What is so controversial about what he says. All he said is that he doesn't understand how evolution could produce DNA without a membrane, or a membrane without DNA. Neither do evolutionary biologists. And they say it all the time.
William "he doesn't understand how evolution could produce DNA without a membrane, or a membrane without DNA. Neither do evolutionary biologists. And they say it all the time."
But they always interpret all evidence from the point of "fact" that it was produced by evolution. (We don't understand it yet, but one day we will!) I believe that is the point of this blog: Evolution is a religion.
How could anyone make him understand what nobody understands? Yet.
Nobody has a firm grasp on how DNA first came about. And scientists are completely honest about it.
He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution. What he is really saying is that he doesn't understand the origin of life (or, more accurately, the origin of DNA). But I don't see why Cornelius thinks that this is a reality check. The fact that this is not understood is no secret.
"He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution." Huh? I understand microevolution, which is to say I have an internalized model that requires nothing but natural law to explain intra-species changes. I can even conceive of some inter-species changes (the development of new species). However this model totally collapses when I try to let it produce any of the real, complex structures. I do not have a naturalistic model that explains the development of any organ or complex system.
He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution.
It's only propaganda, and not science, that says macro-evolution is micro-evolution writ large. There aren't any known microevolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macroevolution.
Joke: "It's only propaganda, and not science, that says macro-evolution is micro-evolution writ large ."
Species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
By that definition of species, we have already done that with dogs. Chihuahuas are physically incapable of impregnating a Great Dane. And a chihuahua impregnated by a Great Dane (physically impossible as well) could not deliver the pups naturally. All this through microevolution in a few years.
LoL! Macroevolution is more than mere speciation. Coyne goes over macro in "Why Evolution Is True".:
“MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution. “MICROEVOLUTION: ‘Minor’ evolutionary change, such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.” - Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269.
Ya see, moron, Creationists doubt macroevolution and yet they accept speciation.
ghostwriter, "Well no, it doesn't. Reality is not constrained by your inability to understand it."
You misunderstand me, I am not saying anything about reality, I am speaking of my internal model, my internalized view of how evolution works.
I was responding specifically to the charge, "He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution."
I understand, or have an understanding of, microevolution, but I do not understand macroevolution. Reality be damned, my understanding includes microevolution, and my understanding does not include macroevolution.
I understand, or have an understanding of, microevolution, but I do not understand macroevolution. Reality be damned, my understanding includes microevolution, and my understanding does not include macroevolution.
That would seems to be your problem, not science's.
"That would seems to be your problem, not science's."
Whether that is my problem or science's is a different question. However, I, like Dr. Tour, understand microevolution but not macroevolution. The initial declaration, He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution" is wrong. The fact that you don't seem to be able to grasp this simple logic proves to me that your grasp of logic is not good enough for you to be able to explain macroevolution to me. In fact, it demonstrates to me that you are another example of someone who buys into the wonderful theory despite having a poor grasp of logic.
The initial declaration, He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution" is wrong.
No, the statement is correct. The processes that cause microevolution are the same ones that cause macroevolution. The only difference is at the macro level you get some additional selection effects like geographic isolation. The underlying genetic mechanisms are identical.
Tour, an admitted layman, confused understanding macroevolution with the origin of DNA. If tour actually does understand the processes that cause micro-e then by definition he must also understand macro-e.
Looks like you need remedial courses on logic and biology.
"The processes that cause microevolution are the same ones that cause macroevolution." Really? Microevolution is quite explainable with change in allele frequency and point mutation. Are you suggesting that these two mechanisms explain macroevolution? 'Seems that to get macroevolution (you know, the kind that produces new organs and stuff) to work you are going to need gene duplication and co-option, a very unlikely phenomenon. You are also very likely to need the development of de novo genes -- statistically close enough to impossible. You are going to need a very fine tuned functioning system of natural select (the neutral theorists will hate you) etc. Nope, macroevolution requires more than change in allele frequency and point mutation.
Ghostrider still doesn't get the point. Microevolution is explained with just a couple of tools: change in allele frequency, and point mutations.
If his position supporting the statement, "He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution" requires that macroevolution require no more tools in the toolbox than microevolution does. Macroevolution requires more tools. Macroevolution is not merely microevolution X time.
As far as "all those things causing genetic variations ... have been empirically observed to occur" goes, I don't think they have been observed occurring, but evidence that they have occurred is left in the DNA record. However, what has not been left in the DNA record is the cause of their occurrence.
Oh, um, IDiot? You learned that grand insult from Larry Mor?n, didn't you? Nairy an original thought.
Ghostrider still doesn't get the point. Microevolution is explained with just a couple of tools: change in allele frequency, and point mutations.
Microevolution also entails frame shifts from insertions and deletions, duplication with subsequent SNPs on the duplicated section, chromosomal translocations and inversions, HGT, etc. It's not just SNPs. Also a change in allele frequency doesn't cause evolution, it's the result of evolutionary processes.
Please describe the magic barrier that prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones.
There aren't any known microevolutionary events that can extrapolated into macroevolution. You don't get to hide behind father time and pretend that you are doing science.
"Microevolution also entails ... " I am unconvinced that any of the stuff on your list happens in an unguided fashion, and produces anything meaningful. It is exactly this kind of DNA modification that the "third way" crows says is strategically done by the organism itself. However, major edits to DNA don't, in my opinion, produce any good thing except that they be strategic.
ghostbrain is totally unaware, ie ignorant, that all evos can do is hide behind father time as if that cures all of their problems. As in "minor variation, repeated over millions upon millions of generations is all that is required."
Untestable, unobservable and therefor not science.
Joe G, I think you've got ghostrider slightly wrong. The phenomena he mentions: frame shifts from insertions and deletions, duplication with subsequent SNPs on the duplicated section, chromosomal translocations and inversions, HGT, etc. all are recorded in the DNA. They do happen.
The question is, why, what causes them to happen? The evos presume that "it happened" therefore "it happend by chance". This is not a valid assertion. The statistical chance of these events happening, and producing beneficial outcomes must be calculated and shown. I doubt that the data is there.
The question is, why, what causes them to happen? The evos presume that "it happened" therefore "it happend by chance".
All the genetic variations I listed do happen in a stochastic fashion, by chance if you will. In 75+ years of testing no one has ever produced any evidence the variations were directed by some outside force.
The statistical chance of these events happening, and producing beneficial outcomes must be calculated and shown.
The probability that a genetic variation will produce a survival benefit is completely dependent on the environmental selection pressures. It has been experimentally shown that a variation which gives it owners as little as a 0.1% better chance of reproducing than those without will (depending on population size) usually spread through and be fixed in a population. Of course in the real world the environment is constantly changing so the population is always being steered towards the moving target of local fitness maxima.
Your questions aren't exactly new. They have been thought about and investigated by science decades ago.
If you're really interested in learning here is a good paper on the topic.
Hmmm, Shapiro et. el. seem to solidly disagree. My own experiments show that a mildly or even moderately beneficial mutation usually kisses it goodbye rather quickly. It seems to take hundreds of whacks at the can for a beneficial mutation to develop enough of a beachhead to get going. Larry Moran reports the same, that beneficial mutations usually don't make it out of the incubator.
Oh, um "In 75+ years of testing no one has ever produced any evidence the variations were directed by some outside force.", what would such evidence look like?
bFast: The phenomena he mentions: frame shifts from insertions and deletions, duplication with subsequent SNPs on the duplicated section, chromosomal translocations and inversions, HGT, etc. all are recorded in the DNA. They do happen.
ghostbrain: The probability that a genetic variation will produce a survival benefit is completely dependent on the environmental selection pressures.
Which is why it is useless- whatever is good enough to survive does so. And that changes.
It has been experimentally shown that a variation which gives it owners as little as a 0.1% better chance of reproducing than those without will (depending on population size) usually spread through and be fixed in a population.
Only if the selection pressures remain the same, as does the competition. Otherwise you getting a changing selection pressure and competing mutations. Both kill fixation rates.
Of course in the real world the environment is constantly changing so the population is always being steered towards the moving target of local fitness maxima.
Right a wobbling stability that doesn't produce any progress. Macroevolution is a non-starter.
Hmmm, Shapiro et. el. seem to solidly disagree. My own experiments show that a mildly or even moderately beneficial mutation usually kisses it goodbye rather quickly. It seems to take hundreds of whacks at the can for a beneficial mutation to develop enough of a beachhead to get going. Larry Moran reports the same, that beneficial mutations usually don't make it out of the incubator.
You are talking about cases in a stable environment where species are already very close to a local fitness maximum. Of course then there aren't many ways to improve. But in the real world the environment is constantly changing, fitness peaks are constantly moving. Mutations that were neutral and fixed by drift may become beneficial in the new environment. Or two mutations that happened at different times may combine to be beneficial. That's what happened in the Lenski LTEE.
It's really dumb to demand science calculate probabilities for such occurrences. You don't need specific numbers to know an event occurred. No one can give you the probability that Krakatoa would erupt when it did or the Titanic would sink but we have plenty of evidence those events happened.
Oh, um "In 75+ years of testing no one has ever produced any evidence the variations were directed by some outside force.", what would such evidence look like?
Ghostrider, on Joe G, I agree that the best management method is to ignore him.
"You tell me, it's your hypothesis." My hypothesis of who is doing the editing is simple, its the same cause that caused the big bang. I don't in any way believe that multiverse theories address the issue of fine tuning.
As to how to know, well that's a different story. The first question that must be asked, asked very clearly by Behe is "where is the edge of evolution", is there a clearly defined limit to what evolution can do?
Behe says that experimental evidence shows that if two mutations are required to achieve a result, and if either mutation is deleterious on its own, then evolution cannot realistically achieve the result. Is this a statement that you understand and can appreciate?
Behe says that experimental evidence shows that if two mutations are required to achieve a result, and if either mutation is deleterious on its own, then evolution cannot realistically achieve the result. Is this a statement that you understand and can appreciate?
Behe made the ridiculous claim in a popular press book because he knew it would never pass scientific muster in a real journal. He supported it with a few cherry-picked values not representative of reality. The few scientists who paid any attention to his blithering pointed out that it's already been disproven by numerous empirical examples.
Are those statements that you understand and can appreciate?
Hmmm, Consider the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
This renowned longitudinal study of e-coli evolution showed 1 improved function in 60,000 generations. (Assuming a 10 year per generation rate in our human lineage, that's over 1/2 million years worth of evolution, in a population size much greater than that of man's lineage.)
This one evolutionary benefit required two mutational events. One had to precede the other, but it was not deleterious to the organism. This finding is consistent with Behe, and is touted and shouted from the housetops as proof that evolution works.
Oh, in the mean time, please provide me with your best evidence that two mutations, each deleterious to the organism on their own, can be produced by simply natural means. I don't buy it. I believe, based upon simple logic, that this truly is the edge of evolution.
Here is a very detailed beatdown of Behe's idiocy by molecular biologist Kenneth Miller. Behe's beginner's mistakes and simple math blunders are all spelled out. Everything in this article is well supported by reference from the primary scientific literature.
Please read it and we can discuss just how bad Behe's stupidity is.
I haven't read the entire paper, but so far I have found Ken Miller's critique to be a critique of Behe's example, not of Behe's premise.
He says, "But Behe was dead wrong about it being “strongly deleterious.” In fact, it seems to have no effect on transport activity at all." So Ken Miller says that a mutation that Behe suggested would be deleterious was not. That finding does not challenge the algorithm: "two mutations, each deleterious to the organism on their own, (producing a benefit cannot) be produced by simply natural means."
Please show me an example where a system was observed picking up two mutations where either on its own was deleterious, but both together offered benefit.
bFast: This renowned longitudinal study of e-coli evolution showed 1 improved function in 60,000 generations.
That is incorrect. There were about 10-20 beneficial mutations, and about 100 total mutations reaching fixation.
bFast: This one evolutionary benefit required two mutational events.
Actually, it was a fairly complex process. It required a potentiating mutation, but then a tandem duplication, then additional optimizing mutations.
bFast: One had to precede the other, but it was not deleterious to the organism. This finding is consistent with Behe, and is touted and shouted from the housetops as proof that evolution works.
Behe's entire claim is that improbable events are improbable, hardly a shattering conclusion. The question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve, and the answer is clearly yes.
