Propagability of beneficial mutations -- another little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism
Sometimes when a challenge to something is making little or no progress, it is time to try another challenge. Critics of Darwinism have begun to realize that they have put too many eggs in the intelligent-design basket and are looking for other challenges to Darwinism. For example, the challenge based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been revived, but this is a very poor challenge to Darwinism and should be avoided.
There are some non-ID challenges to Darwinism that have hardly been touched upon in the evolution debate. I have already presented one little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism -- what I called the "co-evolutionary paradox." Another little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism is the difficulty of propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction. This difficulty is discussed in an article titled, "Sexual Reproduction: A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists." This article presents a lot of good points but unfortunately does not discuss the very important topic of dominant and recessive genes. Nonetheless, this article gives some background in a much-neglected subject. This article obviously has a religious ax to grind, but that does not make the scientific arguments any less valid. The article has a good list of references to articles in prestigious scientific journals.
Also, there is a propaganda campaign to mislead and confuse the public about what ID really is. Falsely equating ID with creationism is only part of this campaign. This campaign also tries to give the false impression that all challenges to Darwinism that are presented in scientific terms are parts of "ID." Nothing could be further from the truth -- as shown in this blog, there are such challenges to Darwinism that have little or nothing to do with ID. This campaign to mislead and confuse the public has intensified as a result of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, where ID was the only such challenge that was banned by name (though other such challenges were implicitly banned by the prohibition against "disparaging" or "denigrating" evolution theory).
There are some non-ID challenges to Darwinism that have hardly been touched upon in the evolution debate. I have already presented one little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism -- what I called the "co-evolutionary paradox." Another little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism is the difficulty of propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction. This difficulty is discussed in an article titled, "Sexual Reproduction: A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists." This article presents a lot of good points but unfortunately does not discuss the very important topic of dominant and recessive genes. Nonetheless, this article gives some background in a much-neglected subject. This article obviously has a religious ax to grind, but that does not make the scientific arguments any less valid. The article has a good list of references to articles in prestigious scientific journals.
Also, there is a propaganda campaign to mislead and confuse the public about what ID really is. Falsely equating ID with creationism is only part of this campaign. This campaign also tries to give the false impression that all challenges to Darwinism that are presented in scientific terms are parts of "ID." Nothing could be further from the truth -- as shown in this blog, there are such challenges to Darwinism that have little or nothing to do with ID. This campaign to mislead and confuse the public has intensified as a result of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, where ID was the only such challenge that was banned by name (though other such challenges were implicitly banned by the prohibition against "disparaging" or "denigrating" evolution theory).
Labels: Non-ID criticisms of evolution
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/19/2006 03:10:00 AM
59 Comments:
So, are you saying ID is or is not the best way of undermining Darwins noodly appendages? Are the other arguments better?
Are you saying ID is easy to counter? 2nd law of Thermodynamics? Billy Graham? Exaptation does or does not break IC down to RC? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.
one little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism -- what I called the "co-evolutionary paradox." Another little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism is the difficulty of propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction. This difficulty is discussed in an article titled, "Sexual Reproduction: A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists." This article presents a lot of good points but unfortunately does not discuss the very important topic of dominant and recessive genes. Nonetheless, this article gives some background in a much-neglected subject.
Does this mean that these are arguments or background? Do dominant genes always win? What about the meek inheriting the Earth? Is Jesus handsome? If he were gay, would you date him?
BWE wrote --
>>>So, are you saying ID is or is not the best way of undermining Darwins noodly appendages? Are the other arguments better?<<<
At least the two non-ID challenges to evolution that have been presented on this blog are not subject to attack by the "exaptation" argument, the notion that parts of an irreducible system had different functions before becoming part of the system. I do not accept the exaptation argument, but a lot of Darwinists think that it has refuted irreducible complexity. Anyway, I think it is not a good idea for anti-Darwinists to put too many eggs in the ID basket.
