The Emperor Has No Clothes!

[bob b]

Over the past 20 years or so I have gradually been accumulating information that indicates a lack of solid science at the foundations of evolutionary theory.

[1] abiogenesis has become less credible than once believed.

[2] Natural Selection seems to be more of a slogan than a scientific mechanism.

[3] Mutations seem to be an inadequate way to generate the tremendous amounts of information in current genomes.

[4] Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate).

[5] The appearance of sexual reproduction defies naturalistic explanation.

[6] The Cambrian Explosion appears to falsify the single ancestral protocell concept.

[7] The fossil record in general is a record of minimal change punctuated by new forms lacking ancestors.

[8] The "icons" in textbooks are now known to be false or at least misleading, but they persist, probably due to the lack of anything better to replace them with.

All of these things are foundational, which to me indicates that "molecules to man" is a concept which lacks a firm scientific foundation.

[efta777]

The way I look at it, you can use all the scientific terms and slogans you want, but when it comes right down to it, no one has ever truly been able to explain how certain things happen. You just have to stop and think about any animal, any bodily function, then try to figure out how that may have possibly evolved through small mutations over the years (Even though mutations are negative 99% of the time).
It just doesn't work.

[Mr. Ben]

Over the past 20 years or so I have gradually been accumulating information that indicates a lack of solid science at the foundations of evolutionary theory.

[1] abiogenesis has become less credible than once believed.

In that 20 year period..

1. Ilya Prigogene won the Nobel Prize for his work on chemical systems and dissipative structures in thermodynamic disequilibrium.

2. Complexity theory describing self organization and emergent behavior were put forward.

3. Undersea volcanic vents were discovered to be teaming with chemical based life.

3. Archea thermophile bacteria were discovered and based on genetics and morphology to be some of the most primitive forms of life on earth.

4. RNA was found to have the ability to self catalyze itself.

And there are many more.. thiosesters, pyrite catalysts, lipid spheres, etc.

[2] Natural Selection seems to be more of a slogan than a scientific mechanism.

It's more of a mathematical algorithm than a slogan. If you have a pen and paper and a few minutes, you can prove it to yourself.

[3] Mutations seem to be an inadequate way to generate the tremendous amounts of information in current genomes.

Mutation can generate unlimited "information" in the classical shannon definition. To cull that information to Dembski's "specified" information, you have to have a selection mechanism such as "natural selection". Evolution provides both mutation as a way of adding information to a genome, and natural selection as a way of etching away the negative mutations leaving only the positive ones.

Again, you can try this algorithm for yourself to see if it works, either on a computer, or on paper.

[4] Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate).

If the least fit die.. who's left?

[5] The appearance of sexual reproduction defies naturalistic explanation.

No, it just seems to defy Bob's explanation.

[6] The Cambrian Explosion appears to falsify the single ancestral protocell concept.

There was no "cambrian explosion"... unless you count 30 to 60 million years as an "explosion".

[7] The fossil record in general is a record of minimal change punctuated by new forms lacking ancestors.

The fossil record is replete with evidence of the branching treelike pattern of ancestral and descendant species. Creationism predicts that this should not be so, it also predicts that we should find modern species at least occasionally below ancient species. We don't. Creationism is falsified.

[8] The "icons" in textbooks are now known to be false or at least misleading, but they persist, probably due to the lack of anything better to replace them with.

The so-called "icons" in textbooks have nothing to do with the truth of evolution. Evolution is supported by the fossil evidence, the genetic pattern of branching similarities in DNA between all species, and various other converging lines of evidence.

And Wells has played very fast and loose with the facts in his book on "icons".

All of these things are foundational, which to me indicates that "molecules to man" is a concept which lacks a firm scientific foundation.

You are gravely mistaken.

The way I look at it, you can use all the scientific terms and slogans you want, but when it comes right down to it, no one has ever truly been able to explain how certain things happen.

Scientists don't use slogans.. they use evidence, and they give these lines of evidence names. The nice thing about science is that you can always check out the evidence.. you don't have to just blindly accept the "slogans".

And you are wrong.. evolution explains in detail "how" life evolves. Mutation and natural selection are the simple description, then you get into population genetics, differential selection, sexual selection, etc.

You just have to stop and think about any animal, any bodily function, then try to figure out how that may have possibly evolved through small mutations over the years (Even though mutations are negative 99% of the time).

It just doesn't work.

Are you sure? Perhaps you are dismissing a subject prematurely simply because you don't know enough about it to make an informed decision?

Remember, scientists are not stupid.. and they all universally agree that life has evolved, and is still evolving. They point out that the bodily functions you see in one animal are in other animals in a simpler form, and also in many fossil animals in an even more primitive form. What would that indicate?

They also would point out evidence such as the dramatic order of fossils in the layers of rock, where the simplest fossils are always on the bottom (no exceptions) and the more complex ones are above them, and the fact that between adjacent layers the fossils are very similar, while layers further apart are more different.

In fact, they can trace trees of similarities from the bottom layers to the upper layers, showing changes in features of different types of animals over time. This pattern is repeated everywhere in the geological layers and in all fossils, and it is the most compelling reason why scientists universally accept evolution.

Creationism states that the flood buried the fossils.. but we never find any bones of modern animals buried there.. only ancient animal forms, and only in the order of evolution.. not by water bouyancy sorting or any other method.

[bob b]

Ben,

Nice try but no cigar.

[1] abiogenesis has become less credible than once believed.

Obviously dogmatists will always come up with “scenarios, but the fact remains that the last 20 years has revealed that life is far more complex than originally believed, and still there are only unconfirmed hypotheses to lure the gullible into believing that life arose “naturally”.
[
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf

[2] Natural Selection seems to be more of a slogan than a scientific mechanism.

Ben doesn’t seem to realize that the prized trophy, peppered moths, has gone the way of Nebraska Man: 1% fact laced with 99% imagination.

[3] Mutations seem to be an inadequate way to generate the tremendous amounts of information in current genomes.

Ben doesn’t seem to recognize that the ratio between successful mutations and unsuccessful ones is for all practical purposes zero.

[4] Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate).

Ben fails to recognize that many species survive each generation so that a lone successful mutant does not automatically “take over”the population as it would if it were specifically “selected.”

[5] The appearance of sexual reproduction defies naturalistic explanation.

Population genetists like John Maynard Smith call it a mystery, as does the less qualified Richard Dawkins. They explain that this is because the recombination process tends to “shred” the genome, preventing any specific new mutant gene from accumulating progressive change. This doesn’t impact existing genes since the current alleles are already widely established in the population. Thus, in sexually reproducing lifeforms any alleles of a specific gene will be extremely similar, which is what we observe in DNA sequencing.

[6] The Cambrian Explosion appears to falsify the single ancestral protocell concept.

NeoDarwinism requires slow changes to yield a new species followed by more slow changes to yield a new genus followed by more slow changes to yield a new family followed by more slow changes to yield a new order followed by more slow changes to yield a new class followed by more slow changes to yield a new phylum followed by more slow changes to yield a new kingdom. This is the classic definition the "tree-building" process. But virtually all the phyla appeared abruptly in the lowest fossil bearing layers called Cambrian, which is why it is called an “explosion”. .And essentially no new phyla have appeared for many millians of years. The fossil record looks nothing like the theory predicted.

[7] The fossil record in general is a record of minimal change punctuated by new forms lacking ancestors.

I think Gould and Eldridge and others have described the record accurately.

[8] The "icons" in textbooks are now known to be false or at least misleading, but they persist, probably due to the lack of anything better to replace them with.

I am amused by the attempts to nullify Well’s “icon expose" by attacking him personally or by denying the obvious or by changing the subject. If there were better icons the old fallacious ones would be discarded.
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=605
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=1275
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=1144


As far as Nobel prizes are concerned these are sometimes given out for activities that have led nowhere: Jimmy Carter’s award is a classic example. Oh well, committees are composed of humans who are frequently impressed by a “nice try”.

[efta777]

Only one thing to address:
Remember, scientists are not stupid.. and they all universally agree that life has evolved, and is still evolving.

How can I take anything you said here seriously after reading this? This is obviously a complete lie, because I can think of dozens of scientists who have renounced evolution as unfounded in reality. Heck, I'm sure you can probably even think of some, but if you can't then you really need to go do some more studying before you talk about a subject without knowing both sides.

[bob b]

Ben,

Here are just a few links which discuss the problems with life developing "naturally":

Austin, “Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?”
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-109.htm

Aw, “The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf

Bergman, “Why Abiogenesis is Impossible”
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Chadwick, “Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis”
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

Denner, “The Primitive Atmosphere”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3813.asp

Eastman, “The Origin of Life—the Hardware”
http://www.marshill.org/Origin_of_life.htm

Eastman & Missler, “The Origin of Life and the Suppression of the Truth”
http://www.yfiles.com/origin.html

Eastman & Missler, “The Origin of Information”
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/origin2.html

Gene, “The Context for Abiogenesis”
http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000081.html

Gibson, “Did Life Begin in an RNA World?”
http://www.grisda.org/origins/20045.htm

God & Science, “Is the Chemical Origin of Life a Realistic Scenario?”
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

God & Science, “Chirality Still a Problem for Origin of Life” (article summary)
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol1999.html#Chirality

God & Science, “Evolution of DNA from RNA Unlikely” (article summary)
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol1999.html#RNRs

Javor, “Life: An Evidence for Creation”
http://www.grisda.org/origins/25002.htm

Javor, “Origin of Life: A Look at Late 20th-Century Thinking”
http://www.grisda.org/origins/14007.htm

Javor, “Origin of Life: The Theory of Surface Metabolism”
http://www.grisda.org/origins/16040.htm

Kenyon & Mills, “RNA World: A Critique”
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

Klyce, “The RNA World”
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

C.M., “Life by Design or Chance?”
http://www.idurc.org/designorchance.html

Meyer, “DNA and the Origin of Life” (pdf)
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf

Meyer, “The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism”
http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCrecentArticles.php3?id=98

Peet, “The Quest for a Chemical Origin of Life”
http://www.mesozoic.demon.co.uk/chemical.htm

Rosevear, “The Myth of Chemical Evolution”
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-313.htm

Sarfati, “Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks”
http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.asp

Sarfati, “Hydrothermal Origin of Life?”
http://www.trueorigin.org/hydrothermal.asp

Sarfati, “Self-replicating Enzymes? A Critique of Some Current Origin of Life Models”
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/3974.asp

Sarfati, “Origin of Life: the Chirality Problem”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp

Sarfati, Critique of a Proposed Solution to the Chirality Problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/magnetochiral.asp

Sarfati, “Origin of Life: the Polymerization Problem”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3998.asp

Sarfati, “Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life: Summary”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp

Snelling, “The First Atmosphere”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3847.asp

Thaxton, “DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life”
http://www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.html

Thaxton, et al., “The Mystery of Life's Origin” (chs. 7, 8 & 9)
http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/

Walton, “Organization and the Origin of Life”
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04016.htm

Walton, “Chemical Composition of the Earth's Original Atmosphere”
http://www.grisda.org/origins/03066.htm

[shima]

Bob b:
>>[1] abiogenesis has become less credible than once believed.

Obviously dogmatists will always come up with “scenarios, but the fact remains that the last 20 years has revealed that life is far more complex than originally believed, and still there are only unconfirmed hypotheses to lure the gullible into believing that life arose “naturally”. <<

Obviously, this is a problem when investigating history. Since we don't have a time machine to go back and see for ourselves, we have to use indirect methods and calculation based scenarios. Are they proof? No, they are not proof in the experimental sense of the word.

>>[2] Natural Selection seems to be more of a slogan than a scientific mechanism.

Ben doesn’t seem to realize that the prized trophy, peppered moths, has gone the way of Nebraska Man: 1% fact laced with 99% imagination.<<

The "prized trophy" nowadays is found in virology where bacteria are developing immunities against penicilin and other nati-biotics through natural selection. This conclusion is based on many years of lab tests, so we can be sure that it has been EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED.

>>[3] Mutations seem to be an inadequate way to generate the tremendous amounts of information in current genomes.

Ben doesn’t seem to recognize that the ratio between successful mutations and unsuccessful ones is for all practical purposes zero.<<

Wrong. Since beneficial mutations CAN occur, the chance that all mutations are neutral/harmfull therefore is NOT zero. Given a non-zero chance and plenty of time, one beneficial mutation will crop up. And ofcourse, the name "successfull" is totally dependant on the environment.

>>[4] Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate).

Ben fails to recognize that many species survive each generation so that a lone successful mutant does not automatically “take over”the population as it would if it were specifically “selected.”<<

"Survival of the Fittest" was a slogan thought up by a newspaper reporter, and was not coined by evolutionary scientists. Besides, the issue is the survival of the INDIVIDUAL, not the survival of the SPECIES.

>>[5] The appearance of sexual reproduction defies naturalistic explanation.

Population genetists like John Maynard Smith call it a mystery, as does the less qualified Richard Dawkins. They explain that this is because the recombination process tends to “shred” the genome, preventing any specific new mutant gene from accumulating progressive change. This doesn’t impact existing genes since the current alleles are already widely established in the population. Thus, in sexually reproducing lifeforms any alleles of a specific gene will be extremely similar, which is what we observe in DNA sequencing.<<

Alright, I'll give you this one. SO FAR, sexual reproduction has defied explanation. But ofcourse Bob, you know that the absense of proof doesn't constitute proof of absense.

>>[6] The Cambrian Explosion appears to falsify the single ancestral protocell concept.

NeoDarwinism requires slow changes to yield a new species followed by more slow changes to yield a new genus followed by more slow changes to yield a new family followed by more slow changes to yield a new order followed by more slow changes to yield a new class followed by more slow changes to yield a new phylum followed by more slow changes to yield a new kingdom. This is the classic definition the "tree-building" process. But virtually all the phyla appeared abruptly in the lowest fossil bearing layers called Cambrian, which is why it is called an “explosion”. .And essentially no new phyla have appeared for many millians of years. The fossil record looks nothing like the theory predicted.<<

The "speed" of evolution is NOT a certain, constant factor but depend on several factors. The most important one is the "lack of fitness" of the organisms with respect to the environment. If the environment has undergone serious changes, then it is very likely that organisms that first fitted their environment perfectly would NOT do so now. Thus, there is a possibility of change such that the organisms are better suited for their environment. IF the "gap" between organism and environment is large enough, then the possibility of change to BETTER fit the environment is also larger. Thus, we should see that evolution occurs most rapidly directly AFTER massive environmental changes. Since the Cambrian Explosion confirms this conclusion, the Cambrian Explosion actually counts as evidence FOR evolution.

>>[7] The fossil record in general is a record of minimal change punctuated by new forms lacking ancestors.

I think Gould and Eldridge and others have described the record accurately.<<

I think they didn't.

>>As far as Nobel prizes are concerned these are sometimes given out for activities that have led nowhere: Jimmy Carter’s award is a classic example. Oh well, committees are composed of humans who are frequently impressed by a “nice try”.<<

That is mostly because in some categories there is very little in the way of detectable progress. In science, the amount of references to your work is at least SOME indication of its worth. And no, in the science department a "nice try" might be worth a publication, but only so that others will not try the same experiment.

[Valmoon]

Efta picks one line out of Ben's reply to focus on and then doesnt deal with anything else.

"Lazy bones sleeping..."

[bob b]

Shima,

>>[1] abiogenesis has become less credible than once believed.

>Obviously, this is a problem when investigating history. Since we don't have a time machine to go back and see for ourselves, we have to use indirect methods and calculation based scenarios. Are they proof? No, they are not proof in the experimental sense of the word.<

(Obviously a concession that abiogenesis continues to lack credible experimental verification)

>>[2] Natural Selection seems to be more of a slogan than a scientific mechanism.

>The "prized trophy" nowadays is found in virology where bacteria are developing immunities against penicilin and other anti-biotics through natural selection. This conclusion is based on many years of lab tests, so we can be sure that it has been EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED.<

Antibiotic resistence has been experimentally verified, but this new “prized trophy” generally entails the loss of information not a gain as “molecules to man” evolution requires.

>>[3] Mutations seem to be an inadequate way to generate the tremendous amounts of information in current genomes.

>Since beneficial mutations CAN occur, the chance that all mutations are neutral/harmfull therefore is NOT zero. Given a non-zero chance and plenty of time, one beneficial mutation will crop up. And ofcourse, the name "successfull" is totally dependant on the environment.<

The statement said “inadequate” which, considering my previous reply that “beneficial” mutations such as ones that confer antibiotic resistence entail the loss of information, means that “molecules to man” evolution still lacks a demonstrablly adequate mechanism.

>>[4] Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate).

Ben fails to recognize that many species survive each generation so that a lone successful mutant does not automatically “take over”the population as it would if it were specifically “selected.”<<

>"Survival of the Fittest" was a slogan thought up by a newspaper reporter, and was not coined by evolutionary scientists. Besides, the issue is the survival of the INDIVIDUAL, not the survival of the SPECIES.<

No, the issue is what I stated and you sidestepped: the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous. The population geneticists have also pointed this out, which was the essence of Haldane’s Dilemma”, which was simple observation that in higher animals like primates where birthrates are small and the number of transformational mutations of necessity large, there is woefully inadequate time for major transformations to occur (not to mention the sexual reproduction tendency to "shred" the genome during recombination and hence work against any accumulation of mutations in a specific gene).

>>[5] The appearance of sexual reproduction defies naturalistic explanation.

Population genetists like John Maynard Smith call it a mystery, as does the less qualified Richard Dawkins. They explain that this is because the recombination process tends to “shred” the genome, preventing any specific new mutant gene from accumulating progressive change. This doesn’t impact existing genes since the current alleles are already widely established in the population. Thus, in sexually reproducing lifeforms any alleles of a specific gene will be extremely similar, which is what we observe in DNA sequencing.<<

>Alright, I'll give you this one. SO FAR, sexual reproduction has defied explanation. But ofcourse Bob, you know that the absense of proof doesn't constitute proof of absense.<

>>[6] The Cambrian Explosion appears to falsify the single ancestral protocell concept.

NeoDarwinism requires slow changes to yield a new species followed by more slow changes to yield a new genus followed by more slow changes to yield a new family followed by more slow changes to yield a new order followed by more slow changes to yield a new class followed by more slow changes to yield a new phylum followed by more slow changes to yield a new kingdom. This is the classic definition the "tree-building" process. But virtually all the phyla appeared abruptly in the lowest fossil bearing layers called Cambrian, which is why it is called an “explosion”. .And essentially no new phyla have appeared for many millians of years. The fossil record looks nothing like the theory predicted.<<

>The "speed" of evolution is NOT a certain, constant factor but depend on several factors. The most important one is the "lack of fitness" of the organisms with respect to the environment. If the environment has undergone serious changes, then it is very likely that organisms that first fitted their environment perfectly would NOT do so now. Thus, there is a possibility of change such that the organisms are better suited for their environment. IF the "gap" between organism and environment is large enough, then the possibility of change to BETTER fit the environment is also larger. Thus, we should see that evolution occurs most rapidly directly AFTER massive environmental changes. Since the Cambrian Explosion confirms this conclusion, the Cambrian Explosion actually counts as evidence FOR evolution.<

I think you are confusing the Cambrian explosion with extinction events that occurred much later. However, Punk Eek tries to salvage evolution by claiming that it happens so fast that no fossil record is left of the gradual transformations that neoDarwinism predicts, thus in effect throwing doubt on neoDarwinism. How no evidence of gradual transformation becomes evidence for evolution is quite a mental feat, since the lack of gradual fossil transformation was never a prediction and in effect is only a restatement of what the fossil record shows: the lack of gradual transformation.

>>[7] The fossil record in general is a record of minimal change punctuated by new forms lacking ancestors.I think Gould and Eldridge and others have described the record accurately.<<

<I think they didn't<.

Faith is wonderful but science requires evidence and the evidence is that there is a lack of gradual transformation in the fossil record.

>>As far as Nobel prizes are concerned these are sometimes given out for activities that have led nowhere: Jimmy Carter’s award is a classic example. Oh well, committees are composed of humans who are frequently impressed by a “nice try”.<<

>That is mostly because in some categories there is very little in the way of detectable progress. In science, the amount of references to your work is at least SOME indication of its worth. And no, in the science department a "nice try" might be worth a publication, but only so that others will not try the same experiment.<

You are correct that few workers in “Origins” ever achieve a Nobel prize for the wild specula6tions that appear in their textbooks. The few that do receive a prize in biology generally follow the normal scientific route of doing experiments on extant lifeforms to confirm their ideas about how things function. Progress in biology is occurring despite the dogmatic teaching and adherence to a failed paradigm, but the real progress that is going on is in study and experimentation in the here and now regarding the functioning of current lifeforms.

[Klarky Cat]

Hi Bob,

So you want a transitional fossil, huh?
How about one that’s half fish, half tetrapod?
No problem!
So, get ready to say a sunny hello to “Livoniana”.

But here’s a wee preamble to get you in the mood…

“Over the decades there have been some wonderful wild goose chases in search of the elusive missing link, including the discovery in South Africa, of the ancient living fossil, the Coelacanth.
But in the end the whole theory of why we grew our legs was to be completely overturned when a team of British scientists stumbled on a trail of clues that led from some scrawled notes in a student's notebook, via a mountainside in Greenland, to a chest of drawers in a museum in Latvia that had been ignored for thirty years.
It was in this chest of drawers, that palaeontologist Per Ahlberg, working for the Natural History Museum, discovered the five centimetre long jaw of a truly strange beast.
The jaw was half that of a fish, half that of a land-animal – a transitional fossil!”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/missinglink_transcript.shtml

KC

[Itzpapalotl]

Originally posted by bob b

[5] The appearance of sexual reproduction defies naturalistic explanation.

Population genetists like John Maynard Smith call it a mystery, as does the less qualified Richard Dawkins. They explain that this is because the recombination process tends to “shred” the genome, preventing any specific new mutant gene from accumulating progressive change. This doesn’t impact existing genes since the current alleles are already widely established in the population. Thus, in sexually reproducing lifeforms any alleles of a specific gene will be extremely similar, which is what we observe in DNA sequencing.



Actually sex has been proved to increase the power of natural selection:

"Theory predicts that recombination will increase the effectiveness of natural selection. A Drosophila melanogaster model system was developed that increased experimental power with the use of high experimental replication, explicit tracking of individual genes, and high but natural levels of background selection. Each of 34 independent experiments traced the fate of a newly arisen mutation located within genome-wide, synthetic chromosomes that were propagated with or without recombination. An intrinsic advantage to recombination was demonstrated by the finding that the realized strength of selection on new mutations was markedly increased when recombination was present. "

Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection William R. Rice* and Adam K. Chippindale. SCIENCE VOL 294 19 OCTOBER 2001. downloadable from:

http://lifesci.ucsb.edu/EEMB/faculty/rice/pdf/50.pdf

This article is also well worth reading:

Rice W. R. Experimental Tests of the Adaptive Significance of Sexual Recombination Nature Reviews Genetics. VOLUME 3 APRIL 2002. http://lifesci.ucsb.edu/EEMB/faculty/rice/pdf/51.pdf

William has done alot of interesting work particularly on sexual conflict. many of his papers are well worth reading and several can be downloaded here: http://lifesci.ucsb.edu/EEMB/faculty/rice/publications.html

[bob b]

Itz,

The power a metaphor has over a human mind is sometimes awesome.

As I pointed out above, there is a difference in claiming "positive selection" of the most fit rather than the more accurate but less easy to describe "negative selection [death]" of the least fit.

Unfortunately this subtle distinction seems to be lost on many of those who build computer models that supposedly accurately portray what is going on in the real world.

As you can see from his prior posting, Ben is another who fails to appreciate this critical distinction.

Pity.

[Itzpapalotl]

"Our results experimentally verify a counteracting advantage of recombining compared to clonal lineages: reduced accumulation of harmful mutations and increased accumulation of beneficial mutations." - recombination is an advantage.

The distinction that is made between survival of the fittest and death of the least fit is not a real one. Some mutations result in reduced chances of survival and therfore tend to be eliminated - "negative selection of the least fit" some mutations result in greater chances of survival therfore are preserved - positive selection. They are both natural selection.

This leaves a clear signature on genes where the number of silent mutations (no amino acid change) is lower than the number of amino acid changing mutations. This can be seen in many genes and is unquestionable evidence for positive selection.

For example plant chitinases are enzymes that break down fungal cell walls giving resistance to fungal infections. Some fungi have evolved chitinase inhibitors. There are mutations that make the chitinase resistant to the inhibitors. plants carrying the resistance mutations will survive fungal attack those with the old chitinase gene will die - survival of the fittest or not.

Also when the pattern of genetic changes in the chitinase gene was analysed it was foung that those parts of the gene that coded for the parts of the protein that contacted the inhibitors were under the highest positive selection - exactly as predicted by evolution and natural selection for amino acid changes that reduce inhibitor binding.

positive selection as revealed by a high rate of amino acid change is see exactly where you would expect it for example in the flu virus the coat proteins that are seen by the immune system have a much higer rate of change than internal proteins that are not - eactly what evolution by natural selection predicts.

J. G. Bishop, A. M. Dean, and T. Mitchell-Olds. Rapid evolution in plant chitinases: Molecular targets of selection in plant-pathogen coevolution. 5322–5327 PNAS May 9, 2000 vol. 97 no. 10.

[bob b]

Itz,

It is true that the situation with regard to natural selection is not quite as simple as I portrayed it in my posting. In my defence I simplified in order to draw comment and make a point. That point still remains despite the recognition that the situation is far from simple.

In that vein I intended later to point out two parallel effects going on:

[1] mutations that directly affect reproduction rate, and

[2] mutations that affect the ability of the progeny to survive to sexual maturity.

Obviously there must be tradeoffs between these two effects, otherwise we would expect to see multiple births to be a dominant trend in all species would we not?

