Thursday, October 12, 2017

Welcome to Alt-Science

Expelled

Sometimes it’s obvious, as in the case of the scientific research paper that was rejected after it was accepted. While the paper was well accepted and given positive comments from peer reviewers, certain members of the editorial board of a seemingly scientific journal noticed that the results had negative implications for evolution. And so months after the editor had told the authors he was happy “to proceed with publication,” the paper suddenly was, “on further reflection and discussion,” summarily rejected.

And what exactly was the “discussion” about? That “the unspoken implication of the article is that, probabilistically, random undirected evolution is impossible.”

And that, dear scientists, is not allowed.

Random undirected evolution is, by definition, a fact. Break that ground rule, and pay the price. This isn’t about science or truth. This is the alt-science that seeks to control everything from publications and textbooks to careers and funding.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

85 comments:

  1. Wait, I am sure that random undirected evolution can cause genetic diseases and deformities. So that is something after all. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Random undirected evolution is, by definition, a fact."

    Just a little quibble, but nobody is arguing that evolution is random. There is a random aspect to it, but selection is far from a random process.

    Do you have a link to the incident of the paper being rejected after it was accepted? I would like to read up on this. It sounds a little fishy to me. For example, was it withdrawn because the initial peer review was very poorly done and this was subsequently pointed out by other readers? Unfortunately, this happens from time to time and is one of the checks and balances of the peer review process. Or was it withdrawn simply because people didn't like the fact that the paper makes claims that are counter to what is the currently accepted theory? Which, of course, would be unacceptable if the data presented in the paper could lead to the conclusion given.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a random aspect to it, but selection is far from a random process.

      Natural selection is non-random in a very trivial way- that being not every organism has the same probability of being eliminated (Mayr "What Evolution Is"). And that means natural selection is very close to being random. But that point is moot because natural selection is really nothing more than contingent serendipity.

      Delete
    2. "Natural selection is non-random in a very trivial way- that being not every organism has the same probability of being eliminated..."

      Random: "of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

      "And that means natural selection is very close to being random."

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      Delete
    3. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      And yet what you posted shows it means exactly what I think it means.

      Random, with respect to biology, means happenstance. As in accidents, errors and mistakes. See Darwin and everyone since.

      Natural selection is as non-random as the spray pattern of a sawed-off shotgun loaded with bird shot.

      Delete
    4. Just a little quibble, but nobody is arguing that evolution is random. There is a random aspect to it

      Yes, a random *aspect*. And that aspect would be that all change is supposed to be random with respect to need. It is an unguided process.

      but selection is far from a random process.

      All you are doing is fooling yourself. Man has searching for a natural teleology for thousands of years--a way to justify God and explain the world. Darwin's contribution was natural selection, a wonderful device allowing man to maintain no final causes while simultaneously introducing direction.

      Delete
    5. "Yes, a random *aspect*. And that aspect would be that all change is supposed to be random with respect to need. It is an unguided process."

      Individual change (I.e., mutations that an individual has that the parents didn't) is random with respect to fitness. Changes within a population are not. If I add a sublethal dose of antibiotic to a bacterial culture, individual mutations will be random with respect to their sensitivity to the antibiotic. But any mutation that results in increased resistance is more likely to proliferate. This is clearly not random. It is decidedly directional.

      Delete
    6. Individual change (I.e., mutations that an individual has that the parents didn't) is random with respect to fitness.

      The claim is that they are random as in happenstance occurrences. All change is alleged to be accidents, errors and/ or mistakes.

      Whatever is good enough. That could be smaller, bigger, taller, shorter, faster, slower, better eyesight, no eyesight- the contradictory list goes on and on.