>>>Are you saying ID is easy to counter? 2nd law of Thermodynamics? <<<
No, I am not saying that ID is easy to counter. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument is rejected even by many anti-Darwinists, and use of this argument is generally discouraged.
So what part of ID is solid. IC or SC or what? Does exaptation have any value? Also, I am unclear on why sexual reproduction does not create a more likely scenario for beneficial mutations. Cloned organisms have a much lower rate of mutation. If the mutaqtion rate is high (sex) wouldn't that create more opportunity for beneficial mutations too? Maybe I should go post on that thread?
What are you saying here. Are you sayinfg that we should just pick and choose the ideas that are still off the radar of scientists to refute darwinism? Does RM+NS=speciation?
BWE wrote --
>>>So what part of ID is solid. IC or SC or what? Does exaptation have any value?<<<
Please don't change the subject. ID is not the main subject here. The issue of whether ID is solid has already been debated to death on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere -- I am trying here to promote other, little-known challenges to Darwinism. You Panda's Thumb people accuse me of making off-topic comments, yet look at what you do.
>>>Also, I am unclear on why sexual reproduction does not create a more likely scenario for beneficial mutations. Cloned organisms have a much lower rate of mutation. If the mutaqtion rate is high (sex) wouldn't that create more opportunity for beneficial mutations too?<<<
The article I cited in my opening post addresses the effect of sexual reproduction on genetic variability: "Evolutionists have traditionally explained the existence of sexual reproduction as a means to promote genetic variability and, therefore, increase the rate of evolution. However, this explanation suffers from several problems." However, though sexual reproduction promotes genetic variability by means of gene recombinations, sexual reproduction should not have any effect on the rate of occurrence of random mutations, i.e., random changes in the genes themselves. Anyway, I am more concerned here with the effect of sexual reproduction on the propagation of beneficial mutations and favorable sets of genes, whether or not those genes are mutated ones, i.e., I am wondering what happens to the beneficial mutations and favorable gene combinations after they occur. The article I cited in my opening post says of the recombination of genes that occurs in sexual reproduction, "recombination breaks up favorable sets of genes that have accumulated through selection."
>>>Are you saying that we should just pick and choose the ideas that are still off the radar of scientists to refute darwinism?<<<
And are you saying that these non-ID challenges to Darwinism should be ignored just because they have not been on the "radar" of scientists ?
The issue of whether ID is solid has already been debated to death on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere
OT I know but, what was the conclusion? And Larry, please forgive my irreverance, I really can't help myself.
On topic:
However, though sexual reproduction promotes genetic variability by means of gene recombinations, sexual reproduction should not have any effect on the rate of occurrence of random mutations, i.e., random changes in the genes themselves. Anyway, I am more concerned here with the effect of sexual reproduction on the propagation of beneficial mutations and favorable sets of genes, whether or not those genes are mutated ones, i.e., I am wondering what happens to the beneficial mutations and favorable gene combinations after they occur. The article I cited in my opening post says of the recombination of genes that occurs in sexual reproduction, "recombination breaks up favorable sets of genes that have accumulated through selection." (I don't know the code for a quote. ???)
This in three parts.
First this: Evolutionists have traditionally explained the existence of sexual reproduction as a means to promote genetic variability and, therefore, increase the rate of evolution.- as far as I know, this is an accurate assessment of evolutionary theory.
1. How does it follow that sex should not effect the rate of occurrence of random mutations? The opposite of sex would be division, right? Clones have a very low probability of gene mutation. This being because they are, well, clones. So, since this would seem to be the measuring stick, sex ought to have a much higher rate of mutation with the whole sperm and egg deal.
Since that is not the part that concerns you, do you think it is accurate?
2. What happens to the favorable gene combinations after they occur? Well... they get passed down to their offspring, no?