Item [1] could be considered positive selection whenever an increase in reproduction rate would outweight any negative effects, because such a mutation could conceivably lead directly to a population "takeover" strictly by numerical weight. But The problem in all mutational cases is one of measurement in a "natural" environment. This can be accomplished more practically for lower forms such as bacteria or plants, but quickly becomes impractical for the higher animals, which was my focus in highlighting the difference between "survival of the fittest" versus "elimination of the least fit".

Simply showing that there are cases of positive selection does not warrant the declaration that "The distinction that is made between survival of the fittest and death of the least fit is not a real one."

>>Some mutations result in reduced chances of survival and therfore tend to be eliminated - "negative selection of the least fit" some mutations result in greater chances of survival therfore are preserved - positive selection. They are both natural selection.>>

Although I concede your point to the extent that it possible to conceive of cases of positive selection, I would still confidently repeat my statement that:

"Simply showing that there are cases of positive selection does not warrant the declaration that 'The distinction that is made between survival of the fittest and death of the least fit is not a real one.'

[ThePhy]

I am not a primary researcher in population genetics, but I do have some questions about some claims Bob makes.
From Bob:Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate).

… a lone successful mutant does not automatically “take over” the population as it would if it were specifically “selected.”
Evolutionists are well aware that the occurrence of an advantageous mutation is no guarantee that the mutation will fix, or even survive, in the population. If Bob feels the term “Survival of the Fittest” is an inviolable rule, then he is fighting a strawman. Is Bob’s terming this survival propensity as an absolute (automatically “take over”) a smoke screen for not addressing the real issue?… the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous. I am not following Bob’s line of thought here. I would ask Bob to show some specific numerical examples where he starts with a population of a given size, where some are “weak” and some are marginally stronger (mutants) than the norm. Now eliminate the weak, keep the “marginally more stronger” and the “vast majority” alive, and allow the population to stabilize again at its original level. Now show that the marginally stronger mutant has not increased its percentage of offspring relative to the overall group. Real numbers Bob, please.… Haldane’s Dilemma”, which was simple observation that in higher animals like primates where birthrates are small and the number of transformational mutations of necessity large, there is woefully inadequate time for major transformations to occur… Bob likes those phrases that rely on emotion rather than logic – like “woefully inadequate time”. Can you be more specific and detail what major transformations could not occur in the “woefully inadequate time” that you nebulously allude to?

[ThePhy]

Deleted - This was an accidental repost of the previous posting.

[ThePhy]

From Bob… the prized trophy, peppered moths, has gone the way of Nebraska Man: 1% fact laced with 99% imagination. Bob has tried to bait people into a discussion of the Peppered Moth issue several times lately. I think most evolutionists would prefer that the Peppered Moth study was presented with more attention to what was actually shown, and to what degree the melanism was a prime factor in Moth Predation. But the issue is hardly as bankrupt as Bob presents. Bob, since you are willing to put numbers on the credibility of the issue, would you please specify what the 1% correct part is, and then list the things that you attribute to “imagination”?

[bob b]

Phy,

>>Is Bob’s terming this survival propensity as an absolute (automatically “take over”) a smoke screen for not addressing the real issue?<<

I thought I made it clear that I was trying to make a point about selection as well as being sufficiently obnoxious as to invite widespread rebuttal.

>>I am not following Bob’s line of thought here.<<

I think you are because you just finished saying that "Evolutionists are well aware that the occurrence of an advantageous mutation is no guarantee that the mutation will fix, or even survive, in the population." That was what I was driving at, but in a more detailed way.

>>I would ask Bob to show some specific numerical examples where he starts with a population of a given size, where some are “weak” and some are marginally stronger (mutants) than the norm. Now eliminate the weak, keep the “marginally more stronger” and the “vast majority” alive, and allow the population to stabilize again at its original level. Now show that the marginally stronger mutant has not increased its percentage of offspring relative to the overall group. Real numbers Bob, please.<<

>>Can you be more specific and detail what major transformations could not occur in the “woefully inadequate time” that you nebulously allude to?<<

I think population genetics mathematics is beyond the scope of this kind of forum, but I will post a few numerical "guesses" as soon as I can locate my past posts in this area.

[Dimo]

And of course Bob would rather have us rely on the unestablished scientific premise of the "supernatural" as an explanation for such phenomenon. We should all reject the established premise of "natural" causes for Bob's belief in "supernatural" causes. If only we could all accept Bob's claims we would make much progress in the study of natural philosophy.

[Stratnerd]

[2] Natural Selection seems to be more of a slogan than a scientific mechanism. what is the difference between a mechanism and a scientific mechanism? i always find it humorous that the necessity of "scientific" with "mechanisms" and "definitions" comes from a group that seeks to explain our very existence with the supernatural, which is, by definition, not a part of science. what hypocrites! [3] Mutations seem to be an inadequate way to generate the tremendous amounts of information in current genomes. since you stress being "scientific" - please quantify what is the total amount of information an organism has and what is possible through evolution and show us that the latter is inferior.
[4] Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate). tholy smokes, really? what a brand new fascinating comment (roll eyes). Maybe, Bob, you could tell us how this changes anything.
[5] The appearance of sexual reproduction defies naturalistic explanation. it does, really?
[6] The Cambrian Explosion appears to falsify the single ancestral protocell concept. the way you falsify a hypothesis is to provide evidence that cannot fit a particular explanation. if there were absolutely no fossils you still haven't falsified it because fossils could be below the Cambrian and we haven't found them. And are there?
[7] The fossil record in general is a record of minimal change punctuated by new forms lacking ancestors. Same lame philosophical treatment; lack of evidence isn't evidence. Are you saying that fossilization is a proper sampling method? Are you saying that we haven't found ancestors to birds, to dinosaurs, to reptiles, etc etc...?
All of these things are foundational, which to me indicates that "molecules to man" is a concept which lacks a firm scientific foundation. there's that "scientific" thing again coming from the supernaturalist. Please tell us how, philosophically speaking, the supernatural is a superior explanation and, as pointed out already, advances knowledge of the natural world.

Do we stop research and just accept supernatural explanations that demand a literal interpretation of a particular book that is immune to any evidence against it?

[Mr. Ben]

Remember, scientists are not stupid.. and they all universally agree that life has evolved, and is still evolving.

How can I take anything you said here seriously after reading this? This is obviously a complete lie, because I can think of dozens of scientists who have renounced evolution as unfounded in reality. Heck, I'm sure you can probably even think of some, but if you can't then you really need to go do some more studying before you talk about a subject without knowing both sides.

There are a few dozen dozen scientists who believe in cold fusion, free energy machines, alien abductions, crop circles, psychic phenomena, bigfoot, the loche ness monster, and liberal socialist economics, etc.

These are cranks, crackpots, loons, and kooks. The fact that you can dredge up a dozen or so of them means nothing.

The reason this glaring fact is evidence that there is some sort of problem with creationism that is not shared by evolution is that these people are far more knowledge about the subject than the laymen. Most creationists feel that ignorance of any given scientific subject is an automatic free pass to deny it. But scientists are painfully aware of all of those niggling little contradictory detains.. and that's where the truth is.

For instance, Bob up above made some pretty broad statements about the state of the geological record. Needless to say, the detains of the earths geology simply tell a different story than Bob would prefer. Bob is, of course, blissfully ignorant of these details, and so feels perfectly justified in continuing to make bold broad assertions that I guess just make him feel better.

The details matter though, and the evidence matters, and the scientists have it and can show it to you, explain it, and even let you figure it out for yourself. The details, such as the actual pattern of the geological and fossil record, simply and directly contradict the story of the flood the creation legend in genesis.

I can explain in "detail" why this is so, but I would guess you would prefer to remain detail free, so as to go on about your business of denying evolution.

[Mr. Ben]

Thanks Bob for the links. I've read many of them at one time or another, and those I haven't seen "in person", I've likely encountered ad-nauseum as positions here on this forum or somewhere else.

Needless to say, apologetics is not science. Arguing for the truth of a set of poetic legends is not the same as finding the simple and most parisonious and explanatory explanation for why things are the way they are.

[shima]

Bob b
>>(Obviously a concession that abiogenesis continues to lack credible experimental verification)<<

Since Abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution, this is beside the point. The same goes for Big Bang theory, which has nothing to do with Einsteins Theory of Gravity.

>>Antibiotic resistence has been experimentally verified, but this new “prized trophy” generally entails the loss of information not a gain as “molecules to man” evolution requires.<<

Sorry, but you are wrong. The bacteria STILL have the same number of genes as they did before. Thus, bacteria STILL have the same amount of information as before. What HAS changed is the TOTAL amount of information from which his genes CAN be selected. It has INCREASED, since the resistance gene is now a part of the selection of available genes, while before it WASN'T. Where do you base your "Loss of Information" on?

In other words, while the amount of INFORMATION in an organism hasn't changed, what HAS changed is the amount of information in the INFORMATION SPACE. A computer model might actually demonstrate this beyond doubt.

>>The statement said “inadequate” which, considering my previous reply that “beneficial” mutations such as ones that confer antibiotic resistence entail the loss of information, means that “molecules to man” evolution still lacks a demonstrablly adequate mechanism.<<

Nope. The availability of a new gene entails the GAIN of information because now the organism has actually a larger pool of genes to select from. Thus, where previously the organism could choose from genes A, B and C, he can now choose from A,B,C and D. The amoujnt of available information has INCREASED.

>>No, the issue is what I stated and you sidestepped: the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous. The population geneticists have also pointed this out, which was the essence of Haldane’s Dilemma”, which was simple observation that in higher animals like primates where birthrates are small and the number of transformational mutations of necessity large, there is woefully inadequate time for major transformations to occur (not to mention the sexual reproduction tendency to "shred" the genome during recombination and hence work against any accumulation of mutations in a specific gene). <<

The weak are eliminated, but in times of inadecuate food supply a lot of organisms are "weak". In an abundant environment, only a few may not survive, but if the environment poses a lot of stress and hazards, then not only teh weak die but a large part of the majority "average" will die too. In this case only the STRONG tend to survive and thus leave their mark on the next generation much more strongly.

>>I think you are confusing the Cambrian explosion with extinction events that occurred much later. However, Punk Eek tries to salvage evolution by claiming that it happens so fast that no fossil record is left of the gradual transformations that neoDarwinism predicts, thus in effect throwing doubt on neoDarwinism. How no evidence of gradual transformation becomes evidence for evolution is quite a mental feat, since the lack of gradual fossil transformation was never a prediction and in effect is only a restatement of what the fossil record shows: the lack of gradual transformation.<<

No bob, I'm not confusing that. The Cambrian Explosion occurs just AFTER a major climactic change. Thus, the speed at which organisms evolve is much higher because of the "lack of fit" of most organisms to their environment.

[bob b]

shima,
>>(Obviously a concession that abiogenesis continues to lack credible experimental verification)<<

>Since Abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution, this is beside the point.<

The usual weak excuse. We can't demonstrate abiogenesis so we better declare that it isn't part of our theory. LOL

>>Antibiotic resistence has been experimentally verified, but this new “prized trophy” generally entails the loss of information not a gain as “molecules to man” evolution requires.<<

>Sorry, but you are wrong. The bacteria STILL have the same number of genes as they did before. Thus, bacteria STILL have the same amount of information as before. What HAS changed is the TOTAL amount of information from which his genes CAN be selected. It has INCREASED, since the resistance gene is now a part of the selection of available genes, while before it WASN'T. Where do you base your "Loss of Information" on?<

Most cases of antibiotic resistence involve a "garbled" gene that leads to the loss or degradation of a function that normally allows better survival than the "garbled" mutant strain. However, when antibiotics are present that use the normal function as a targeting marker, the mutant fares better, since there is nothing to "target" on. This is similar to sickle cell anemia conferring an advantage in maleria infested regions.

Your example claims that "garbled" genes add information, because they are different, but this is as silly as claiming that misspellings in a newly reprinted book have added new information because some of the sentences are "different". They are certainly "different": they just don't make sense anymore.

>>The statement said “inadequate” which, considering my previous reply that “beneficial” mutations such as ones that confer antibiotic resistence entail the loss of information, means that “molecules to man” evolution still lacks a demonstrablly adequate mechanism.<<

>>No, the issue is what I stated and you sidestepped: the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous. The population geneticists have also pointed this out, which was the essence of Haldane’s Dilemma”, which was simple observation that in higher animals like primates where birthrates are small and the number of transformational mutations of necessity large, there is woefully inadequate time for major transformations to occur (not to mention the sexual reproduction tendency to "shred" the genome during recombination and hence work against any accumulation of mutations in a specific gene). <<

>The weak are eliminated, but in times of inadecuate food supply a lot of organisms are "weak". In an abundant environment, only a few may not survive, but if the environment poses a lot of stress and hazards, then not only teh weak die but a large part of the majority "average" will die too. In this case only the STRONG tend to survive and thus leave their mark on the next generation much more strongly.<

I suppose one can always find some bizarre hypothetical case or line of reasoning to prop up a failed idea. How else could such a silly idea as "molecules to man" persist?


>>I think you are confusing the Cambrian explosion with extinction events that occurred much later.....
<<

>No bob, I'm not confusing that. The Cambrian Explosion occurs just AFTER a major climactic change. Thus, the speed at which organisms evolve is much higher because of the "lack of fit" of most organisms to their environment.<

It is amaxing how hypothetical events that supposedly took place 500 or so million years ago suddenly become fact in the reasoning process of an evolutionary true believer.

[Stratnerd]

The usual weak excuse. We can't demonstrate abiogenesis so we better declare that it isn't part of our theory. LOL
At the risk of having this repeated a score, abiogenesis is part of a historical and naturalistic theory of life. It occurred independently of evolution and evolution occurs independently of abiogenesis. In other words, we would think that organisms have been and are evolving regardless of the source of organisms.
Most cases of antibiotic resistence involve a "garbled" gene given that genes are only relevent to the environment that they occur, including other genes, a set of genes that increases fitness can hardly be called "garbled". Also, you said "generally entails the loss of information" - does this mean that there are exceptions? If so then this falsifies your "hypothesis" that information cannot be gained.

[bob b]

S,

>>In other words, we would think that organisms have been and are evolving regardless of the source of organisms. <<

I find that hard to believe, since there seems to be a great resistence to the assumption that organisms were initially in multiple forms at the phylum level or below.

It seems to me that biologists have a bias toward assuming a primitive protocell as the starting point, despite the denials frequently heard.

>>given that genes are only relevent to the environment that they occur, including other genes, a set of genes that increases fitness can hardly be called "garbled".<<

Since loss of a function through "garbling" can be beneficial in a few cases, I think it is fair to call that gene "garbled". What would you call it?

>> Also, you said "generally entails the loss of information" - does this mean that there are exceptions?<<

A few cases are not clear-cut, which is why I qualified my statement. Some "true believers" would of course conclude that even a single very rare case would salvage their belief in the ability of mutations to generate all the marvels of life on earth.

There are people in this world who actually literally believe that "given enough time anything is possible". :D

Christians on the other hand generally subscribe to the belief that "with God anything is possible".

Does this imply that some people worship "time"?

[ThePhy]

When I said:Is Bob’s terming this survival propensity as an absolute (automatically “take over”) a smoke screen for not addressing the real issue? Bob responded with:I thought I made it clear that I was trying to make a point about selection as well as being sufficiently obnoxious as to invite widespread rebuttal. Bob’s claim that he was “being sufficiently obnoxious as to invite widespread rebuttal” is interesting. Does this then mean that he does not in fact believe in the accuracy of what he wrote? If he had not been challenged would he have been satisfied to let his deception remain to be believed by those not in a position to see the error?

When I said:I am not following Bob’s line of thought here. Bob responded with:I think you are because you just finished saying that "Evolutionists are well aware that the occurrence of an advantageous mutation is no guarantee that the mutation will fix, or even survive, in the population." That was what I was driving at, but in a more detailed way. But as a look at the comments in-context will show, my “not following” was in direct response to this statement of Bob’s:… the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous. Bob’s statement to which I was responding and my statement have some non-trivial differences. The most important is in the absolute nature of the statements. My statement acknowledges the uncertainty of advantageous mutations always becoming predominate in a population. Bob’s statement is an unqualified statement that says the “… the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority …”. This statement as Bob wrote it is a blanket statement of fact that I think is in error. That is specifically why I asked:I would ask Bob to show some specific numerical examples where he starts with a population of a given size, where some are “weak” and some are marginally stronger (mutants) than the norm. Now eliminate the weak, keep the “marginally more stronger” and the “vast majority” alive, and allow the population to stabilize again at its original level. Now show that the marginally stronger mutant has not increased its percentage of offspring relative to the overall group. Real numbers Bob, please. But Bob responded with:I think population genetics mathematics is beyond the scope of this kind of forum … I disagree completely. The truth or falsehood of Bob’s claim lies at the core of this question. The mathematics involved to establish whether or not he is right is not difficult. To brush this aside as “beyond the scope of this forum” is to allow Bob to make any claim he wants, and then have him sidestep having to show that he is right. This forum is within the “Hall of Science”. Can Bob identify another forum on TOL more appropriate to seeing if a contested scientific claim is correct?

[Stratnerd]

>>In other words, we would think that organisms have been and are evolving regardless of the source of organisms. <<

I find that hard to believe, since there seems to be a great resistence to the assumption that organisms were initially in multiple forms at the phylum level or below. you are still conflating two different ideas
It seems to me that biologists have a bias toward assuming a primitive protocell as the starting point, despite the denials frequently heard. they do because that's where the evidence points. until you can present a good case why revelation is a superior method of knowledge of the natural compared to using inference from observation, I'll stick to models which use the latter.

Since loss of a function through "garbling" can be beneficial in a few cases, how is the frequency of occurrence relevent? I would just say that is was modified - unless you are saying that gene = trait, a concept I thought you were opposed to (remember the cybernetic properties of organisms you espoused?).
Some "true believers" would of course conclude that even a single very rare case would salvage their belief in the ability of mutations to generate all the marvels of life on earth. unless, and I wish you would at least try, you show that revelation is a superior pathway to knowledge and can be done scientifically, we must work with natural explanations. because there's room for research doesn't falsify it.

Again, since you are so into doing things "scientifically" please quantify your reasons for rejecting natural hypotheses - or you can just say you are a Biblical literalists and that would solve everything because then you don't need to involve any evidence for or against.
There are people in this world who actually literally believe that "given enough time anything is possible". Really, who? Why is that relevent that there might be people like that?
Does this imply that some people worship "time"? and this is relevent because???? and I suppose if you want to twist logic and misapply analogy but then ... you are a creationist so be my guest.

[bob b]

Phy,

I stand by my statements. I justify my simplification that was made in order to make a point on the grounds that virtually all conversation involves making statements that are not technically true in all cases. We do this all the time in our conversions (including the sentence I just wrote).

In addition I had intended to follow up my first posting (as I previously indicated) by pointing out exceptions.

To summarize, I believe that the usual description of the action of natural selection is flawed because it emphasizes selection of the most fit rather than elimination of the least fit. This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion.

If you believe population genetics is so simple and involves such simple math, you are woefully misinformed. I challenge you to present such "simple" math.

[Stratnerd]

I believe that the usual description of the action of natural selection is flawed because it emphasizes selection of the most fit rather than elimination of the least fit.
please cite the texts
This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion. please give an example

[bob b]

>>This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion.<<

>please give an example<

Give an example of what?

Haven't you ever taken a course in population genetics?

If you have then I find it hard to believe you would ask such a question unless you were being purposely difficult. If you haven't then you should read up on it and stop wasting time with your silly questions.

[Stratnerd]

>>This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion.<<

>please give an example<

Give an example of what? uh!? that people are (1) taught this and (2) this is what goes through the mind of biologists
Haven't you ever taken a course in population genetics?not an entire course but have you?
If you have then I find it hard to believe you would ask such a question unless you were being purposely difficult. I am questioning the conclusions that are running through your mind and asking you to back them up, can you?

[bob b]

S,

What conclusions are you questioning?

[ThePhy]

Original population – 100,000 individuals, which includes 5000 that are “weak” (5% of population), and 500 possessing the advantageous mutation (0.5% of population), leaving 94,500 “normal” members (94.5%).

Eliminate the 5000 “weak” members, leaving 95,000 surviving members. Population grows back to the normative level of 100,000, a growth of 5.263%, distributed evenly among all members. (5.263% is the amount 95,000 has to be increased to reach 100,000). That means a 5.263% increase in the 94,500 normal members, to 99474, and a 5.263% increase in the advantageous mutation members, to 526 members.

New percentage of population descended from members with the advantageous mutation – 0.526%, an increase of 0.026 percent.

Try to reconcile this increase of advantageous mutations in the population with Bob’s blanket assertion that
… the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous.

[Stratnerd]

Not really your conclusion but can you back up with this statement "This in turn tends to lead people to conclude..." .

Can you provide the textbooks that teach this simplistic view that you've presented (that is, we think, in nature, the slightest advantage will lead to fixation) or any data that biologists are walking around thinking this?

[ThePhy]

Bob saysTo summarize, I believe that the usual description of the action of natural selection is flawed because it emphasizes selection of the most fit rather than elimination of the least fit. This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion. Bob want to describe it as “Death of the least fit”. This phrasing leads people to conclude that any weakness infers a reduced ability to survive, no matter how small the weakness, and will inevitably lead to that weakness being eliminated from the population. This is an incorrect conclusion.

Bob really hates half empty glasses being called half full.

[Mr. Ben]

To summarize, I believe that the usual description of the action of natural selection is flawed because it emphasizes selection of the most fit rather than elimination of the least fit. This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion.

Bob ignores the fact that there are an excess of potential candidate mutations floating around and more are added all the time. It doesn't matter which "particular" mutation is fixed, or is culled by sexual selection or fails to fix. There is a continuous stream of new potential mutations being pipelined into the gene pool with every new birth. If we have 1000 mutations, all of which are positive, and 990 of them fail to become fixed, we still have evolution.

What Bob needs to prove is that no mutations are ever fixed, or that whether a mutation has a positive or negative survival advantage has no material influence on whether, or how fast it becomes fixed. Biologists have been working these numbers for a while, and they add up.

[bob b]

Phy,

Your comment is well taken because it is obvious that genetic diseases have not been totally eliminated from the human population.

Even in the case of antibiotic resistence the "natural" form does not totally disappear, and in fact increases in frequency when the antibiotics are removed. Also, the "mutants" that were able to resist the antibiotic are not totally eliminated once the antibiotic is removed and the "natural" strains multiply and begin to crowd out the normally less vigorous antibiotic resistent mutants.

One doctor jokingly remarked that hospitals should periodicly bring in dirt and associated germs to help keep antibiotic resistent germs at bay, and there are also stories that we do our children no great favor by keeping them squeeky clean, because this may not allow their immune systems to gradually build up natural immunity. I suppose it is all a matter of balance.

[bob b]

Ben,

>>Bob ignores the fact that there are an excess of potential candidate mutations floating around and more are added all the time. It doesn't matter which "particular" mutation is fixed, or is culled by sexual selection or fails to fix. There is a continuous stream of new potential mutations being pipelined into the gene pool with every new birth. If we have 1000 mutations, all of which are positive, and 990 of them fail to become fixed, we still have evolution.

What Bob needs to prove is that no mutations are ever fixed, or that whether a mutation has a positive or negative survival advantage has no material influence on whether, or how fast it becomes fixed. Biologists have been working these numbers for a while, and they add up.<<

It is interesting that Ben and I have been arguing this point for some time now. Previously he took this position to explain why Haldane's Dilemma was not real.

Although it is true that mutations occur in other lineages, this is not relevent because it is the accumulation of mutations in a particular lineage that counts as far as generating a major transformation is concerned.

Also, I have not said that a mutation never can become fixed in a population. That would be silly. I simply observed that it doesn't automatically become fixed merely because it infers a benefit, and the low frequency at which mutations become fixed is rarely considered when people airily assume that any advantageous mutation inevitably becomes fixed.

Hadane's Dilemma demonstrates how "woefully inadequate" is the "magic" of "random mutations plus natural selection" to effect major transformations in the kind of time frames evolutionists assume. This is why "punk eek" is so scorned by non-paleontologists because it reduces the available "magic of time" even further than before.

[Stratnerd]

So I don't think it, Phy doesn't and you don't so just who thinks "any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population" and can't you point to the text that would suggest this?

[bob b]

Phy,
I found your example, where you assume 500 beneficial mutations, to be flawed. The 500 can not be considered as a "group" because the odds are that very few of the 500 have the same beneficial mutation, which would have to be the case to develop a "lineage" containing a specific mutation.

If we focus on a specific gene, the situation is even more problematic, for some genes have more than one difference between lifeforms in a hypothetical extended lineage. In that case an additional or 2nd mutation to the same gene would have to occur in only those individuals which already have the first mutation. This is why the first mutation has to spread sufficiently throughout the population before it becomes likely that the 2nd mutation will find an individual having the first mutation.

In the case of primates Haldane estimated that this would take on the average 20 generations.

[bob b]

S,

>>So I don't think it, Phy doesn't and you don't so just who thinks "any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population" and can't you point to the text that would suggest this?<<

My experience on this board has convinced me that most of my opponents (as well as some who are neutral or supporters) assume this implicitly in their judgments, even though a few, like yourself, actually know better when it is pointed out to them in a specific case.

In my own case it was only by reading population genetics material that I realized how low the probability of fixation of advantageous new alleles could be. After all, it was this realization that led some to pursue the concept of "neutral" evolution as a solution to things like Haldane's Dilemma.

[Stratnerd]

My experience on this board has convinced me that most of my opponents (as well as some who are neutral or supporters) assume this implicitly in their judgments, even though a few, like yourself, actually know better when it is pointed out to them in a specific case.
In my experience on this board and interacting with scores of students and profs, I've never met a person with such simplistic notions and I've never seen it taught as such either. So I'm still wondering, where did you see it written so simplisticly?

[bob b]

On this forum by people who believe in evolution.

[Stratnerd]

Your original claim: "I believe that the usual description of the action of natural selection is flawed because it emphasizes selection of the most fit rather than elimination of the least fit. This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion."