By the way, the reason why it is important in evolutionary biology is because it shows contingency in evolution. If we "rewind the tape of life", we may not see the same result.
" The question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve, and the answer is clearly yes." Wrong question. My question is, if it can be demonstrated that two mutations were required to produce a result, and if it can be demonstrated that either mutation, on its own, is deleterious, have we falsified the neo-Darwinian theory?
Your answer, of course, is "of course not" because the evolutionary model that you espouse is impervious to statistical analysis and to common sense.
bFast: Your answer, of course, is "of course not" because the evolutionary model that you espouse is impervious to statistical analysis and to common sense.
It's a standard problem in population genetics. It depends on how deleterious the mutation, the size of the population, mutation rate, and whether the population is diploid, and if diploid, whether the allele is dominant and recessive.
That finding does not challenge the algorithm: "two mutations, each deleterious to the organism on their own, (producing a benefit cannot) be produced by simply natural means."
Why do both have to be deleterious? The real world examples shown blew right past Behe's "edge" and produced observed evolution with two mutations, something Behe claims is impossible. Behe is flat out wrong, end of story.
I'm a little confused. I was under the impression that the whole point of Behe's book is that since., we know mutation rates, and reproductive rates, w can predict an adaptation that takes one, two or more mutations will happen. The frequency of chloroquin resistance matches or prediction. A mutation requires more mutations will take two long.
"Why do both have to be deleterious?" It appears that there are situations, especially in protein folding, where mutations are required in matched pairs, or more than pairs. These matched pair scenarios create situations where if either partner is changed, we no longer have a matched pair.
When DNA is ultra-conserved, one would think that it is both important and precise. Any DNA ultra-conserved across mammilia must surely be important (despite highly conserved DNA being knocked out of mice, and having the mice show no obvious effects at all, but lets not notice the evolutionarily inexplicable.)
It's been a while since I read his book, but I seem to recall that Behe wrote it would take millions of years for an adaptation that requires more than two mutations. He wrote that we've seen chloroquine resistance happen, since it requires only two mutations. That's the "Edge of Evolution." He wrote that for malaria to get around the sickle cell gene, it would take millions of years, so it hasn't happened yet. It would also take a long time for a two mutation adaptation to happen in humans, since they don't reproduce at the same rate as malaria. That's why all the adaptations in humans for malarial resistance involve one mutation.
"He wrote that for malaria to get around the sickle cell gene, it would take millions of years, so it hasn't happened yet."
ID is quick to jump on things like this. But very slow to address why it chose sickle cell, a terrible genetic disease, as its defence against malaria. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense. But from an ID perspective, it seems like a very poor, and cruel, solution.
When DNA is ultra-conserved, one would think that it is both important and precise. Any DNA ultra-conserved across mammilia must surely be important (despite highly conserved DNA being knocked out of mice, and having the mice show no obvious effects at all, but lets not notice the evolutionarily inexplicable.)
And what was the result of that study?
Here, I'll help. From the paper.
"These results, while not inclusive of all the possible phenotypic impact of the deleted sequences, indicate that extreme sequence constraint does not necessarily reflect crucial functions required for viability."
Seems science freely admits it doesn't know the purpose of those conserved sequences. Why do you think "I don't know" is a problem for evolution?
Your turn - what is ID's explanation for the DNA sequence conservation and the results? If you say "I don't know either" does that falsify ID?
Behe says that sickle cell was not designed. It evolved. The whole point of his book is that evolution can happen but it is very tightly constrained by things like time, and can only go so far. By the way, he did mention in the book that there are other types of resistance to malaria.
That's why all the adaptations in humans for malarial resistance involve one mutation.
This is demonstrably false. The stepwise path to resistance documented in the 2014 Summers paper took at least a dozen separate mutations. Read the Miller article or stay ignorant, your choice.
"A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity, and as few as four conferred full activity. The finding that diverse PfCRT variants are all limited in their capacity to transport CQ suggests that resistance could be overcome by reoptimizing the CQ dosage."
It says two mutations. I don't see a dozen anywhere. Maybe you need more to get full resistance.
Oh, and Behe did talk about there were other mutations in teh parasite with resistance, but they probably weren't necessary. It seems from the articel that theyweren't necessary to confer resistance just full resistance.
Shevi: "Behe says that sickle cell was not designed. It evolved."
So, designed = good. Evolved = bad. I get it. So, Huntingtons, Tai Sachs, Marphans, haemophilia, colour blindnes, etc. all evolved. What, exactly were our designed features?
All Behe ever talked about was the two mutations needed for the CQ transport. That's all. HEmetioned he other halotypes as not eing critical, like hte article says.
Zachriel: The question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve, and the answer is clearly yes.
Wrong! The question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve via undirected processes such as natural selection. And there isn't any evidence for that.
And according to evolutionism all those mutations were sheer dumb luck, which is outside the realm of science. You really are not very bright for not realizing that.
Ghostrider, "Seems science freely admits it doesn't know the purpose of those conserved sequences. Why do you think "I don't know" is a problem for evolution?"
"I don't know" is a problem for NDE in this case because natural selection is the only DNA quality preservative in the theory. (Oh, I know, there's DNA validation and repair mechanisms all over the place, each of them ostensibly developed via NS.) If DNA is being preserved without benefit in the phenotype, then another preservative is required. The fact that another preservative is required and not known is not part of the public story of NDE.) This kind of "I don't know" is very different than the well known "I don't know" of first life. The theory predicts otherwise!
Ghostrider, "Your turn - what is ID's explanation for the DNA sequence conservation and the results? If you say "I don't know either" does that falsify ID?"
This is a standard punt -- the "your theory is no better" argument. It is stupid! Your theory rests on natural selection being the selector for all improvement, and the selector against all degradation. If something else is selecting against degradation, then your theory has a major hole.
ID theories (of which there are many) see no trouble with their designers working on something in DNA that hasn't been implemented yet. Having something preserved without obvious purpose is realistically expected.
MOST IMPORTANTLY -- your theory must stand or fall against the evidence, other theories notwithstanding. If the only other theory is "I don't know", your theory must still be consistent with the evidence.
Now, past this rabbit trail. What does the NDE theory teach about 106 base pairs that differ in only 2 points between chimp and chicken? NDE would declare that this data is preserved because any single point change would be deleterious to the organism, would it not. (Or does your theory make no actual predictions.)
bFast: If DNA is being preserved without benefit in the phenotype ...
That's a big if. While the mice were viable in the lab, it's quite possible they would be at a disadvantage in nature. That's been found in studies of yeast, where ultraconserved regions are altered, the yeast appear to be viable, but when stressed, they die. By the way, changes to ultraconserved regions are found in carcinomas, which may be a clue.
"That's a big if. While the mice were viable in the lab, it's quite possible they would be at a disadvantage in nature."
Hence the difference between physics and biology. Physicists regularly, and very publicly, go to great lengths to validate/falsify their theories. If you biologists do question your pet, you do so very quietly. Is there someone doing the study to find out if this mystery has an easy solution? The data has been out for a good number of years, yet this data that appears to falsify NDE has not been publicly tested. 'Seems that someone needs to set up an environment with a bunch of DNA knock-out mice to see if their missing DNA makes a real difference.
In the mean time, folks like me look at the lack of action on the part of the biological community, and we conclude that you have a problem of overconfidence in your theory.
bFast: Is there someone doing the study to find out if this mystery has an easy solution?
There's a great deal of research into ultraconserved elements, including commercial interest. So far, ultraconserved elements are cryptic, but it's thought that understanding how they interact with the rest of the genome will resolve the issue. It's still a difficult technical problem.
Did you have an alternative mechanism of conservation?
The data has been out for a good number of years, yet this data that appears to falsify NDE has not been publicly tested.
How in the world do you think this data falsifies ToE?? Do you really think that this one unknown somehow negates all the rest of the huge amount of positive evidence for ToE we do have??
Ghostrider, "Do you really think that this one unknown somehow negates all the rest ... " Hmmm, the neo-Darwinan theory is supposed to be adequate to explain ALL of DNA. How many black swans do I need to prove false the statement that ALL swans are white?
That said, this remains to be a side-show argument. We're still stuck at having your side acknowledge that if two point mutations are each deleterious, the pair is not going to happen. That, of course, would produce falsifiability, and we can't have that.
Joke: "Which is why it is only ignorance that says it was all random mutations."
Well, that is one cruel prick of a designer who would "design" a resistance to a drug that would save thousands of individuals of his favoured species from suffering.
Waht I recall reading is that Behe wrote that CQ transport can happen in a short time because it requires only two mutations, just like the preidictions based on known mutation rates, and the paper.
He also says that humans evolved reisistance to malaria that involved only one mutation. That can happen. If it reuires more, there might not be enough time.
WS:
Cars were designed, but they break down. The same could be said for just about any designed things. The genome was designed., then it broke down.
"Cars were designed, but they break down. The same could be said for just about any designed things. The genome was designed., then it broke down."
That wasn't the point. Joke was claiming that the resistance was "designed", not that it was a breakdown analogous to the breakdown of a car. But I am sure that he will attempt to spin his words, much in the same way that he continues to claim that wavelength equals frequency.
He also says that humans evolved reisistance to malaria that involved only one mutation. That can happen. If it reuires more, there might not be enough time.
I just showed you multiple examples of from 4 to 20 stepwise mutations that all occurred in less than two decades.
Just how stupid are you Nat? Does your brain not work at all?
Nobpdy questions the fact that mutations happen, poi ntwise or otherwise. The probem is that whether they happen often enough to createa new function, like CQ tranport. If it only requires two mutations, lke CQ transport, then it can happen in the mqlarial parasite. If it requires more, then it becomes a problem. That's all Behe ever said.
See, resistance to quinine might take more than to mutations, so it will take a lot longer to happen, ifit happens at all. Same thing with malaria finding a way around sickle cell.
bFast: We're still stuck at having your side acknowledge that if two point mutations are each deleterious, the pair is not going to happen.
As already pointed out, it's a standard problem in population genetics. It depends on how deleterious the mutation, the size of the population, mutation rate, and whether the population is diploid, and if diploid, whether the allele is dominant and recessive.
So what is the proof that something is "significantly deleterious" (All of this other stuff "size of population, mutation rate, dominance etc. are all just factors that determine how deleterious a mutation is, yes?)
'Seems the answer is simple, if organisms regularly expel a mutation from their lineage, it is significantly deleterious. Simple enough? Ie, the only reason DNA is ultra-conserved is because any mutations are "significantly" deleterious.
Well, that is one cruel prick of a designer who would "design" a resistance to a drug that would save thousands of individuals of his favoured species from suffering.
LoL! It was Darwinian evolution that made it a bad thing. Also I was talking about Lenski's E coli when I said "Which is why it is only ignorance that says it was all random mutations."
Obviously William Ignoramus has a reading comprehension issue
bFast: So what is the proof that something is "significantly deleterious" (All of this other stuff "size of population, mutation rate, dominance etc. are all just factors that determine how deleterious a mutation is, yes?)
The selection coefficient is a measure of relative fitness. The trajectory of a variation with a particular selection coefficient will vary depending on the factors noted above — plus chance, of course. For instance, a small selection coefficient is more significant in a large population.
bFast: Ie, the only reason DNA is ultra-conserved is because any mutations are "significantly" deleterious.
That was the supposition, but steady evolutionary pressure over long periods of time can also yield ultraconservation.
"That was the supposition, but steady evolutionary pressure over long periods of time can also yield ultraconservation."
Ie, very deleterious mutations are purged very quickly, deleterious mutations that might be called barely significant may take some generations to get purged. While this gives nature a little window to pull off the matching second mutation, its not much of a window.
Alas, one would think that the broader the scope of ultraconservation, the more obviously deleterious any mutation is. For instance, if DNA is ultraconserved in sparrows and mice, its probably pretty robust.
"Sure, but the mutation doesn't have to be lethal." Agreed. Just that any mutation has a selectably deleterious effect.
"It's also possible there were phenotypic effects that simply weren't apparent to the researchers..." Ops, you're mixing my stories. Testing the mice with conserved DNA was a rabbit trail. I think its important that the scientific community do the research as to how this DNA can persist unmodified, but it has nothing to do with the case I am seeking to discuss.
Don't teh efects of deletorious mutations tend to build up? Doesn't this kinda pace a limit on howmany deletoriosu mutations can happen? Doesn't this mean that evolution can only go so far?