3. recombination breaks up favorable sets of genes that have accumulated through selection ...I am having a hard time processing this one. I hesitate to use the word stupid since I don't know the author but I am at a loss for a better word. Before this one can be tackled, I guess I want to know what you think about it- Especially how it relates to #1 and 2.
I love your blog Larry. Keep it up.
I think you will find that co-evolution is perfectly compatible with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis with each organism reading the same "prescribed" messages during their evolutionary emergence. Convergent evolution is a Darwinian pipe dream and always was. It has never been demonstrated because it never occurred. Certainly natural selection had nothing to do with any of it as its sole function has always been, in the past as it is so obviously is today, to PREVENT change. How wrong can an hypothesis possible be?
A wonderful article by Jean Staune on Non-Darwinian Evolution from a European perspective that everyone should read.
BWE wrote ( April 21, 2006 4:50:15 PM ) --
>>>"The issue of whether ID is solid has already been debated to death on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere"
OT I know but, what was the conclusion?<<<
The answer to that question depends on who you ask.
>>>(I don't know the code for a quote. ???)<<<
"Blockquote" does not work on comments here. I just use other means of separating out quotations: quote marks, >>> <<<, italics, etc.. I have reserved the first post on this blog for testing comments for proper functioning. This blog has some glitches, e.g., I have observed that some of my URL links that appear as highlighted in the comment previews are not highlighted in the posted comments.
>>>How does it follow that sex should not effect the rate of occurrence of random mutations? The opposite of sex would be division, right? Clones have a very low probability of gene mutation.<<<
A mutation is a change in the genes themselves, not just a recombination of genes as occurs in sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction has a much higher rate of genetic variability because of the recombinations of genes, but I see no reason why sexual reproduction should produce a higher rate of mutation.
>>>"recombination breaks up favorable sets of genes that have accumulated through selection" ...I am having a hard time processing this one.<<<
Favorable sets of genes get broken up in sexual reproduction because each organism gets half its chromosomes from each parent. Whether a mutant gene is actually "expressed" in the offspring -- i.e., appears as features in the offspring -- depends on whether the gene is dominant or recessive and sometimes on whether the gene is sex-linked ; that is why I was disappointed that the article did not discuss or mention gene dominance and recessiveness. Also, some unusual features that do not appear to be controlled by dominant genes tend to diminish in succeeding generations in organisms that reproduce sexually. Furthermore, beneficial mutations tend to spread slowly in animals with low rates of reproduction. The appearance of a beneficial mutation or a favorable combination of genes in a single individual or small group of individuals is only the first step -- I want to know how those beneficial mutations and favorable gene combinations are propagated in succeeding generations. I think this is an area of evolution theory that has been too neglected.
Allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution either. That is just another neo-Darwinian pipe dream. When Mendel was finally dscovered in 1900, the geneticists immediately assumed that they had found the answer to evolutionary change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither Mendelism nor sexual reproduction, which is the instrument for the transmission of allelic genes, had anything whatsoever to do with evolution. Both are anti-evolutionary and serve primarily to ensure ultimate extinction. All either can support is the establishment of varieties and for many organisms even that is quite impossible.
Natural selection is another neo-Darwinian myth. It prevents rather than promotes change. That is all it ever did. How wrong can an hypothesis be?
The difficulty resides on the unwarranted assumption that evolution HAD an identifiable external cause. Such a cause has never been identified because such a cause never existed. Like ontogeny, phylogeny has proceeded, past tense again, entirely on the basis of prescribed sets of goal-seeking instructions introduced by an unknown number of Creators in an unknown number of places in, as yet, an unknown number of times during the geological record. Furthermore creative evolution is a phenomenon of the past just as Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Peirre Grasse all properly concluded. One of these centuries this will be accepted and neo-Darwinism will become a mere footnote right next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. So will Biblical Fundamentalism.
Is that both anti-Darwinian and anti-Fundamentalist enough for you? If it isn't I have more, lots more.
Mr JAD,
How about reading a book on speciation? You will learn some valuable stuff.