So this whole time "the usual description" was from us and "people" is also us? Sure sounded like you were saying that this was how the textbooks were portraying natural selection and biologists were the "people".

[bob b]

S,

>>Sure sounded like you were saying that this was how the textbooks were portraying natural selection and biologists were the "people".<<

I never mentioned "textbooks" in my view of where people get all their ideas from about evolution, but the fact remains that many people have a simplistic view of the action of "random mutations plus natural selection" and they didn't get this general misconception all by themselves. So where did they get it from? I would imagine when one hears terms like "selection pressure" it would be easy to take that type of imagery literally.

Not having a lot of "textbooks" lying around my office I won't try to say that they are responsible for giving people the wrong impression, but I wouldn't rule it out either. Some of them are pretty bad: one I remember tried to convince students that evolution simply meant "change".

Although not too many have actually read what Darwin said, perhaps a few have embraced too enthusiastically expressions like "It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations:".

BTW, one can't put all the blame on journalists for the motto, "survival of the fittest" for Darwin himself talked about "one general law leading to the advancement of all living beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die".

[ThePhy]

From Bob:I found your example, where you assume 500 beneficial mutations, to be flawed. The 500 can not be considered as a "group" because the odds are that very few of the 500 have the same beneficial mutation, which would have to be the case to develop a "lineage" containing a specific mutation. The problem as I stated it very clearly said “the advantageous mutation”, not a range of different advantageous mutations. The starting condition is specifically that the 500 all have the same beneficial mutation. So the problem is not flawed. By the way, did the heavy-duty math overwhelm you?

[Stratnerd]

B-
I believe that the usual description of the action of natural selection is flawed because it emphasizes selection of the most fit rather than elimination of the least fit. This in turn tends to lead people to conclude that any mutation that infers a survival benefit, no matter how tiny, will inevitably lead to that mutation becoming "fixed" in the population. This is an incorrect conclusion.

so you don't know how this perspective came about and I would even doubt you have evidence that any of us think this way anyway. If you do, please present it. Otherwise, we'll just dismiss this as another statement being pointless and without merit.

[ThePhy]

From Bob:I stand by my statements. I justify my simplification that was made in order to make a point on the grounds that virtually all conversation involves making statements that are not technically true in all cases. We do this all the time in our conversions (including the sentence I just wrote). There is a difference between making a statement that is not “technically true in all cases” and one which is flatly wrong, as yours was. If you cannot state an idea without invoking incorrect conditions, then it would be advisable for you to restrict your conversations to bland subjects that are inconsequential. If you insist on the right to express yourself so loosely in scientific matters, then anything you say is suspect the moment you write it. I have read many articles on the subjects we are discussing, and you are the first person in a long time that has had to hide behind this façade of feigned impreciseness of the language.

[bob b]

Phy,

My statement was not wrong, only incomplete. BTW I am awaiting with anticipation your presentation of the simple equations of population genetics.

------------------------------------------
Catching up on past replies to me:

Ben (who loves the virtual world even if it doesn't match reality)
". Evolution provides both mutation as a way of adding information to a genome, and natural selection as a way of etching away the negative mutations leaving only the positive ones. Again, you can try this algorithm for yourself to see if it works, either on a computer, or on paper.

If the least fit die.. who's left?

Bob Quote:
[4] Survival of the Fittest is a misnomer (Death of least fit is more accurate).

S: >>Maybe, Bob, you could tell us how this changes anything.<<

Go ask your professor. If he doesn’t know either then you guys are in more trouble than I realized.

S:
>>you are saying that gene = trait, a concept I thought you were opposed to (remember the cybernetic properties of organisms you espoused?). <<

A single gene generally does not make a trait: it takes many working in unison. But just as a flaw in a single part can disable your car, a single "garbled" gene can disable a function, and the absence of the function can defeat an antibiotic that uses that function as its "target".

[Stratnerd]

Go ask your professor

Why, I'm asking YOU! How does changing survival of the fitess to elimination of the weakest change anything other than calling one s and the other 1-s. How does it change the outcomes of algorithms of model populations and their constituent alleles? But this point is exactly like the other: you make it sound like nobody realizes that elimination and survival are hand-in-hand concepts. Point to both the source of this supposed confused point and those that espouse it. Or can we simply chalk it up to yet another baseless and pointless comment?
A single gene generally does not make a trait: it takes many working in unison. But just as a flaw in a single part can disable your car, a single "garbled" gene can disable a function, and the absence of the function can defeat an antibiotic that uses that function as its "target". sure, but in this case a garbled part results in a better working car!

[bob b]

S,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go ask your professor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Why, I'm asking YOU! How does changing survival of the fitess to elimination of the weakest change anything other than calling one s and the other 1-s. How does it change the outcomes of algorithms of model populations and their constituent alleles? But this point is exactly like the other: you make it sound like nobody realizes that elimination and survival are hand-in-hand concepts. Point to both the source of this supposed confused point and those that espouse it. Or can we simply chalk it up to yet another baseless and pointless comment?<<

Frankly, S, I really thought you were putting me on that you couldn't "get" the difference.

I will try one more time but if I fail I'm afraid the professor is your only hope. You are so biased against me probably nothing I could say would convince you, but here goes.

One needs to focus on that first mutant. Will he fare any better in spreading his genes that any other organism that survives?

If not then his odds are poor because all the surviver's odds are [/b]equally[/b] poor. Thus selection has done nothing to aid him at all, it is simply the luck of the draw.

Compare this with a case of positive selection like increased number of progeny. There his odds are better to pass on his genes because there are more sets of genes to pass on than any of the other survivors.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A single gene generally does not make a trait: it takes many working in unison. But just as a flaw in a single part can disable your car, a single "garbled" gene can disable a function, and the absence of the function can defeat an antibiotic that uses that function as its "target".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>sure, but in this case a garbled part results in a better working car!<<

Yes, an unusual case but under some unusual conditions a car with part of it disabled can function better than the normal car.

Hard to imagine? yes, but not inconceivable. It was hard for people to imagine how a bacterium with part of its function disabled could be beneficial, but that is what happens with many strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

(losing power to a power-hungry car accessory might allow a car to go slightly faster since the drag from the generator might be less)

I'll bet you can top my car example if you try real hard. :D

[Stratnerd]

Frankly, S, I really thought you were putting me on that you couldn't "get" the difference. You presented it as if it was some sort of conceptual leap. I get it but I don't think you even understand natural selection from any angle! Just like it took you a while to understand what a hypothesis was - remember that?
You are so biased against me I ain't biased against anybody! I'm equally skeptical of all claims it's just that you present material that's even more sketchy than what most propose. Nothing to do with you (although your ego wants to make everything personal) but just the concepts you bring to the board (e.g., superspeciation, super plate tectonics, super light speed, super nuclear decay, etc etc).
One needs to focus on that first mutant. Will he fare any better in spreading his genes that any other organism that survives? you see, in natural selection, alleles aren't assigned values as weak or strong just fitness. Survivorship per se doesn't mean much - just ask the 500 year old castrated man.
it is simply the luck of the draw. then it doesn't have anything to do with natural selection.
Compare this with a case of positive selection like increased number of progeny. There his odds are better to pass on his genes because there are more sets of genes to pass on than any of the other survivors. bingo! from that genotypes perspective one might say "survival of the fittest" from the others you might say "elimination of the weakest[?] but tell me how that distinction changes how we might model or measure the change in genotypes through time. Maybe you need another " " that is more appropriate?
Hard to imagine? yes, but not inconceivable. It was hard for people to imagine how a bacterium with part of its function disabled could be beneficial, but that is what happens with many strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria. great, you are arguing my point. how can you say that protein is in a poorer state if the owner is doing better? The protein is simply modified compared to the initial state.
I'll bet you can top my car example if you try real hard. sorry, i've said this a zillion times before, i'm quite confortable just working in biological terms and I rarely need non-biological examples for me to learn. try it! it's fun.

[ThePhy]

From Bob:My statement was not wrong, only incomplete. BTW I am awaiting with anticipation your presentation of the simple equations of population genetics. Once again, since Bob has a personality quirk that precludes him from ever admitting to an error, he offers any excuse (and he has a deep bag of excuses to draw on). But once again I think that his lack of integrity is evident enough that I need not belabor the point further.

As to population genetics, I posted an example, which is specifically what he asked for. If he does not feel that example qualifies, he is at liberty to explain why. He also said he would “post a few numerical ‘guesses’ as soon as (he) can locate (his) past posts in this area.” I am eager to see his offerings that will back his statement.

[efta777]

I know this happened way back on page one, but...
Efta picks one line out of Ben's reply to focus on and then doesnt deal with anything else.

That's because this is the only statement I wanted to answer. I could have answered them all right there and disproved the entire hypothesis, but I chose to practice mercy rather than my usual cruelty.

[Valmoon]

Efta that's very noble of you but I think most of us would rather you were cruel instead of saying nothing but then acting like a smart guy.

[bob b]

S,

Bob quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One needs to focus on that first mutant. Will he fare any better in spreading his genes that any other organism that survives?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>you see, in natural selection, alleles aren't assigned values as weak or strong just fitness. Survivorship per se doesn't mean much - just ask the 500 year old castrated man.<<

How did alleles get into this?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is simply the luck of the draw.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>then it doesn't have anything to do with natural selection.<<

Bingo!

Bob quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare this with a case of positive selection like increased number of progeny. There his odds are better to pass on his genes because there are more sets of genes to pass on than any of the other survivors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>bingo! from that genotypes perspective one might say "survival of the fittest" from the others you might say "elimination of the weakest[?] but tell me how that distinction changes how we might model or measure the change in genotypes through time. <<

You just answered it. The second case has no "selection pressure" as some might quaintly put it.

>>how can you say that protein is in a poorer state if the owner is doing better? The protein is simply modified compared to the initial state.<<

This is only a paradox for those who equate something that is beneficial in a new environment with having gained information. Sickle cell anemia is beneficial in a malaria infested region, but the human who has it is in a "poorer state" if they move outside the region. They have lost genetic information. Same for antibiotic resistant bacteria.

It is a common error to equate "beneficial mutations" with "gain of information", and failing to dig deeper into why the mutation was beneficial and determining whether it was because information was gained or lost.

[Stratnerd]

>>you see, in natural selection, alleles aren't assigned values as weak or strong just fitness. Survivorship per se doesn't mean much - just ask the 500 year old castrated man.<<

How did alleles get into this?

it's how you quantify evolution within a population

>>then it doesn't have anything to do with natural selection.<<

Bingo!

then you were making a strawman arguement because this is agreed upon by everyone.
You just answered it. The second case has no "selection pressure" as some might quaintly put it. selection pressure is the effect of the environment on either letting more fit genotypes survive or eliminating the less fit. Still, you haven't answered how the disctinction between survival of the fitness and elimination of the "weakest" (do you actually mean "less fit"?) affects how we track evolution in a hypothetical or real population.
It is a common error to equate "beneficial mutations" with "gain of information", yea, it is a mistake but who is making it? I have no problem with fitness increasing with gain, change, and loss of information.

[bob b]

Phy,

I seem to have missed your example of "population genetics". If you were talking about the 500 "beneficial mutations" this example didn't make sense to me. For one thing assuming that there are already 500 copies of a benevfical mutation you are ignoring the most import phase of the process, ehich is how the mutation got that widespread in the first place. For another it seems to be confusing "beneficial mutations" with hypothetical ones which increase the information ccontent. Also, I wonder which definition of "evolution" you are assuming.

S,

I am glad you see that loss of information will not lead to significant "evolution" in the sense of "molecules to Man". Phy does not seem to realize this.

>>you haven't answered how the disctinction between survival of the fitness and elimination of the "weakest" (do you actually mean "less fit"?) affects how we track evolution in a hypothetical or real population.<<

I have answered this a number of times in a number of different ways.

I will simply repeat that there is a difference between focusing on a mutant which is "fitter" in some undefined way (which "survival of the fittest" tends to make people do) and focusing on the usual case where organisms that are "least fit" are eliminated. This is because the mutant that is slightly "fitter" will not spread its genes any more effectively than any other "survivor" (of which there are generally many) unless the particular increased "fitness" of a single mutant is in the form of increased reproductive capacity. Forms of "fitness" such as higher speed, etc. are more indirect and their effect would only begin to show up significantly after the mutant gene becomes more widespread in the population by sheer chance over a number of generations.

This slows the process of gene spreading down drastically in a probabilistic process in which there is no guarantee the gene will spread at all: it is merely "the luck of the draw", and a rather poor one at that..

It was this realization which essentially caused Kimura to give up relying solely on evolution by selection and propose his "neutral" theory where evolution occurs primarily by chance and not solely because of natural selection.

If you still don't "get it" I give up. You will have to ask the professor.

(Would it help for people to see this if I said that as a general rule Natural Selection does not "see" the "most fit", it "sees" the "least fit". This is a whale of a difference. It is like the difference in picking out the choicest morsel as opposed to throwing away the garbage until you get the one you want. OK, it's probably a poor analogy but I tried).



S

[Stratnerd]

I am glad you see that loss of information will not lead to significant "evolution" in the sense of "molecules to Man". Phy does not seem to realize this. I said this? I think evolution works through loss, gain and change information. I know you can get interesting phenotypic changes by loss and I know that organisms can gain features with gain. Whether it is "significant" I don't know. Please scientifically [as you would demand] define siginificant, that is, please quantify the information gain or loss through evolution (even hypothetically) and then tell us the difference significant and insignificant.

I have answered this a number of times in a number of different ways. then i would suggest that you really don't understand natural selection (this is also apparent with your use of "weak" and "strong" and lack of any reference to fitness)
I will simply repeat that there is a difference between focusing on a mutant which is "fitter" in some undefined way (which "survival of the fittest" tends to make people do) and focusing on the usual case where organisms that are "least fit" are eliminated. great, yippeee now tell me how this changes anything.
unless the particular increased "fitness" of a single mutant is in the form of increased reproductive capacity. uh Bob.. that is how you define fitness.
Forms of "fitness" such as higher speed, etc. these ain't fitness!! no wonder you're confused.
It was this realization which essentially caused Kimura to give up relying solely on evolution by selection and propose his "neutral" theory where evolution occurs primarily by chance and not solely because of natural selection. Yea, and he's probably right
still don't "get it" I give up. You will have to ask the professor. i think the professor would be amazed at the level of your confusion.

Please tell me how, if you wanted to examine the effects of natural selection, would you change your equations with this brilliant concept of the elimination of the "weakest"?

[bob b]

S,

>>Please tell me how, if you wanted to examine the effects of natural selection, would you change your equations with this brilliant concept of the elimination of the "weakest"?<<

What equations?

If you think something as nebulous as Natural Selection can be pinned down with equations you are delusional.

[Stratnerd]

My goodness, I don't even think you know what natural selection is! You keep bringing up weaker and stronger and this has nothing to with selection!

Natural selection is the phenomenon where certain genotypes have a higher fitness than other genotypes. It is their relative contribution in genes, via offspring, to the next generation. Being stronger or weaker is irrelevent and I don't understand why you keep bringing it up because all the folks that contribute to this board understand that part and I don't think anyone assumes that "stronger" or "weaker" has a higher fitness per se.

Natural selection is not vague at all. A deterministic model of natural selection only requires knowledge of the fitness parameters associated with different phenotypes. But models can incorporate stochasticity in the model as well.

Maybe it's just in your mind that natural selection is vague. Or maybe you are thinking about modelling populations through time and incorporating all effects - which will obviously be difficult. But these logistical considerations are very different from the concept of natural selection which is very straightforward.

[ThePhy]

From Bob:I seem to have missed your example of "population genetics". If you were talking about the 500 "beneficial mutations" this example didn't make sense to me. For one thing assuming that there are already 500 copies of a beneficial mutation you are ignoring the most import phase of the process, which is how the mutation got that widespread in the first place. For another it seems to be confusing "beneficial mutations" with hypothetical ones which increase the information content. Also, I wonder which definition of "evolution" you are assuming. Let me answer your questions out of order. As to which definition of evolution, I try to adhere with my understanding of evolution as used in mainstream biology. Particularly within the context of the question we are discussing, I see no relevance to try to force artificial definitions such as “macro”, “micro”, and so on, since these points are not at the core of the discussion. Consideration of these may be appropriate in a broader question, but the point I am still addressing is your statement:… the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous. It has been my contention from the first that your statement is wrong.

I fail to see any relevance between your asking about “information content” and the statement you made to which I was responding. If you feel information content is critical to what you originally stated, please elaborate.

It is true I did not address how 500 copies of the beneficial mutation made it into the gene pool. Let me propose a simple scenario. Presume the beneficial mutation first happens to a male, and the mutation is of a type that is dominant (meaning it is passed faithfully to offspring, similar to some genetic characteristics seen in humans today). This male is healthy and establishes itself as the “alpha” male of a small pack, giving it preferential breeding rights with the females. Within a couple of generations its progeny can easily reach 500 members.

I know this is a specific scenario, but this is only one of thousands of ways in which 500 members of a group may inherit a beneficial mutation.

Bob said:If you believe population genetics is so simple and involves such simple math, you are woefully misinformed. I challenge you to present such "simple" math. The math I relied on consisted of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and percentages. I don’t know about Bob’s qualifications, but these are math concepts most students have mastered before reaching high school.

Until Bob can demonstrate that the math was wrong, it stands as evidence that some problems, including the one covering his statement, are amenable to simple math.

I think Bob’s reference to the difficulties of the mathematics of population genetics is a bluff. The mathematics can be difficult, but it can also be easy if the problem is straightforward. Perhaps Bob will choose to hide behind the “this isn’t the place” argument, but I challenge him to present and be able to defend any math he claims is needed that I ignored.

[bob b]

Phy,

I think you are sidestepping my questions.

I asked you which definition of evolution you were using. Surely you must be aware that there are least six specified by biologists. This was pointed out to me a while ago complete with a link to a university web site where the various definitions were described.

Then when it came to the population genetics equations request, you did not answer directly but gave an example where no equations were presented.

I agree that there are cases where reproductive capacity can conceivably be enhanced directly by a single favorable mutation. I have already mentioned this myself previously. But giving an example like you did is not presenting any population genetics equations, which was my request, induced by your claim that these equations were simple. So I still am awaiting your posting of what you feel are the "simple" equations of population
genetics.


Bob quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
… the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>It has been my contention from the first that your statement is wrong.<<

I already know that. I have already mentioned that there are cases where a mutation can directly impact reproductive capacity and thus conceivably spread directly to the population, but there are also cases where a mutation beneficial to the survival of an individual does not effect the reproductive capacity, and hence has no better chance of spreading than those survivors without the mutation. The question is then why do you think my statement is wrong? Is it because it does not cover all situations such as your hypothetical example?

If you are looking for things that cover all situations in nature without exception I am afraid you are doomed to finding mostly only vague platitudes, because biological nature is quite complex and unlike physics does not lend itself to equations and parameters that are able to be easily measured, much less being able to be formulated into the kind of "laws" familiar to workers in the "hard" sciences.

The major exception is of course the mathematical science of population genetics, which is internally consistent, but suffers from the difficulty of applying it to real world cases in a predictive manner.

[ThePhy]

From Bob:I think you are sidestepping my questions.

I asked you which definition of evolution you were using. Surely you must be aware that there are least six specified by biologists. This was pointed out to me a while ago complete with a link to a university web site where the various definitions were described. No, I surely am not aware of six definitions of evolution used by biologists. If you will provide them, I will see if the differences are substantive to our example and tell you which one is most appropriate.Then when it came to the population genetics equations request, you did not answer directly but gave an example where no equations were presented. The equation for the example I provided is:%SM(after) = %SM(before) * (Norm Pop) / (Norm Pop – Weak)

where:

%SM(after) is the percentage of “Stronger Mutant” individuals in the population after the population has stabilized at the normative level following the elimination of the weak.

%SM(before) is the percentage of “Stronger Mutant” individuals in the original population.

Norm Pop is the normal number of members in the population

Weak is the number of weak members in the population (those that Bob refers to when he says “the weak are eliminated”)
We have now progressed to using elementary algebra to express this problem. The problem as written presumes the number of individuals in each group are large enough the populations may be treated as analog (or continuous) values. I hope Bob is not overwhelmed with the math yet.Bob quote:

… the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous.

>>It has been my contention from the first that your statement is wrong.<<

…why do you think my statement is wrong? Is it because it does not cover all situations such as your hypothetical example?
If you are looking for things that cover all situations in nature without exception I am afraid you are doomed to finding mostly only vague platitudes, because biological nature is quite complex and unlike physics does not lend itself to equations and parameters that are able to be easily measured, much less being able to be formulated into the kind of "laws" familiar to workers in the "hard" sciences. I realize you still like to hide behind the façade that it is necessary to make broad statements that will always have exceptions. But to show that this is a smokescreen in this case, here is a restatement of your claim that is more technically correct:… the weak are eliminated but the marginally stronger mutant does not always pass on its genes any more effectively than the vast majority which are only slightly weaker but far more numerous. Just the addition of the single word “always” gets rid of the incorrect absolute nature of the statement Bob made. But an equally simple and even more correct statement (which is essentially a verbalization of the math I just presented) is:… the weak are more likely to be eliminated and the marginally stronger mutants are more likely to survive to pass on their genes, even though the vast majority which are only slightly weaker are far more numerous. Finally Bob says:The major exception is of course the mathematical science of population genetics, which is internally consistent, but suffers from the difficulty of applying it to real world cases in a predictive manner. There are tens of thousands of population genetics studies in refereed journals that are mathematically based and have been shown to be very accurate. I have had peripheral involvement (meaning my part was in supporting the computer end of the effort, not as a primary researcher) in these activities for years.

Now Bob, I have responded to your questions. Now respond to mine. I repeat:
I fail to see any relevance between your asking about “information content” and the statement you made to which I was responding. What is it about “information content” that you feel is significant to the example we are discussing?

And

I challenge him to present and be able to defend any math he claims is needed that I ignored.

[bob b]

Phy,

Your equation appears to be more of a identity than an equation. Let me explain by manipulating your equation using simple logic and algebra.

%SM(after) = %SM(before) * (Norm Pop) / (Norm Pop – Weak)

We can observe that the population consists of:

Norm Pop = SM + weak

Thus, Norm Pop - Weak = SM

If I replace in your equation Norm Pop - Weak with SM it gives:

%SM(after) = %SM(before) * (Norm Pop) / SM

but (Norm Pop)/SM is simply 1/%SMbefore so that we get:

%SM(after) = %SM(before) * 1/ %SMbefore

but %SM(before) * 1/ %SMbefore equals 1

so your equation reduces to:

%SM(after) = 1

Which doesn't seem to be much of an equation, which is why I called it an identity.

Comment please.

I will reply to your other points after this strange situation is clarified a bit.

[Mr. Ben]

Bob wows us with his weak grasp of elementary mathematics as well as his weak grasp of evolution.

Way to go Bob.

[Mr. Ben]

x = y + 30

and therefore..

y = x - 30

and so obviously it follows that..

x = x - 30 + 30

which reduces to

x / x = 30 - 30

which further reduces to

1 = 0

Anyone see any problem with this?

:)

[ThePhy]

From Bob:Your equation appears to be more of a identity than an equation. Let me explain by manipulating your equation using simple logic and algebra. Let me explain by manipulating your equation using simple logic and algebra.

%SM(after) = %SM(before) * (Norm Pop) / (Norm Pop – Weak)

We can observe that the population consists of:

Norm Pop = SM + weak

[snip]

I will reply to your other points after this strange situation is clarified a bit. I agree this is a strange situation. If I might recall a statement you made in another thread last year where mathematics came up:I made a name for myself in this latter field and know what I am talking about when I warn against the dangers of using sophisticated math without being able to verify in a simple way that the results are "on track". Lets see if you followed your own advice. Your observation above is that “Norm Pop = SM + weak”. Put that in simple English and see if you still think it is right. That says “the Normal population is the sum of the weak individuals and the stronger mutants”. The numbers I used in my numerical example were 500 SM (stronger mutants) and 5000 weak, for a total of 5500, which is a far cry from the 100,000 individuals in the Norm Pop.

Since this is obviously nonsense, the rest of your critique is built on an error. Care to try again, and this time really show us you “know what you are talking about when (you) warn against the dangers of using sophisticated math”?

[bob b]

Dimo,

>>Anyone see any problem with this? <<

I do.

x = x - 30 + 30

this does not reduce to

x/x = 30 - 30

which is why you got an erroneous inequality of 1 = 0

[bob b]

Phy,

You are correct that I spoke too soon. I apparently never read or did not recall the post where you had stated specifc numbers like you did in your last post so I mistakenly glossed over the definition of Norm Pop and took it to mean the Normal Population (total population) instead of the population of "normals" as distinct from weak or strong mutants. I had vaguely wondered why there wasn't a third category, but decided I would bring that up later.

BTW I was following my own advice which is why I asked you to clarify what seemed to me to be a strange situation.

[ThePhy]

From Bob:You are correct that I spoke too soon. I apparently never read or did not recall the post where you had stated specific numbers like you did in your last post so I mistakenly glossed over the definition of Norm Pop and took it to mean the Normal Population (total population) instead of the population of "normals" as distinct from weak or strong mutants. Bob, if you would like I can go to the local hardware store and see if I can buy a really long rope ladder to toss down to you in the bottom of the hole you are digging yourself into. In my original example, and in the algebraic equivalent, Norm Pop does mean the Normal Population (total population).

If as you say, you took “the definition of Norm Pop and took it to mean the Normal Population (total population)”, then how on earth did you come up with the equation that “Norm Pop = SM + weak”? Even if you take Norm Pop to mean “the population of "normals" as distinct from weak or strong mutants”, your equation still doesn’t make sense.

[shima]

Right.

Total Pop = Norm Pop + Weak + Strong

Suppose the weak die and the Normal and Strong survive to breed.

Then Strong_New = Strong_Old * [(Norm Pop_Old + Strong_Old+Weak_Old)/(Norm Pop_Old+Strong_Old)]

Or:
Strong_New = Strong_Old * [Total Pop_Old/(Total_Pop_old - Weak)]
Which is the same as above.