      Delete
    7. In seeing this discussion whether or not evolution is a random, undirected process, I think there needs to be some clarification. According to Darwin's Origin of the Species, the process consists of natural selection working on random variation. Natural selection tends to be non-random, in that if there is a survival benefit, it will tend to be retained in the population -- but not necessarily. There still is a random component in natural selection, in that some individual may have a selective advantage (running faster, for example) but may die without passing down that advantageous characteristic b/c he broke his leg, and couldn't survive. But, overall, natural selection tends to be non-random. However, natural selection can only act on what it's given -- and that is random variation -- which is fully a random process. So, overall, evolution is a random process. If the underlying choices are all random, that makes the whole system random.

      Delete
    8. Joke: "The claim is that they are random as in happenstance occurrences."

      Not quite accurate. Mutation rates can increase or decrease due to environmental conditions. Different parts of the DNA are more prone to mutations than others. The reference to randomness is that when they occur, they are random with respect to their ability to afford the resulting individual a reproductive advantage.

      Delete
    9. wee wee:
      Not quite accurate.

      As accurate as all the evolutionary biologists.

      Mutation rates can increase or decrease due to environmental conditions.

      It is still supposed to be all happenstance- even the increase in rates.

      Different parts of the DNA are more prone to mutations than others.

      And another happenstance occurrence.

      The reference to randomness is that when they occur, they are random with respect to their ability to afford the resulting individual a reproductive advantage.

      Wrong as that doesn't mean anything with respect to the mutations being happenstance or directed. How many times do we have to go over this?

      Delete
    10. Joke: "Wrong as that doesn't mean anything with respect to the mutations being happenstance or directed. How many times do we have to go over this?"

      Don't blame me if you don't understand what "random with respect to fitness" means. Maybe an introductory level course in evolution would help you.

      Delete
    11. OK, wee wee, how does "random withy respect to fitness" resolve the issue of whether or not the mutations were directed or happenstance?

      Then link to the scientific theory of evolution so we can see if it says what you claim.

      "The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomena except that the nature of the changes at a given locus are strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of the elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction." Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution Is"

      Don't blame me because I understand this better than you. I learned from its architects.

      Delete
    12. How is this different than what I said?

      Delete
    13. It doesn't say anything about with respect to fitness and it supports everything I have said

      Delete
    14. OK, wee wee, how does "random withy respect to fitness" resolve the issue of whether or not the mutations were directed or happenstance?

      Still waiting

      Delete
    15. Joke: "OK, wee wee, how does "random withy respect to fitness" resolve the issue of whether or not the mutations were directed or happenstance?"

      Do you ever read what you write? If they are random with respect to fitness they are not directed.

      Delete
    16. If they are random with respect to fitness they are not directed.

      That doesn't follow. Try again.

      Delete
  3. Dirt worshippers are not just stupid and gutless, they lie like a rug. They're a synagogue of Satan.

    ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mapou: "Dirt worshippers are not just stupid and gutless, they lie like a rug. They're a synagogue of Satan.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha..."


      Nothing but insightful comments from Mapou.

      Delete
    2. I try not to argue with stinking dirt worshippers. I just enjoy bashing the jackasses as often as I can.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Mapou: "I try not to argue with stinking dirt worshippers."

      I prefer not to do what I am incompetent at doing as well. You are wise beyond your years.

      Delete
    4. Mapou: “I try not to argue with stinking dirt worshippers.”

      It is wise not to do something that you do not do well.

      Delete
  4. Its stupid to racall a paper , othyerwise okay, because its conclusions are unwelcome. They print papers alkl the time whose conclusions are contrary to others.
    it shows our modern "science' world is just as mankind always was.
    Dumb, dumb, dumb.
    Truly only a few people ever accomplish anything in science to justify them being remembered or on a list from those years.
    This shows mankind does not do better thinking.
    creationists do but of coarse we have already settled conclusions on boundaries.
    Yet we still think better probably because we have too.
    Evolutionism has failed to prove its case but creationists have failed to show they have no case.
    Surely the wrong answer has gravity against it in truth and investigative substance.
    it can't last much longer.
    Somebody is going down here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sometimes it’s obvious, as in the case of the scientific research paper that was rejected after it was accepted.