I would recommend 'speciation' by Coyne & Orr (2005).
Nearly all the substance of my previous post has been previously published and would be available from my several papers which were available on the side bar at Uncommon Descent where DaveScot had introduced them. Unfortunately DaveScot found it necessary to delete them. I once again ask that they be reinstated.
jeannot
I don't read Darwinian mysticism any more and haven't for quite some time. Also it is Doctor, not Mister, JAD and has been for over a half century. Got that? Write that down and don't waste your valuable time with me. I am sure you must have more profitable things to do.
FooFooMan, DaveTard, and John Deliriuson all on the same blog?
Comedy Central has some real competition, I tell ya!
As I sign off on my own blog:
I love it so!
Welcome to Blogspot, Farfarman from Missouri!
One author you will be very intersted in is agnostic Australian David Stove, who offer cogent arguments against Darwinism/neo-Darwinism but is in no sense a creationist. I blogged on him yesterday at
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006/04/agnostic-aussie-philosopher-neo.html
Briefly, Stove focuses on Darwin's debt to Malthus, and asks, can Malthusian constraints explain the history of life?
Anyone who questions Darwinism. which - as Stove points out - has clearly become a religion for some, but is NOT approaching it as an American fundamentalist, will find Stove worth the read. Anyway, if you haven't already done so, check my blog, and the links from it, and enjoy!
- cheers, Denyse
The comment by anonymous is allowed to stand which constitutes a difference between this blog and my own. Such a comment contributes nothing of value to the discussion and I would delete it on those grounds while explaining to the sender why that became necessary. Such comments should not be tolerated on any forum anywhere. Getting that kind of attention however is very gratifying and so naturally:
I love it so!
I love it so!
John Davison-
Anonomous' post is relevant. I can only imagine what you and Dave see when you look in the mirror, but I assure you, it is different than what most people see. Larry at least, is honestly engaged in attempting to rationalize his desire for RM+NS=speciation not to be true. He is often funny but not always. You on the other hand, are pure comedy.
Denyse O'Leary wrote (April 22, 2006 11:40:43 AM) --
>>>Welcome to Blogspot, Farfarman from Missouri!
One author you will be very intersted in is agnostic Australian David Stove, who offer cogent arguments against Darwinism/neo-Darwinism but is in no sense a creationist. <<<<<<
A lot of people -- including David Stove -- like to discuss evolution from a philosophical standpoint, introducing such things as theological and social issues. I prefer to discuss evolution from a scientific standpoint. That is what attracted me to irreducible complexity -- it uses scientific arguments to challenge evolution.
Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure is a popular treatment of the issue with the 2nd Law but it goes a little deeper than most. In the article Granville Sewell points out that in the context of the 2nd Law entropy has to do with thermal motion. However, not all forms of order/disorder are measurable in terms of thermal motion. The "open system" argument would therefore only apply to thermal systems and not necessarily to other forms of order.
Besides, the information in DNA is non-material, and on that basis alone, the "open system" argument would not apply.
Larry F, I don't like your posts, and I honestly think you're 'touched' as they say, but I'll give you credit where credit is due--at least you are interested in free and open debate, in stark contrast to Dembski and Davetard, who are dishonest, capricious, jerks.
I will be interested in seeing what Davetard says on Dembski's blog about Dave Heddle's claim that ID is not science.
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/04/call-for-maverick-id-bloggers.html
-steve s
I applaud you for rejecting a spot on Uncommonly Dense on the basis of your principles, and I suspect BarryA, who hasn't been seen there since March 28, noticed some of the unseemly things you did and jumped ship. But that's just a guess, we don't know what happened to BarryA.
-steve s
I see DaveScot refuses to respond to my request here as elsewhere which is the primary reason I visited this blog. Bullies are like that. Otherwise it seems to be just another flame zone, populated by the same retarded, illiterate, unpublished, anonymous (of course), unfullfilled lightweights one finds at Panda's Thumb, the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism. Accordingly, there is no reason for a published scientist to further waste his time dealing with a forum that promotes such practices.