The expression between the square brackets is greater than 1 and thus the population of Strong individuals grows. Now, suppose the following assumption is applied:

Total Pop_New = Total Pop_Old (due to food restriction etc) then Strong_Old+Weak_Old+Norm_Pop_Old = Strong_New + Norm_Pop_new

This assumes that a new generation of agents always fall into the same catergory as their parents did, which is ofcourse NOT the case in our world. The model needs adjusting.

[Mr. Ben]

>>Anyone see any problem with this? <<

I do.

Hah.. now I have to accept the fact that I may be a math idiot. Always check your spelling AND your math before pressing that reply button.

[shima]

Adjustmemts to the model should include:
1) Sexual reproduction with two mates, who can come from either the same or from different categories
2) Chance that offspring will be located in either of these three categories.
3) Food/environmental pressures vary, sometimes giving higher and sometimes lower numbers for the Total amount of Population able to be alive. Deaths occur first in Weak group, then in Normal Group and finally in Strong group.

[ThePhy]

Shima,

You are correct that the model I used is very simplified. In addition to the “real-life” factors you enumerate are a whole slew of other considerations that can affect the answers. Computer and mathematical models have been in existence for years to try to accurately predict things like population genetics. Bob’s repeated assertions that the math of population genetics “suffers from the difficulty of applying it to real world cases in a predictive manner” and “If you think something as nebulous as Natural Selection can be pinned down with equations you are delusional.” The math of population genetics is almost identical to that of ecological systems, where the interplay between predators and prey and food supplies and weather and disease and on and on are modeled. These were some of the earliest uses of large computers (in the early days).

I suspect Bob is inferring that there are too many factors that come into play to really be able to predict what a real system will do. In a technical sense he is right, but in an applied system it is often unnecessary to model every detail of a system. There are few physical phenomena that can be accurately modeled with the inclusion of every factor. There are many details still being refined in the study of aerodynamics, yet engineers have been very successful at designing million pound airplanes that fly hundreds of people and tons of cargo half-way around the world. The n-body problem of predicting an orbit in the presence of multiple gravitational fields is unsolved in a closed form, yet we have spacecraft routinely investigating things all over the solar system. And with a few simplifying assumptions, both population genetics and ecological predictions are useful real-life tools, in spite of Bob’s claims.

As to the current question, whether a “beneficial mutation” will preferentially spread through the population, certainly the simplistic equations I offered are not likely to model many real-life situations. But it is interesting that even in the presence of the more complicated “real-life” factors the fact remains that “beneficial mutations” do tend to become predominant in a population. If Bob, or anyone else disagrees, they are invited to back their claim with the appropriate math.

I cannot imagine that Bob’s demonstrated level of math (in)competence in this thread is really representative of his abilities. If it is, then he has fooled a bunch of people by masquerading as having some competence in math and science. His willingness to selective present any pseudo-science that seems to argue against evolution has been manifested many times, but the effect is often to show how devoid of real science creationism really is.

Earlier in this thread he asked me about which definition of evolution I was using, but he has failed to tell me what the multiple definitions are that he alludes to. He also brought up “information content”, but has since ignored my requests to explain how that affects the question at hand. And we are all still waiting for his promised numerical examples of population genetics from his prior postings.

All in all, I think the best thing Bob could do is to declare this thread closed, and then go home and lick his wounds.

[Dimo]

Bob posted:

Dimo,

>>Anyone see any problem with this? <<

I do.

x = x - 30 + 30

this does not reduce to

x/x = 30 - 30

which is why you got an erroneous inequality of 1 = 0


Dimo:

Bob, I'm curious. Why did you address your reply to me, when Mr Ben posted the comments to which you referred?

Actually I haven't posted on this forum in over a week. Perhaps, your delusions are manifesting themselves into areas other than biology.

[Dimo]

After reading through this thread I am convinced that Bob still finds it neccessary to project his own misinformation onto others. I have been praying that Bob will eventually see the light which God has sent. Perhaps, it's just not in the cards.

Bob, do you honestly believe that all the ambiguities and uncertainties that you like to point out, whether they are real or imagined, are evidence for the "supernatural"?

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by ThePhy
As to the current question, whether a “beneficial mutation” will preferentially spread through the population, certainly the simplistic equations I offered are not likely to model many real-life situations. But it is interesting that even in the presence of the more complicated “real-life” factors the fact remains that “beneficial mutations” do tend to become predominant in a population. If Bob, or anyone else disagrees, they are invited to back their claim with the appropriate math.

Virtually *ALL* expressed mutations result in features that are detrimental to the survival of the species that bear them. Therefore, "mutations" would be considered a mechanism for EXTINCTION long before they could be ever considered a mechanism for evolution, its that simple.

The thread can be closed only because you and others have failed to prove that "beneficial mutations" occur at anywhere near the rate necessary for them to be considered a viable "mechanism" for molecules-to-man evolution.

Scrim

[ThePhy]

From Scrimshaw:Virtually *ALL* expressed mutations result in features that are detrimental to the survival of the species that bear them. Therefore, "mutations" would be considered a mechanism for EXTINCTION long before they could be ever considered a mechanism for evolution, it’s that simple. It’s that simple only to someone who tosses out a simplistic answer and then expects that to be the definitive conclusion. Evolutionists agree with you that the vast majority of expressed mutations are harmful, and thereby detrimental to the recipients. The point of distinction lies in the occasional expressed mutation that is in not harmful, but beneficial.

I am presuming that you are willing to look at the concepts underlying evolution, since you seem willing to take a stance against it. If your position is just to spout some erroneous rhetoric without defending it, then we can chalk up your posting to a drive-by creationist. Are you willing to see if what you have said above can be defended scientifically?
The thread can be closed only because you and others have failed to prove that "beneficial mutations" occur at anywhere near the rate necessary for them to be considered a viable "mechanism" for molecules-to-man evolution. I would hope that no one thinks that I have offered enough in this thread to prove evolution. My intent was strictly to show that given a type of scenario in which there are weak, normal, and strong variants, the strong variants will spread through the population over time. This is only one single (but important) point in evolution.

As to your broader claim that “others have failed to prove”, I would point out that your expressed opinion is in direct opposition to that of many thousands of scientists and biologists who have made an in-depth study of evolution. Can you support your statement with some ideas or concepts or evidence that these scientists simply missed?

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by ThePhy
From Scrimshaw: It’s that simple only to someone who tosses out a simplistic answer and then expects that to be the definitive conclusion. Evolutionists agree with you that the vast majority of expressed mutations are harmful, and thereby detrimental to the recipients. The point of distinction lies in the occasional expressed mutation that is in not harmful, but beneficial.

Sometimes, the truth lies in simplicity.

I am presuming that you are willing to look at the concepts underlying evolution, since you seem willing to take a stance against it. If your position is just to spout some erroneous rhetoric without defending it, then we can chalk up your posting to a drive-by creationist. Are you willing to see if what you have said above can be defended scientifically?

Absolutely or I would have spent my time saying it in the first place.

I would hope that no one thinks that I have offered enough in this thread to prove evolution. My intent was strictly to show that given a type of scenario in which there are weak, normal, and strong variants, the strong variants will spread through the population over time. This is only one single (but important) point in evolution.

If your goal is not to prove TOE, then just what is your goal in advancing those particular arguments?

As to your broader claim that “others have failed to prove”, I would point out that your expressed opinion is in direct opposition to that of many thousands of scientists and biologists who have made an in-depth study of evolution.

What you said above is nothing more than a variation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Can you support your statement with some ideas or concepts or evidence that these scientists simply missed?

Its not necessarily an issue of what they "miss", but perhaps an issue of what facts they care not to pursue, or questions they care not to answer.

The bottom line is, medical science has documented THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples of how expressed mutations are a negative influence on the survival of a gene pool they occur in. Conversely, evolutionists have had to search the world over to find a mere handful of examples of instances when a mutation may have been theoretically "advantageous".

I maintain that IF mutations are a catalyst for anything, they would be a catalyst for EXTINCTION, and NOT a catalyst for the evolution and survival of all species.

I have THOUSANDS of genetic disease I could present to you in support of my claim regarding harmful mutations. How many examples of "beneficial mutations" can you present in support of YOUR claim?

If you desire to make the positive assertion that "beneficial mutations" are the catalyst for all the billions of advantageous changes that have had to occur in all the billions of species that have lived on this planet, then the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.

Scrim

[Stratnerd]

Phy: Are you willing to see if what you have said above can be defended scientifically?

Scrim: Absolutely or I would have spent my time saying it in the first place. But you haven't defended anything scientifically - that is you haven't explicitly stated any hypotheses, predictions, and any you haven't done any analyses. In particular, please scientifically demonstrate these two suppositions:

"mutations" would be considered a mechanism for EXTINCTION long before they could be ever considered a mechanism for evolution, its that simple.

"beneficial mutations" occur at anywhere near the rate necessary for them to be considered a viable "mechanism" for molecules-to-man evolution.

If your goal is not to prove TOE, then just what is your goal in advancing those particular arguments? nothing can be proved and if you are looking for experimental "proof" of molecule-to-man it ain't going to happen. Two reasons why: (1) as a historical hypothesis "molecules-to-man" doesn't solely reside on mutation there are numerous other events that have probably been more important in the path (2) scale and complexity - what is the longest experiment done in evolutionary biology? Can these events really give insight to millions of years of evolution?

The bottom line is, medical science has documented THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples of how expressed mutations are a negative influence on the survival of a gene pool 1. would they be interested in anything else? 2. how does a mutation in an individual threaten the population as a whole and, as you seem to be putting it, driving it to extinction?
Conversely, evolutionists have had to search the world over to find a mere handful of examples of instances when a mutation may have been theoretically "advantageous". Probably a difference in detection, eh?
billions of advantageous changes that have had to occur in all the billions of species that have lived on this planet, then the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. evolution doesn't require each step to advantageous and it certainly isn't required in speciation

[Dimo]

Scrimshaw posted:

Sometimes, the truth lies in simplicity.

Dimo:

And sometimes it does not.

Scrimshaw posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am presuming that you are willing to look at the concepts underlying evolution, since you seem willing to take a stance against it. If your position is just to spout some erroneous rhetoric without defending it, then we can chalk up your posting to a drive-by creationist. Are you willing to see if what you have said above can be defended scientifically?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Absolutely or I would have spent my time saying it in the first place.

Dimo:

The time you have spent defending your views cannot be directly
correlated to your ability to accept the truth. Sorry but your effort is not indicative of your capacity to understand your own argument.

Scrimshaw posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would hope that no one thinks that I have offered enough in this thread to prove evolution. My intent was strictly to show that given a type of scenario in which there are weak, normal, and strong variants, the strong variants will spread through the population over time. This is only one single (but important) point in evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your goal is not to prove TOE, then just what is your goal in advancing those particular arguments?

Dimo:

I'm sorry but disclosing the evidence for evolution is not the sole responsibility Mr. Phy. His/Her ability to express these ideas is not the true measure of the merritt of these ideas. The truth of such ideas is independant of any individuals capacity for persuasion. It is up to you to understand the concepts being transferred. If you are in disagreement with the majority of scientists in a certain field then it is your responsibility to overturn the accepted understanding. As of yet you have failed to accomplish this task.

Scrimpshaw posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to your broader claim that “others have failed to prove”, I would point out that your expressed opinion is in direct opposition to that of many thousands of scientists and biologists who have made an in-depth study of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you said above is nothing more than a variation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Dimo:

And I guess your expertise and experience has qualified you to overturn the decision of people who invest thier lives in these endeavors. Please explain why we should accept your opinion over those who have committed thier lives to the study of this subject.

Scrimpshaw posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you support your statement with some ideas or concepts or evidence that these scientists simply missed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its not necessarily an issue of what they "miss", but perhaps an issue of what facts they care not to pursue, or questions they care not to answer.

Dimo:

What exactly is it that they "care not to pursue"? The questions they "cannot" answere do not negate the questions they can answer.

Scrimpshaw posted:

The bottom line is, medical science has documented THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples of how expressed mutations are a negative influence on the survival of a gene pool they occur in.

Dimo:

The bottom line is that "MEDICAL SCIENCE" has "NOT" documented any "SUPERNATURAL" causes for anyting. Therefore your argument is unsubstantiated by the field from which you seek vindication.

Scrimpshaw posted:

Conversely, evolutionists have had to search the world over to find a mere handful of examples of instances when a mutation may have been theoretically "advantageous".

Dimo:

It is not surprising that "supernaturalists" have had to seek the "world over" for evidence of thier strongly held beliefs and as of yet have not been succesful.

Scrimpshaw posted:

I maintain that IF mutations are a catalyst for anything, they would be a catalyst for EXTINCTION, and NOT a catalyst for the evolution and survival of all species.

Dimo:

What you "maintain" is irrelevant to the truth of such matters. Your beliefs are not neccessarily an accurate reflection of reality.

Scrimpshaw posted:

I have THOUSANDS of genetic disease I could present to you in support of my claim regarding harmful mutations. How many examples of "beneficial mutations" can you present in support of YOUR claim?

Dimo:

"Genetic diseases" are not evidence for the "SUPERNATURAL". On Contrare they are evidence against the "SUPERNATURAL".

Scrimpshaw posted:

If you desire to make the positive assertion that "beneficial mutations" are the catalyst for all the billions of advantageous changes that have had to occur in all the billions of species that have lived on this planet, then the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.

Dimo:

If you desire to make a positive assertion that "the supernatural" is the catalyst for such phenomenon then the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
But you haven't defended anything scientifically - that is you haven't explicitly stated any hypotheses, predictions, and any you haven't done any analyses.

I don't have anything to defend in the first place. We are discussing the merits of YOUR supposition that mutations are a viable mechanism to produce the BILLIONS of advantageous changes in all the billions of species of life on earth. You are the one proposing it is IS a viable mechanism to produce all these billions of advantageous changes, so the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.

In particular, please scientifically demonstrate these two suppositions:

"mutations" would be considered a mechanism for EXTINCTION long before they could be ever considered a mechanism for evolution, its that simple.

"beneficial mutations" occur at anywhere near the rate necessary for them to be considered a viable "mechanism" for molecules-to-man evolution.

Those are not suppositions. Those are conclusions well-supported by the available evidence as well as statistics of probability. If 99.9% of all expressed mutations result in harm instead of benefit, then it logically follows that mutations are 99.9% more likely to be catalysts for *extinction* than for survival.

nothing can be proved and if you are looking for experimental "proof" of molecule-to-man it ain't going to happen. Two reasons why: (1) as a historical hypothesis "molecules-to-man" doesn't solely reside on mutation there are numerous other events that have probably been more important in the path (2) scale and complexity - what is the longest experiment done in evolutionary biology? Can these events really give insight to millions of years of evolution?

Okay, but you left out a third possiblity which was perfectly unscientific of you to do:

(3) Molecules-to-man evolution (via mutation) DID NOT HAPPEN.


1. would they be interested in anything else?

I don't know, ask them.


2. how does a mutation in an individual threaten the population as a whole and, as you seem to be putting it, driving it to extinction?

When a species first appears on earth, it is in a very small, isolated population. If mutations occurred at those times, there is 99.9% chance they would be HARMFUL, which could easily lead to the extinction of those early populations of organisms. The smaller and more isolated a population is, the more vulnerable it's existence becomes to the effects of inheritable diseases which can get easily, and quickly spread throughout such a small gene pool.

For example, if our original mother "Eve" had an expressed genetic mutation, it most likely would have been some form of genetic disease and/or disorder which would have been inherited by successive generations within that very small population. It is a fact that humans suffering with debilatating genetic diseases have much higher chances of not surviving to adulthood under adverse conditions, which means reproduction within the small population would be severely halted, which of course, would lead to the inevitable extinction of that population.

evolution doesn't require each step to advantageous and it certainly isn't required in speciation

Doesn't require each step to be advantageous, you say? Well, pray tell exactly *how many* mutational steps would need to be advantageous in order for an ameoba to evolve into a human being over billions of years? 1? 2? 5? 216,859??

When you are calculating up your estimate of how many *advantageous* mutations would have been necessary, keep in mind that 99.9% of expressed mutations are harmful, not beneficial.

Scrim

[Dimo]

Scrimpshaw posted:

Those are not suppositions. Those are conclusions well-supported by the available evidence as well as statistics of probability. If 99.9% of all expressed mutations result in harm instead of benefit, then it logically follows that mutations are 99.9% more likely to be catalysts for *extinction* than for survival.

Dimo:

If 99.9% of all experiences are not evidence of "THE SUPERNATURAL", then it logically follows that "THE SUPERNATURAL" is 99.9% less likely to be the catalyst for anything we might witness.

[Stratnerd]

I don't have anything to defend in the first place. We are discussing the merits of YOUR supposition that mutations are a viable mechanism to produce the BILLIONS of advantageous changes in all the billions of species of life on earth. sorry, that isn't the scenario at all.
You are the one proposing it is IS a viable mechanism to produce all these billions of advantageous changes, so the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. huh? Phy asked if you could back up your assertions (saying mutations are inadequate) and it sure sounded like you were saying yes.
"mutations" would be considered a mechanism for EXTINCTION long before they could be ever considered a mechanism for evolution, its that simple. I was asking how - please supply some data or a model that would support this. I don't see how a mutation that kills the individual ends up wiping out a population.
"beneficial mutations" occur at anywhere near the rate necessary for them to be considered a viable "mechanism" for molecules-to-man evolution. that's an assertion right? please provide some data in support. and AGAIN, this isn't the only mechanisms and I would say that it is even a relatively minor mechanism compared to the others

Those are not suppositions. Those are conclusions well-supported by the available evidence as well as statistics of probability. If 99.9% of all expressed mutations result in harm instead of benefit, got data?
then it logically follows that mutations are 99.9% more likely to be catalysts for *extinction* than for survival. [quote] logically? again, how does a mutation that smites an individual wipe out a population?


Okay, but you left out a third possiblity which was perfectly unscientific of you to do:

[quote](3) Molecules-to-man evolution (via mutation) DID NOT HAPPEN. AGAIN, mutations are only part of the story. But do you have an alternative theory to account for the diversity on this planet?
I don't know, ask them. such a response deserves a "duh"
The smaller and more isolated a population is, the more vulnerable it's existence becomes to the effects of inheritable diseases which can get easily, and quickly spread throughout such a small gene pool. how does a harmful mutation spread?
Doesn't require each step to be advantageous, you say? um, yea.
Well, pray tell exactly *how many* mutational steps would need to be advantageous in order for an ameoba to evolve into a human being over billions of years? 1? 2? 5? 216,859?? huh? as I expressed previously mutations are only part of the story and every step doesn't need to be advantageous

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Dimo
Dimo:

The time you have spent defending your views cannot be directly
correlated to your ability to accept the truth. Sorry but your effort is not indicative of your capacity to understand your own argument.

Wtf are you talking about? I was saying I wouldn't have bothered posting arguments on this board unless I intended to support them. Now with that clarification in mind, explain how in the blue blazes your above comment makes any kind of sense?

Scrim said:
If your goal is not to prove TOE, then just what is your goal in advancing those particular arguments?

Dimo:
I'm sorry but disclosing the evidence for evolution is not the sole responsibility Mr. Phy. His/Her ability to express these ideas is not the true measure of the merritt of these ideas. The truth of such ideas is independant of any individuals capacity for persuasion. It is up to you to understand the concepts being transferred.

I agree with you that an inability to effectively prove a point does not automatically make the point unprovable. Isn't that just an elaborate way of describing "common sense"?? Yes, perhaps someone's inability to disclose evidence for invisible poka-dotted leprechans is not the "true measure of the merit" of that idea either. The point is, if someone is positively claiming ______ exists/occurs/happens, then they, as the positive claimant, bear the burden of supporting that assertion with relevant facts. That is all I was stating.

If you are in disagreement with the majority of scientists in a certain field then it is your responsibility to overturn the accepted understanding. As of yet you have failed to accomplish this task.

No, it is the positive claimant's responsiblity (in this case, what you call the "majority of scientists") to demonstrate how and why their understanding is "acceptable" based on the empirical facts.


Scrim said:
What you said above is nothing more than a variation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Dimo:
And I guess your expertise and experience has qualified you to overturn the decision of people who invest thier lives in these endeavors. Please explain why we should accept your opinion over those who have committed thier lives to the study of this subject.

"Committed their lives"? Gee, you make it sound like a religious cause. Anyway, my claim that mutations are more likely a catalyst for extinction rather than survival is a claim based on the FACTS. The facts do NOT support the notion that mutations could ever be a catalyst for survival and evolution. You asked why you should accept my conclusion over that of evolutionists who are desparately trying to keep their jobs? Fine.

Here is a list of what mutations produce in humans:

Aarskog Syndrome
Aarskog-Scott Syndrome
Aase-Smith Syndrome
Abdominal Muscle Deficiency Syndrome
Abetalipoproteinemia (Bassen-Kornzweig Syndrome)
Ablepharon Macrostonia Syndrome
Absence Defect of Limbs, Scalp, and Skull (Adams-Oliver)
Acalasia
Acanthocytosis (Bassen-Kornzweig Syndrome)
Acanthosis Nigracans
Acatalasemia
Acatalasia
Achalasia
ACHARD (Marfan Variant)
Achondrogenesis
Achondroplasia
Achromatopsia
Acid Ceramidase Deficiency (Farber)
Acid Maltese Deficiency
Acidemia, Isoveric
Acidemia, Methylmalonic
Acidemia, Propionic
Acoustic Neuroma (Benign Cranial Tumor)
Acrocallosal Syndrome, Schinzel type (Absence of Copus Callosum)
Acrodysostosis (Peripheral Dysostosis)
Acromegaly
Acromelalgia, Hereditary
Acromesomelic Dysplasia
Acromicric Dysplasia
Acromicric Skeletal Dysplasia
Acroparesthesia (Fabry Disease)
Adam Complex (Amniotic Bands)
Adams-Oliver Syndrome
Addison's Disease
Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency
Adipogenital-Retinitis Pigmentosa Polydactyly Syndrome (Bardet-Biedl)
Adrenal Cortex Adenoma (Cushings Disease)
Adrenal Disease
Adrenal Hyperplasia, Congenital
Adrenal Neoplasm (Cushings Disease)
Adrenogenital Syndrome (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia)
Adreno-Retinitus Pigmentosa-Polydactyly Syndrome
Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD)
Adrenomyeloneuropathy
Adult Spinal Muscular Atrophy (Aran-Duchenne) (SMA)
Adynlosuccinate Lyase Deficiency
Afibrinogenemia, Congenital
Agamaglobulinemias Primary, autosomal
Agamaglobulinemias Primary, sex-linked
Agenesis of Commissura Magna Cerebri
Agenesis of Corpus Callosum
Agnosia
Agyria (lissencephaly)
Aicardi Syndrome (Callosal Agenesis)
Alagille Syndrome
Albers-Schonberg Syndrome (Osteopetrosis)
Albinism
Albright Hereditary Osteodystrophy(AHO)
Alexander Disease
Alkaptonuria (Ochronosis)
Allan Herndon Syndrome
Alopecia Areata (Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada Syndrome)
Alpers Syndrome (Progressive Infantile Poliodystrophy)
Alpha-1-Antitrypsin Deficiency (ATT Deficiency)
Alpha-Galactosidase Deficiency (Fabry)
Alpha Mannosidosis
Alport Syndrome
ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)
Alstrom Syndrome
Alternating Hemiplegia
Alzheimer's Disease (AD)
Amaurotic Familial Idiocy (Battens Disease)
Ambiguous Genitalia
AMC (Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita)
Amelogenesis Imperfecta
Amino Acid Disorders
Amlopectinosis (Andsersen Disease) (Glycogen Storage Disease IV)
Amniotic Bands
AMS (Ablepharon Macrostomia Syndrome)
Amsterdam Dwarf Syndrome de Lange
Amylo-1,6-Glucosidase Deficiency (Forbes)
Amyloidosis
Amyoplasia (Arthrogryposis)
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) (Lou Gehrig Disease)
Andersen Disease (Glycogen Storage Disease Type V)
Anderson Fabry
Anderson-Warburg Syndrome (Norrie Disease)
Androgen Insensitivity
Anemia Congenital-Triphalangeal Thumb (Aase-Smith Syndrome)
Anencephaly
Angioedema, Hereditary
Angiokeratoma Corporis Diffusum (Fabrys)
Angiomatosis Retina (Von Hippel-Landau)
Angelman Syndrome
Aniridia (Wilms Tumor Syndrome)
Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS)
Anodontia
Anophthalmia (Absence of Eye Tissue)
Anorchia (Absent Testes)
Anosmia (Congenital loss of sense of smell)
Antley-Bixler Syndrome (Cranioachischisis)
Anxietas Tibialis (Restless Leg Syndrome)
Aortic Stenosis (AS)
APECED Syndrome
Apert Syndrome
Aphasia
Aplasia Cutis Congenita (ACC)
Aplastic Anemia
Arachnodactyly (Marfan Syndrome)
Aran-Duchenne (Spinal Muscular Atrophy)
Arginase Deficiency
Arginino Succinic Aciduria (Argininosuccinic acid lyase-ALD)
Armenian Syndrome (Familial Mediterranean Fever)
Arnold-Chiari Malformation
Arteriohepatic Dysplasia (Alagille Syndrome)
Arteriovenous Malformations
Aterioventricular Canal Defect (AV)
Arthritis
Arthritis, Juvenile
Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita (Guerin-Stern Syndrome)
Arthro-Opthalmopathy (Stickler)
Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia
Arylsulfatase-B Deficiency (Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome)
Aspartylglucosaminuria
Aspartylglycosaminuria
Asperger's Syndrome
Asphyxiating Thoracic Dystrophy (Jeune Syndrome)
Asthma
Ataxia-Telangiectasia (AT)
Ataxia with Lactic Acidosis II (Leigh's Disease)
Atrial Septal Defects (ASD)
Atriodigital Dysplasia (Holt-Oram Syndrome)
Atrioventricular Septal Defect
Atrophia Bulborum Hereditaria (Norrie Disease)
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Auditory Canal Atresia
Autism (Kanner Syndrome)
Autosomal Recessive Polycystic Kidney Disease
Azorean Disease (Machado-Joseph Disease) (Spinopontive Atrophy)
Bardet-Biedl Syndrome
Bartter Syndrome
Bassen-Kornzweig Syndrome (Abetalipoproteinemia)
Batten's Disease (Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis)
Bean Syndrome (Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome)
Becker's Muscular Dystrophy
Becker's Nevus
Behcet's Disease
Bell's Palsy (Facial Paralysis)
Bengr Paroxysmal Peritonitis (Familial Mediterranean Fever)
Benign Falmilal Polymyopathy (Central Core Disease)
Benign Cranial Nerve Tumors (Acoustic Neuroma)
Beuren Myopathy(Williams Syndrome)
Bicuspid Aortic Valve
Bloom Syndrome (Xeroderma Pigmentosa)
Blue Diaper Syndrome
Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome
Borjeson Syndrome (Borjeson-Forssman-Lehmann Syndrome)
Bourneville's Disease (Tuberous Sclerosis)
Bowen Hutterite Syndrome (Bowen-Conradi Syndrome)
Brachio-Oto-Renal (BOR) Syndrome
Brachmann-de Lange Syndrome
Brittle Bone Disease (Osteogenesis Inperfecta-OI)
Broad Thumb Syndrome (Rubenstein Taybi)
Brown Enamel, Hereditary (Amelogenesis Imperfecta)
CFC
CMT (Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease)
CADASIL
Camptomelic Dysplasia (Camptomelic Dwarfism)
Canavan Disease
Cancer
Adult Chronic Leukemia
Adult Leukemia
Anal Cancer
Benign Breast Conditions
Bone Cancer
Brain and Spinal Cord Cancers of Adults
Brain/Central Nervous System (CNS) Tumors in Children
Breast Cancer
Cancer in Children
Cancer of the Adrenal Glands
Cancer of Unknown Primary
Cervical Cancer
Childhood Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Colon and Rectum Cancer
Endometrial Cancer
Esophagus Cancer
Ewing's Family of Tumors
Eye Cancer - Intraocular Melanoma
Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors
Gestational Trophoblastic Disease
Head and Neck Cancer
Head and Neck Cancer - Lip/Oral Cavity
Head and Neck Cancer - Neurogenic Tumors in the Neck Head and Neck Cancer - Soft Tissue Sarcoma in the Neck
Hodgkin's Disease
Kaposi's Sarcoma
Kidney Cancer (Adult) - Renal Cell Carcinoma
Laryngeal and Hypopharyngeal Cancer
Leukemia
Liver Cancer
Lung Cancer
Lung Carcinoid Tumor
Lymphoma
Male Breast Cancer
Malignant Mesothelioma
Multiple Myeloma
Myelodysplastic Syndrome
Nasopharyngeal Cancer
Neuroblastoma
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Oral Cavity & Oropharyngeal
Osteosarcoma
Ovary Cancer
Pancreas Cancer
Penile Cancer
Pituitary Tumor
Prostate Cancer
Retinoblastoma (An Eye Cancer)
Rhabdomyosarcoma
Salivary Gland
Sarcoma - Adult Soft Tissue Cancer
Skin Cancer
Skin Cancer - Melanoma
Skin Cancer - Nonmelanoma
Stomach Cancer
Testicular Cancer
Thymus Cancer
Thyroid Cancer
Urinary Bladder Cancer
Vaginal Cancer
Vulvar Cancer
Wilms' Tumor
Carbamyl Phosphate Synthetase (CPS) Deficiency (Hyperammonemia)
Carbohydrate Deficient Glycoprotein Syndrome (CDGS)
Carboxylase Deficiency, Multiple
CardioFacioCutaneous Syndrome
Carnitine Deficiency, Hereditary
Carnitine Palmityl Transferase Deficiency (CPT)
Carnosinemia (Carnosinase Deficiency)
Cataplexy
Caudal Regression Syndrome
CDGS
Celiac Disease
Celiac Sprue (Dermatitis Hepiformis,Gluten Intolerance)
Central Core Disease (Benign Familial Polymyopathy)
Cephalic Disorders
Cerebellar Hypoplasia (Joubert Syndrome)
Cerebelloretinal Hemangioblastomatosis (Von Hippel-Lindau)
Cerebral Gigantism
Cerebral Palsy
Cerebro-Costco-Mandibular Syndrome
Cerebro-Hepato-Renal Syndrome(CHRS) (Zellweger Syndrome)
Cerebro-Oculo-Facio-Skeletal Syndrome (Arthrogryposis)
Cerebroside Lipidosis (Gaucher)
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease (CMT)
CHARGE Association
Chediak-Higashi Syndrome (Albinsim)
Chiari Malformations
Christmas Disease (Hemophilia-B)
Chondrodysplasia
Chrondrodystrophy
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Chronic Fatigue Immume Dysfunction Syndrome(CFIDS)
Chronic Granulomatous Disease
Citrullinemia
Cleidocranial Dysplasia
CMT (Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease)
Coarctation of the Aorta
Cockayne Syndrome
Coffin-Lowry Syndrome
Coffin-Siris Syndrome
Cohen Syndrome
Colitis, Ulcerative
Colon Aganglionosis (Hirschsprung Disease)
Coloboma (Ocular Deficiency)
Color Blindness or Color Deficiet
Colorectal Cancer
Congenital Absence of Abdominal Muscles
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Congenital Heart Defects
Congenital Multiple Arthrogryposis (AMC)
Congenital Muscular Dystrophy (CMD)
Congenital Sacral Agenesis (Caudal Regression Syndrome)
Conradi Disease (Conradi-Hunermann Syndrome)
Cori Disease (Debrancher Enzyme Deficiency) (GSD III)
Cornelia de Lange Syndrome
Coronal Dentin Dysplasia
Craniosynostosis
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Crigler-Najjar Syndrome
Crohn's Disease (Regional Ileitis)
Crouzon Disease (a form of craniosynostosis)
Cushing's Disease
Cutis Laxa
Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome
Cystic Fibrosis (CF)
Cystic Hygroma
Cystinosis (Cystine Storage Disease)
Cytochrome C Oxidase (COX) Deficiency
Dandy-Walker Syndrome
Darier Disease
DeBarsy Syndrome
Debrancher Enzyme Deficiency (DBD) (Cori's or Forbes') Dejerine-Sottas Disease
Delange Syndrome
Dementia
Dentin Dysplasia (Type II, Coronal, and Radicular)
Dermatitis Herpetiformis
Dermatomyositis
Diabetes Insipidus
Diabetic Neuropathy
Diamond-Blackfan Anemia
Diastrophic Dysplasia (Chondrodystrophy with Clubfeet)
Di George Syndrome (VeloCardioFacial Syndrome)
Distal Muscular Dystrophy (DMD)
Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21)
Drash Syndrome (Wilms Tumor)
Dubin-Johnson Syndrome
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Duodenal Atresia or Stenosis
Dysautonomia, Familial
Dyschondrosteosis (Leri-Weill Syndrome, Madelung Deformity)
Dyslexia
Dysplasia, Fibrous
Dystonia
Eagle Barrett Syndrome (Prune Belly Syndrome)
Early Constraint Defects (Amniotic Bands)
Ebstein Anomaly
Eckbom Syndrome (Restless Leg Syndrome)
Ectrodactilia (Lobster Claw Deformity)
Ectrodactyly-ElectrodermalDysplasia-Clefting Syndrome (EEC)
Eisenmenger's Complex
Ellis-Van Creveld Syndrome
Emery-Dreifuss Muscular Dystrophy (EDMD)
Encephalofacial Angiomatosis (Sturge-Weber)
Encephalomyelopathy (Leigh's Disease)
Endometriosis
Engelmann Syndrome
Eosmophilic Fasciitis (Disorder of renal metabolism and connective tissue)
Epidermal Nevus
Epidermolysis Bulossa
Epilepsy, Hereditary
Epiloia )Tuberous Sclerosis)
Erythrokeratodermia Progressiva Symetrica
Erythropoietic Protoporphyria (EPP)
FDG (Facial-Digital-Genital Syndrome) (Aarskog Syndrome)
FG Syndrome (Opitz Keabiggis)
Faber Disease (Lipogranulomatosis) (Acid Ceramidase Deficiency)
Fabry Disease
Facial-Digital-Genital Syndrome (Aarskog Syndrome)
Facial Dysplasia-Short Stature-Penoscrotal Anomalies (Aarskog Syndrome)
Facial Hemiatrophy (Parry-Romberg)
Facial Nerve Palsy (Bell's Palsty)
Facial Paralysis (Bell's Palsy)
Facio-Cardio-Cutaneous Syndrome
Facio Genital Dysplasia (Aarskog Syndrome)
Facio-Scapulo-Humeral Muscular Dystrophy
Fahr Disease
Familial Dysautonomia
Familial Mediterranean Fever
Familial Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1
Familial Nephritis (Alport Syndrome)
Familial Splenic Anemia (Gaucher)
Familial Spastic Paraparesis
Fanconi Anemia
Farber Lipogranulomatosis (Acid Ceramidase Deficiency)
Feminizing Testes Syndrome (AIS)
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)
FG Syndrome (Opitz Keabeggis Syndrome)
Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP)
Fibromyalgia Syndrome
Fifth Digit Syndrome (Coffin-Siris Syndrome)
FOP (Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva)
Forbes Disease
Forbes-Albright
Fragile X Syndrome
Freeman-Sheldon Syndrome (Craniocarpotarsal Dystrophy)
Friedreich's Ataxia
Fructose Intolerance, Hereditary (Fructosuria and Fructosemia)
Fructosuria
Fucosidosis
Galactosemia
Gangliosidosis GM2 Type 2 (Sandhoff Disease)
Gastrinoma (Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome)
Gastroschisis
Gaucher Disease
Gigantism (Sotos Syndrome)
Gilbert Disease
Gilbert-Dreyfus Syndrome (Androgen Insensitivity)
Globoid Cell Leukodystrophy (Krabbe Disease)
Glucoronyl Transferase Deciciency (Type 1) (Crigler-Najjar Syndrome)
Glucose-Galactose Malabsorption (Lactose Intolerance)
Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehdrogenase Deficiency (G6PD)
Glucosyl Ceramide Lysidosis (Gauchers)
Glutaric Aciduria I (Glutaryl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency)
Glutaric Aciduria II (Multiple Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency)
Gluten-Induced Enteropathy (Celiac)
Glycogen Storage Disease (GSD)
Glycogen Storage Disease IV
Glycogen Storage Disease VIII
Glycolipid Lipidosis (Fabrys)
Glycoprotein Syndrome
Goldberg-Maxwell Syndrome
Gordon Syndrome (Distal Arthrogryposis Type IIA)
Gougerot-Carteaud Syndrome (Acanthosis Nigracans)
Gout
Graves Disease
Gruber Syndrome (Meckel Syndrome)
Guerin-Stern Syndrome (Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita-AMC)
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Hallervorden-Spatz Disease
Hanhart Syndrome
Happy Puppet Syndrome (Angelman Syndrome)
Hartnup Disease
Hemangioma (Birthmark-Port Wine Stain)
Hemochromatosis
Hemophagocytic Histiocytosis
Hemophilia
Hemorrhagic Nodular Pupura (Fabrys)
Hepatitis, Neonatal
Hereditary Dystopic Lipidosis (Fabry's)
Hereditary Hyperuricemia (Lesch-Nyhan)
Hereditary Sensory and Autonomic Neuropathy (Dysautonomia)
Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia
Heredopathia Atactica Polyneuritiformis (Refsum's Syndrome)
Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome
Hers Disease (Glycogen Storage Disease VI)
Hidradenitis
Hirschsprung Disease
Histidinemia
Histiocytosis
Holoprosencephaly
Holt-Oram Syndrome
Homocystinuria
Homogentisicacidura (Alkaptonuria)
Hunter Syndrome (Mucopolysaccharidosis Type II)
Huntington's Chorea (Huntington's Disease)
Hurler Syndrome (Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I)
Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria
Hydranencephaly
Hydrocephalus (Neural Tube Defects)
Hyperaldosteronism
Hyperaldosteronism with Hypokalemic Alkalosis (Bartter Syndrome)
Hyperammonemia (CPS Deficiency)
Hyper-Beta Carnosinemia
Hyperbilirulinemia, Hereditary (Crigler-Najjar)
Hypercalcemia-Supravalvar Aortic Stenosis (Williams Syndrome)
Hyperkalemia
Hyperkalemic Periodic Paralysis (HYPOP)
Hyperostosis Corticalis (Paget's)
Hyperoxaluria
Hyperparathyroidism
Hyperpituitarism (Acromegaly)
Hyperthyroidism
Hyperuricemia, Hereditary (Lesch-Nyhan)
Hyperuricemia-Choreoathetosis, Self-Mutilation Syndrome
Hypochondroplasia (Dwarfism)
Hypoglycemia
Hypokalemic Periodic Paralysis (HYPP)
Hypolactasia
Hypoparathyroidism
Hypophosphatasia (Metabolic Bone Disorder)
Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome
Hypothyroidism
Hypothyroid Myopathy (HYPOTM)
I Cell Disease (Mucolipidosis II)
Ichthyosis
Ichthyosis Vulgaris
Imperforate Anus
Imperforate Hymen
Inborn Errors of Metabolism
Inclusion Body Myositis
Incomplete Testicular Feminization (AIS- Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)
Incontinentia Pigmenti (IP)
Infantile Autism
Infantile Hypercalcenemia Syndrome, Idiopathic (Williams)
Infantile Phytanic Acid Storage Disease (Refsum's)
Infantile Progressive Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA1)(Werdnig-Hoffman)
Infantile Refsum's Disease
Infantile Spasms (West Disease)
Infantile Subacute Necrotizing Encephalopathy of Leigh
Iniencephaly
Intermediate Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA2)
Intestinal Pseudo-obstructions
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Irritable Bowel in Children
Isovaleric Acidemia CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency
Jarco-Levin Syndrome (Spandylocostal Dysplasia)
Jeune Syndrome (Asphyxiating Thoracic Dystrophy)
Joseph's Disease (Machado/Joseph)
Joubert Syndrome
Jumping Frenchmen Of Maine
Juvenile Arthritis
Juvenile Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA3)(Kugelberg-Welander)
Kanner Syndrome (Autism)
Karsch-Neugelbauer Syndrome (Split Hand Deformity)
Kartagener Syndrome
Kearns-Sayre Syndrome (KSS)
Kinky Hair Disease (Menkes Syndrome)
Klinefelter Syndrome
Klipper-Feil Syndrome
Krabbe Disease (Globoid Cell Leukodystrophy- GLD)
Kugelberg-Welander Disease
Labyrinthine Syndrome (Meniere Disease)
Lactate Dehydrogenase Deficiency (LDHA)
Lactose Intolerance (M) LADD
Lam Lymphangioleimyomatosis
Lambert-Eaton Syndrome (LES)
Landau-Keffner Syndrome
Landoozy-Dejerine (Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy)
Larsen Syndrome
Late Onset Tay-Sachs
Laurence Moon Bardet Biedl Syndrome
Legg-Calve-Perthes
Leigh's Disease
Leprechaunism (Donahue Syndrome)
Lesch-Nyhan Disease
Leukodystrophy
Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy
Limit Dextrinosis (Forbes) (Glycogen Storage Disease III) Linear Epidermal Nevus
Lipodystrophy
Lipogranulomatosis (Farber Lipogranulomatosis)
Lissencephaly Syndrome
Liver Disorders
Liver Phosphorylase Deficiency (Hers)
Lobar Atrophy (Picks Disease) (Alzheimers)
Lobstein DiseaseType I )Osteogenesis Imperfecta -OI)
Lobster Claw Deformity (Ectrodactylia)
Long Chain Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency (LCAD)
Lubs Syndrome (AIS)
Lupus
Lymphangioleimyomatosis (LAM)
Lysomal Alpha-D Mannosidase Deficiency
Machado-Joseph Disease
Macrencephaly
Macrostomia Ablepheron Syndrome
Maffuci Syndrome
Male Pseudo-hermaphroditism
Mannosidosis
Maple Syrup Urine Disease (Ketoaciduria)
Marfan Syndrome (Marfanoid Hypermobility Synddrome) Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome (Mucopolysaccharidosis VI)
Mastocytosis
MCAD
McArdle Disease (Glycogen Storage Disease Type V)
McCune-Albright Syndrome
Meckel Syndrome
Meckel-Gruber Syndrome
Mediterranean Fever, Familial
Megalencephaly
Melkersson Syndrome (Melkersson-Rosenthal Syndrome) Meniere Disease
Menkes Disease
Menke's Kinky Hair Syndrome
Mermaid Syndrome (Sirenomelia)
Metabolic Disorders
Metachromatic Leukodystrophy
Methylmalonic Acidemia
Microcephaly
Mitochondrial Myopathy
Moebius Syndrome (Mobius)
Mongolism (Down Syndrome)
Morquio Syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis)
Morris's Syndrome (CAIS)
Mucolipidosis Type 4, ML4
Multiple Endocrine Neoplasias (MEN)
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Muscle Phosphofructokinase Deficiency (Tauri)
Muscle Phosphorylase Deficiency (McArdle) (Glycogen Storage Disease type V)
Muscular Dystrophy
Myasthenia Gravis (MG)
Myoadenylate Deaminase Deficiency (MAD)
Myoclonus
Myopathies
Myopathy, Mitochondrial
Myositis,Inclusion Body (IBM)
Myotonia Congenita
Myotonic Dystrophy (DM)(Steinert's Disease)
Myotubular Myopathy (MTM)
N-Acetyl Glutamate Synthetase (NAGS) Deficiency
Nail-Patella Syndrome
Narcolepsy
Nemaline Myopathy (NM)
Neonatal Adrenoleukodystrophy
NeuroCutaneous Disease (Tuberous Sclerosis)
Neurocutaneous Melanosis (Nevus)
Neurofibromatosis (NF)
Neuromuscular Diseases
Neuronal Groid Lipofuscinosis (Batten's Disease)
Nevus
Nevus Comedinecus
Niemann-Pick
Nocturnal Myoclonus
Nonketotic Hyperglycinemia
Norrie Disease
Nyhan Disease
Obinsky Syndrome (Eagle-Barrett) (Prune Belly Syndrome)
Oculo-Cerebro-Cutaneous Syndrome (Agenesis of Corpus Callosum)
Olivopontocerebellar Atrophy (OPCA)
Ornithine Transcarbamylase Deficiency
Opsoclonus-Myoclonus
Orthostatic Hypotension in Neurological Disease (Shy-Drager)
Osteitis Deformaris (Paget's)
Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI)
Ovarioleukodystrophy
Oxycephaly (See Craniosynostosis)
Paget's Syndrome (Corticalis Deformaris)
Paramyotonia Congenita (PC)
Paraplegia, Hereditary Spastic
Parkinson's Disease
Parrot Syndrome (Achondroplastic Dwarfism)
Parry-Romberg Syndrome
Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA)
Peck's Disease (ALS)
Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease
PEPCK Deficiency, Mitochondrial and Cytosolic
Periodic Paralysis, Familial
Peripheral Neuropathy
Peroneal Muscular Atrophy
Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome (Intestinal Polyposis II)
Phosphorfrukinase Deficiency (PFKM) (Tauri's Disease)
Phosphoglycerate Kinase Deficiency
Phosphorglycerate Mutase Deficiency (PGAM)
Phosphorylase Deficiency (MPD) (McArdles Disease)
Phytanic Acid Storage Disease (Refsum Disease)
Pick's Disease (Diffuse Degenerative Cerebral Disease) (Alzheimers)
Pituitary Tumor
Poland Syndrome
Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD)
Polydystrophic Dwarfism (Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome)
Polymyositis
Polyposis, Familial
Pompe's Disease (Acid Maltase Deficiency)
Porencephaly
Porphyria
Port Wine Stain
Posterior Choanal Atresia (CHARGE Association)
Pringle Syndrome (Tuberous Sclerosis)
Progeroid Nanism (Cockayne Syndrome)
Progressive Autonomic Failure (Shy-Drager)
Progressive Diaphyseal Dysplasia (Englemann)
Progressive Hemifacial Atrophy (Parry-Romberg)
Progressive Hepatolinticular Degeneration (Wilsons)
Progressive Hypertrophic Interstitial Neuropathy (Dejerine-Sottas Disease)
Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML)
Propionic Acidemia
Proteus Syndrome
Prune-Belly Syndrome
Pseudohermaphroditism Male (AIS)
Pseudohypoparathyroidism
Pseudo-Hurler Polydystrophy (Mucopolysaccharidosis VII)
Psoriasis
Pulmonary Atresia
Pulmonary Hypertension
Pulmonary Stenosis
Purine Autism (Click on ASCII document, 27k)
Purine Metabolic Disorders
Pyroglutamicaciduria (5-oxoprolinuria)
Pyruvate Carboxylase Deficiency (Ataxia with Lactic Acidemia)
Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Deficiency
Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency
Refsum's Disease
Regional Ileitis (Crohn's Disease)
Reifstein Syndrome (PAIS) (AIS)
Reiter's Syndome
Restless Legs Syndrome
Retinoblastoma
Rett Syndrome
Rib Gap Defects with Micrognathia
Riley-Day Syndrome (Dysautonomia)
Roberts Syndrome (SC Syndrome)
Robinow Syndrome
Romano-Ward Syndrome
Romberg Syndrome (Parry-Romberg)
Rosewater Syndrome (AIS)
Rothmund-Thomson Syndrome (RTS)
Rubenstein-Taybi Syndrome
Russell-Silver Syndrome
Sacral Agenesis, Congenital (Caudal Regrssion Syndrome)
Sandhoff Disease
Sanfilippo Syndrome (Mucopolysaccharidosis type III )
Sarcoidosis
Schizencephaly
Schmidt Syndrome (Multiple Endocrine Deficiency Syndrome Type II )
Schwartz-Jampel Syndrome
Scleroderma
Seitelberger Disease (Infantile Neuroaxonal Dystrophy)
Septo Optic Dysplasia
Shwachman Syndrome
Shwachman Diamond Syndrome
Shy-Drager Syndrome
Sialidosis (Mucolipidosis)
Siewerling-Creutzfeldt Disease (Adrenomyeloneuropathy)
Silver Syndrome
Sirenomelia (Mermaid Syndrome)
Sjogren's Syndrome
Sly Syndrome (Mucopolysaccharidosis thyp VII)
Sotos Syndrome
Spasmodic Dysphonia (Laryngeal Dystonia)
Spasmodic Torticollis
Spastic Paraparesis
Spina Bifida
Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Spinopontive Atrophy (Azorean Disease) (Machado-Joseph's Disease)
Split Hand Deformity (Ectrodactyly)
Spondylocostal Dysplasia (Jarco-Levin Syndrome)
Spondylothoracic Dysplasia (Jarcho-Levin Syndrome)
Sprengel Deformity
Steinert Disease (Myotonic Dystrophy)
Stickler Syndrome (Stickler-Marshall Syndrome)
Stumple Familial Paraplegia (Tremor)
Sturge-Weber Syndrome
Subacute Necrotizing Encephalomyelopathy (Leigh's Disease)
Subaortic Stenosis
Sucrose-Iosomaltose Malabsorption, Congenital
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (Fact sheet on SIDS - Click on Publications On-line then on 0017 Fact Sheet on Sudden Infant Death Synddrome))
Swyer's Syndrome (AIS)
Syringomyelia
Takahara Syndrome
Takayasu's Arteritis
Tauri Disease (Glycogen Storage Disease VII)
Tay-Sachs Disease (TSD)
Testicular Feminization Syndrome (AIS)
Tetrahydrobiopterin Deficiency
Thalassemia
Thomsen Disease (Thomsen-Becker Myotonia) (Myotonia Congenita)
Thumbs, Hypoplastic-Triphalangeal (Aase-Smith)
Torsion Dystonia
Total Anomolous Pulmonary Venus Connection (PV)
Tourette Syndrome
Transposition of the Great Arteries
Trapezoidocephaly-Multiple Synostosis Syndrome (Antley-Bixler)
Tremor
Trichorrhinophalangeal Syndrome Type I
Trichorrhinophalangeal Syndrome Type II (Langer-Giedion Syndrome)
Trichorrhinophalangeal Syndrome Type III (Sugio-Kajii Syndrome)
Trichopoliodystrophy (Menke's Disease)
Tricuspid Atresia
Triphalangeal Thumb Syndrome (Aase-Smith)
Trisomy 13 (Patau Syndrome)
Trisomy 18 (Edward Syndrome)
Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome)
Tritanopia (Color Blindness)
Truncus Arteriosis
Tuberous Sclerosis
Turricephaly (Craniosynostosis)
Tyrosinemia, Hereditary (Tyrosyluria)
Ulcerative Colitis
Urea Cycle Defects or Disorders
Usher Syndrome VACTERYL Association
Valinemia
Vasculitis Disease
VeloCardioFacial Syndrome (VCFS)
Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD)
Vermis Cerebellar Agenesis (Joubert)
Vitiligo
Vogt Syndrome (Battens)
Von Gierke Disease (Glycogen Storage Disease I)
Von Hippel-Lindau Syndrome
Von Willebrand Disease
Waardenburg Syndrome
Waldmann Disease (Familial Dysproteinemia)
Walker-Warburg Syndrome
Wartenberg Syndrome (Acroparesthesia) (Fabrys)
Watson-Alagille Syndrome
Werdnig-Hoffman Disease (SMA1)
Werner Syndrome (WS) (Progeria of adulthood)
West Syndrome (Infantile Spasms)
Whistling Face Syndrome (Freeman-Sheldon)
Whitnall-Norman Syndrome (Norrie)
Wildervanck Syndrome
Williams Syndrome (Williams-Beuren Syndrome)
Wilsons Disease
Winchester Syndrome
Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome
Wittmaack-Eckbom Syndrome (Restless Leg Syndrome)
Wohlfart-Kugelberg-Welander Disease (SMA3) (Juvenile SMA)
Wyburn-Mason Syndrome
Xeroderma Pigmentosum
XY Syndrome (Pure Gonadal Dysgenesis)(AIS)
XXY Syndrome by Vaugn Hambley
Zellweger Syndrome
Ziehen-Oppenheim Disease (Torsion Dystonia)
Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome

Now, how about you supply me with your favorite "scientist's" list of all the documented types of "beneficial", mutational conditions so we can compare the two lists in order to get a general idea of the net-effect mutations have on most species. Sound like a deal?