    What specific paper and author(s) are you referring to? It's not unheard of for scientific papers to be retracted if additional negative information comes to light. Examples are the retraction of papers by AGW denier Willie Soon after he failed to disclose his fossil fuel company payments, and the Stephen Meyer ID garbage that the dishonest Richard Sternberg sneaked past peer review and got wrongly published in a journal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A little Science estranges man from God, but much science leads them back to Him."
      (Louis Pasteur)

      Darwinism is even less than little science!

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

      Delete
    3. I wonder why the blog owner is so hesitant to tell us which paper he's grumbling about. Too embarrassed to have the case examined I suppose.

      Delete
    4. Ghostrider. Your comment has nothing to do with the thread. The case was made. Example given. Case closed.
      THE NEGATIVE INFORMATION was just the conclusion. Not unrelated stuff to the essence of the paper.
      Stephen mEyers stuff is not only not garbage but made him famous and important in origin discussions.
      Your showing the spirit behind the censorship. your mad at the conclusions and going extreme in opposition to honest, intelligent, hypothesis.

      Delete
    5. Censorship is the last argument of the weak.

      Delete
    6. GG: "Censorship is the last argument of the weak."

      True. But we don't have enough details about this incident to know if it is censorship or simply the retraction of a paper following subsequent information coming to light. Which is a normal and accepted part of the peer review process.

      If this incident is the one that I am thinking about, the paper was removed with the agreement of the authors.

      Delete
  6. RB: "Ghostrider. Your comment has nothing to do with the thread."

    Of course it does. The OP talks about a paper that was published and then withdrawn. Hunter was asked twice for a link to the paper, or to a more detailed description. I suspect that I know the incident that he is referring to, but I don't want to comment on it in case he is referring to a more recent and more egregious event.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unknown: So, overall, evolution is a random process. If the underlying choices are all random, that makes the whole system random.

    That is not correct. The movement of individual gas molecules is random. However, in aggregate, the collisions of individual gas molecules can form a pressure with a definite direction, e.g. the wind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, gas molecules and living organisms are a good analogy- not.

      Chance is at the heart of evolutionism. with natural selection being nothing more than contingent serendipity

      Delete
    2. The pressure that cause the wind is not the product of aggregate of the random movements of the gas molecules. The casuse of that pressure is the differential in the temperatures of the air.

      Delete
    3. Blas: The pressure that cause the wind is not the product of aggregate of the random movements of the gas molecules. The casuse of that pressure is the differential in the temperatures of the air.

      That's right. The movement of individual molecules is essentially random, but differences in heating can cause the molecules to behave in very non-random ways.

      Similarly, evolution is not a random process, even though individual mutations may be random.

      Delete
    4. but differences in heating can cause the molecules to behave in very non-random ways.

      Then, complete your analogie, which is the process that produces the "differences in heating" in evolution?

      Delete
    5. Similarly, evolution is not a random process, even though individual mutations may be random.

      Chance is at the heart of evolutionism. With natural selection being nothing more than contingent serendipity.

      Delete
    6. Joke: "contingent serendipity."

      Joey want a cracker?

      Delete
    7. LoL! I will not apologize for using words wee willie does not understand. And I will not apologize for wee willie's willful ignorance of what natural selection really is.

      Delete
    8. Joke: “LoL! I will not apologize for using words wee willie does not understand. And I will not apologize for wee willie's willful ignorance of what natural selection really is.“

      Who’s asking you to apologize? You are perfect just the way you are.

      Delete
    9. And more evidence that Willie's family tree doesn't have any branches.

      Delete
    10. Me: “Who’s asking you to apologize? You are perfect just the way you are.“

      Joke: “And more evidence that Willie’s family tree doesn’t have any branches.”

      So, if I say that Joe is perfect, I am the one with a diseased family tree? I concede. Joe is a moron.

      Delete
    11. When someone says that I am perfect just the way I am after I have exposed that person as having a very limited vocabulary and being willfully ignorant, that is an indication of the type of family tree they are a part of.