"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl Marx
I love it so!
JAD,
Why won't you spend your time discussing evolution with people who actually know about it?
Too bad, I had a few questions for you :
- What is your definition of evolution?
- Why is evolution finished and when did it stop?
- How would you test prescribed evolution?
Oh, and my first research papers are in the pipeline. When they get published, will you answer?
Thank you. :-)
JohnADavison wrote ( Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:27:57 PM ) --
>>>Otherwise it seems to be just another flame zone ......, there is no reason for a published scientist to further waste his time dealing with a forum that promotes such practices. <<<
I do not "[promote] such practices." In fact, I promote the opposite -- in my introduction to this blog I say, "Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged."
Discouraged? What a joke. If you can't enforce some level of civility get the hell out of cyberspace. You don't have to be like DaveScot, high-handed and militant about it either. You are permitting everything and anything and the jackals are using you to gratify their degenerate needs.
You are always welcome at by blog. All I require is some semblance of common decency. I have not found that here.
JohnADavison said...
>>>Discouraged? What a joke. If you can't enforce some level of civility get the hell out of cyberspace.<<<
For me to start censoring comments here would defeat my original purpose for creating this blog. Furthermore, I would be accused of hypocrisy.
Commenters here are solely responsible for the contents of their posted comments.
Sorry Larry. It doesn't work that way. This is your blog and you and you alone are responsible for what transpires here. If you allow denigration and debasement (and you do) it reflects on your integrity. For that reason I must wash my hands of your forum. So you see your methods are not very effective are they? You are always welcome at my blog.
I love it so!
Although these posts may stray from their topics, I think Larry is correct in pointing out that that is the nature of this particular blog. I'm sure Larry will be able to steer the discussion back to it's original topic well enough. If a thread loses interst for Larry, he can always either ignore it or close it to more comments.
Mr. JAD,
I recommend Origin of Species I forget who it's by. Google it or check at Amazon I suppose.
Now, back on topic,
It seems to me that each criticism of Darwin's ToE or modern ToE should be individually dissected. That is why I asked the outcome of the ID debate. Unfortunately, ID has become clouded by idiots like Dembski and Dave Scott so often the debates get goofy before they get substantive. But seriously, if I say there are dozens of reasons to suspect a geocentric universe, that doesn't make it true. So I think the issues should be debated individually and discarded as soon as they are proven to be false or misleading. That way, the stronger points would rise to the surface and the cases could be debated on their merits rather than on the PR campaign of the DI and Casey Luskin. They have lost all credibility and should be shunned at all cost by those who wish to promote alternative theories of or to evolution. SLoT is an easy one to discard, due to the sun and all so, as you pointed out, it should be left behind and those who wish to use it as an argument should be educated by those on their own side that it doesn't work. That way we don't have to all gang up on those who first come in to the debate armed with bad arguments.
Cheers,
BWE
BWE wrote ( Sunday, April 23, 2006 1:18:51 PM ) --
>>> If a thread loses interst for Larry, he can always either ignore it or close it to more comments.<<<
No, I will never close threads here. The Panda's Thumb bloggers sometimes did this and it was very annoying because it often cut off discussions in the middle.
Jeffahn wrote ( Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:07:44 PM ) --
>>>Is DaveScot going to be answering questions here? I have some questions about Irreducible Complexity(IC). <<<
I suggest that long truly off-topic discussions about ID and/or IC be held on a comment thread that I have expressly created for this purpose, "Comment Thread for Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity." If there is a concern that moving the discussion to that thread will interrupt the discussion, then relevant posts can of course be copied over to that thread -- you should of course leave behind a note saying that the discussion is being continued on that thread and maybe also identifying the date and time where the discussion is being picked up on that thread. Where different discussions are mixed together on that thread, it is a good idea to identify the commenter and the date & time of the post that you are responding to. I will not delete or move any comments concerning ID and/or IC. The creation of that new thread is not meant to discourage truly on-topic discussions about ID or IC on other threads.