Don't teh efects of deletorious mutations tend to build up? Doesn't this kinda pace a limit on howmany deletoriosu mutations can happen? Doesn't this mean that evolution can only go so far?
(facepalm) Think Nat. If deleterious mutations accumulated the ones possessing them wouldn't reproduce and the mutations would be removed from the population.
Have you ever had more than two neurons functioning at one time?
Isn't that my point? See, I'm wondering of the effectsof mildly deletorious mutations might not accumulate and be amplIfied if there is a series. I recalll reading about this effect. I think it is caled epistasis. I may be mistaken. If an adaptation depends on mutations that are mlidly deletorious, and the effects accumulate, then it means that the adaptation will not happen. This puts a limit on how far evolution can go..
Shevi S: Don't teh efects of deletorious mutations tend to build up?
If the creation of deleterious mutations is faster than can be removed by selection, then extinction can occur. However, organisms have adapted to surviving even high radiation levels, essentially by slow and careful replication.
The materialist scientist takes over with their version of truth but when pressed don't have any true answers. Our society made a big mistake turning away from the Christian theologian.
"They are either morons, liars or just plain gutless. Not unlike you, by the way."
I respectfully suggest you back off. There is no need for this vitriol. William is entitled to his position and if you wish to work at changing it do so with respect and common decency. Friendly banter is one thing, outright nastiness is another.
Nic, that is your opinion, not mine. These people are doing great harm to humanity, IMO. They are traitors to their own species and they must not be treated with respect. You go ahead and do what you think is right and I will do what I think is right.
I think you should reign in the self-righteousness amigo. Neither you nor I have any right to sit on a white horse. My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible. That is my righteousness. I think it's better than yours. Why do you think that your righteousness is better than mine?
"I think you should reign in the self-righteousness amigo. Neither you nor I have any right to sit on a white horse. My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible. That is my righteousness. I think it's better than yours. Why do you think that your righteousness is better than mine?"
That has got to be THE most confused, disjointed comment I have ever come across. But I guess it explains a lot. You simply think you're better than everyone else and can say whatever you wish, no matter how distasteful. I suppose you can say whatever you want, but the rest of course can also simply ignore you.
Mapou: "My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible."
This ought to be interesting. Exactly how am I as an atheist who thinks that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, harming humanity?
Anonymous coward: "This ought to be interesting. Exactly how am I as an atheist who thinks that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, harming humanity?" It's simple. You are lying to the whole world about something that is essential to their future. You are lying about our origins. You are a jackass in my book.
Mapou: "You do what you got to do and I do what I got to do. Don't presume you are in a position to tell me what to do. That's all there is to it."
I guess that reading comprehension was never one of your strengths. Nic, specifically said that you can do what you want.
"You are lying to the whole world about something that is essential to their future. You are lying about our origins."
Again, a serious reading comprehension issue. At what point in my comments above did I make any claim about our origins? You really should try reading something before you comment on it.
"You are a jackass in my book."
If you can't comprehend the comments that you are responding to, do you think that your opinion of me has any value? Or will convince others of it?
Please stop taking debating lessons from Joe and Barry.
"You do what you got to do and I do what I got to do. Don't presume you are in a position to tell me what to do. That's all there is to it."
I'm not presuming I can tell you what to do, I'm just pointing out you're acting like an ass and hoping you'll see the need to act differently. Silly me to have thought that.
"Mapou: "My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible."
This ought to be interesting. Exactly how am I as an atheist who thinks that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, harming humanity?""
Okay, I'll try.
Evolution has been used to justify all kincs of bad things like eugenics and social Darwinism.
And,if religious people are happier, then undermining religion is making people unhappier.
"Evolution has been used to justify all kincs of bad things like eugenics and social Darwinism."
And religion has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. So, why isn't Mapou railing against religion? And people have also used physics and chemistry to commit all sorts of atrocities. Why isn't Mapou railing against them?
"And,if religious people are happier, then undermining religion is making people unhappier."
Ignoring the myth that religious people are happier, how is evolution undermining religion? Nobody is forced to believe that evolution is true.
the sucide rate among religious people is lower. I can't thing of a better way tpo measure the happiness, or lack thereof, of a population.
You mentioned atheism and evolution in the smae sentence. IMHO opinion that is indicative of a connection, See, people use evolution to justifiy atheism.
Fortunately, evolutionists can always invoke the SHL!
SHL - Stuff Happens Law: the natural law that the Law of Natural Selection reduces to. When a scientist says “stuff happens,” he or she basically gives up, abandoning any attempt at scientific explanation. The SHL is the antithesis of science’s goal to understand the world, but since mutation and natural selection (the elements of neo-Darwinian theory) are both unguided and random, they reduce to the SHL. (http://crev.info/darwin-dictionary/#sthash.y1mGbdHM.dpuf)
LOL! After all these years the Creationists still haven't tired of the lie "science doesn't know everything about evolution so therefore it doesn't know anything!
One good thing about being a Creationist - no brains, no headaches. :)
Your position has nothing. It can't explain brains. It can't explain animals. It can't explain plants. It can't explain life. Heck if given starting populations of prokaryotes yours doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond that.
Virgil: "Heck if given starting populations of prokaryotes yours doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond that."
Joe, you have all the verbal skills of a parrot. Do you ever say something that isn't repeated ad-nauseum. You should try rearranging the words occasionally to come up with a new idea.
Joe: "Why do I need new ideas when the old ideas still work?"
Ignorantly ignoring counter arguments doesn't mean that your ideas still work. It just means that you actively chose to be ignorant. But if that works for you and allows you to sleep at night, go for it.
I have never ignored any counter arguments. I have always shown that they do not show that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes. OTOH you have always ignored the evidence and the science.
After all these years Darwinists and materialists have not managed to understand that the combinatorial explosion kills their little chicken shit voodoo science dead before it's even born. Simple math is stumbling block for you people.
Exactly what did I say that you think I am lying about? That biologists freely and openly acknowledge that they do not understand how DNA arose? That is a fact that anyone with an Internet connection can confirm.
"And why are they still evolutionary biologists?"
Duh! Because they study evolutionary biology? Do I have to spoon feed everything to you? I once worked for an evolutionary biologist, and he never looked into the question of the origin of life or of DNA. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists don't. How many ID scientists are researching the mechanisms used to realize the design?
It should be noted that this James Tour non-story is almost two years old. I thought the Creationists had milked this for all the phony propaganda value it was worth but I guess I was wrong.
BTW, here is Tour's own assessment of the value of his opinion on evolution, from his own web site. He says flat out that he is a layman and not qualified to pass judgment on the scientific case for evolution.
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion.
Cornelius, you are correct. He did not say that evolution did not and does not occur. He just said that he did not understand evolution, which is not unexpected given that his field is not Evan remotely related to it. He also said that he did not understand how DNA could exist without a cell membrane or how a cell membrane could exist without DNA.
But he was a little disingenuous when he claimed that scientists would talk about this in private, but never in public. Scientists have been quite open in saying that they don't know how life formed, or how DNA became the means of inheritance.
Scientists have been quite open in saying that they don't know how life formed, or how DNA became the means of inheritance. And yet, in spite to this admitted and self-disqualifying ignorance, they claim that they know enough to tell us that it happen by chance. Where is the science in that?
evolution has absolutely no evidence for life coming from nonlife.
Evolution doesn't depend on the origin of life. Evolution is the process that happens after you have imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources. Origin of life research is abiogenesis, a different topic altogether.
If the Great Kazoo blinked life into existence 3.5 billion years ago that wouldn't affect all the evidence for the evolution which has occurred since then one iota.
ghostrider You try to avoid the big question by claiming you don't need to know how it all started. That way you don't need to face the facts that it is impossible for life to come into being by chance. That DNA somehow assembled itself into information all by its' lonesome, along with all the machines found in the simplest cells. Talk about strong delusion. DNA is so complex that you don't even understand it but you believe it created itself. "The Great Kazoo" is smarter than you think.
Mapou: "And yet, in spite to this admitted and self-disqualifying ignorance, they claim that they know enough to tell us that it happen by chance. Where is the science in that?"
Actually, the scientific literature is full of the science. And, so far, the science isn't conclusive on the most likely mechanisms involved in the origin of life. If you want them to include ID as a serious option, all you have to do is propose possible mechanisms by which it occurred and test them.
If you want them to include ID as a serious option, all you have to do is propose possible mechanisms by which it occurred and test them.
Wrong! All we have to do is posit the entailments of Intelligent Design and see if living organisms meet that criteria. And we have done just that. OTOH your position still has nothing.
LoL! "Evolution" isn't being debated you equivocating coward. One does have to know the OoL to know how evolution proceeds. It's only if the OoL was via blind and undirected processes would we infer evolution also proceeded that way. OTOH if the OoL = ID then we would infer evolution was designed and organisms evolved by design..
Without the OoL you cannot say how life evolved as the two are directly linked. It is only if tghe OoL was via blind and unguided processes would we infer its subsequent evolution was darwinian. If the OoL = ID then we would infer life was designed to evolve and evolved by design.
Nice to see that you, like all evos, can't think that one through.
Joe GOctober 4, 2015 at 6:52 AM "Evolutionary biologists don't understand how unguided evolution could produce any multi-protein complex. They have no idea how to test such a thing.
William SpearshakeOctober 4, 2015 at 8:09 AM Sorry Joe, but we can discuss that when that is the topic of the OP. try to keep up."
So William, how does science bring forth empirical evidence in supporting the capabilities of chemistry and physical laws alone producing "macro evolution" without taking into consideration a vast array of significant issues including what Joe has described?
I suggest you get off of your anti-god soap box and try to stick to science as a method of coming to reasonable conclusion in the matter.
So William, how does science bring forth empirical evidence in supporting the capabilities of chemistry and physical laws alone producing "macro evolution" without taking into consideration a vast array of significant issues including what Joe has described?
Mainstream science isn't aware of any "significant issues" that would make macroevolution impossible. IDiot demands for infinite detail don't magically negate all the evidence for macroevolution we do have. There are plenty of good resources online where you can learn about the processes and mechanisms involved but you don't seem to be very open to learning.
"Nobody has a firm grasp on how DNA first came about. And scientists are completely honest about it.
He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution. What he is really saying is that he doesn't understand the origin of life (or, more accurately, the origin of DNA). But I don't see why Cornelius thinks that this is a reality check. The fact that this is not understood is no secret."
I think it really IS a secret to the public, who are exposed to the popular cultural media. The same medium that reports the interpretation of "scientific" results in a way that perpetuates the pop culturally preferred explanations in ways that promote continued funding for the "projects" that keep the proponents of the p.opular philosophies of the day providing funding to those who find themselves in the speculative "science" industries. Including promoting the perception that these things have been "scientifically" demonstrated as "fact"
William, you seem to defy logic and critical thinking beyond a point that allows anyone observing your comments to think you have any reasonable degree of objectivity in relation to the real requirements of serious discussion on these matters.
Bprag, where am I defying logic? I agree with you and Cornelius and (and this really hurts to say) Joe and Mapou) that nobody understands how life originated or how DNA first arose.
But you go on complaining that funding is going into researching this. It seems to me that the best use of funding is to research what we don't understand. It would be a waste to research thinks that we have a complete understanding of.
We don't even know how Stonehenge arose but we know that it was designed. And we study it as such. It wouldn't make any sense to study Stonehenge as if it was a geologic formation.
"We don't even know how Stonehenge arose but we know that it was designed."
You make it sound like we don't know whether or not it was built by humans. Not true. We study it as if it was designed because we know that it was constructed by humans. We know the time-frames involve. And we know the most likely possibilities of the techniques used to construct it.
"It wouldn't make any sense to study Stonehenge as if it was a geologic formation."
Agreed. For the same reason that we wouldn't study the pyramids as if they were geological formations. We know that they aren't. The same can't be said for the origin of life or its subsequent diversification.
"We have a methodology to make that determination. You have nothing."
You keep saying that the determination has already been made. We have been doing research on how Stonehenge and the pyramids were constructed since the scientific method was formalized. Could you provide links to the plethora of research that has been published into how the intelligently designer affects and realizes his design?
We have been doing research on how Stonehenge and the pyramids were constructed since the scientific method was formalized
And yet we still don't know.