      Deductive reasoning.

      Delete
    12. Joke: “Deductive reasoning.”

      It may be a type of reasoning, but deductive it ain’t. Or inductive, or logical.

      Delete
    13. It may be a type of reasoning, but deductive it ain’t. Or inductive, or logical.

      That you say it isn't is a good indication that it is. Thank you.

      Delete
  8. Joe G: "Wait, I am sure that random undirected evolution can cause genetic diseases and deformities. So that is something after all. ;)"

    So let's assume one hundred chicks are born. Fifty of them are normal, fifty of them have genetic diseases and deformities.

    Which group do you think will have the most fertile descendants? The normal ones or the ones with genetic diseases and deformities?

    That differential survival is called natural selection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave:
      That differential survival is called natural selection.

      That makes it sound as if natural selection is impotent as a designer mimic. Which, being an eliminative process, it is impotent as a designer mimic.

      Delete
    2. Joke: "That makes it sound as if natural selection is impotent as a designer mimic. Which, being an eliminative process, it is impotent as a designer mimic."

      If you insist on using human design as a lame analogy of what evolution is proposed to do, then you must carry it to its conclusion.

      Let's look at the design history of the car. All through this history, designers have come up with new technologies that were added to different models. Early cars required someone at the front to turn a crank in order to get it started. When starters were first added, they weren't added to all of the models. It was customers who stopped buying the hand cranked models that drove all car companies to include the starters (or windshield wipers, heaters, fuel injection, hybrids, etc.). The customer purchasing power is purely an eliminative process, yet it was strong enough to guide evolution of the car; a designed artifact that is orders of magnitude more complex than the first models.

      Delete
    3. WS: “The customer purchasing power is purely an eliminative process, yet it was strong enough to guide evolution of the car; a designed artifact that is orders of magnitude more complex than the first models.”
      Both processes (creating and selecting) are intelligent processes. The customer selecting a car made his choice purposeful based on his intelligence. But evolution can't do that, because it has no intelligence. Evolution does not know what the first step is for creating for example an eye or an ear. It doesn't know what the next step is and doesn't know what last step is. It doesn't know whether organisms need two eyes and two ears. And it doesn't know that the brain needs to process the data coming from the eyes and ears. Evolution does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. And yet evolutionists always try to smuggle in intelligence in the evolution process.

      Delete
    4. Ink: "And yet evolutionists always try to smuggle in intelligence in the evolution process."

      Nonsense. No evolution scientist tries to smuggle design into evolution. You are confusing sloppy language with intention.

      "Both processes (creating and selecting) are intelligent processes."

      So? My response was in response to Joke's claim that eliminative actions cannot result in increased complexity. People buying different options is purely eliminative. If people wanted hand cranks on the front of the car, starters would not have proliferated in all car models. The same applies to intermittent wipers, fuel injection, hybrids, cruise control, etc. By selecting these we are eliminating demand for the alternatives.

      Delete
    5. Unbelievable- Darwin's entire idea was design without a designer. And every evolutionary biologist since then has held on to the same concept.

      My response was in response to Joke's claim that eliminative actions cannot result in increased complexity

      Except I never made that claim.

      Delete
    6. People buying different options is purely eliminative.

      No, it's purely SELECTIVE.

      Delete
    7. Dave: That differential survival is called natural selection.

      Joe G: That makes it sound as if natural selection is impotent as a designer mimic. Which, being an eliminative process, it is impotent as a designer mimic.

      Remember that Darwinian evolution is a two step process, variation and natural selection.

      Variation, (caused by mutations to the DNA) provides new designs.

      Natural selection (using the new genome to control an organism) weeds out the bad designs.

      The result is new and improved designs without intelligence.

      By the way, you didn't answer my question. If you have 100 new chicks and fifty of them are normal while fifty of them have genetic diseases and deformities, which group of chicks is going to produce more viable offspring.

      It's a pretty simple question. If you can't answer it, perhaps you're not cut out to criticise evolution.