Origin of Species was properly lampooned 12 years afte it appeared by St George Jackson Mivart when he asked the question -
How can natural selection affect a structure that has not yet appeared?
His book "The Genesis of Species" is one you all should read.
Darwinism is the biggest and longest lasting disaster in the history of science.
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
And its the slowest but surest form of suicide in the history of civilization.
I love it so!
Hey Davetard, what happened to BarryA? We're guessing he rejected your behavior and quit the site.
Mr JAD,
Have you heard about mutations?
The propagation of allelic mutations has now and never had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. That is just one more aspect of the Darwinian pipe dream. Phylogeny, exactly as ontogeny, has been driven entirely by endogenous forces. The only role for the environment was to evoke latent potential. Natural selection and point mutations played no role except to ensure ultimate extinction. I thought everybody knew that by now. I guess not.
I love it so!
Jad. Ok, let's talk about an example here. Allele - Take the different colours of human eyes. What would your explanation be?
renier
Just what the hell has the color of human eyes got to do with anything beyond the color of human eyes? Do you actually think it ever had anything to do with evolution? It is a perfect example of a neutral character, a meaningless allelic mutation which confers absolutely nothing for those that posess it. You amaze me with your choice.
I love it so!
renier prefers the old brown eye if you know what i mean and i think you do
Larry
Isn't renier precious?
Of course JAD, mutations have nothing to do with evolution, they're all neutral. Everybody knows that. Yeah, sure.
Since you won't spend your time reading the thousands of pappers that would show you how clueless you are, how could you know that mutations are an evolutionnary process, acknowledged by every (honest) scientist?
Do you love it so?
And what about skin color, is it neutral?
JohnADavison wrote ( Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:52:55 AM ) --
>>>Renier
Just what the hell has the color of human eyes got to do with anything beyond the color of human eyes? Do you actually think it ever had anything to do with evolution? <<<
Actually, JAD, I think that Renier's question about eye color was a fair one. There is a theory that the colors of hair and eyes have played a role in human evolution because of their effect on sexual attractiveness. See "The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics"
Larry
Anonymous and Larry too.
Allelic point mutations never had anything whatsoever to do with the emergence of any new life form on this planet. There is no point in even discussing this matter with you because you both have indelibly inscribed on your cortices your own convictions.
"A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian allelomorphic mutation plays no part in creative evolution. It is, as it were, a more or less pathological fluctuation in the genetic code. It is an ACCIDENT on the 'magnetic tape' on which the PRIMARY INFORMATION FOR THR SPECIES IS RECORDED.
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 243, my emphasis.
I love it so!
JohnADavison said ( Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:40:43 PM ) --.
>>>Anonymous and Larry too.
Allelic point mutations never had anything whatsoever to do with the emergence of any new life form on this planet. There is no point in even discussing this matter with you because you both have indelibly inscribed on your cortices your own convictions.<<<
I have not expressed any opinion here about this matter. I only responded to Renier's question about the evolution of eye color in humans. Anyway, I think that the article about the evolution of blond hair and blue eyes in Nordics is interesting.
Larry
My apologies.
Skin colour might not be neutral, or might not have anything to do with sexual selection (although, sexual selection cannot be ruled out). But for the production of Vit-D, a lighter skin colour would be better in, say, colder countries with less sunshine.
" renier prefers the old brown eye if you know what i mean and i think you do" - Oh, Dave, see you still lurk around here. Projecting again?
"It is an ACCIDENT on the 'magnetic tape' on which the PRIMARY INFORMATION FOR THR SPECIES IS RECORDED."
Thus, a random mutation?
renier
All allelic mutations are random. Most of them are either neutral or deleterious. The only mutations that are of significance are those that involve the restructuring of the chromosome which is or was the site of all the "prescribed" evolutionary information. Current evidence favors that such mutations occurred at "preferred" sites in accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
I love it so.