Could you provide links to the plethora of research that has been published into how the intelligently designer affects and realizes his design?
ID isn't about the designer. AND, you have all the verbal skills of a parrot. Do you ever say something that isn't repeated ad-nauseum. You should try rearranging the words occasionally to come up with a new idea. :)
Yep. The scientific community does not really know how life arose. They don't try to hide it.
ID on the other side seems pretty sure of what was going on at the beginning of life. A creator did it. That 100% sure. How he did it and why remain a mystery.
Let's see- we can study Stonehenge without knowing how it was made. We can study Nan Madol without knowing how it was made. So obviously we can study life without knowing how it was made.
How life evolved, by design or by differing accumulated accidents, depends on the OoL, ie by design or differing accumulated accidents.
You can't know that unless you have some additional knowledge about how, why, what or who. Life may start by accident and be modified by design or life may start by design and be modified by natural processes. Or some unknown effect may be involved
We don't have to know exactly how it was designed, all that matters if it it was or not.
Then ID is unlike the study of Stonehenge, where the who ,what ,how and why matters a great deal
You can't know that unless you have some additional knowledge about how, why, what or who.
That's your opinion, and only an opinion.
Life may start by accident and be modified by design or life may start by design and be modified by natural processes. Or some unknown effect may be involved
And cars are designed but they way they move is just an accident. Computers are designed but what it outputs is random.
Then ID is unlike the study of Stonehenge, where the who ,what ,how and why matters a great deal
And after all these years we still can't answer those questions. So obviously it doesn't matter. Does that mean that Stonehenge is a geologic formation?
Those are questions that come only AFTER design is determined and only can be answered by studying it (and all relevant evidence). That is why ID makes them SEPARATE questions. ID doesn't stop anyone from trying to answer them.
It is logic, all you can say is it is designed, period. Not the why or how or when. So you cannot say what the designer intended or how it works even when it came to be and that is what you were trying to do.
LoL! We get to those by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
So you cannot say what the designer intended or how it works even when it came to be and that is what you were trying to do.
We can definitely say how it works just by studying it. Duh. We can and have discussed intentions just by studying it. And we can also try to determine when- as archaeologists do.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
Joe: LoL! We get to those by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
How do decide what " evidence" is relevant without any knowledge of why or how something was designed or what non intelligent processes have acted on it, either by design or not?
Pick a designed biological feature and demonstrate your methodology
Joe: That wasn't the question. You are moving the goal posts.
Your didn't ask a question but made a statement: " We can definitely say how it works just by studying it. Duh. We can and have discussed intentions just by studying it.
how something works and how something was designed to work can be two different things in human design. You claim that ID can tell the difference infer intelligent design .
By studying the design we have determined that the universe was intelligently designed for scientific discovery.
See,you assume how it works was how is was designed. I can use a rock as a hammer but it was not designed to be one.
Only an imbecile would say there was a contradiction. Enter ghostbrain.
The OoL matters to how we study life
That means we would study life differently if we inferred it was the product of Intelligent Design as opposed to blind and undirected processes.
So obviously we can study life without knowing how it was made.
That means we do not have to know exactly how the designer(s) designed and manufactured living organisms in order to study life as an Intelligent Design.
But thank you for continuing to prove that you are a narrow-minded infant.
Geez, moron, how do we study Stonehenge differently than we would if it was a geological formation? Even Dawkins understands my point. Obviously you are just an imbecile.
For one we would infer that organisms evolved by design and not natural selection and drift. ID would mean Shapiro, Spetner and Marshall are right in that organisms can modify their own genomes- they are in control.
For one we would infer that organisms evolved by design and not natural selection and drift. ID would mean Shapiro, Spetner and Marshall are right in that organisms can modify their own genomes- they are in control.
We would study it as a designed entity. We would study it with the understanding living organisms had control over their genomes We would look for something more than just the physio-chemical properties that drives the functionality of all systems and subsystems.
We would employ methods you couldn't understand. And we would be doing much more than all evoTARD researchers could ever do.
Apparently you and the rest of the IDiots don't understand them either since you can't describe them or show anyone using them. Tell me again Joke, how many papers has the IDiot phony science journal Bio-Complexity published this year? :)
ghostrider: quote: Evolution doesn’t depend on the origin of life. Evolution is the process that happens after you have imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources. Origin of life research is abiogenesis, a different topic altogether.
If the Great Kazoo blinked life into existence 3.5 billion years ago that wouldn’t affect all the evidence for the evolution which has occurred since then one iota end quote:
So, Szostak at Harvard has a “model” for origin of life where you get a self replicator, but little or no DNA or any genetic material. That would seem to leave virtually everything, including the origin of DNA in the evolution camp. How far is that from them having to answer virtually everything they claim has “nothing to do with evolution” (I.e.: nearly every aspect of origin of life that is a challenge for them to explain)?
Commenter Joe: So, Szostak at Harvard has a “model” for origin of life where you get a self replicator, but little or no DNA or any genetic material.
That is incorrect. Szostak works on the assumption that RNA is a the genetic material. They are actively working on the problem. http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
Where are these "imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources" found?
With a few trivial exceptions they can be found in every square yard of the planet's surface, including the oceans, the highest mountains, the deepest caves.
What is so controversial about what he says. All he said is that he doesn't understand how evolution could produce DNA without a membrane, or a membrane without DNA. Neither do evolutionary biologists. And they say it all the time.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary biologists don't understand how unguided evolution could produce any multi-protein complex. They have no idea how to test such a thing.
DeleteSorry Joe, but we can discuss that when that is the topic of the OP. try to keep up.
DeleteLoL! You can't discuss the OP. All you can do is bluff and try to deceive.
DeleteThank you for the kind words Joe.
DeleteThank you for admitting that all you do is bluff and try to deceive.
DeleteWilliam
Delete"he doesn't understand how evolution could produce DNA without a membrane, or a membrane without DNA. Neither do evolutionary biologists. And they say it all the time."
But they always interpret all evidence from the point of "fact" that it was produced by evolution. (We don't understand it yet, but one day we will!)
I believe that is the point of this blog: Evolution is a religion.
How would you help him understand and why don't you William? He buys a lunch.
ReplyDeleteHow could anyone make him understand what nobody understands? Yet.
DeleteNobody has a firm grasp on how DNA first came about. And scientists are completely honest about it.
He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution. What he is really saying is that he doesn't understand the origin of life (or, more accurately, the origin of DNA). But I don't see why Cornelius thinks that this is a reality check. The fact that this is not understood is no secret.
"He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution." Huh? I understand microevolution, which is to say I have an internalized model that requires nothing but natural law to explain intra-species changes. I can even conceive of some inter-species changes (the development of new species). However this model totally collapses when I try to let it produce any of the real, complex structures. I do not have a naturalistic model that explains the development of any organ or complex system.
DeletebFast
DeleteHowever this model totally collapses when I try to let it produce any of the real, complex structures.
Well no, it doesn't. Reality is not constrained by your inability to understand it.
I do not have a naturalistic model that explains the development of any organ or complex system
Science does. Plenty of them actually.
Evolution and development of the building plan of the vertebrate heart
No lunch for you, William.
DeleteHe says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution.
DeleteIt's only propaganda, and not science, that says macro-evolution is micro-evolution writ large. There aren't any known microevolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macroevolution.
Joke: "It's only propaganda, and not science, that says macro-evolution is micro-evolution writ large
Delete."
Species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
By that definition of species, we have already done that with dogs. Chihuahuas are physically incapable of impregnating a Great Dane. And a chihuahua impregnated by a Great Dane (physically impossible as well) could not deliver the pups naturally. All this through microevolution in a few years.
LoL! Macroevolution is more than mere speciation. Coyne goes over macro in "Why Evolution Is True".:
Delete“MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution.
“MICROEVOLUTION: ‘Minor’ evolutionary change, such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.”
- Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269.
Ya see, moron, Creationists doubt macroevolution and yet they accept speciation.
ghostwriter, "Well no, it doesn't. Reality is not constrained by your inability to understand it."
DeleteYou misunderstand me, I am not saying anything about reality, I am speaking of my internal model, my internalized view of how evolution works.
I was responding specifically to the charge, "He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution."
I understand, or have an understanding of, microevolution, but I do not understand macroevolution. Reality be damned, my understanding includes microevolution, and my understanding does not include macroevolution.
bFast
DeleteI understand, or have an understanding of, microevolution, but I do not understand macroevolution. Reality be damned, my understanding includes microevolution, and my understanding does not include macroevolution.
That would seems to be your problem, not science's.
Science cannot explain macroevolution.
Delete"That would seems to be your problem, not science's."
DeleteWhether that is my problem or science's is a different question. However, I, like Dr. Tour, understand microevolution but not macroevolution. The initial declaration, He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution" is wrong. The fact that you don't seem to be able to grasp this simple logic proves to me that your grasp of logic is not good enough for you to be able to explain macroevolution to me. In fact, it demonstrates to me that you are another example of someone who buys into the wonderful theory despite having a poor grasp of logic.
bFast
DeleteThe initial declaration, He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution" is wrong.
No, the statement is correct. The processes that cause microevolution are the same ones that cause macroevolution. The only difference is at the macro level you get some additional selection effects like geographic isolation. The underlying genetic mechanisms are identical.
Tour, an admitted layman, confused understanding macroevolution with the origin of DNA. If tour actually does understand the processes that cause micro-e then by definition he must also understand macro-e.
Looks like you need remedial courses on logic and biology.
The processes that cause microevolution are the same ones that cause macroevolution.
DeleteAnd yet there aren't any known microevolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macroevolution. Go figure.
"The processes that cause microevolution are the same ones that cause macroevolution."
DeleteReally? Microevolution is quite explainable with change in allele frequency and point mutation. Are you suggesting that these two mechanisms explain macroevolution? 'Seems that to get macroevolution (you know, the kind that produces new organs and stuff) to work you are going to need gene duplication and co-option, a very unlikely phenomenon. You are also very likely to need the development of de novo genes -- statistically close enough to impossible. You are going to need a very fine tuned functioning system of natural select (the neutral theorists will hate you) etc. Nope, macroevolution requires more than change in allele frequency and point mutation.
Sorry bFast but all those things causing genetic variations (and more) you claim are "next to impossible" have been empirically observed to occur.
DeleteAnother IDiot flail and fail. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
ghostrider is either deluded or very dishonest as there isn't any evidence for unguided evolution producing new genes.
DeleteGhostrider still doesn't get the point. Microevolution is explained with just a couple of tools: change in allele frequency, and point mutations.
DeleteIf his position supporting the statement, "He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution" requires that macroevolution require no more tools in the toolbox than microevolution does. Macroevolution requires more tools. Macroevolution is not merely microevolution X time.
As far as "all those things causing genetic variations ... have been empirically observed to occur" goes, I don't think they have been observed occurring, but evidence that they have occurred is left in the DNA record. However, what has not been left in the DNA record is the cause of their occurrence.
Oh, um, IDiot? You learned that grand insult from Larry Mor?n, didn't you? Nairy an original thought.
bFast
DeleteGhostrider still doesn't get the point. Microevolution is explained with just a couple of tools: change in allele frequency, and point mutations.
Microevolution also entails frame shifts from insertions and deletions, duplication with subsequent SNPs on the duplicated section, chromosomal translocations and inversions, HGT, etc. It's not just SNPs. Also a change in allele frequency doesn't cause evolution, it's the result of evolutionary processes.
Please describe the magic barrier that prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones.
There aren't any known microevolutionary events that can extrapolated into macroevolution. You don't get to hide behind father time and pretend that you are doing science.
Delete"hide behind father time"
DeleteAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Joke, you're ID's best and brightest, bar none.
"Microevolution also entails ... " I am unconvinced that any of the stuff on your list happens in an unguided fashion, and produces anything meaningful. It is exactly this kind of DNA modification that the "third way" crows says is strategically done by the organism itself. However, major edits to DNA don't, in my opinion, produce any good thing except that they be strategic.
Deleteghostbrain is totally unaware, ie ignorant, that all evos can do is hide behind father time as if that cures all of their problems. As in "minor variation, repeated over millions upon millions of generations is all that is required."
DeleteUntestable, unobservable and therefor not science.