      Delete
    8. Dave:
      Remember that Darwinian evolution is a two step process, variation and natural selection.

      Natural selection includes the variation- it is the first step of NS.

      Variation, (caused by mutations to the DNA) provides new designs.

      That is the opinion, anyway.

      If you have 100 new chicks and fifty of them are normal while fifty of them have genetic diseases and deformities, which group of chicks is going to produce more viable offspring.

      It all depends. What if some other organism eats all of the healthy chicks?

      BTW ID is not anti-evolution so clearly I am not criticizing evolution. If you didn't know that perhaps you shouldn't be joining these discussions. Well heck you didn't even know that variation was part of natural selection.

      Delete
    9. Joe G: Natural selection includes the variation- it is the first step of NS.

      Ah, there's the problem. You misunderstand how evolution works, then you criticise that mistaken version.

      The real first strep is mutation, which provides a slightly altered genome.

      The second step is natural selection, where the original genome and the altered genome both try to run their organism and we see which one works best.

      Joe G: It all depends. What if some other organism eats all of the healthy chicks?

      That could happen, but in the long run luck cancels out and it's all up to the DNA.

      Assuming equal luck, which group of chicks do you think will do best?

      Delete
    10. And:


      “Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

      Variation

      Inheritance

      Fecundity

      which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”
      - Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

      Delete
    11. From Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is":

      "What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination."

      Page 118:

      "Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

      By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions."

      Delete

    12. "The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomena except that the nature of the changes at a given locus are strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of the elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction."
      Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution Is"

      Don't blame me because I understand this better than you. I learned from its architects.

      Delete
    13. I'm sorry i missed replying to this earlier:

      Joe G: BTW ID is not anti-evolution so clearly I am not criticizing evolution.

      The whole idea of the ID movement is that evolution is incapable of designing life as we see it, so something else, such as an intelligent designer must have done it.

      Joe G: If you didn't know that perhaps you shouldn't be joining these discussions. Well heck you didn't even know that variation was part of natural selection.

      Variation and natursl selection are two sepaddate ghings. Variation happens first, then natural selection selects either the original organism or its varient.

      Delete
    14. Joe G quoting Ernst Mayr:

      "The FIRST STEP in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomena except that the nature of the changes at a given locus are strongly constrained.


      "Chance plays an important role even at the SECOND STEP, the process of the elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction." Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution Is"

      Notice that the FIRST STEP is variation and the SECOND STEP is natural selection.

      Joe G: Don't blame me because I understand this better than you. I learned from its architect."

      You don't and you didn't.

      Delete
    15. Dave:
      The whole idea of the ID movement is that evolution is incapable of designing life as we see it, so something else, such as an intelligent designer must have done it.

      WRONG. ID argues against blind watchmaker evolution's capabilities- ie evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes. ID is very much OK with evolution by means of intelligent design as exemplified with genetic algorithms. ID is very much OK with organisms being intelligently designed to evolve/ adapt and evolving/ adapting by design.

      Variation and natursl selection are two sepaddate ghings.

      The experts disagree with you.

      Variation happens first, then natural selection selects either the original organism or its varient.

      It does NOT select. NS is a purely eliminative process. See the Mayr reference.

      Notice that the FIRST STEP is variation and the SECOND STEP is natural selection.

      LoL! The first step of natural selection is the variation. And that means natural selection includes variation just as I said:

      Natural selection includes the variation- it is the first step of NS.

      And then you falsely accused me of not understanding evolution.

      The first step of a process is obviously included in that process. That is what I said and clearly you have other issues.

      Delete
    16. See also: Dave's misconceptions about natural selection:

      Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic.

      Natural selection includes variation, just as I said and Dave tried to chide me for it. Clearly I understand this subject better than Dave.

      Delete
    17. Joe G is proof texting Myer. If there is no variation, there is nothing for natural selection to select between.

      One way to select is to eliminate all but one choice. The choice remaining has been selected.