The bottom line is, medical science has documented THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples of how expressed mutations are a negative influence on the survival of a gene pool they occur in.

Dimo:

The bottom line is that "MEDICAL SCIENCE" has "NOT" documented any "SUPERNATURAL" causes for anyting. Therefore your argument is unsubstantiated by the field from which you seek vindication.

Nice attempt at deviating from the subject at hand. We are discussing the merits of TOE's claim that mutations are the catalyst of all the billions of advantageous changes that have ever occurred in all the billions of species that have ever lived. Trying to obfuscate the issue by making reactionary stabs at supernaturalism will accomplish nothing for your pet thesis.


Scrimpshaw posted:

I have THOUSANDS of genetic disease I could present to you in support of my claim regarding harmful mutations. How many examples of "beneficial mutations" can you present in support of YOUR claim?

Dimo:

"Genetic diseases" are not evidence for the "SUPERNATURAL". On Contrare they are evidence against the "SUPERNATURAL".

So supernatural reality is contingent on *your* preconceived notion of biological perfection. Indeed, a supernatural creator cannot exist unless he/she/it views life exactly the same way *YOU* do. Now, is that idea actually supposed to hold water or is it just a rhetorical exercise for you?


Dimo:

If you desire to make a positive assertion that "the supernatural" is the catalyst for such phenomenon then the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.

1) You are committing the classic "burden shifting" fallacy here.

2) I have made no assertions regarding supernatural causes for origins, even though you are acting as if I HAD.

3) This is a discussion about the merits of TOE's view of mutations.

So now that thats been cleared up, I await your scientists' list of all the types of *beneficial* mutations so we can compare it with the list of harmful mutations I provided above and come to some conclusions about whether the net-effect of mutations is more likely extinction/disease or survival/evolution.

Scrim

[Stratnerd]

Now, how about you supply me with your favorite "scientist's" list of all the documented types of "beneficial", mutational conditions so we can compare the two lists in order to get a general idea of the net-effect mutations have on most species. Sound like a deal?
what's the logic here? if # - mutations > # + mutations then evolution isn't true?

The bottom line is, medical science has documented THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples of how expressed mutations are a negative influence on the survival of a gene pool they occur in. if a person dies that has a lethal mutation then doesn't improve the gene pool?
Trying to obfuscate the issue by making reactionary stabs at supernaturalism will accomplish nothing for your pet thesis. speaking of obfuscation... why do you insist that mutation is the sole factor in evolution?

[Scrimshaw]

Stratnerd,


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, pray tell exactly *how many* mutational steps would need to be advantageous in order for an ameoba to evolve into a human being over billions of years? 1? 2? 5? 216,859??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


huh? as I expressed previously mutations are only part of the story and every step doesn't need to be advantageous

And I previously asked a question which you just failed to answer. I'll ask it again - exactly how many advantageous mutational steps do you think would be needed in order for an ameoba to evolve into a human being? Do you even know?

[Stratnerd]

exactly how many advantageous mutational steps do you think would be needed in order for an ameoba to evolve into a human being? Do you even know?

it is irrelevent unless you wanted to argue that + mutations were the only thing going on and I don't know any educated person that has that stance.

[Itzpapalotl]

The most obvious example of beneficial mutations are genes where the rate of nonsynonymous (amino acid changing) mutations is higher than the rate of synonymous mutations (non aa changing). This unquestionably demonstrates that many amino acid changes have occured without being fatal and that these changes are beneficial and have been positively selected for.

many examples have been found, here are some of the categories of gene where change is selected for:

Host defence genes

Parasite response genes

Detoxification genes

Developmental genes

Genes involves in digestion

Genes involved in energy metabolism

Odour receptors

Pigmentation genes

Genes involved in reproduction

and many other genes that do not fall into these categories.

reference:

MICHAEL J. FORD. Applications of selective neutrality tests to molecular ecology. Molecular Ecology (2002) 11, 1245–1262.

[Dimo]

Scrimpshaw posted:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dimo
Dimo:

The time you have spent defending your views cannot be directly
correlated to your ability to accept the truth. Sorry but your effort is not indicative of your capacity to understand your own argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wtf are you talking about? I was saying I wouldn't have bothered posting arguments on this board unless I intended to support them. Now with that clarification in mind, explain how in the blue blazes your above comment makes any kind of sense?

Dimo:

Well please support them. Explain to me how natural causes are not a sufficient explanation for the physical world.

Scrimpshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrim said:
If your goal is not to prove TOE, then just what is your goal in advancing those particular arguments?

Dimo:
I'm sorry but disclosing the evidence for evolution is not the sole responsibility Mr. Phy. His/Her ability to express these ideas is not the true measure of the merritt of these ideas. The truth of such ideas is independant of any individuals capacity for persuasion. It is up to you to understand the concepts being transferred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you that an inability to effectively prove a point does not automatically make the point unprovable. Isn't that just an elaborate way of describing "common sense"??

Dimo:

No! Common sense is relative. If you are oblivious and/or uncommon then you cannot have "common sense".

Scrimpshaw:

Yes, perhaps someone's inability to disclose evidence for invisible poka-dotted leprechans is not the "true measure of the merit" of that idea either. The point is, if someone is positively claiming ______ exists/occurs/happens, then they, as the positive claimant, bear the burden of supporting that assertion with relevant facts. That is all I was stating.

Dimo:

My point was that if you have a better explanation for reality than can be illustrated by natural causes then by all means "EXPLAIN". Otherwise "SHUTUP!"

Scrimpshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are in disagreement with the majority of scientists in a certain field then it is your responsibility to overturn the accepted understanding. As of yet you have failed to accomplish this task.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it is the positive claimant's responsiblity (in this case, what you call the "majority of scientists") to demonstrate how and why their understanding is "acceptable" based on the empirical facts.

Dimo:

They have already done so. Your ignorance of thier demonstration does not negate the validity and/or accuracy of thier conclusions.

Scrimpshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrim said:
What you said above is nothing more than a variation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Dimo:
And I guess your expertise and experience has qualified you to overturn the decision of people who invest thier lives in these endeavors. Please explain why we should accept your opinion over those who have committed thier lives to the study of this subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Committed their lives"? Gee, you make it sound like a religious cause.

Dimo:

Never said that. Perhaps the only thing you can committ to is religious however, that does not make it so for everyone else.

Scrimpshaw:

Anyway, my claim that mutations are more likely a catalyst for extinction rather than survival is a claim based on the FACTS.

Dimo:

I agree that mutations are a cause for extinction. If you truly understood biology you would realize that mutations are the catalyst for extinction, as well as the catalysts for proliferation of a species and the development of new species. Mutations are a double edged sword. You false dichotomy is a fallacy. The value of a mutation is relative to the biome in which it has been manifest. Have you ever heard of Cope's Law.

Scrimpshaw:

The facts do NOT support the notion that mutations could ever be a catalyst for survival and evolution. You asked why you should accept my conclusion over that of evolutionists who are desparately trying to keep their jobs? Fine.

Here is a list of what mutations produce in humans:

Aarskog Syndrome
Aarskog-Scott Syndrome
Aase-Smith Syndrome
Abdominal Muscle Deficiency Syndrome
Abetalipoproteinemia (Bassen-Kornzweig Syndrome)

Dimo:

Thanks for trying to overwhelm me with your list of genetic diseases. I am well aware of these phenomenon. Mutations are very similar to the scattering of a shotgun. Many of the projectiles are misses but a small minority hit the target.

Scrimpshaw:

Now, how about you supply me with your favorite "scientist's" list of all the documented types of "beneficial", mutational conditions so we can compare the two lists in order to get a general idea of the net-effect mutations have on most species. Sound like a deal?

Dimo:

That is not my responsibility. The more ignorant you are the more impotent your argument .

Scrimpshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is, medical science has documented THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples of how expressed mutations are a negative influence on the survival of a gene pool they occur in.

Dimo:

The bottom line is that "MEDICAL SCIENCE" has "NOT" documented any "SUPERNATURAL" causes for anyting. Therefore your argument is unsubstantiated by the field from which you seek vindication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice attempt at deviating from the subject at hand. We are discussing the merits of TOE's claim that mutations are the catalyst of all the billions of advantageous changes that have ever occurred in all the billions of species that have ever lived. Trying to obfuscate the issue by making reactionary stabs at supernaturalism will accomplish nothing for your pet thesis.

Dimo:

Then what exactly is your argument? You do realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is a logical neccessity of an entirely naturalistic explanation. If you have a problem with "naturalism" as an explanation for science or "natural philosophy" then please be forthright about your contentions. I have not tried to obfuscate. I am only trying to illuminate your argument. If your are not arguing for the "supernatural", then what exactly are you arguing for?

Scrimpshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimpshaw posted:

I have THOUSANDS of genetic disease I could present to you in support of my claim regarding harmful mutations. How many examples of "beneficial mutations" can you present in support of YOUR claim?

Dimo:

"Genetic diseases" are not evidence for the "SUPERNATURAL". On Contrare they are evidence against the "SUPERNATURAL".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So supernatural reality is contingent on *your* preconceived notion of biological perfection. Indeed, a supernatural creator cannot exist unless he/she/it views life exactly the same way *YOU* do. Now, is that idea actually supposed to hold water or is it just a rhetorical exercise for you?

Dimo:

I have "NO" notion of biological "PERFECTION". That is a property that only an absolutist such as yourself would assume. I do not expect any one/thing to view life exactly as myself. This is exactly why evolution (through natural causes) makes sense to me. Nice try at projecting your own character deffects onto me.

Scrimpshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimo:

If you desire to make a positive assertion that "the supernatural" is the catalyst for such phenomenon then the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are committing the classic "burden shifting" fallacy here.

Dimo:

I am committing no such thing. The concept of evolution through "natural causes" has already been established by the scientific community. If you desire is to overturn that premise, then the burden falls squarely on your shoulders. Please be my guest and convince me otherwise. I must remind you that: "extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence".

Scrimpshaw:

2) I have made no assertions regarding supernatural causes for origins, even though you are acting as if I HAD.

Dimo:

Then please exlain which natural causes are responsible if not "mutation"?

Scrimpshaw:

3) This is a discussion about the merits of TOE's view of mutations.

Dimo:

No it is not. This is a discussion of your specific objections to the current scientific understanding of biological origins. If your objections/corrections are valid and/or warranted you would not find it so difficult to express them.

Scrimpshaw:

So now that thats been cleared up, I await your scientists' list of all the types of *beneficial* mutations so we can compare it with the list of harmful mutations I provided above and come to some conclusions about whether the net-effect of mutations is more likely extinction/disease or survival/evolution.

Dimo:

Oh thank you for clearing that up. I was so confused until I read your post. I am sorry to inform you that the "net-effect" of mutations , as seen through your subjective expectations is irrelevant to the overall progression of life.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

what's the logic here? if # - mutations > # + mutations then evolution isn't true?

I thought we were talking about TOE and the role mutations play. We are not talking about evolution in general. Evolution simply means the development of something in progressive phases. All intelligently-designed products have an evolution process that occurs in their making. For example, the car you drive was once nothing but parts scattered throughout a factory. In fact, there is not a single intelligently-designed product that has ever been made that did not go through some form of "evolutionary" process during it's creation. All things are created by evolutionary processes. I see no reason why life on earth would be any different if it were the product of intelligent design. The point of difference is, is there a completely naturalistic mechanism that is capable of evolving man out of molecules? Is there a blind mechanism that mindlessly can accomplish these creative feats simply given enough time? That is the question that is at the heart of the evolution/creation debate.

if a person dies that has a lethal mutation then doesn't improve the gene pool?

First of all, not all harmful mutations are "lethal" instantly, but their net-effect on a small population can be. Also, you should be aware that almost all of the genetic diseases I listed above are inherited from generation to generation. Please explain how all those conditions would "improve" a small gene pool's overall chances of survival.

speaking of obfuscation... why do you insist that mutation is the sole factor in evolution?

I never said it was. But change occurs at the genetic level. How the wind blowing or the sun shining (external environment) directly causes a genetic mutation is a good mystery for you to unlock. I'd love to hear an explanation on how external, environmental conditions (like the wind blowing and the sun shining) can directly influence changes in genetic coding. How exactly does that work?

[Stratnerd]

Evolution simply means the development of something in progressive phases. not biological evolution

First of all, not all harmful mutations are "lethal" instantly, but their net-effect on a small population can be. I'm still waiting for some mathematical or biological evidence of this. Do you know of any populations that went extinct due to mutational load? There should be some evidence from the bacterial world, eh?
Please explain how all those conditions would "improve" a small gene pool's overall chances of survival. it wouldn't but then I never implied it did. I just don't see how a - mutation can spread through a population.

I never said it was. but you said "We are discussing the merits of YOUR supposition that mutations are a viable mechanism to produce the BILLIONS of advantageous changes in all the billions of species of life on earth.". I don't think this and I don't think anyone else on this board either so why should any of us defend it? Whose position is this?
I'd love to hear an explanation on how external, environmental conditions (like the wind blowing and the sun shining) can directly influence changes in genetic coding. How exactly does that work? where'd that come from????

[Dimo]

Scrimshaw posted:

I see no reason why life on earth would be any different if it were the product of intelligent design.

Dimo:

Neither do I. However, such a conclusion would require the independantly established scientific premise of an intelligent designer. How exactly would you establish this premise?

Scimshaw posted:

The point of difference is, is there a completely naturalistic mechanism that is capable of evolving man out of molecules?

Dimo:

Since science has established the existence of naturailistic mechanisms, and has not established "supernaturailistic" mechanisms then it would be illogical to assume that evolution is the result of anything more than naturalistic mechanisms. Of course this view is not the only possibility. But from a material science view it is the most likely logical conclusion. Now if you want to bring other disciplines into this equation then the question becomes a metaphysical question.

Scrimshaw posted:

Is there a blind mechanism that mindlessly can accomplish these creative feats simply given enough time?

Dimo:

We do not know that the natural world is mindless. There are some people who subscribe to the theory of "formative causation" or "morphic resonance" however such ideas have little or no empirical evidence as support. Currently such questions cannot be answered by analyzing the physical evidence.

Scrimshaw:

That is the question that is at the heart of the evolution/creation debate.

Dimo:

At this time this question cannot be answered by evidence from the physical world.

I also believe that the crux of the creation/evolution debate is much more a socio-political issue than an issue for the physical sciences.

Is the physical world progessing by mindless chance or is it following the plan created by some sort of conciousness? I believe this question is a moot point. I believe the question comes only from those who subscribe to a false dichotomy and/or from those who have not found thier own purpose in life.

[ThePhy]

From Stratnerd:I just don't see how a - mutation can spread through a population. I had intended to respond to Scrimshaw’s last posting to me before now, but in composing my reply I realized there might be a way in which a mildly harmful mutation could spread through a population. I have asked some others about this, and am waiting for their responses to come trickling in. My scenario:It is sometimes said that, other things being equal, harmful mutations die out of a population. My question deals with the population dynamics of a mildly harmful mutation in a population that is hovering near a constant number of total members.

Presume the species of interest reproduce sexually, and one animal is born with a mildly detrimental mutation that is faithfully passed on to its offspring. This one afflicted animal will pair up with a normal healthy mate, and will nominally produce two offspring that live to maturity and carry the mutation. These likewise will pair up with healthy partners, and the harmful mutation will now show up in 4 "grandchildren". The fact that the mutation is harmful will lower the reproductive success rate below that of their more healthy cousins, perhaps to only 3 viable offspring after the second generation, but probably not to a level that halts its reproductive spread. Is there some factor that would halt or reverse the spread of such a mutation and cause it to be eliminated from a species before it became widely entrenched or even predominate in the population?

[Mr. Ben]

The point of difference is, is there a completely naturalistic mechanism that is capable of evolving man out of molecules?

Not only is there a known mechanism which is capable of doing this, but the hallmarks of that mechanism are clearly evident in all living things. These hallmarks are the existence of vestigial features, sub-optimal designs, sub-optimal changes in organ function (i.e. penguin wings as fins, whales do not have gills), the nested hierarchy of DNA similarities and the nested hierarchy of relatedness of animals, not to mention the branching tree pattern of fossils in the fossil record.

So not only is there a mechanism that is "capable" of going from molecules to man.. there is ample evidence that confirms that precisely this mechanism was indeed responsible.

[Mr. Ben]

These likewise will pair up with healthy partners, and the harmful mutation will now show up in 4 "grandchildren". The fact that the mutation is harmful will lower the reproductive success rate below that of their more healthy cousins, perhaps to only 3 viable offspring after the second generation, but probably not to a level that halts its reproductive spread. Is there some factor that would halt or reverse the spread of such a mutation and cause it to be eliminated from a species before it became widely entrenched or even predominate in the population?

The odds are already against the spread of ANY mutation in sexually reproducing species. Since the overwhelming majority of partners will not have the mutation, the odds of a mutation with neutral selection pressure spreading through a population are not high. However, if there is a slight negative selection pressure, the odds are even worse. It is possible, even in the sense that it has probably occured before, but it is certainly not common.

I did a simulation when I was talking about haldane with bob before. With a constant population of 10,000.. a negative pressure of just a percent usually prevented a mutation from ever being fixed. Likewise, a positive pressure greatly improved the odds of becoming fixed.

Oh.. and Bob, that simulation also demonstrated parallel gene fixing (ala soft selection). Remember? I posted the source code as a msg in the archives when I did it.. it was only a few dozen lines long.

[Stratnerd]

Mutations that have "negative" effects on phenotype can spread through a population if they are associated, through pleiotropic effects, with other traits that actually increase fitness.

Also, negative mutations can also increase if mutation rates are exceedingly high and occur at rates faster than the rate natural selection can deal with them (in which case the effect on fitness must be near-neutral).

But even with all of the negative mutations listed by Scrimshaw as evidence of a "catalyst" to extinction, I don't think humans are in danger of going extinct.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben

Not only is there a known mechanism which is capable of doing this,

Mutation + natural selection has never been shown to make man out of molecules, sorry. To say it has this capablility when in fact this capability has never been demonstrated is a case of wishful thinking, not science.

but the hallmarks of that mechanism are clearly evident in all living things. These hallmarks are the existence of vestigial features, sub-optimal designs, sub-optimal changes in organ function (i.e. penguin wings as fins, whales do not have gills),

That is not proof of any such mechanism. In fact, appealing to those things is a bad argument for the following reasons:

1) Of all functioning designs, only an infinitesimally small number of systems can be considered "sub-optimal". 99.99% of all known biologically systems are optimally designed.

2) Sub-optimal design can be explained within an intelligent designer model, because "maximum energetic efficiency" does not have to be the primary goal of an intelligent designer.

the nested hierarchy of DNA similarities and the nested hierarchy of relatedness of animals, not to mention the branching tree pattern of fossils in the fossil record.

There is no doubt that the biosphere of the earth was progressively created. But that fact in and of itself does not prove TOE, or that mutations + natural selection is the mechanism that caused the origin of all species. Also, similarities among different species can be explained as the result of "common design" just as easily as they can be explained as the result of "common ancestry".

So not only is there a mechanism that is "capable" of going from molecules to man.. there is ample evidence that confirms that precisely this mechanism was indeed responsible.

That is simple not the case, as my arguments have shown above.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by ThePhy
From Stratnerd: I had intended to respond to Scrimshaw’s last posting to me before now, but in composing my reply I realized there might be a way in which a mildly harmful mutation could spread through a population. I have asked some others about this, and am waiting for their responses to come trickling in. My scenario:

Thank you for identifying the problem and being willing to look into it. I will be curious to see what kind of answers you get.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
The odds are already against the spread of ANY mutation in sexually reproducing species. Since the overwhelming majority of partners will not have the mutation, the odds of a mutation with neutral selection pressure spreading through a population are not high.

Not if the population is very small, like less than 10 individuals. In theory, when a new species arises, it exists in a very small, isolated populations. If harmful mutations occur 99.99% of the time, then any mutations that occured in these small gene pools of new species would have had a 99.99% chance of being HARMFUL. So my argument is that mutations, if a catalyst for anything, would have been a catalyst for disease/extinction LONG before they would have ever had a chance to be a catalyst for survival/evolution. Your above comments did not rectify this dilemma.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
Mutations that have "negative" effects on phenotype can spread through a population if they are associated, through pleiotropic effects, with other traits that actually increase fitness.

Again, this doesn't apply to SMALL, ISOLATED populations.

But even with all of the negative mutations listed by Scrimshaw as evidence of a "catalyst" to extinction, I don't think humans are in danger of going extinct.

You're missing the point. Obviously, human beings in the PRESENT DAY have a GLOBAL population and numbers in the BILLIONS. It is neither small, nor isolated. But as you well know, this was not always the case. Tens of thousands of years ago, the human species was very small in number, and geographically isolated at one point in a local area on the continent of Africa. There was an original "family" of humans that we all descended from. It is in the context of such small populations as these that negative hereditary mutations could have easily led to extinction of humans, had they occured at that time.

TOE claims billions of advantageous mutations have occurred throughout the natural history of all species. I don't know the exact harmful/advantageous mutation ratio, but even if I generously assume it is 1000/1 (the actual rate is probably far greater than this), that would mean that if 1 billion advantageous mutations happened, more than 1 Trillion HARMFUL mutations happened as well. My point is the 1 Trillion *harmful* mutations would have wiped out early populations long before the 1 billion advantageous mutations would have ever had a chance to take effect.

Thus, if mutations were a catalyst for anything, they would be a catalyst for disease/extinction, not survival/evolution.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Dimo
Scrim:
Yes, perhaps someone's inability to disclose evidence for invisible poka-dotted leprechans is not the "true measure of the merit" of that idea either. The point is, if someone is positively claiming ______ exists/occurs/happens, then they, as the positive claimant, bear the burden of supporting that assertion with relevant facts. That is all I was stating.

Dimo:

My point was that if you have a better explanation for reality than can be illustrated by natural causes then by all means "EXPLAIN". Otherwise "SHUTUP!"

Wrong. Do I have to give you a new car if I simply point out that the one you have is not working properly? No! Likewise, I do not have to REPLACE your theory in order to identify that it has a problem. If you disagree, explain why.


Scrimshaw:
No, it is the positive claimant's responsiblity (in this case, what you call the "majority of scientists") to demonstrate how and why their understanding is "acceptable" based on the empirical facts.

Dimo:

They have already done so. Your ignorance of thier demonstration does not negate the validity and/or accuracy of thier conclusions.

No, if you want to advocate their position on this issue, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide the necessary proofs. If you fail or refuse to provide the necessary proofs, then your arguments on these theories are nothing but a combination of hot air and the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Scrimshaw:
The facts do NOT support the notion that mutations could ever be a catalyst for survival and evolution. You asked why you should accept my conclusion over that of evolutionists who are desparately trying to keep their jobs? Fine.

Here is a list of what mutations produce in humans:

Aarskog Syndrome
Aarskog-Scott Syndrome
Aase-Smith Syndrome
Abdominal Muscle Deficiency Syndrome
Abetalipoproteinemia (Bassen-Kornzweig Syndrome)

Dimo:
Thanks for trying to overwhelm me with your list of genetic diseases. I am well aware of these phenomenon. Mutations are very similar to the scattering of a shotgun. Many of the projectiles are misses but a small minority hit the target.

The problem is, the projectiles that cause harm are so numerous that the target-possessing organism would go extinct from the projectiles long before for it's target would ever get hit.


Scrimshaw:
Now, how about you supply me with your favorite "scientist's" list of all the documented types of "beneficial", mutational conditions so we can compare the two lists in order to get a general idea of the net-effect mutations have on most species. Sound like a deal?

Dimo:

That is not my responsibility. The more ignorant you are the more impotent your argument.

TRANSLATION: "I refuse to support my claims and would rather call you ignorant instead; hoping nobody will notice that my claim remains unsubstantiated."


Scrimshaw:
Nice attempt at deviating from the subject at hand. We are discussing the merits of TOE's claim that mutations are the catalyst of all the billions of advantageous changes that have ever occurred in all the billions of species that have ever lived. Trying to obfuscate the issue by making reactionary stabs at supernaturalism will accomplish nothing for your pet thesis.

Dimo:

Then what exactly is your argument? You do realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is a logical neccessity of an entirely naturalistic explanation. If you have a problem with "naturalism" as an explanation for science or "natural philosophy" then please be forthright about your contentions. I have not tried to obfuscate. I am only trying to illuminate your argument. If your are not arguing for the "supernatural", then what exactly are you arguing for?

My argument is simply that mutations are an insufficient mechanism for the billions and billions of advantageous changes that had to have happened if TOE is true. I have identified a problem with your pet thesis. I can do that without offering a new theory. For example, I do not have to give you a new car in order to identify that the one you have is leaking gas. Capiche?


Scrimshaw:

3) This is a discussion about the merits of TOE's view of mutations.

Dimo:

No it is not. This is a discussion of your specific objections to the current scientific understanding of biological origins. If your objections/corrections are valid and/or warranted you would not find it so difficult to express them.

You are getting distracted with semantics. Yes, I have made objections to the MERITS of TOE's view of mutations. So we are both correct - this is a discussion about my *objections* to the *merits* of TOE's view of mutations. So in summary, it is my job to support my objections, which I have done. It is your job to support the validity of the MERITS of your theory, which you have NOT done. Thus, my objections stand at this point.