Joe G, I think you've got ghostrider slightly wrong. The phenomena he mentions: frame shifts from insertions and deletions, duplication with subsequent SNPs on the duplicated section, chromosomal translocations and inversions, HGT, etc. all are recorded in the DNA. They do happen.
DeleteThe question is, why, what causes them to happen? The evos presume that "it happened" therefore "it happend by chance". This is not a valid assertion. The statistical chance of these events happening, and producing beneficial outcomes must be calculated and shown. I doubt that the data is there.
bFast
DeleteThe question is, why, what causes them to happen? The evos presume that "it happened" therefore "it happend by chance".
All the genetic variations I listed do happen in a stochastic fashion, by chance if you will. In 75+ years of testing no one has ever produced any evidence the variations were directed by some outside force.
The statistical chance of these events happening, and producing beneficial outcomes must be calculated and shown.
The probability that a genetic variation will produce a survival benefit is completely dependent on the environmental selection pressures. It has been experimentally shown that a variation which gives it owners as little as a 0.1% better chance of reproducing than those without will (depending on population size) usually spread through and be fixed in a population. Of course in the real world the environment is constantly changing so the population is always being steered towards the moving target of local fitness maxima.
Your questions aren't exactly new. They have been thought about and investigated by science decades ago.
If you're really interested in learning here is a good paper on the topic.
The population genetics of beneficial mutations
Hmmm, Shapiro et. el. seem to solidly disagree. My own experiments show that a mildly or even moderately beneficial mutation usually kisses it goodbye rather quickly. It seems to take hundreds of whacks at the can for a beneficial mutation to develop enough of a beachhead to get going. Larry Moran reports the same, that beneficial mutations usually don't make it out of the incubator.
DeleteOh, um "In 75+ years of testing no one has ever produced any evidence the variations were directed by some outside force.", what would such evidence look like?
bFast:
DeleteThe phenomena he mentions: frame shifts from insertions and deletions, duplication with subsequent SNPs on the duplicated section, chromosomal translocations and inversions, HGT, etc. all are recorded in the DNA. They do happen.
Yes, I know. I never said otherwise.
ghostbrain:
DeleteThe probability that a genetic variation will produce a survival benefit is completely dependent on the environmental selection pressures.
Which is why it is useless- whatever is good enough to survive does so. And that changes.
It has been experimentally shown that a variation which gives it owners as little as a 0.1% better chance of reproducing than those without will (depending on population size) usually spread through and be fixed in a population.
Only if the selection pressures remain the same, as does the competition. Otherwise you getting a changing selection pressure and competing mutations. Both kill fixation rates.
Of course in the real world the environment is constantly changing so the population is always being steered towards the moving target of local fitness maxima.
Right a wobbling stability that doesn't produce any progress. Macroevolution is a non-starter.
bFast
DeleteHmmm, Shapiro et. el. seem to solidly disagree. My own experiments show that a mildly or even moderately beneficial mutation usually kisses it goodbye rather quickly. It seems to take hundreds of whacks at the can for a beneficial mutation to develop enough of a beachhead to get going. Larry Moran reports the same, that beneficial mutations usually don't make it out of the incubator.
You are talking about cases in a stable environment where species are already very close to a local fitness maximum. Of course then there aren't many ways to improve. But in the real world the environment is constantly changing, fitness peaks are constantly moving. Mutations that were neutral and fixed by drift may become beneficial in the new environment. Or two mutations that happened at different times may combine to be beneficial. That's what happened in the Lenski LTEE.
It's really dumb to demand science calculate probabilities for such occurrences. You don't need specific numbers to know an event occurred. No one can give you the probability that Krakatoa would erupt when it did or the Titanic would sink but we have plenty of evidence those events happened.
Oh, um "In 75+ years of testing no one has ever produced any evidence the variations were directed by some outside force.", what would such evidence look like?
You tell me, it's your hypothesis.
LoL!@ ghostbrain- I forgot more about science than you will ever know- and I don't forget. I also know more about evolution than you will ever know.
DeleteHeck you are so stupid that you think transcription and translation are chemical processes.
And by ghostbrain's "logic" "YEC" means "someone who knows science better than the evoTARDs ever will.
ghostbrain is just upset because I expose its ignorance every time it posts.
DeleteGhostrider, on Joe G, I agree that the best management method is to ignore him.
Delete"You tell me, it's your hypothesis." My hypothesis of who is doing the editing is simple, its the same cause that caused the big bang. I don't in any way believe that multiverse theories address the issue of fine tuning.
As to how to know, well that's a different story. The first question that must be asked, asked very clearly by Behe is "where is the edge of evolution", is there a clearly defined limit to what evolution can do?
Behe says that experimental evidence shows that if two mutations are required to achieve a result, and if either mutation is deleterious on its own, then evolution cannot realistically achieve the result. Is this a statement that you understand and can appreciate?
bFast
DeleteBehe says that experimental evidence shows that if two mutations are required to achieve a result, and if either mutation is deleterious on its own, then evolution cannot realistically achieve the result. Is this a statement that you understand and can appreciate?
Behe made the ridiculous claim in a popular press book because he knew it would never pass scientific muster in a real journal. He supported it with a few cherry-picked values not representative of reality. The few scientists who paid any attention to his blithering pointed out that it's already been disproven by numerous empirical examples.
Are those statements that you understand and can appreciate?
Hmmm, Consider the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
DeleteThis renowned longitudinal study of e-coli evolution showed 1 improved function in 60,000 generations. (Assuming a 10 year per generation rate in our human lineage, that's over 1/2 million years worth of evolution, in a population size much greater than that of man's lineage.)
This one evolutionary benefit required two mutational events. One had to precede the other, but it was not deleterious to the organism. This finding is consistent with Behe, and is touted and shouted from the housetops as proof that evolution works.
Why so?
Oh, in the mean time, please provide me with your best evidence that two mutations, each deleterious to the organism on their own, can be produced by simply natural means. I don't buy it. I believe, based upon simple logic, that this truly is the edge of evolution.
DeleteHere is a very detailed beatdown of Behe's idiocy by molecular biologist Kenneth Miller. Behe's beginner's mistakes and simple math blunders are all spelled out. Everything in this article is well supported by reference from the primary scientific literature.
DeletePlease read it and we can discuss just how bad Behe's stupidity is.
Edging towards Irrelevance - Behe's Bogus "Edge"
I haven't read the entire paper, but so far I have found Ken Miller's critique to be a critique of Behe's example, not of Behe's premise.
DeleteHe says, "But Behe was dead wrong about it being “strongly deleterious.” In fact, it seems to have no
effect on transport activity at all." So Ken Miller says that a mutation that Behe suggested would be deleterious was not. That finding does not challenge the algorithm: "two mutations, each deleterious to the organism on their own, (producing a benefit cannot) be produced by simply natural means."
Please show me an example where a system was observed picking up two mutations where either on its own was deleterious, but both together offered benefit.
bFast: This renowned longitudinal study of e-coli evolution showed 1 improved function in 60,000 generations.
DeleteThat is incorrect. There were about 10-20 beneficial mutations, and about 100 total mutations reaching fixation.
bFast: This one evolutionary benefit required two mutational events.
Actually, it was a fairly complex process. It required a potentiating mutation, but then a tandem duplication, then additional optimizing mutations.
bFast: One had to precede the other, but it was not deleterious to the organism. This finding is consistent with Behe, and is touted and shouted from the housetops as proof that evolution works.
Behe's entire claim is that improbable events are improbable, hardly a shattering conclusion. The question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve, and the answer is clearly yes.
By the way, the reason why it is important in evolutionary biology is because it shows contingency in evolution. If we "rewind the tape of life", we may not see the same result.
" The question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve, and the answer is clearly yes."
DeleteWrong question. My question is, if it can be demonstrated that two mutations were required to produce a result, and if it can be demonstrated that either mutation, on its own, is deleterious, have we falsified the neo-Darwinian theory?
Your answer, of course, is "of course not" because the evolutionary model that you espouse is impervious to statistical analysis and to common sense.
bFast: Your answer, of course, is "of course not" because the evolutionary model that you espouse is impervious to statistical analysis and to common sense.
DeleteIt's a standard problem in population genetics. It depends on how deleterious the mutation, the size of the population, mutation rate, and whether the population is diploid, and if diploid, whether the allele is dominant and recessive.
bFast
DeleteThat finding does not challenge the algorithm: "two mutations, each deleterious to the organism on their own, (producing a benefit cannot) be produced by simply natural means."
Why do both have to be deleterious? The real world examples shown blew right past Behe's "edge" and produced observed evolution with two mutations, something Behe claims is impossible. Behe is flat out wrong, end of story.
I'm a little confused. I was under the impression that the whole point of Behe's book is that since., we know mutation rates, and reproductive rates, w can predict an adaptation that takes one, two or more mutations will happen. The frequency of chloroquin resistance matches or prediction. A mutation requires more mutations will take two long.
Delete"Why do both have to be deleterious?"
DeleteIt appears that there are situations, especially in protein folding, where mutations are required in matched pairs, or more than pairs. These matched pair scenarios create situations where if either partner is changed, we no longer have a matched pair.
" His stupidity in all things related to evolutionary theory is legendary across the web."
DeleteBut there is no other man on earth I would trust with my toaster. He is a superhero of small appliance repair.
Nat
DeleteThe frequency of chloroquin resistance matches or prediction.
No it didn't. Behe said it would take hundreds of million of years. In reality it took 15. Read the Miller article for the details.
When DNA is ultra-conserved, one would think that it is both important and precise. Any DNA ultra-conserved across mammilia must surely be important (despite highly conserved DNA being knocked out of mice, and having the mice show no obvious effects at all, but lets not notice the evolutionarily inexplicable.)
Deletegr:
DeleteIt's been a while since I read his book, but I seem to recall that Behe wrote it would take millions of years for an adaptation that requires more than two mutations. He wrote that we've seen chloroquine resistance happen, since it requires only two mutations. That's the "Edge of Evolution." He wrote that for malaria to get around the sickle cell gene, it would take millions of years, so it hasn't happened yet. It would also take a long time for a two mutation adaptation to happen in humans, since they don't reproduce at the same rate as malaria. That's why all the adaptations in humans for malarial resistance involve one mutation.
"He wrote that for malaria to get around the sickle cell gene, it would take millions of years, so it hasn't happened yet."
DeleteID is quick to jump on things like this. But very slow to address why it chose sickle cell, a terrible genetic disease, as its defence against malaria. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense. But from an ID perspective, it seems like a very poor, and cruel, solution.
bFast
DeleteWhen DNA is ultra-conserved, one would think that it is both important and precise. Any DNA ultra-conserved across mammilia must surely be important (despite highly conserved DNA being knocked out of mice, and having the mice show no obvious effects at all, but lets not notice the evolutionarily inexplicable.)
And what was the result of that study?
Here, I'll help. From the paper.
"These results, while not inclusive of all the possible phenotypic impact of the deleted sequences, indicate that extreme sequence constraint does not necessarily reflect crucial functions required for viability."
Seems science freely admits it doesn't know the purpose of those conserved sequences. Why do you think "I don't know" is a problem for evolution?
Your turn - what is ID's explanation for the DNA sequence conservation and the results? If you say "I don't know either" does that falsify ID?
Behe says that sickle cell was not designed. It evolved. The whole point of his book is that evolution can happen but it is very tightly constrained by things like time, and can only go so far. By the way, he did mention in the book that there are other types of resistance to malaria.
DeleteNat
DeleteThat's why all the adaptations in humans for malarial resistance involve one mutation.
This is demonstrably false. The stepwise path to resistance documented in the 2014 Summers paper took at least a dozen separate mutations. Read the Miller article or stay ignorant, your choice.
I got thsi from the abstarct of the paper:
Delete"A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity, and as few as four conferred full activity. The finding that diverse PfCRT variants are all limited in their capacity to transport CQ suggests that resistance could be overcome by reoptimizing the CQ dosage."
It says two mutations. I don't see a dozen anywhere. Maybe you need more to get full resistance.
Oh, and Behe did talk about there were other mutations in teh parasite with resistance, but they probably weren't necessary. It seems from the articel that theyweren't necessary to confer resistance just full resistance.
DeleteShevi: "Behe says that sickle cell was not designed. It evolved."
DeleteSo, designed = good. Evolved = bad. I get it. So, Huntingtons, Tai Sachs, Marphans, haemophilia, colour blindnes, etc. all evolved. What, exactly were our designed features?