Professor JAD,
Could you explain us in a few words how new species appear ?
Thx
You've answered in the other thread.
Thx.
Jad wrote "Most of them are either neutral or deleterious."
So, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to agree that SOME random mutations can be "good". If so, then we agree on this. Now, would you agree that natural selection decides what is "good" and what is "bad" mutations, and does not care about the neutral ones?
renier
Allelic mutatioms (base pair substitutions) never had anything to do with the emergence of a new life form. They produce only minor variations on a basic theme which remains otherwise unchanged. For example, every gene that has been identified in dogs has proven to be a Mendelian factor which means that none of them ever had anything to do with organic evolution. Otto, my Dachshund has short legs for exactly the same reason that an achondroplastic human dwarf has short legs. All living things are virtually identical at the level of the gene. Genes have nothing to do with evolution. It is the regulation, silencing and activation of them that now determines ontogeny and in the past determined phylogeny which no longer is in progress. I doubt you will agree but that is my position. I recommend Goldschmidt's "The Material Basis of Evolution" for a similar appraisal of the gene.
Anyhow, thanks for asking a question instead of engaging in insult which seems to be the norm here. Asking questions and finding answers is what science is all about.
I love it so!
Jad wrote "emergence of a new life form".
Hang on there. We are still at minor variations. We cannot just jump over to "new life forms".
Ok, so we agree that random mutation happens (sometimes good mutations, it might be rare), and that natural selection gets to decide what is good or bad mutations, and that natural selection shuts up about neutral mutations? Am I correct in assuming this.
If so, what is your definition of a "new life form". Would that be a difference such as aerobic and an-aerobic bacteria? Would that be different life forms, according to you? (My spelling sucks, English is not my native language.)
eIn a few words
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
By a new life form I mean a progeny which cannot successfully interbreed with its immediate parent. That is exactly what all real evolution in the past involved, the instant production of new species with no gradual intermediates whatsoever, a process no longer in progress.
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links. They never existed"
Paraphrased after Otto Schindewolf
"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
ibid but verbatim
I love it so!
heheheheh
That had to be Spravid Dinger and probably half in the bag.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!
You see what I mean? What a loser. I hope Wembski is watching his precious blogczar making a perfect fool of himself.
I love it so!
In that whole blog you never gave any calculations on probability of beneficial mutations! NONE! So how do we know they are improbable. SHOW US! It would be nice if you lived up to your own claims about yourself.
The deleterious mutation rate has been studied. It turns out that 2.6 mutations out of 1000 are deleterious. That means 997.4 mutations out of 1,000 are potentially beneficial, depending on what the environment is. That's VERY probable.
PD Keightley and A Caballero, Genomic mutation rates for lifetime reproductive output and lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 3823-3827, 1997
paul lucas
You are a Darwinian mystic and so I will not honor your mindless claim with a response. Got that? Write that down. Enjoy.
I love it so!
Classic Davison. If someone gives a valid criticism he dismisses it with a wave of his hand and pretends to be above it rather than reveal what an incompetent old fool he is. He spent almost 50 years with a PhD in biology dissecting frogs and in all that time even at an obscure university couldn't manage a promotion to full professor. When it became apparent he couldn't produce any notable work dissecting frogs he started raving against Darwinists. Is it any wonder the University of Vermont didn't want this mentally disturbed jagoff stepping foot on their campus ever again?
Spravid Dinger
You are performing according to specs, full of hate, denigration, insecurity and a profound disregard for the truth. You are the text book bully, yellow to the core.
I don't have to call you what you are because with every post you demonstrate that you are a moral, cultural and ethical zero, totally lacking in an semblance of integrity or honesty. You are a caricature of yourself. Don't stop. Sooner or later others will know you as I do. That is all that really matters.
I love it so!
Post a Comment
<< Home