[ThePhy]

From Ben:The odds are already against the spread of ANY mutation in sexually reproducing species. Since the overwhelming majority of partners will not have the mutation, the odds of a mutation with neutral selection pressure spreading through a population are not high. I think you are presuming that in the process of reproduction with a “normal” partner, during fertilization the place in the DNA with the genetic anomaly is equally likely to come from either the normal or the mutated partner’s DNA. Not being a biologist, I need to ask - Is it possible that the DNA anomaly may be such that it is always (or at least usually) the one that is selected to go into the child’s DNA?

For example, are there currently known abnormalities (or even neutral characteristics – such as hair or eye color) that, if present in one parent, will inevitably (or usually) be passed on to the child?

In a broader sense, wouldn’t your claim “the odds are already against the spread of ANY mutation in sexually reproducing species” prohibit “macro-evolution” from occurring in sexually reproducing species?

[Stratnerd]

Mutation + natural selection has never been shown to make man out of molecules, sorry. To say it has this capablility when in fact this capability has never been demonstrated is a case of wishful thinking, not science. science is the process of devising hypotheses from prediction, making inductive leaps from data, and other processes that advance knowledge. Molecule-to-man will never be demonstrated in the lab. But there should be experiments and observersations that would make a naturalistic explanation tenuous. I can think of several scenarios that would including data to show an extremely young earth, lack of phylogenetic resolution at any higher levels, the lack of fossils or appearance of all modern families at the lowest strata (including humans).
1) Of all functioning designs, only an infinitesimally small number of systems can be considered "sub-optimal". 99.99% of all known biologically systems are optimally designed. please tell me how you quantify optimality in biological organisms....
2) Sub-optimal design can be explained within an intelligent designer model, because "maximum energetic efficiency" does not have to be the primary goal of an intelligent designer.
optimal design = designer
suboptimal design = designer
then how would you falsify it?
There is no doubt that the biosphere of the earth was progressively created. uh... lots of doubt.
But that fact in and of itself does not prove TOE, or that mutations + natural selection is the mechanism that caused the origin of all species. [quote] AGAIN scrimshaw, this strawman arguement sticks because nobody here thinks that mutations and natural selection did it all.
[quote]Also, similarities among different species can be explained as the result of "common design" just as easily as they can be explained as the result of "common ancestry". biologically justify why common design is reasonable and how would one explain the alternatives - all organisms having their own unique genetic systems? So both the observations and the alternative are explained by design. How's that science?
In theory, when a new species arises, it exists in a very small, isolated populations. what theory is this? I understand the isolated but why small?
If harmful mutations occur 99.99% of the time, that estimate is based on????
then any mutations that occured in these small gene pools of new species would have had a 99.99% chance of being HARMFUL. So my argument is that mutations, if a catalyst for anything, would have been a catalyst for disease/extinction LONG before they would have ever had a chance to be a catalyst for survival/evolution. have you found any evidence for this extinction phenomena? You had a wonderful list of diseases that exist in humans - are we in danger?
Again, this doesn't apply to SMALL, ISOLATED populations. sure it does, why not?
There was an original "family" of humans that we all descended from. It is in the context of such small populations as these that negative hereditary mutations could have easily led to extinction of humans, had they occured at that time. mtDNA has been shown to coalese to a single female! In small populations, harmful mutations have an equal chance (or more so) of themselves going extinct. Again, please show us some formula or data that suggests this is the case.
TOE claims billions of advantageous mutations have occurred throughout the natural history of all species. again, nobody here actually thinks this is the way evolution works! Please stop insisting that it is.

[Stratnerd]

Phy,
I need to ask - Is it possible that the DNA anomaly may be such that it is always (or at least usually) the one that is selected to go into the child’s DNA?

1. mitochondrial DNA is inhereted directly from the mother some "contamination" from the father
2. nonhomologous chromosomes such as the Y in the XY pair
3. there is some evidence that organisms can segregate chromosomes also - but I never heard of it other than sex chromosomes (in birds and some mammals).
4. clones plants and some organisms (e.g. some lizards) produce clones
5. haploid organisms - bacteria

[Stratnerd]

OK Scrimshaw, I found some data that may support your case

Rapid mutational declines of viability in Drosophila. Genetical Research. Feb 2001. v. 77 (1) p. 53-60. (Abridged abstract)
High rates of mildly deleterious mutation could cause the extinction of small populations, reduce neutral genetic variation and provide an evolutionary advantage for sex. In the first attempts to estimate the rate of mildly deleterious mutation, Mukai and Ohnishi allowed spontaneous mutations to accumulate on D. melanogaster second chromosomes shielded from recombination and selection. Viability of the shielded chromosomes appeared to decline rapidly, implying a deleterious mutation rate on the order of one per zygote per generation.

So high mutation rates can cause extinction in small populations if organisms like Drosophila don't have sexual reproduction and there's no selection.

A comprehensive model of mutations affecting fitness and inferences for Arabidopsis thaliana. Evolution. 56(3):453-63, 2002 Mar. Estimates, which have been obtained by methods that assume mutations are unidirectional in their effects on fitness, are imprecise. Both because a general approach must allow for occurrence of fitness-enhancing mutations, even if these are rare, and because recent evidence demands it, we present a new method for inferring mutational parameters. [new method of inference] We apply it to analyze data on two reproductive fitness components from a 17-generation mutation-accumulation study of a Columbia accession of Arabidopsis thaliana in which 40 lines sampled in three generations were assayed simultaneously. For these traits, U approximately/= 0.1-0.2, with distributions of mutational effects broadly spanning zero, such that roughly half the mutations reduce reproductive fitness. One evolutionary consequence of these results is lower extinction risks of small populations of A. thaliana than expected from the process of mutational meltdown. A comprehensive view of the evolutionary consequences of mutation will depend on quantitatively accounting for fitness-enhancing, as well as fitness-reducing, mutations.

Mutational meltdown in laboratory yeast populations. Evolution. 55(5):909-17, 2001 May. In small or repeatedly bottlenecked populations, mutations are expected to accumulate by genetic drift, causing fitness declines. In mutational meltdown models, such fitness declines further reduce population size, thus accelerating additional mutation accumulation and leading to extinction. Because the rate of mutation accumulation is determined partly by the mutation rate, the risk and rate of meltdown are predicted to increase with increasing mutation rate. We established 12 replicate populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae from each of two isogenic strains whose genomewide mutation rates differ by approximately two orders of magnitude. Each population was transferred daily by a fixed dilution that resulted in an effective population size near 250. Fitness declines that reduce growth rates were expected to reduce the numbers of cells transferred after dilution, thus reducing population size and leading to mutational meltdown. Through 175 daily transfers and approximately 2900 generations, two extinctions occurred, both in populations with elevated mutation rates. For one of these populations there is direct evidence that extinction resulted from mutational meltdown: Extinction immediately followed a major fitness decline, and it recurred consistently in replicate populations reestablished from a sample frozen after this fitness decline, but not in populations founded from a predecline sample. Wild-type populations showed no trend to decrease in size and, on average, they increased in fitness.

Compensating for our load of mutations: freezing the meltdown of small populations . Evolution. 54(5):1467-79, 2000 Oct.
We have investigated the reduction of fitness caused by the fixation of new deleterious mutations in small populations within the framework of Fisher's geometrical model of adaptation. In Fisher's model, a population evolves in an n-dimensional character space with an adaptive optimum at the origin. The model allows us to investigate compensatory mutations, which restore fitness losses incurred by other mutations, in a context-dependent manner. We have conducted a moment analysis of the model, supplemented by the numerical results of computer simulations. The mean reduction of fitness (i.e., expected load) scaled to one is approximately n/(n+2Ne), where Ne is the effective population size. The reciprocal relationship between the load and Ne implies that the fixation of deleterious mutations is unlikely to cause extinction when there is a broad scope for compensatory mutations, except in very small populations. Furthermore, the dependence of load on n implies that pleiotropy plays a large role in determining the extinction risk of small populations. Differences and similarities between our results and those of a previous study on the effects of Ne and n are explored. That the predictions of this model are qualitatively different from studies ignoring compensatory mutations implies that we must be cautious in predicting the evolutionary fate of small populations and that additional data on the nature of mutations is of critical importance.

[Itzpapalotl]

One of the articles Stratnerd mentioned (Compensating for our load of mutations: freezing the meltdown of small populations) can be downloaded here: http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~otto/Research/Publications.html

[Stratnerd]

Thanks Itzapapalotl. She does some cool stuff, eh?

What are your thoughts?

[Dimo]

Scrimshaw posted:

Wrong. Do I have to give you a new car if I simply point out that the one you have is not working properly? No! Likewise, I do not have to REPLACE your theory in order to identify that it has a problem. If you disagree, explain why.

Dimo:

Your the one trying to convince me that something is wrong with my car. I haven't been convinced yet. It would help if you could demonstrate your expertise with a description of the mechamisms surrounding the problem. If you then understand the mechanisms, you should also be able to envision a general idea of the solution. So far I don't think you have the slightest idea about car mechanics.

Scrimshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimshaw:
No, it is the positive claimant's responsiblity (in this case, what you call the "majority of scientists") to demonstrate how and why their understanding is "acceptable" based on the empirical facts.

Dimo:

They have already done so. Your ignorance of thier demonstration does not negate the validity and/or accuracy of thier conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, if you want to advocate their position on this issue, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide the necessary proofs. If you fail or refuse to provide the necessary proofs, then your arguments on these theories are nothing but a combination of hot air and the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Dimo:

If you want a hurricane proof metal roof put on your house, you don't have a car mechanic come out and give you an estimate. I think the best person would be an architectural sheet metal mechanic. Your so-called "Appeal to Authority" is actually an "Appeal to Expertise". What exactly is you experience with these matters.

Scrimshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimshaw:
The facts do NOT support the notion that mutations could ever be a catalyst for survival and evolution. You asked why you should accept my conclusion over that of evolutionists who are desparately trying to keep their jobs? Fine.

Here is a list of what mutations produce in humans:

Aarskog Syndrome
Aarskog-Scott Syndrome
Aase-Smith Syndrome
Abdominal Muscle Deficiency Syndrome
Abetalipoproteinemia (Bassen-Kornzweig Syndrome)

Dimo:
Thanks for trying to overwhelm me with your list of genetic diseases. I am well aware of these phenomenon. Mutations are very similar to the scattering of a shotgun. Many of the projectiles are misses but a small minority hit the target.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is, the projectiles that cause harm are so numerous that the target-possessing organism would go extinct from the projectiles long before for it's target would ever get hit.

Dimo:

The ones that miss are not positive. The ones that hit are. If your hunting turkey what good is a miss. You have inversed the analogy.

Scrimshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimshaw:
Now, how about you supply me with your favorite "scientist's" list of all the documented types of "beneficial", mutational conditions so we can compare the two lists in order to get a general idea of the net-effect mutations have on most species. Sound like a deal?

Dimo:

That is not my responsibility. The more ignorant you are the more impotent your argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TRANSLATION: "I refuse to support my claims and would rather call you ignorant instead; hoping nobody will notice that my claim remains unsubstantiated."

Dimo:

Thanks for translating for me. I think your track record is a good indicator of the accuracy of your translation.

Scrimshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimshaw:
Nice attempt at deviating from the subject at hand. We are discussing the merits of TOE's claim that mutations are the catalyst of all the billions of advantageous changes that have ever occurred in all the billions of species that have ever lived. Trying to obfuscate the issue by making reactionary stabs at supernaturalism will accomplish nothing for your pet thesis.

Dimo:

Then what exactly is your argument? You do realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is a logical neccessity of an entirely naturalistic explanation. If you have a problem with "naturalism" as an explanation for science or "natural philosophy" then please be forthright about your contentions. I have not tried to obfuscate. I am only trying to illuminate your argument. If your are not arguing for the "supernatural", then what exactly are you arguing for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My argument is simply that mutations are an insufficient mechanism for the billions and billions of advantageous changes that had to have happened if TOE is true.

Dimo:

Well please give us some evidence of your claim. As of yet all I have seen is some ubsubstantiated statistical calculations that may seem impressive to you.

Scrimshaw:

I have identified a problem with your pet thesis.

Dimo:

You truly are amazing. The only problems you have identified is your poor understanding of the subject and the misuse of the logic behind these ideas.

Scrimpshaw:

I can do that without offering a new theory. For example, I do not have to give you a new car in order to identify that the one you have is leaking gas. Capiche?

Dimo:

You comments and ideas do not instill any confidence in your ability to diagnose even the most minor problem with current biological theories. I can identify a leak in the gas tank, myself. I dont' see a leak, even though your telling me there is one. Capiche!

Scrimshaw:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimshaw:

3) This is a discussion about the merits of TOE's view of mutations.

Dimo:

No it is not. This is a discussion of your specific objections to the current scientific understanding of biological origins. If your objections/corrections are valid and/or warranted you would not find it so difficult to express them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are getting distracted with semantics.

Dimo:

Is that your professional opinion?

Scrimshaw:

Yes, I have made objections to the MERITS of TOE's view of mutations. So we are both correct - this is a discussion about my *objections* to the *merits* of TOE's view of mutations. So in summary, it is my job to support my objections, which I have done.

Dimo:

So you say. I do not agree. Perhaps support for your objections seem adequate in your mind. You have barely begun the sratch the surface of the subject you are dealing with. Again I suggest you do a little more research (and I don't mean from politically charged ID literature) before trying to convince me that the majority of the professionals in the field of biology are wrong and you are correct.

Scrimshaw:

It is your job to support the validity of the MERITS of your theory, which you have NOT done.

Dimo:

I really don't care wether you understand or not. Your enlightement is not my responsibility.

Scrimshaw:

Thus, my objections stand at this point.

Dimo:

Your objections can stand for as long as you like. I can see right over their heads on both a philosophical as well as a pratical level.

[ThePhy]

Scrimshaw,

I wonder how much effort to put into a reply, since the sum of what you have posted recently in response to others is very heavy on rhetoric and very light on (seriously flawed) math and science. I decided to respond, not because I have much hope you will agree with what I post, but because I think the idea you advance is worth serious consideration. I am not saying I think it is correct, but I can see where a person could initially assume that the vast predominance of harmful mutations over beneficial ones would lead towards the degradation of a species.
Like all preliminary ideas, this one needs to be subjected to deeper analysis to see if it is really a valid idea. Your dogmatic willingness to defend this idea indicates that you are not very conversant with the details of population genetics. I would not be surprised if a new-comer to the creation-evolution debates proposed this idea, but continued defense of this idea shows a dogmatic allegiance to a seriously flawed understanding of science rather that a recognition of a failure in evolutionary theory.

Before considering your idea itself, I will respond to some specifics of your last post to me, and comment on some ideas you have exchanged with others.

I noted the silly exchanges over who has to prove what to whom. If evolution is a completely natural process, or if God did it, nothing is going to change by a lot of finger pointing over who has the burden of proof. If one side or the other in a debate relies on minimum defensible science and lots of rhetoric, then little more is likely to be accomplished than showing the shallowness of their position. I will try to explain why I think your position is wrong using science. If you feel I am wrong, you have the obligation to use science to show why I am in error.

From Scrimshaw to ThePhy:
If your goal is not to prove TOE, then just what is your goal in advancing those particular arguments? My previous posts in this thread were directly in response to an incorrect statement Bob made about animals with beneficial mutations not passing on their genes any more effectively than the non-mutated animals. And in my statement to you I was only pointing out that my posts were directed to that end. Bob’s statement, had it been true, would have crippled a particularly important part of the ToE. So yes, I am in favor of the ToE, but as I said, my arguments in this thread have been directed only to this particular part of the ToE, hardly a comprehensive validation of the entire theory.>>ThePhy:
>>As to your broader claim that “others have failed to prove”, I would point out that your expressed opinion is in direct opposition to that of many thousands of scientists and biologists who have made an in-depth study of evolution.

Scrimshaw:
What you said above is nothing more than a variation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. True, and as such does not establish the truth or fallacy of evolution. But to rephrase the idea, you have made a claim that is in opposition to the stance held by thousands of PhD’s, a number of whom are direct researchers in evolution. I am not a primary researcher in evolution, and I have no way of knowing your qualifications in the field. So yes, unless presented with credible reason to believe that you are in possession of ideas or knowledge that these scientists have missed or otherwise ignored, I will give their opinion precedence over yours.

There are a few types of arguments that I will simply dismiss out-of-hand if not presented with significant evidence to back them. In particular, I am referring to ideas that the “experts” in evolution have undergone some sort of mass delusion, or that every graduate student entering into evolutionary studies is secretly sworn into a society pledged to uphold the secrecy surrounding the fatal flaws in evolution, or that dishonesty is so rampant in science that thousands of PhD’s would rather keep up what is so clearly a hoax to creationists rather than lose their jobs.>>ThePhy:
>>Can you support your statement with some ideas or concepts or evidence that these scientists simply missed?

Scrimshaw:
Its not necessarily an issue of what they "miss", but perhaps an issue of what facts they care not to pursue, or questions they care not to answer. This is a statement of the type I just alluded to. Saying that there are important “facts they care not to not to pursue, or questions they care not to answer” is simply a wholesale indictment of the honesty and integrity of a lot of otherwise very decent scientists, some of whom are very good Christians. Unless you specifically identify these facts and questions, and show that they are being ignored, then this statement stands as an example of your willingness to denigrate without backing your stance.

In an early post to me you said:
If you desire to make the positive assertion that "beneficial mutations" are the catalyst for all the billions of advantageous changes that have had to occur in all the billions of species that have lived on this planet … In this statement you commit the fallacy of attributing to me something much stronger than what I actually said. Can you please show where I made the claim that the “beneficial mutations are the catalyst for ALL the billions …”? Are you aware of genetic drift, for example, as a mechanism in evolution that is not driven by beneficial mutations?

Now I would like to focus on the technical issue at dispute – whether the significant predominance of harmful mutations over beneficial mutations would yield an overall trend of degradation in a species.

There are some relevant background issues that I want to clarify.

First is the number of beneficial mutations that have been identified. You bring this up in a number of posts:
To ThePhy:
I have THOUSANDS of genetic disease I could present to you in support of my claim regarding harmful mutations. How many examples of "beneficial mutations" can you present in support of YOUR claim?

To Dimo:
Now, how about you supply me with your favorite "scientist's" list of all the documented types of "beneficial", mutational conditions so we can compare the two lists in order to get a general idea of the net-effect mutations have on most species. Sound like a deal?
The implication of what you are saying here seems to be that the person with the longest list of mutations is the winner. Mutations aren’t simple weights that can be placed on a balance scale, with the good ones on one side and the bad ones on the other. Such a view is tenable only if one is willing to ignore some very important and real differences between the way beneficial mutations and harmful mutations can propagate through a species. I have never seen a single evolutionist who would entertain for a moment such a simplistic view of genetics. And to hark back to a type of “Appeal to Authority”, I feel certain that if you were to present this idea - that simple superiority in numbers of bad mutations over good mutations is sufficient – to almost any of the more credible creationists (Behe, Spetner, Dembski, even Philip Johnson) you would receive little support for your specific reasoning. They may not believe in evolution, but they are not likely to give support to such poorly placed logic as you are presenting.

It is interesting to note that when Stratnerd specifically asked:
What’s the logic here? If # - mutations > # + mutations then evolution isn't true? You did a beautiful dodge by diverting the answer to mutations versus evolution, and completely avoided giving a simple direct answer to Strat’s question. So let me ask it again. If there are more documented expressed harmful mutations than beneficial ones occurring in a species, then will that necessarily lead to a degradation or extinction of the species?

Just so you don’t accuse me of avoiding your question about the known number of beneficial mutations versus the known number of harmful ones - I don’t think I can identify nearly as many documented beneficial mutations in humans as you have already listed as being detrimental mutations. But there are several good reasons why.

First - Of all the specialists that enter the medical and biological professions, how many dedicate their efforts towards finding the cause and cures for diseases and illnesses? Now contrast that with the number that are looking to see how many beneficial mutations they can identify. The ratio will probably be, as you say “THOUSANDS and thousands” of doctors chasing illnesses, and a “mere handful” on the trail of beneficial mutations. Why don’t you ask the next 100 doctors you see where their interest is focused?

Second - How would you recognize a beneficial mutation? Someone than can run twice as fast as anyone else ever has? Someone that can read a printed page at 500 yards? Someone with a fully integrated and useful set of wings, so they can fly? These are not unlike the cartoon parodies of evolution that I have been presented with by some creationists. But real evolution predicts that improvements are by small steps. So over the past 150 years, since Darwin, have we seen improvements? Certainly the improvements in crop growing, hygiene, and medicine have extended the average life, but these things are external to the genome. How about physical ability? Field and Track records are broken frequently. Is this just a result of better conditioning? If we could snatch a healthy young athlete from ancient Greece and bring him to today, do you think he could compete effectively?

In some ways a human is like a very sophisticated machine – a complex set of parts that all work together. Look at your car. If some unknown person were to reach into your car and make a small random change, not unlike a mutation in a person, it would probably be detrimental. Clip a spark plug wire, or reverse two wires, or loosen a gas line fitting, or move the timing a little bit. On any of these the results would be dramatic and obvious, just like many of the crippling mutations you included in your long list. But if that car-fiddling person instead put in a slightly improved spark plug, or a better designed cam, or a better grade of oil, would it be immediately obvious to you? The magnitude of the “mutation” is not that much different than the one that crippled your car, yet its results are much less obvious.

Third – How long has this search gone on? How does the 150 years that we have been searching for beneficial mutations compare to the history of life on earth? That is about one twenty-millionth of the time that life has existed. Perhaps this is a bit small of a data sample to be making claims that there are very few beneficial mutations?

The long list of mutations you provided is impressive, but primarily just for showing that mutations do occur to people (some creationists feel that mutations hardly ever happen). But to be applicable to the effect mutations have on the overall species, a few rules must apply.

1 - Are all of the things you mentioned purely a result of mutations, and not caused by viruses or other external causes? Any that are not fundamental mutations in the DNA are not going to be passed on in the gene pool.

2 - How many of the mutations that manifest themselves are likely to be lethal before the person reaches reproductive maturity? When they do that person drops out of the gene pool without passing it on.

3 - How many of the mutations make the person incapable of having children? Scratch them from the list.

4 - How many of the mutations are genetically passed on? If the parent has a mutation but the children don’t carry it on (which is very common) then again it is a single person issue, not a species issue.

For a mutation to be passed to offspring (and thus in the species gene pool), it must be in the DNA within the reproductive organs of the parent. Otherwise no matter how good or bad a mutation might be, it will die with the parent.

5 – If the mutation is dormant in the parent that carries it, on an average it will be passed on to no higher a percentage of the population that the percentage than the carrying parents formed. That is, if the parents that have the recessive deleterious gene compose 1% of the population, they will pass it on to 1% of the children in the population. If the population doubles, nominally the number of children that get the gene defect from parents in whom the gene is recessive will double as well. But when the genetic problem manifests itself, that child will not be as likely to reproduce, and the percentage of carriers then drops.

You made the claim:The bottom line is, medical science has documented THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples of how expressed mutations are a negative influence on the survival of a gene pool they occur in. Now, can you go back to your list of mutations, examine it to see how many of the entries pass all the tests? If you need you may supplement it with enough new qualifying entries to bring it up to “THOUSANDS upon thousands of examples”. The principles of genetics won’t change.

In response to your carefully wordsmithed statement:
evolutionists have had to search the world over to find a mere handful of examples of instances when a mutation may have been theoretically "advantageous" I note that Itzpapalotl listed a “handful” of categories, not just mutations, into which beneficial mutations have been grouped.

Something that might be a critical difference in understanding are the very definitions of “beneficial” and “harmful” as they apply to evolution. Beneficial is determined by the increase in reproductive success the mutation confers. Harmful denotes a lessening of reproductive success. For example, if a salamander were to have a mutation that resulted in extremely good eyesight, yet it lived its life deep in pure black underground caverns, that mutation would actually be counted as detrimental (since it gives no advantage, and requires some resources in the form of nerves, blood, and so on from the salamander). Our intuitive judgment of “improved” is meaningless unless it aligns with the pressures that the environment puts on the recipient.

Another point that needs to be clarified is that of a stable population. A stable population is one that has grown until environmental pressures have stabilized the species population near a constant value. Evolution certainly occurs in dynamic populations (sometimes more rapidly than stable ones), but the concepts involved are easier to see in a stable population, and in effect most species are in stable populations. A simple rule in stable populations is that each set of parents will on the average have two children reach maturity, no more and no less. More than two kids average would overtax the environmental pressure (such as a limited food supply).

Modern humans are a strong exception to a stable population right now, since our numbers are increasing rapidly. Additionally, in some ways humans are not good subjects to study to find principles of evolution that are universally applicable. Humans are the first species that have been able to significantly alter the normal pressures of the environment, as is evidenced by the advent of modern medicine and farming, which has resulted in a huge increase in the human food supply and also a disruption in what otherwise would be the mortality rate due to many diseases.

In my last post just before you entered this thread, I challenged anyone who differed to back their position mathematically. In the flurry of posts you have put out since then, the best summary of your mathematics has been:If 99.9% of all expressed mutations result in harm instead of benefit, then it logically follows that mutations are 99.9% more likely to be catalysts for *extinction* than for survival.
(BTW, in later posts you increased this number to 99.99%. If you keep that up, soon you will have it up to 99.9999999999999999%.) But in spite of your contention that “it logically follows”, in fact it does not. To make the dichotomy more obvious, magnify the effects of mutations. Let the harmful mutations be severe impediments to survival, and especially reproduction. Let the beneficial mutations dramatically increase the animal’s likelihood of having kids. Now let 100 animals in a population come up with harmful mutations. What happens? Many die before passing it on to a single child. Those that pass the problem on to their children bequeath them an equally high likelihood of early death. Since the normal members of the population do not have this abnormal death rate, they have more kids, all of which are healthy. The percentage of animals with the detrimental gene is decreasing, eventually to the extinction of just the affected animals. The bad gene is eliminated from the gene pool. Far less often is the introduction of a good mutation. Though rare in comparison to the bad mutations, yet their effect is greater. Since, by definition, a good mutation is one that helps the bearer have more kids than the average, each generation its percentage of the population increases. This continues as long as there are animals that do not have the good mutation. Hardly the same result as the bad mutation.