Nat
DeleteIt says two mutations. I don't see a dozen anywhere. Maybe you need more to get full resistance
Those are just for the CQ transport activity which is a subset of the full resistance to evolve.
Why were so dishonest to skip over this sentence in the abstract:
"A number of distinct PfCRT haplotypes, containing between 4 and 10 mutations, have given rise to CQ resistance in different parts of the world."
Fig. 3 also contains a diagram of a step-wise result that took over 20 mutations for resistance to evolve.
I know you're not very bright Nat but is 4 greater than 1?
All Behe ever talked about was the two mutations needed for the CQ transport. That's all. HEmetioned he other halotypes as not eing critical, like hte article says.
DeleteHere is a very detailed beatdown of Behe's idiocy by molecular biologist Kenneth Miller.
DeleteMiller has been refuted and proven to be dishonest. I can see why you would count on him.
Zachriel:
DeleteThe question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve, and the answer is clearly yes.
Wrong! The question is whether a novel irreducibly complex function can evolve via undirected processes such as natural selection. And there isn't any evidence for that.
Actually, it was a fairly complex process. It required a potentiating mutation, but then a tandem duplication, then additional optimizing mutations.
DeleteWhich is why it is only ignorance that says it was all random mutations.
Nat
DeleteAll Behe ever talked about was the two mutations needed for the CQ transport.
He also claimed it would take hundreds of millions of years. Behe's an idiot and he was proven wrong.
BTW here's what you claimed above:
Nat/Shevi: "That's why all the adaptations in humans for malarial resistance involve one mutation."
The minimum was still 4 as the paper shows, and sometimes could be much more than that. All in less than 15 years. You really are not very bright.
And according to evolutionism all those mutations were sheer dumb luck, which is outside the realm of science. You really are not very bright for not realizing that.
DeletePoor angry toaster repairman Joke. He's so ronery! :D
DeleteGhostrider, "Seems science freely admits it doesn't know the purpose of those conserved sequences. Why do you think "I don't know" is a problem for evolution?"
Delete"I don't know" is a problem for NDE in this case because natural selection is the only DNA quality preservative in the theory. (Oh, I know, there's DNA validation and repair mechanisms all over the place, each of them ostensibly developed via NS.) If DNA is being preserved without benefit in the phenotype, then another preservative is required. The fact that another preservative is required and not known is not part of the public story of NDE.) This kind of "I don't know" is very different than the well known "I don't know" of first life. The theory predicts otherwise!
Ghostrider, "Your turn - what is ID's explanation for the DNA sequence conservation and the results? If you say "I don't know either" does that falsify ID?"
This is a standard punt -- the "your theory is no better" argument. It is stupid! Your theory rests on natural selection being the selector for all improvement, and the selector against all degradation. If something else is selecting against degradation, then your theory has a major hole.
ID theories (of which there are many) see no trouble with their designers working on something in DNA that hasn't been implemented yet. Having something preserved without obvious purpose is realistically expected.
MOST IMPORTANTLY -- your theory must stand or fall against the evidence, other theories notwithstanding. If the only other theory is "I don't know", your theory must still be consistent with the evidence.
Now, past this rabbit trail. What does the NDE theory teach about 106 base pairs that differ in only 2 points between chimp and chicken? NDE would declare that this data is preserved because any single point change would be deleterious to the organism, would it not. (Or does your theory make no actual predictions.)
bFast: If DNA is being preserved without benefit in the phenotype ...
DeleteThat's a big if. While the mice were viable in the lab, it's quite possible they would be at a disadvantage in nature. That's been found in studies of yeast, where ultraconserved regions are altered, the yeast appear to be viable, but when stressed, they die. By the way, changes to ultraconserved regions are found in carcinomas, which may be a clue.
"That's a big if. While the mice were viable in the lab, it's quite possible they would be at a disadvantage in nature."
DeleteHence the difference between physics and biology. Physicists regularly, and very publicly, go to great lengths to validate/falsify their theories. If you biologists do question your pet, you do so very quietly. Is there someone doing the study to find out if this mystery has an easy solution? The data has been out for a good number of years, yet this data that appears to falsify NDE has not been publicly tested. 'Seems that someone needs to set up an environment with a bunch of DNA knock-out mice to see if their missing DNA makes a real difference.
In the mean time, folks like me look at the lack of action on the part of the biological community, and we conclude that you have a problem of overconfidence in your theory.
bFast: Is there someone doing the study to find out if this mystery has an easy solution?
DeleteThere's a great deal of research into ultraconserved elements, including commercial interest. So far, ultraconserved elements are cryptic, but it's thought that understanding how they interact with the rest of the genome will resolve the issue. It's still a difficult technical problem.
Did you have an alternative mechanism of conservation?
bFast
DeleteThe data has been out for a good number of years, yet this data that appears to falsify NDE has not been publicly tested.
How in the world do you think this data falsifies ToE?? Do you really think that this one unknown somehow negates all the rest of the huge amount of positive evidence for ToE we do have??
Wow. Just wow.
There isn't a ToE. If a ToE existed you would be able to link to it. You cannot so you lose.
DeleteGhostrider, "Do you really think that this one unknown somehow negates all the rest ... " Hmmm, the neo-Darwinan theory is supposed to be adequate to explain ALL of DNA. How many black swans do I need to prove false the statement that ALL swans are white?
DeleteThat said, this remains to be a side-show argument. We're still stuck at having your side acknowledge that if two point mutations are each deleterious, the pair is not going to happen. That, of course, would produce falsifiability, and we can't have that.
bFast
DeleteHmmm, the neo-Darwinan theory is supposed to be adequate to explain ALL of DNA.
Good Lord bF, where did you get that dumb idea? There isn't any scientific field anywhere that has every answer to every unknown.
We're still stuck at having your side acknowledge that if two point mutations are each deleterious, the pair is not going to happen.
Since evolution doesn't depend on Behe's idiotic strawman I see no problems for evolutionary theory.
Joke: "Which is why it is only ignorance that says it was all random mutations."
DeleteWell, that is one cruel prick of a designer who would "design" a resistance to a drug that would save thousands of individuals of his favoured species from suffering.
GR:
DeleteWaht I recall reading is that Behe wrote that CQ transport can happen in a short time because it requires only two mutations, just like the preidictions based on known mutation rates, and the paper.
He also says that humans evolved reisistance to malaria that involved only one mutation. That can happen. If it reuires more, there might not be enough time.
WS:
Cars were designed, but they break down. The same could be said for just about any designed things. The genome was designed., then it broke down.
Has malaria developed resistance to quinine? If not, why not? Could it be that it requires too many mutations? I'm just asking.
Delete"Cars were designed, but they break down. The same could be said for just about any designed things. The genome was designed., then it broke down."
DeleteThat wasn't the point. Joke was claiming that the resistance was "designed", not that it was a breakdown analogous to the breakdown of a car. But I am sure that he will attempt to spin his words, much in the same way that he continues to claim that wavelength equals frequency.
Nat
DeleteHe also says that humans evolved reisistance to malaria that involved only one mutation. That can happen. If it reuires more, there might not be enough time.
I just showed you multiple examples of from 4 to 20 stepwise mutations that all occurred in less than two decades.
Just how stupid are you Nat? Does your brain not work at all?
GH:
DeleteNobpdy questions the fact that mutations happen, poi ntwise or otherwise. The probem is that whether they happen often enough to createa new function, like CQ tranport. If it only requires two mutations, lke CQ transport, then it can happen in the mqlarial parasite. If it requires more, then it becomes a problem. That's all Behe ever said.
See, resistance to quinine might take more than to mutations, so it will take a lot longer to happen, ifit happens at all. Same thing with malaria finding a way around sickle cell.
DeletebFast: We're still stuck at having your side acknowledge that if two point mutations are each deleterious, the pair is not going to happen.
DeleteAs already pointed out, it's a standard problem in population genetics. It depends on how deleterious the mutation, the size of the population, mutation rate, and whether the population is diploid, and if diploid, whether the allele is dominant and recessive.
So what is the proof that something is "significantly deleterious" (All of this other stuff "size of population, mutation rate, dominance etc. are all just factors that determine how deleterious a mutation is, yes?)
Delete'Seems the answer is simple, if organisms regularly expel a mutation from their lineage, it is significantly deleterious. Simple enough? Ie, the only reason DNA is ultra-conserved is because any mutations are "significantly" deleterious.
Well, that is one cruel prick of a designer who would "design" a resistance to a drug that would save thousands of individuals of his favoured species from suffering.
DeleteLoL! It was Darwinian evolution that made it a bad thing. Also I was talking about Lenski's E coli when I said "Which is why it is only ignorance that says it was all random mutations."
Obviously William Ignoramus has a reading comprehension issue
But I am sure that he will attempt to spin his words, much in the same way that he continues to claim that wavelength equals frequency.
DeleteOne-to-one correspondence. Why do you think your ignorance refutes that fact?
ghostbrain:
DeleteI see no problems for evolutionary theory.
Other than the fact that there isn't any "evolutionary theory", of course. LoL!
bFast: So what is the proof that something is "significantly deleterious" (All of this other stuff "size of population, mutation rate, dominance etc. are all just factors that determine how deleterious a mutation is, yes?)
DeleteThe selection coefficient is a measure of relative fitness. The trajectory of a variation with a particular selection coefficient will vary depending on the factors noted above — plus chance, of course. For instance, a small selection coefficient is more significant in a large population.
bFast: Ie, the only reason DNA is ultra-conserved is because any mutations are "significantly" deleterious.
That was the supposition, but steady evolutionary pressure over long periods of time can also yield ultraconservation.
"That was the supposition, but steady evolutionary pressure over long periods of time can also yield ultraconservation."
DeleteIe, very deleterious mutations are purged very quickly, deleterious mutations that might be called barely significant may take some generations to get purged. While this gives nature a little window to pull off the matching second mutation, its not much of a window.
Alas, one would think that the broader the scope of ultraconservation, the more obviously deleterious any mutation is. For instance, if DNA is ultraconserved in sparrows and mice, its probably pretty robust.
bFast: if DNA is ultraconserved in sparrows and mice, its probably pretty robust.
DeleteSure, but the mutation doesn't have to be lethal. The evolutionary pressure just has to be consistent over generations.
It's also possible there were phenotypic effects that simply weren't apparent to the researchers in the laboratory environment.
"Sure, but the mutation doesn't have to be lethal." Agreed. Just that any mutation has a selectably deleterious effect.
Delete"It's also possible there were phenotypic effects that simply weren't apparent to the researchers..." Ops, you're mixing my stories. Testing the mice with conserved DNA was a rabbit trail. I think its important that the scientific community do the research as to how this DNA can persist unmodified, but it has nothing to do with the case I am seeking to discuss.
Concerning the two deleterious mutations, you have yet to respond. It's a standard problem in population genetics.
DeleteDon't teh efects of deletorious mutations tend to build up? Doesn't this kinda pace a limit on howmany deletoriosu mutations can happen? Doesn't this mean that evolution can only go so far?
DeleteNat
DeleteDon't teh efects of deletorious mutations tend to build up? Doesn't this kinda pace a limit on howmany deletoriosu mutations can happen? Doesn't this mean that evolution can only go so far?
(facepalm) Think Nat. If deleterious mutations accumulated the ones possessing them wouldn't reproduce and the mutations would be removed from the population.
Have you ever had more than two neurons functioning at one time?
gr:
DeleteIsn't that my point? See, I'm wondering of the effectsof mildly deletorious mutations might not accumulate and be amplIfied if there is a series. I recalll reading about this effect.
I think it is caled epistasis. I may be mistaken. If an adaptation depends on mutations that are mlidly deletorious, and the effects accumulate, then it means that the adaptation will not happen. This puts a limit on how far evolution can go..
DeleteYou are wildly mistaken. That's what being a dummy and getting all your science from YEC websites will do to you.
Shevi S: Don't teh efects of deletorious mutations tend to build up?
DeleteIf the creation of deleterious mutations is faster than can be removed by selection, then extinction can occur. However, organisms have adapted to surviving even high radiation levels, essentially by slow and careful replication.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe materialist scientist takes over with their version of truth but when pressed don't have any true answers. Our society made a big mistake turning away from the Christian theologian.
