      Delete
    2. NV,

      I wonder what is the full content of words like "emerge". Are they synonymous with self creation, or spontaneous generation?

      Delete
  10. Right. it selects for survival that which already exists.
    The glory ofv evolution is in mutationism. in fact they should call it natural mutationism. The selection is a minor detail by their own idea.
    evolutionism was really desperate attempts to find a non christian origin for biology.
    it really was a anti cHristian concept with a sincere desire to explain biology origins.
    without the anti cHristian thing smarter people a century ago would of debunked it all. only today is it falling to pieces in nits main points.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Right. it selects for survival that which already exists.
    The glory ofv evolution is in mutationism. in fact they should call it natural mutationism. The selection is a minor detail by their own idea.
    evolutionism was really desperate attempts to find a non christian origin for biology.
    it really was a anti cHristian concept with a sincere desire to explain biology origins.
    without the anti cHristian thing smarter people a century ago would of debunked it all. only today is it falling to pieces in nits main points.

    ReplyDelete