      I see that the Joe G interpretation of ID differs from the rest of the ID world's understanding. This just shows that there's more than one way to be wrong.

      Delete
    18. DM: " This just shows that there's more than one way to be wrong."

      But, thankfully, only one way to be Joe.

      Delete
    19. Trying again-

      Dave:
      Joe G is proof texting Myer (sic).

      And Dave is ignoring him.

      If there is no variation, there is nothing for natural selection to select between.

      There isn't any selection and I know that variation is required for natural selection. It is part of the process.

      One way to select is to eliminate all but one choice.

      That isn't what happens in the real world, Dave. Read what Mayr said about the difference between elimination and selection.

      I see that the Joe G interpretation of ID differs from the rest of the ID world's understanding.

      Only your ignorance allows you to say that.

      This just shows that there's more than one way to be wrong.

      And you have been wrong in every way, just like Willie.

      Delete
    20. OK, I have supported my claim that natural selection includes variation. Dave Mullenix has not found any support for his claim.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    21. Monty Python had you pegged 50 years ago.

      "An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. ... It isn't just contradiction."
      https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

      Proof texting is a tiny bit more interesting than just contradiction, but not enough to make it worth continuing this "discussion". Also, "arguing" with you always seems to involve a stop in Room 12, Abuse.

      On a different note, I knew a guy in the Air Force who had the same name as you. Were you by any chance in the AF in 1968?

      Delete
    22. LoL! What a loser you are, Dave. I did not proof text anything and you cannot make the case that I did.

      Mayr supports my claim. UCBerkley supports my claim. And Allen McNeil supports my claim.

      And all Davey can do is lie and squirm like a little coward.

      Delete
    23. And dave is totally clueless about "abuse". Dave hurled false accusations at me all because of his own willful ignorance. That means Davey tried to abuse me but failed, miserably.

      Look Dave, it isn't abuse if I point out the facts and the facts say that natural selection includes variation and there isn't anything you can say to refute those facts.

      Delete
    24. From "What Evolution Is" page 119:

      Box 6.2 The Two Steps of Natural Selection

      Step One: The Production of Variation

      Clearly natural selection includes variation as the first step of NS is the production of variation.

      Cue more of Davey's false accusation of "proof texting"...

      Delete
    25. Were you by any chance in the AF in 1968?“

      Joe was an army ranger, or SEAL, or CIA operative. The story changes constantly. He was injured in Iraq and that’s why he can’t jump up and down.

      Delete
    26. I don't know what is happening to the comments, so here it is again:

      Davey's claim of "proof texting" is a lie. He couldn't support that claim if his life depended on it.

      UCBerkley also supports my claim that natural selection includes variation. Allen McNeil supports my claim that natural selection includes variation.

      Dave has yet to provide any references to support his claims. Dave has Dave and that is it.

      And the only contradiction has been Dave's- how can something be the first step of a process and not be included in that process? Dave has never responded to that and we can all see why.

      As for the call of abuse, well again Dave was the first one to hurl abuse around in this discussion. Talk about cluelessness...

      Delete
    27. wee willie loser:
      Joe was an army ranger, or SEAL, or CIA operative.

      Wrong again, as usual

      The story changes constantly.

      The story is changed by people like you, willie.

      He was injured in Iraq

      That part is true.

      Delete
    28. Is toaster repair in Iraq more dangerous than it is in the US?

      Delete
    29. LoL! You are the one who repairs toasters using a butter knife while the thing is on. These are what I worked on

      Delete
    30. Sorry, Joe, but variation and natural selection together make up evolution. When you dig through the evolutionary literature and find a line or two that, taken out of context, goes against the common understanding of the terms, you're proof texting, just like the fundamentalists do with the Bible.

      I found your McNeill reference at
      https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

      I can see why you might be attracted to an article titled, "Misconceptions About Natural Selection", but the article is oversimplified to the point of distorting some key definitions.

      If you look at an earlier part of that same article at
      https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
      you'll see it starts with this line:

      "Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift."