ReplyDeleteLouis,
ReplyDelete"They are either morons, liars or just plain gutless. Not unlike you, by the way."
I respectfully suggest you back off. There is no need for this vitriol. William is entitled to his position and if you wish to work at changing it do so with respect and common decency. Friendly banter is one thing, outright nastiness is another.
Thanks Nic. But some people are simply incapable of having an honest and civil disagreement. People like Joe and Mapou come to mind.
DeleteYou and I disagree on most things, but I really do enjoy the discussions.
William,
Delete"You and I disagree on most things, but I really do enjoy the discussions."
Yes, we do disagree on many things but as you say that does not mean we cannot be civil with each other and enjoy the banter.
I really think guys like Louis and ghostrider are embarrassing and do more harm than good to their respective positions.
But some people are simply incapable of having an honest and civil disagreement.
DeleteAll evos fit into that category.
Moi: "But some people are simply incapable of having an honest and civil disagreement."
DeleteJoe: "All evos fit into that category."
Thank you for proving my point Joe.
Thank you for proving my point Joe.
DeleteSo your point was that evos are incapable of having a honest and civil disagreement then.
"So your point was that evos are incapable of having a honest and civil disagreement then."
DeleteIf you want to prove your reading compression problems, by all means, interpret it the way you like.
We already know that you have major reading comprehension problems. I am just using your tactics against you.
DeleteNic, that is your opinion, not mine. These people are doing great harm to humanity, IMO. They are traitors to their own species and they must not be treated with respect. You go ahead and do what you think is right and I will do what I think is right.
ReplyDeleteLouis,
Delete"These people are doing great harm to humanity, IMO. They are traitors to their own species and they must not be treated with respect."
And treating your fellow human beings with disrespect is helpful to humanity? Interesting logic.
Nic,
DeleteI think you should reign in the self-righteousness amigo. Neither you nor I have any right to sit on a white horse. My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible. That is my righteousness. I think it's better than yours. Why do you think that your righteousness is better than mine?
Louis,
Delete"I think you should reign in the self-righteousness amigo. Neither you nor I have any right to sit on a white horse. My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible. That is my righteousness. I think it's better than yours. Why do you think that your righteousness is better than mine?"
That has got to be THE most confused, disjointed comment I have ever come across. But I guess it explains a lot. You simply think you're better than everyone else and can say whatever you wish, no matter how distasteful. I suppose you can say whatever you want, but the rest of course can also simply ignore you.
Have a nice day.
Mapou: "My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible."
DeleteThis ought to be interesting. Exactly how am I as an atheist who thinks that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, harming humanity?
Nic,
DeleteYou do what you got to do and I do what I got to do. Don't presume you are in a position to tell me what to do. That's all there is to it.
Anonymous coward: "This ought to be interesting. Exactly how am I as an atheist who thinks that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, harming humanity?"
DeleteIt's simple. You are lying to the whole world about something that is essential to their future. You are lying about our origins. You are a jackass in my book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMapou: "You do what you got to do and I do what I got to do. Don't presume you are in a position to tell me what to do. That's all there is to it."
DeleteI guess that reading comprehension was never one of your strengths. Nic, specifically said that you can do what you want.
"You are lying to the whole world about something that is essential to their future. You are lying about our origins."
Again, a serious reading comprehension issue. At what point in my comments above did I make any claim about our origins? You really should try reading something before you comment on it.
"You are a jackass in my book."
If you can't comprehend the comments that you are responding to, do you think that your opinion of me has any value? Or will convince others of it?
Please stop taking debating lessons from Joe and Barry.
Louis,
Delete"You do what you got to do and I do what I got to do. Don't presume you are in a position to tell me what to do. That's all there is to it."
I'm not presuming I can tell you what to do, I'm just pointing out you're acting like an ass and hoping you'll see the need to act differently. Silly me to have thought that.
"Mapou: "My position is that any human being who does harm to humanity is a traitor to his own species and should be treated with as much contempt as possible."
DeleteThis ought to be interesting. Exactly how am I as an atheist who thinks that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, harming humanity?""
Okay, I'll try.
Evolution has been used to justify all kincs of bad things like eugenics and social Darwinism.
And,if religious people are happier, then undermining religion is making people unhappier.
"Evolution has been used to justify all kincs of bad things like eugenics and social Darwinism."
DeleteAnd religion has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. So, why isn't Mapou railing against religion? And people have also used physics and chemistry to commit all sorts of atrocities. Why isn't Mapou railing against them?
"And,if religious people are happier, then undermining religion is making people unhappier."
Ignoring the myth that religious people are happier, how is evolution undermining religion? Nobody is forced to believe that evolution is true.
Religion has also been the motivationfor doing good things. To the best of my knowledge, the same can;t be said for evolution.
DeleteAndare you sure that religious people being happier is a myth? According to this:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303
the sucide rate among religious people is lower. I can't thing of a better way tpo measure the happiness, or lack thereof, of a population.
You mentioned atheism and evolution in the smae sentence. IMHO opinion that is indicative of a connection, See, people use evolution to justifiy atheism.
Fortunately, evolutionists can always invoke the SHL!
ReplyDeleteSHL - Stuff Happens Law: the natural law that the Law of Natural Selection reduces to. When a scientist says “stuff happens,” he or she basically gives up, abandoning any attempt at scientific explanation. The SHL is the antithesis of science’s goal to understand the world, but since mutation and natural selection (the elements of neo-Darwinian theory) are both unguided and random, they reduce to the SHL.
(http://crev.info/darwin-dictionary/#sthash.y1mGbdHM.dpuf)
LOL! After all these years the Creationists still haven't tired of the lie "science doesn't know everything about evolution so therefore it doesn't know anything!
ReplyDeleteOne good thing about being a Creationist - no brains, no headaches. :)
Your position has nothing. It can't explain brains. It can't explain animals. It can't explain plants. It can't explain life. Heck if given starting populations of prokaryotes yours doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond that.
DeleteVirgil: "Heck if given starting populations of prokaryotes yours doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond that."
DeleteJoe, you have all the verbal skills of a parrot. Do you ever say something that isn't repeated ad-nauseum. You should try rearranging the words occasionally to come up with a new idea.
LoL! I repeat them because they are true and you don't have anything to counter what I post.
DeleteWhy do I need new ideas when the old ideas still work?
But thank you for proving my point.
Joe: "Why do I need new ideas when the old ideas still work?"
DeleteIgnorantly ignoring counter arguments doesn't mean that your ideas still work. It just means that you actively chose to be ignorant. But if that works for you and allows you to sleep at night, go for it.
I have never ignored any counter arguments. I have always shown that they do not show that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes. OTOH you have always ignored the evidence and the science.
DeleteAfter all these years Darwinists and materialists have not managed to understand that the combinatorial explosion kills their little chicken shit voodoo science dead before it's even born. Simple math is stumbling block for you people.
ReplyDeleteOh, I forgot. One good thing about being a Darwinist or a materialist, no guts but big shit.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous like That moron Mapou?
ReplyDeleteExactly what did I say that you think I am lying about? That biologists freely and openly acknowledge that they do not understand how DNA arose? That is a fact that anyone with an Internet connection can confirm.
"And why are they still evolutionary biologists?"
Duh! Because they study evolutionary biology? Do I have to spoon feed everything to you? I once worked for an evolutionary biologist, and he never looked into the question of the origin of life or of DNA. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists don't. How many ID scientists are researching the mechanisms used to realize the design?
It should be noted that this James Tour non-story is almost two years old. I thought the Creationists had milked this for all the phony propaganda value it was worth but I guess I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteBTW, here is Tour's own assessment of the value of his opinion on evolution, from his own web site. He says flat out that he is a layman and not qualified to pass judgment on the scientific case for evolution.
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion.
From here
Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation.
Pretty funny when the man himself refutes what is claimed about him in the OP.
What did the OP claim about Tour that he refuted?
DeleteCornelius, you are correct. He did not say that evolution did not and does not occur. He just said that he did not understand evolution, which is not unexpected given that his field is not Evan remotely related to it. He also said that he did not understand how DNA could exist without a cell membrane or how a cell membrane could exist without DNA.
DeleteBut he was a little disingenuous when he claimed that scientists would talk about this in private, but never in public. Scientists have been quite open in saying that they don't know how life formed, or how DNA became the means of inheritance.
Scientists have been quite open in saying that they don't know how life formed, or how DNA became the means of inheritance.
DeleteAnd yet, in spite to this admitted and self-disqualifying ignorance, they claim that they know enough to tell us that it happen by chance. Where is the science in that?
Phillymike
Deleteevolution has absolutely no evidence for life coming from nonlife.
Evolution doesn't depend on the origin of life. Evolution is the process that happens after you have imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources. Origin of life research is abiogenesis, a different topic altogether.
If the Great Kazoo blinked life into existence 3.5 billion years ago that wouldn't affect all the evidence for the evolution which has occurred since then one iota.
ghostrider
DeleteYou try to avoid the big question by claiming you don't need to know how it all started. That way you don't need to face the facts that it is impossible for life to come into being by chance. That DNA somehow assembled itself into information all by its' lonesome, along with all the machines found in the simplest cells. Talk about strong delusion. DNA is so complex that you don't even understand it but you believe it created itself. "The Great Kazoo" is smarter than you think.
Mapou: "And yet, in spite to this admitted and self-disqualifying ignorance, they claim that they know enough to tell us that it happen by chance. Where is the science in that?"
DeleteActually, the scientific literature is full of the science. And, so far, the science isn't conclusive on the most likely mechanisms involved in the origin of life. If you want them to include ID as a serious option, all you have to do is propose possible mechanisms by which it occurred and test them.
If you want them to include ID as a serious option, all you have to do is propose possible mechanisms by which it occurred and test them.
DeleteWrong! All we have to do is posit the entailments of Intelligent Design and see if living organisms meet that criteria. And we have done just that. OTOH your position still has nothing.
PhillyMike
DeleteYou try to avoid the big question by claiming you don't need to know how it all started.
Evolution doesn't need to know the OoL to work any more than chemistry needs to know the origin of atoms to work.
LoL! "Evolution" isn't being debated you equivocating coward. One does have to know the OoL to know how evolution proceeds. It's only if the OoL was via blind and undirected processes would we infer evolution also proceeded that way. OTOH if the OoL = ID then we would infer evolution was designed and organisms evolved by design..
DeleteGo find some new moronic and meaningless IDiot sound bites to spew Joe. Your old batch is well past the discard by date.
DeleteWithout the OoL you cannot say how life evolved as the two are directly linked. It is only if tghe OoL was via blind and unguided processes would we infer its subsequent evolution was darwinian. If the OoL = ID then we would infer life was designed to evolve and evolved by design.
ReplyDeleteNice to see that you, like all evos, can't think that one through.
Joe GOctober 4, 2015 at 6:52 AM
ReplyDelete"Evolutionary biologists don't understand how unguided evolution could produce any multi-protein complex. They have no idea how to test such a thing.
William SpearshakeOctober 4, 2015 at 8:09 AM
Sorry Joe, but we can discuss that when that is the topic of the OP. try to keep up."
So William, how does science bring forth empirical evidence in supporting the capabilities of chemistry and physical laws alone producing "macro evolution" without taking into consideration a vast array of significant issues including what Joe has described?
I suggest you get off of your anti-god soap box and try to stick to science as a method of coming to reasonable conclusion in the matter.
bpragmatic
DeleteSo William, how does science bring forth empirical evidence in supporting the capabilities of chemistry and physical laws alone producing "macro evolution" without taking into consideration a vast array of significant issues including what Joe has described?
Mainstream science isn't aware of any "significant issues" that would make macroevolution impossible. IDiot demands for infinite detail don't magically negate all the evidence for macroevolution we do have. There are plenty of good resources online where you can learn about the processes and mechanisms involved but you don't seem to be very open to learning.
Mainstream science doesn't have any evidence that macro evolution is possible.
DeleteWilliam says,
ReplyDelete"Nobody has a firm grasp on how DNA first came about. And scientists are completely honest about it.
He says that he understands micro evolution. If he does, then he understands evolution. What he is really saying is that he doesn't understand the origin of life (or, more accurately, the origin of DNA). But I don't see why Cornelius thinks that this is a reality check. The fact that this is not understood is no secret."
I think it really IS a secret to the public, who are exposed to the popular cultural media. The same medium that reports the
interpretation of "scientific" results in a way that perpetuates the pop culturally preferred explanations in ways that promote continued funding for the "projects" that keep the proponents of the p.opular philosophies of the day providing funding to those who find themselves in the speculative "science" industries. Including promoting the perception that these things have been "scientifically" demonstrated as "fact"
William, you seem to defy logic and critical thinking beyond a point that allows anyone observing your comments to think you have any reasonable degree of objectivity in relation to the real requirements of serious discussion on these matters.
Bprag, where am I defying logic? I agree with you and Cornelius and (and this really hurts to say) Joe and Mapou) that nobody understands how life originated or how DNA first arose.
DeleteBut you go on complaining that funding is going into researching this. It seems to me that the best use of funding is to research what we don't understand. It would be a waste to research thinks that we have a complete understanding of.
We don't even know how Stonehenge arose but we know that it was designed. And we study it as such. It wouldn't make any sense to study Stonehenge as if it was a geologic formation.
Delete"We don't even know how Stonehenge arose but we know that it was designed."
DeleteYou make it sound like we don't know whether or not it was built by humans. Not true. We study it as if it was designed because we know that it was constructed by humans. We know the time-frames involve. And we know the most likely possibilities of the techniques used to construct it.
"It wouldn't make any sense to study Stonehenge as if it was a geologic formation."
Agreed. For the same reason that we wouldn't study the pyramids as if they were geological formations. We know that they aren't. The same can't be said for the origin of life or its subsequent diversification.
You make it sound like we don't know whether or not it was built by humans.
DeleteNow that you mention it, we don't. But that wasn't the point. We don't know HOW they did it.
The same can't be said for the origin of life or its subsequent diversification.
We have a methodology to make that determination. You have nothing.
"We have a methodology to make that determination. You have nothing."
DeleteYou keep saying that the determination has already been made. We have been doing research on how Stonehenge and the pyramids were constructed since the scientific method was formalized. Could you provide links to the plethora of research that has been published into how the intelligently designer affects and realizes his design?
We have been doing research on how Stonehenge and the pyramids were constructed since the scientific method was formalized
DeleteAnd yet we still don't know.
Could you provide links to the plethora of research that has been published into how the intelligently designer affects and realizes his design?
ID isn't about the designer. AND, you have all the verbal skills of a parrot. Do you ever say something that isn't repeated ad-nauseum. You should try rearranging the words occasionally to come up with a new idea. :)
"And yet we still don't know."I
DeleteI didn't say we did. Please pay attention.
"ID isn't about the designer."
Again, I didn't say it was. Where did you get that idea?
"Do you ever say something that isn't repeated ad-nauseum....."
Hmmm, where have I heard those words before? You didn't even bother to rearrange them.
Joey want a cracker?
I didn't say we did.
DeleteThen what was your point seeing that was mine?
Again, I didn't say it was.
Then why are you trying to drag the designer into it? Either you are a moron or extremely dishonest.
Yep. The scientific community does not really know how life arose. They don't try to hide it.
ReplyDeleteID on the other side seems pretty sure of what was going on at the beginning of life. A creator did it. That 100% sure. How he did it and why remain a mystery.
I wish things could be so easy and definite.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe OoL matters to how we study life.
DeleteThen how did the designer create life, unless ID is not the study of life?
DeleteLet's see- we can study Stonehenge without knowing how it was made. We can study Nan Madol without knowing how it was made. So obviously we can study life without knowing how it was made.
DeleteThat is why we study Stonehedge and the surrounding areas , how, why, who and when.
DeleteSo obviously we can study life without knowing how it was made
Then why the demand that science explain the OOL?
That is why we study Stonehedge and the surrounding areas , how, why, who and when.
DeleteYes, I know. Did you have a point?
Then why the demand that science explain the OOL?
How many times do I have to explain that?
How life evolved, by design or by differing accumulated accidents, depends on the OoL, ie by design or differing accumulated accidents.
We don't have to know exactly how it was designed, all that matters if it it was or not.
How life evolved, by design or by differing accumulated accidents, depends on the OoL, ie by design or differing accumulated accidents.
DeleteYou can't know that unless you have some additional knowledge about how, why, what or who. Life may start by accident and be modified by design or life may start by design and be modified by natural processes. Or some unknown effect may be involved
We don't have to know exactly how it was designed, all that matters if it it was or not.
Then ID is unlike the study of Stonehenge, where the who ,what ,how and why matters a great deal
You can't know that unless you have some additional knowledge about how, why, what or who.
DeleteThat's your opinion, and only an opinion.
Life may start by accident and be modified by design or life may start by design and be modified by natural processes. Or some unknown effect may be involved
And cars are designed but they way they move is just an accident. Computers are designed but what it outputs is random.
Then ID is unlike the study of Stonehenge, where the who ,what ,how and why matters a great deal
And after all these years we still can't answer those questions. So obviously it doesn't matter. Does that mean that Stonehenge is a geologic formation?
Those are questions that come only AFTER design is determined and only can be answered by studying it (and all relevant evidence). That is why ID makes them SEPARATE questions. ID doesn't stop anyone from trying to answer them.
You are confused.
That's your opinion, and only an opinion.
DeleteIt is logic, all you can say is it is designed, period. Not the why or how or when. So you cannot say what the designer intended or how it works even when it came to be and that is what you were trying to do.
Joe G is just a troll. He says everything and its contrary. He does not know about evolution nor ID. We should just ignore him.
DeleteIt is logic,
DeleteNo, it isn't.
all you can say is it is designed, period.
And that is enough.
Not the why or how or when.
LoL! We get to those by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
So you cannot say what the designer intended or how it works even when it came to be and that is what you were trying to do.
We can definitely say how it works just by studying it. Duh. We can and have discussed intentions just by studying it. And we can also try to determine when- as archaeologists do.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
He says everything and its contrary.
DeleteLiar- that's your ignorance talking, again.
He does not know about evolution nor ID.
I know more about them than you ever will. Loser.
calamity:Joe G is just a troll. He says everything and its contrary. He does not know about evolution nor ID. We should just ignore him
DeleteYou shouldn't pick at a scab either but sometimes it is irresistible
Evos are the scabs. That is why I pick them apart. It's easy.
DeleteJoe:
DeleteLoL! We get to those by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
How do decide what " evidence" is relevant without
any knowledge of why or how something was designed or what non intelligent processes have acted on it, either by design or not?
Pick a designed biological feature and demonstrate your methodology
Joe:
DeleteWe can definitely say how it works just by studying it.
But how can you be sure that is how it was designed to work? Certainly in human design things are not all successful designs.
Duh. We can and have discussed intentions just by studying it.
That is because we knowledge intentions of humans,are you saying you know something about the designers of life,how?
Earlier you said about Stonehedge ans answer the questions who what the how and the why:
And after all these years we still can't answer those questions. So obviously it doesn't matter.
Now you are saying we can answer those questions about an unknown designer who existed millions of years ago?
And we can also try to determine when- as archaeologists do.
By finding the bones of the designer, or tool marks?
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
Perhaps
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry for the typos
DeleteBut how can you be sure that is how it was designed to work?
DeleteThat wasn't the question. You are moving the goal posts.
That is because we knowledge intentions of humans,are you saying you know something about the designers of life,how?
By studying the design we have determined that the universe was intelligently designed for scientific discovery.
Joe:
DeleteThat wasn't the question. You are moving the goal posts.
Your didn't ask a question but made a statement: " We can definitely say how it works just by studying it. Duh. We can and have discussed intentions just by studying it.
how something works and how something was designed to work can be two different things in human design. You claim that ID can tell the difference infer intelligent design .
By studying the design we have determined that the universe was intelligently designed for scientific discovery.
See,you assume how it works was how is was designed. I can use a rock as a hammer but it was not designed to be one.
"I can use a rock as a hammer but it was not designed to be one."
DeleteThat's Joe's preferred tool for repairing toasters.
Joke, yesteday
ReplyDelete"The OoL matters to how we study life."
Joke today
"So obviously we can study life without knowing how it was made."
It takes a real toaster repairman genius to directly contradict himself in back-to-back posts.
You're the best spokesman the IDiots ever had Joke, EVAR. :)
Only an imbecile would say there was a contradiction. Enter ghostbrain.
DeleteThe OoL matters to how we study life
That means we would study life differently if we inferred it was the product of Intelligent Design as opposed to blind and undirected processes.
So obviously we can study life without knowing how it was made.
That means we do not have to know exactly how the designer(s) designed and manufactured living organisms in order to study life as an Intelligent Design.
But thank you for continuing to prove that you are a narrow-minded infant.
Joke
DeleteThat means we would study life differently if we inferred it was the product of Intelligent Design as opposed to blind and undirected processes.
How would you study life differently Joke? It's kind of a moot point since you IDiots don't study life now anyway.
Geez, moron, how do we study Stonehenge differently than we would if it was a geological formation? Even Dawkins understands my point. Obviously you are just an imbecile.
DeleteFor one we would infer that organisms evolved by design and not natural selection and drift. ID would mean Shapiro, Spetner and Marshall are right in that organisms can modify their own genomes- they are in control.
You didn't answer the question Joke. Save your IDiot one-liner non sequiturs for the other IDiots and answer the question.
DeleteHow would you study life differently?
Umm, this answers your question, moron:
DeleteFor one we would infer that organisms evolved by design and not natural selection and drift. ID would mean Shapiro, Spetner and Marshall are right in that organisms can modify their own genomes- they are in control.
We would study it as a designed entity. We would study it with the understanding living organisms had control over their genomes We would look for something more than just the physio-chemical properties that drives the functionality of all systems and subsystems.
Joke
DeleteWe would look for something more than just the physio-chemical properties that drives the functionality of all systems and subsystems.
How exactly would you do that Joke? Why aren't any IDiot "researchers" doing it now?
We would employ methods you couldn't understand. And we would be doing much more than all evoTARD researchers could ever do.
DeleteJoke
DeleteWe would employ methods you couldn't understand. And we would be doing much more than all evoTARD researchers could ever do.
Apparently you and the rest of the IDiots don't understand them either since you can't describe them or show anyone using them. Tell me again Joke, how many papers has the IDiot phony science journal Bio-Complexity published this year? :)
How many papers are there that support evolutionism? None- all the resources and no research.
DeleteI understand why that bothers you.
How many papers are there that support evolutionism? None- all the resources and no research.
DeleteI understand why that bothers you.
ghostrider:
ReplyDeletequote:
Evolution doesn’t depend on the origin of life. Evolution is the process that happens after you have imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources. Origin of life research is abiogenesis, a different topic altogether.
If the Great Kazoo blinked life into existence 3.5 billion years ago that wouldn’t affect all the evidence for the evolution which has occurred since then one iota
end quote:
So, Szostak at Harvard has a “model” for origin of life where you get a self replicator, but little or no DNA or any genetic material. That would seem to leave virtually everything, including the origin of DNA in the evolution camp. How far is that from them having to answer virtually everything they claim has “nothing to do with evolution” (I.e.: nearly every aspect of origin of life that is a challenge for them to explain)?
Commenter Joe: So, Szostak at Harvard has a “model” for origin of life where you get a self replicator, but little or no DNA or any genetic material.
DeleteThat is incorrect. Szostak works on the assumption that RNA is a the genetic material. They are actively working on the problem.
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
He needs to be able to test that assumption. We are still waiting for such a test.
DeleteWhere are these "imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources" found?
DeletePhillyMike
DeleteWhere are these "imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources" found?
With a few trivial exceptions they can be found in every square yard of the planet's surface, including the oceans, the highest mountains, the deepest caves.
PhillyMike,
Delete"Where are these "imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources" found?"
Come on, Phil, don't be so silly and obstinate. Self replicators are easy to come by, evolution can make them in it's sleep, no problem at all.
Evolution doesn't sleep... ;)
DeleteJoe G,
Delete"Evolution doesn't sleep... ;)"
You're right, it doesn't, but it sure snores a lot!
Happy thanksgiving to God's chosen people. Canadians
ReplyDeleteWilliam,
Delete"Happy thanksgiving to God's chosen people. Canadians"
I thought we were God's frozen people.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
Zach:
ReplyDelete"Szostak works on the assumption that RNA is a the genetic material"
so, evolution would have to be responsible for the change over from RNA only to the DNA/Ribosome relationship?