      Natural selection is ONE of the mechanisms of evolution, ALONG WITH MUTATION.

      On the other hand, I don't hold misunderstanding ID against you since its claims and definitions change occasionally for tactical reasons.

      Delete
    31. LoL! Yes, you are sorry.

      Natural selection is ONE of the mechanisms of evolution, ALONG WITH MUTATION.

      Yes because you can have mutations that cause change that do not also cause differential reproduction. That means you can have change without natural selection.

      AGAIN:


      Joe GOctober 20, 2017 at 6:35 AM
      From "What Evolution Is" page 119:

      Box 6.2 The Two Steps of Natural Selection

      Step One: The Production of Variation


      Clearly natural selection includes variation as the first step of NS is the production of variation.

      I can see why you might be attracted to an article titled, "Misconceptions About Natural Selection", but the article is oversimplified to the point of distorting some key definitions.

      Evidence please. But I see that you think it is OK when you think it supports you. Grow up.

      Look, Davey, I provided THREE references and McNeil's was NOT at the UCBerkley site. He posted that over on Uncommon Descent.

      Also, loser, I don't misunderstand ID. That is just another one of your BS accusations.

      Delete
    32. Not that Dave will understand it but the following was posted on Uncommon Descent and agreed to by the IDists posting there:

      Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution.

      Delete
    33. Proof that Dave "proof texted" UCBerkley- from the same page as Dave's quote-mine:

      Right after Dave's quote-mine the list the steps of natural selection. Variation is the first step. They conclude with:

      "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

      Natural selection includes variation. It is as simple as that.

      Delete
    34. Joe G: "Yes because you can have mutations that cause change that do not also cause differential reproduction. That means you can have change without natural selection."

      Yes, that's called genetic drift.

      Requoting lines from poorly written articles doesn't make them get accurate. Even bolding some lines doesn't help.

      Thanks for the link to your article on UD. I'm really sorry that Dr. Behe doesn't realize that he's an old earth creationist, but if he's against "materialistic evolution ... ie necessity and chance" he doesn't have anywhere else to go. Even space aliens wont help because then he'd just have to explain where they come from,

      Likewise, if Dembski and Wells hold "that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce." then they've painted themselves into the anti-evolutiom corner too.

      Believe it or not, most ID critics are familiar with ID claims that "Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry." We've heard your claims that the Designer could have done it that way, but we're not impressed. That's just one of the reasons why ID is not falsifiable. As your weak argument 9 says, "None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it." Mike Gene and the late John Davison provide other reasons why you cant falsify ID with front loading and whatever Davison was talking about.

      I fully agree that ID can be made to look just exactly like whatever you want it to look like and is thus immune to falsification, but honestly, I don't understand why you're so proud of that.

      But, enough of this. I don't want to look like I'm "abusing" a man who's been kicked off of every ID and evolution blog he's ever posted on and I don't think you'll ever answer the baby duck question, so I'll ask our host a question instead.

      Is the paper you mention in the OP the one by Granville Sewell? If so, did you read it? And if you did, how did you feel about it?

      Thanks in advance.

      Delete
  9. "Welcome to Alt-Science"

    Because less and less people trust science, what we really need is Ctrl+Alt+Del science, getting rid of all the bugs and starting anew.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Me: "My response was in response to Joke's claim that eliminative actions cannot result in increased complexity"

    Joke: "Except I never made that claim."

    Joke: "Natural selection is an eliminative process and you don’t get complex adaptations by merely eliminating the less fit."

    Yet modern cars are full of complexity that is the result of elimination acting on variation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! Complex ADAPTATIONS are a far cry from mere complexity.

      Yet modern cars are full of complexity that is the result of elimination acting on variation.

      Modern cars are intelligently designed and are the result of CONSCIOUS SELECTION and engineering.

      Merely eliminating cars that are lemons will never produce better cars. Someone actually has to make a conscious choice and do something.

      Delete