If it would help, I can put up the equations that back my claims, and you can critique them. But if you do, I would ask that you be mathematically conversant enough to post and defend your own equations.

[Scrimshaw]

Like all preliminary ideas, this one needs to be subjected to deeper analysis to see if it is really a valid idea. Your dogmatic willingness to defend this idea indicates that you are not very conversant with the details of population genetics. I would not be surprised if a new-comer to the creation-evolution debates proposed this idea, but continued defense of this idea shows a dogmatic allegiance to a seriously flawed understanding of
science rather that a recognition of a failure in evolutionary
theory.

Yes, this is a very common debate tactic that I have encountered numerous times in the past - "You dispute evolutionary theory because you have a flawed understanding of science". That is not true at all. Perhaps TOE's interpretation of the evidence is what is flawed. Perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic in your implicit assumption that TOE theorists are not the ones with a flawed understanding of how reality affects certain aspects of their theory.


quote:
>>ThePhy:
>>As to your broader claim that “others have failed to prove”, I would point out that your expressed opinion is in direct opposition to that of many thousands of scientists and biologists who have made an in-depth study of evolution.

There are a few types of arguments that I will simply dismiss out-of-hand if not presented with significant evidence to back them. In particular, I am referring to ideas that the “experts” in evolution have undergone some sort of mass delusion, or that every graduate student entering into evolutionary studies is secretly sworn into a society pledged
to uphold the secrecy surrounding the fatal flaws in evolution, or that dishonesty is so rampant in science that thousands of PhD’s would rather keep up what is so clearly a hoax to creationists rather than lose their jobs.

Agreed. But it should also be noted that TOE is not a model that PhDs convert to based on their own primary research in a field of science. Aspiring scientists go through YEARS of formal education in evolutionary theory before they even set foot inside a laboratory or conduct any primary research of their own. As far as holding a job, if someone wants to be a biologists, I'd love to know how anyone could get a job unless they - a) have taken numerous years of education in evolutionary theory, and, b) follow along with the "standard model" that was taught to them, which is TOE.



Scrim:
If you desire to make the positive assertion that "beneficial mutations" are the catalyst for all the billions of advantageous changes that have had to occur in all the billions of species that have lived on this planet …


In this statement you commit the fallacy of attributing to me something much stronger than what I actually said. Can you please show where I made the claim that the “beneficial mutations are the catalyst for ALL the billions …”? Are you aware of genetic drift, for example, as a mechanism in evolution that is not driven by beneficial mutations?

I think a little more than "genetic drift" is required if all lifeforms on earth descended from a microscopic, single-celled organism, don't you? Perhaps I should rephrase my statements as thus - "if you assert that beneficial mutations are the PRINCIPLE catalyst for the all the billions of advantageous changes......" etc.


Scrim:
To ThePhy:
I have THOUSANDS of genetic disease I could present to you in support of my claim regarding harmful mutations. How many examples of "beneficial mutations" can you present in support of YOUR claim?

To Dimo:
Now, how about you supply me with your favorite "scientist's" list of all the documented types of "beneficial", mutational conditions so we can compare the two lists in order to get a general idea of the net-effect mutations have on most species. Sound like a deal?


The implication of what you are saying here seems to be that the person with the longest list of mutations is the winner. Mutations aren’t simple weights that can be placed on a balance scale, with the good ones on one side and the bad ones on the other. Such a view is tenable only if one is willing to ignore some very important and real differences between the way beneficial mutations and harmful mutations can propagate through a
species. I have never seen a single evolutionist who would entertain for a moment such a simplistic view of genetics. And to hark back to a type of “Appeal to Authority”, I feel certain that if you were to present this idea - that simple superiority in numbers of bad mutations over good mutations is sufficient – to almost any of the more credible creationists (Behe, Spetner, Dembski, even Philip Johnson) you would receive little support for your specific reasoning. They may not believe in evolution, but
they are not likely to give support to such poorly placed logic as you are presenting.

Your response on this point failed to explain HOW and WHY the ratio of harmful vs. beneficial mutation rates does not affect the respective claims each party is making. Remember, I am only dealing with the observable FACTS here. I simply said that mutations are far more likely a catalyst for extinction/disease and I produced a massive list of thousands of genetic disease in support of that claim. On the other hand, TOE apologists claim
that mutations are catalyst for the evolution/survival of all species, and can scarcely produce more than 5 examples of advantageous mutations. You can throw out your obssession with PhD's at this point. This is an issue of LOGIC, and you have not provided any empirical evidence, or made any logical arguments that have undercut my claim.


It is interesting to note that when Stratnerd specifically asked:

quote:
What’s the logic here? If # - mutations > # + mutations then evolution isn't true?

You did a beautiful dodge by diverting the answer to mutations versus evolution, and completely avoided giving a simple direct answer to Strat’s question. So let me ask it again. If there are more documented expressed harmful mutations than beneficial ones occurring in a species, then will that necessarily lead to a degradation or extinction of the species?

ONLY if random mutations are the "PRINCIPLE" catalyst of biological CHANGE. Obviously, I don't think that mutations are really the catalyst for anything. My argument is that *IF* they were, we have FAR more reason to think mutations are the catalyst for extinction/disease, because that is EXACTLY what the statistical evidence shows.

First - Of all the specialists that enter the medical and biological professions, how many dedicate their efforts towards finding the cause and cures for diseases and illnesses? Now contrast that with the number that are looking to see how many beneficial mutations they can identify. The ratio will probably be, as you say “THOUSANDS and thousands” of doctors chasing
illnesses, and a “mere handful” on the trail of beneficial mutations. Why don’t you ask the next 100 doctors you see where their interest is focused?

This is a bad argument because -

a) there are far more than a mere "handful" of evolutionary scientists who study genetics. There are THOUSANDS of them worldwide, and...

b) even if I were to ignorantly concede that there is only a "handful" of evolutionary geneticists, there is no reason to believe that that "handful" of researchers could not or would not have the capacity to discover hundreds if not thousands of beneficial mutation events.

Second - How would you recognize a beneficial mutation? Someone than can run twice as fast as anyone else ever has? Someone that can read a printed page at 500 yards? Someone with a fully integrated and useful set of wings, so they can fly? These are not unlike the cartoon parodies of evolution that I have been presented with by some creationists. But real
evolution predicts that improvements are by small steps. So over the past 150 years, since Darwin, have we seen improvements? Certainly the improvements in crop growing, hygiene, and medicine have extended the average life, but these things are external to the genome. How about physical ability? Field and Track records are broken frequently. Is this just a result of better conditioning? If we could snatch a healthy young athlete from ancient Greece and bring him to today, do you think he could
compete effectively?

You ask a series of hypothetical questions here. I'm not quite sure how any of them undercut the fact that examples of advantageous mutations are all but non-existent for most species. What constitutes an "advantageous" mutations is a good question, and one that only the proponent of the idea
must prove.

In some ways a human is like a very sophisticated machine – a complex set of parts that all work together. Look at your car. If some unknown person were to reach into your car and make a small random change, not unlike a mutation in a person, it would probably be detrimental. Clip a spark plug wire, or reverse two wires, or loosen a gas line fitting, or move
the timing a little bit. On any of these the results would be dramatic and obvious, just like many of the crippling mutations you included in your long list. But if that car-fiddling person instead put in a slightly improved spark plug, or a better designed cam, or a better grade of oil, would it be immediately obvious to you? The magnitude of the “mutation” is not that much different than the one that crippled your car, yet its results are much less obvious.

It is easy to understand the concept, especially when simplified to
something as simply as engine mechanics. However, to make the correlation true, we have to talk about how small, insignificant improvements (like the one you described with the spark plug) could evolve a car into an F-16 fighter jet with turbo-fan jet engines, digital avionics systems, and aerodynamically correct fuselage and wing structures so that it can not only fly, but fly at speeds up to Mach 2. Indeed, how much advantageous "fiddling" would be required to transform a honda civic into an F-16? How much advantageous "fiddling" would be required to transform an ameoba into a human? Do we see any evidence in our study of mutations that reveal mutations are cabable of doing anywhere that much *advantageous* fiddling? No.

Third – How long has this search gone on? How does the 150 years that we have been searching for beneficial mutations compare to the history of life on earth? That is about one twenty-millionth of the time that life has existed. Perhaps this is a bit small of a data sample to be making claims that there are very few beneficial mutations?

I understand, and yes, we are at a disadvantage since we do not have time machines and cannot travel back in time to conduct primary research. But true science is based on observability, testability, and repeatability of phenomena. With mutations, the pattern we observe, test, and see repeated is that mutations cause detriment/disease 99.9999543% of the time they occur. (do you like my new number? :p) So if we are to make assumptions about the past, we need to base those assumption on the evidence that exists in the present. Agreed?


1 - Are all of the things you mentioned purely a result of mutations, and not caused by viruses or other external causes? Any that are not fundamental mutations in the DNA are not going to be passed on in the gene pool.

Those are all diseases that result from a mutation. Some result from mutation in collagen (Nucleic Acids Research 25(1):181-187.), some are inherited in a mendelian recessive pattern, etc. Most of them are hereditarily passed down.

2 - How many of the mutations that manifest themselves are likely to be lethal before the person reaches reproductive maturity? When they do that person drops out of the gene pool without passing it on.

I listed many diseases. Some are not as lethal as others.

3 - How many of the mutations make the person incapable of having children? Scratch them from the list.

Again, many of those diseases are not as lethal as others, and we would not scratch them off the list because the purpose of the list is to demonstrate mutations are catalyst for disfunction/disorder/disease, NOT advantageous features.

4 - How many of the mutations are genetically passed on? If the parent has a mutation but the children don’t carry it on (which is very common) then again it is a single person issue, not a species issue.

Most of the genetic disorders in that list are passed down. Furthermore, the *size* of the gene pool is what determines whether or not these mutations are a species issue.


5 – If the mutation is dormant in the parent that carries it, on an average it will be passed on to no higher a percentage of the population that the percentage than the carrying parents formed. That is, if the parents that have the recessive deleterious gene compose 1% of the population, they will pass it on to 1% of the children in the population. If the population doubles, nominally the number of children that get the gene defect from
parents in whom the gene is recessive will double as well. But when the genetic problem manifests itself, that child will not be as likely to reproduce, and the percentage of carriers then drops.

Yes, that may occur in large populations. But when a new species first appears, and there are, say, four individuals, such harmful mutations would represent 25% of the population. Obviously if a population is small enough, such mutations could easily result in a meltdown/extinction.


Scrim:
evolutionists have had to search the world over to find a mere handful of examples of instances when a mutation may have been theoretically "advantageous"

I note that Itzpapalotl listed a “handful” of categories, not just mutations, into which beneficial mutations have been grouped.

All the diseases I listed were also "categories". If I had listed every medical case of every one of those diseases, my list would have been numbered in the millions.

Something that might be a critical difference in understanding are the very definitions of “beneficial” and “harmful” as they apply to evolution. Beneficial is determined by the increase in reproductive success the mutation confers. Harmful denotes a lessening of reproductive success. For
example, if a salamander were to have a mutation that resulted in extremely good eyesight, yet it lived its life deep in pure black underground caverns, that mutation would actually be counted as detrimental (since it gives no advantage, and requires some resources in the form of nerves, blood, and so on from the salamander). Our intuitive judgment of “improved” is meaningless
unless it aligns with the pressures that the environment puts on the recipient.

I understand how the "theory" works, that has never been the problem. The problem exists when we consider the evidence found in reality. In reality, we don't see mutations cause better eyesight. But we do observe them causing blindness. Get my drift?

In my last post just before you entered this thread, I challenged anyone who differed to back their position mathematically. In the flurry of posts you have put out since then, the best summary of your mathematics has been:

Scrim:
If 99.9% of all expressed mutations result in harm instead of benefit, then it logically follows that mutations are 99.9% more likely to be catalysts for *extinction* than for survival.

I don't see how mathematics can resolve this issue. A time machine would though.

(BTW, in later posts you increased this number to 99.99%. If you keep that up, soon you will have it up to 99.9999999999999999%.)

I'm sure the latter is a more accurate figure than the former. Surely you agree.


But in spite of your contention that “it logically follows”, in fact it does not. To make the dichotomy more obvious, magnify the effects of mutations. Let the harmful mutations be severe impediments to survival, and especially reproduction.
Let the beneficial mutations dramatically increase the animal’s likelihood of having kids. Now let 100 animals in a population come up with harmful mutations. What happens? Many die before passing it on to a single child. Those that pass the problem on to their children bequeath them an equally high likelihood of early death. Since the normal members of the population
do not have this abnormal death rate, they have more kids, all of which are healthy. The percentage of animals with the detrimental gene is decreasing, eventually to the extinction of just the affected animals. The bad gene is eliminated from the gene pool. Far less often is the introduction of a good
mutation. Though rare in comparison to the bad mutations, yet their effect is greater. Since, by definition, a good mutation is one that helps the bearer have more kids than the average, each generation its percentage of the population increases. This continues as long as there are animals that do not have the good mutation. Hardly the same result as the bad mutation.

You are merely reciting the claims of TOE. I understand what TOE *theorizes*. That is not the problem. However, the actually occurrence of beneficial mutations and whether or not they ever occurred with enough frequency, or efficacy to be considered a principle mechanism for the survival and evolution of every species that has ever existed on this planet - now *that* is the specific point in question.

If it would help, I can put up the equations that back my claims, and you can critique them. But if you do, I would ask that you be mathematically conversant enough to post and defend your own equations.

I don't see how mathematical equations would resolve this issue. A time machine, perhaps. :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Scrimshaw

[Stratnerd]

Aspiring scientists go through YEARS of formal education in evolutionary theory before they even set foot inside a laboratory or conduct any primary research of their own. If you follow Kuhn there are two kinds of researchers out there: those that do "ordinary research" - using the hypothetico-deductive framework to test theory in a particular paradigm. Then there are those that use induction to discover new theories that may lead to new paradims. The scientists that I'm most familiar with tend to be the latter because they are iconoclasts but, more importantly, they can back up their claims with data. There is a premium for going against the grain. I see this in my field of ecology. In evolution, there are many iconoclasts - most, if not all, of them are creationists. This is good for science. But what they haven't done is shown a superior paradigm - either philosophically (via better discovery methods) or empirically (via better "data"-fitting models).
"if you assert that beneficial mutations are the PRINCIPLE catalyst for the all the billions of advantageous changes......" etc. AGAIN, says who? who's theory is this?

[Mr. Ben]

Yes, this is a very common debate tactic that I have encountered numerous times in the past - "You dispute evolutionary theory because you have a flawed understanding of science". That is not true at all.

That's not been my experience. Perhaps it's common because a creationist with a solid understanding of what evolution is and how it works is so rare.

Do mutations ever lead to new information? Is evolution entirely random? Does the second law permit increases in complexity? Are all mutations harmful? Are transitionals like half fish, half bird predicted by evolution? Are "half working" wings predicted by evolution?

These are the standard questions usually put forward to test a persons basic knowledge of evolution. Most creationists fail the test.

Perhaps TOE's interpretation of the evidence is what is flawed. Perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic in your implicit assumption that TOE theorists are not the ones with a flawed understanding of how reality affects certain aspects of their theory.

All I can say is bring on the evidence my friend. We are all ears. You're the one claiming that tens of thousands of educated and experienced biologists, geologists, an paleontologists are all wrong (or liars and cheats), and you and the rest of the Bible thumping crowd know more about biology than they do.


Agreed. But it should also be noted that TOE is not a model that PhDs convert to based on their own primary research in a field of science. Aspiring scientists go through YEARS of formal education in evolutionary theory before they even set foot inside a laboratory or conduct any primary research of their own. As far as holding a job, if someone wants to be a biologists, I'd love to know how anyone could get a job unless they - a) have taken numerous years of education in evolutionary theory, and, b) follow along with the "standard model" that was taught to them, which is TOE.

You'll also note that during this period, they also learn that careers are made in science not by agreeing with the status quo, but by proposing revolutionary new theories. That's how scientific fame and fortune is made.

The problem of course is that these theories must be backed up by evidence, and this is why few aspiring biologists, paleontologist, and geologists bother with nonsense theories like ID and creationism.

I think a little more than "genetic drift" is required if all lifeforms on earth descended from a microscopic, single-celled organism, don't you? Perhaps I should rephrase my statements as thus - "if you assert that beneficial mutations are the PRINCIPLE catalyst for the all the billions of advantageous changes......" etc.

Yes, absolutely. This is absolutely what evolution states. Not the only mechanism by which creatures evolve though.

Out of the literally astronomical number of total mutations that have ever occured in life on earth, you somehow think there can't have been a reasonable number of positive mutations over a few billion years?

Your response on this point failed to explain HOW and WHY the ratio of harmful vs. beneficial mutation rates does not affect the respective claims each party is making.

It's simple. Negative mutations are actively and immediately culled from populations under strong selection pressure. Not all species have high tech hospitals, advanced medicine, and hospice care.

Remember, I am only dealing with the observable FACTS here. But you don't seem to be I simply said that mutations are far more likely a catalyst for extinction/disease and I produced a massive list of thousands of genetic disease in support of that claim.

Yes. Humans do have lots of genetic diseases. Humans also have imperfect vision, and a host of other maladies that are not culled by selection. Humans are really not under any sort of strong selection pressure at all as a matter of fact. As long as you are born and survive, medical science will do all it can to keep you alive regardless of whatever genetic malady you may have.

Now do you think this is honestly representative of all species on this planet?

On the other hand, TOE apologists claim that mutations are catalyst for the evolution/survival of all species, and can scarcely produce more than 5 examples of advantageous mutations. You can throw out your obssession with PhD's at this point. This is an issue of LOGIC, and you have not provided any empirical evidence, or made any logical arguments that have undercut my claim.

Whenever we try this simple system of random mutations plus selection on paper, in mathematics, or in computer simulations, it always works. It seems that the negative mutations are just trundled right out of the genome by the death of the poor individuals who happened to be unlucky enough to get them.. leaving the rest behind.

So...

1. Theres a simple explanation as to why bad genes don't stick around that is relatively easy to understand.
2. When actual experiments are done using computers to see if this actually works as expected, it does.
3. When the mathematics (yes! mathematics, as this process is a mathematical algorithm) is explored, the reasons why this occurs the way it does are evident. The numbers simply work.

Of course you are unaware of all three of these lines of evidence, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and don't prove that mutation plus selection work. Simply being unaware of the evidence does not make it disappear.

ONLY if random mutations are the "PRINCIPLE" catalyst of biological CHANGE. Obviously, I don't think that mutations are really the catalyst for anything. My argument is that *IF* they were, we have FAR more reason to think mutations are the catalyst for extinction/disease, because that is EXACTLY what the statistical evidence shows.

Well, we have no evidence of extinctions being caused by mutations at all, and as for genetic diseases, they seem to be added to and removed from populations under selection at a constant rate.

Remember that evolution declares that more mutations will be harmful than beneficial. However, it also states that there is a mechanism by which negative mutations are removed from the gene pool. This is natural selection. Positive mutations never are removed.

So what precisely is the problem?
This is a bad argument because -

a) there are far more than a mere "handful" of evolutionary scientists who study genetics. There are THOUSANDS of them worldwide, and...

b) even if I were to ignorantly concede that there is only a "handful" of evolutionary geneticists, there is no reason to believe that that "handful" of researchers could not or would not have the capacity to discover hundreds if not thousands of beneficial mutation events.

The number of beneficial mutations to negative mutations is well within what is predicted by evolution. However, beneficial mutations are very hard to find.. while negative mutations are pretty obvious.

The evidence for evolution comes primarily from other sources. But what are you proposing then. That there are not, and can never be positive mutations in the human genome? You know that can't be true. Are you then proposing that the number of positive to negative mutations is proof against evolution? Evolution specifically posits that this should be so, but also that it makes no difference. This is because there is a mechanism by which negative mutations are progressively eliminated from the genome in evolution.. natural selection.

[shima]

>>But true science is based on observability, testability, and repeatability of phenomena.<<

I agree with this statement. So, using this statement, how exactly is ID "true science"?

What test can ID perform to SHOW that some object was in fact designed rather than formed by natural forces? This is what ID claims it should do, but ofcourse has no way of pulling off.

I might have a very good test to show that ID cannot be a scinetific theory. Suppose that we have an object formed by natural forces. Lets say object A, a rock which is shaped by canyon winds in Texas. Now, a test made by ID supporters should show that this rock formed by natural forces, because that is the correct conclusion. Next, taking a windtunnel and a revolving table, I DESIGN a second rock, B, to look almost exactly like rock A. Since this rock is designed, ID theory tests should show that this rock was in fact designed. The purpose for which it was designed is irrelevant.

Can ID show that rock A is a "natural" rock while rock B is a "designed" rock? If it can't then ID is NOT a scientific theory, but rather the product of some bible thumpers wanting "equal time" for their "theory" merely because they don't like the religious implications of the Theory of Evolution.

[Mr. Ben]

I don't see how mathematical equations would resolve this issue. A time machine, perhaps.

Mathematical equations would resolve the question just as they resolve the question of how air flows over a wing.

Evolution is a physical process, involving a vector (list) of information encoded in genes, which is subject to replication, random changes, and selection by a given criteria. This is a process that can easily be described using mathematics, just as the airflow over a wing. In fact, since turbulence can not be modeled very accurately numerically, evolution can actually be described much more easily than airflow can be.

So it's silly to say that the processes of evolution can't be described by mathematics. Now if you'd like to dispute the details of these models, be my guest.

[Itzpapalotl]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
I understand how the "theory" works, that has never been the problem. The problem exists when we consider the evidence found in reality. In reality, we don't see mutations cause better eyesight. But we do observe them causing blindness. Get my drift?


how about this:

Ultraviolet pigments in birds evolved from violet pigments by a single amino acid change S. Yokoyama, F. B. Radlwimmer, and N. S. Blow. 7366–7371 PNAS June 20, 2000 vol. 97 no. 13.

A mutation improved the vision of birds by enabling them to see a wider spectrum of colours than before.

There are many other examples of benficial mutations in visual pigments from insects to fish. Another category to add to the list, which i assume from your reaction you didn't understand.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Itzpapalotl


how about this:

Ultraviolet pigments in birds evolved from violet pigments by a single amino acid change S. Yokoyama, F. B. Radlwimmer, and N. S. Blow. 7366–7371 PNAS June 20, 2000 vol. 97 no. 13.

A mutation improved the vision of birds by enabling them to see a wider spectrum of colours than before.

There are many other examples of benficial mutations in visual pigments from insects to fish. Another category to add to the list, which i assume from your reaction you didn't understand.

Talk about selective reasoning. Do you realize that we have observed mutations causing blindness and vision deficiencies a gazillion more times than we've ever seen them produce a positive result in vision?

How many human beings in the world need glasses?

[Scrimshaw]

hey guys,

I enjoy talking to each of you, but if I post a response to one person and 5 people respond to the material, I would have to repeat myself 5 times if I were to respond to each person regarding the same material. Also, it is common courtesy to allow the person to whom the post was addressed to respond FIRST.

...think about it.

Thanks,
Scrim

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by shima
>>But true science is based on observability, testability, and repeatability of phenomena.<<

I agree with this statement. So, using this statement, how exactly is ID "true science"?

It's not. It's origin philosophy, just like TOE is origin philosophy.

[ThePhy]

Scrim,

Sometimes I am a bit slow in responding, due to both my limited time, and my desire to avoid tossing out trivial and poorly thought out answers. I recommend you do the same, if you are deluged with responses, feel free to consolidate ideas, and take the time to give well-expressed reasoned answers. We will wait.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by ThePhy
Scrim,

Sometimes I am a bit slow in responding, due to both my limited time, and my desire to avoid tossing out trivial and poorly thought out answers. I recommend you do the same, if you are deluged with responses, feel free to consolidate ideas, and take the time to give well-expressed reasoned answers. We will wait.

Thanks ThyPhy. I also have limited time and will try my best to give complete answers when I post. I just don't want to get overwhelmed with redundant objections..... but going forward, I will try to respond to everyone if time permits.

[Itzpapalotl]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw


Talk about selective reasoning. Do you realize that we have observed mutations causing blindness and vision deficiencies a gazillion more times than we've ever seen them produce a positive result in vision?

How many human beings in the world need glasses?

You originally said "we don't see mutations cause better eyesight"

That statement was not correct. I am of course sure you did extensive research on the genetics of vision before you made your assertion that "we don't see mutations cause better eyesight" are all your statements so carefully researched.

It seems to me that vision is a quantitative trait influenced by many genes so many of the cases of poor vision are caused by unlucky combinations of alleles that might well have a positive effect when combined with other alleles resulting in very good vision. mutations can have a positive or a negative effect depending on genetic context, not to mention environmental context. Who would have thought the real situation regarding mutations would be more complicated that the picture presented on creationist websites.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Itzpapalotl


You originally said "we don't see mutations cause better eyesight"

That statement was not correct. I am of course sure you did extensive research on the genetics of vision before you made your assertion that "we don't see mutations cause better eyesight" are all your statements so carefully researched.

It should've been abundantly obvious that I was speaking in generalities. This is another instance where you'd rather focus on the microscopic exception instead of the telescopic rule. And the discovery that mutations are the cause of Enhanced S-cone Syndrome (ESCS) is a new discovery. Perhaps it is you that is in need of some more "careful research". Or perhaps you would like to argue that night blindness is an "advantage" for survival? Go here for more information:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000202080140.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0DED/7_20/59670413/p1/article.jhtml


Shalom,
Scrim

[Mr. Ben]

You originally said "we don't see mutations cause better eyesight"

I believe Tetrachromats are a result of mutations that result in color blindness in men. They can see four instead of just three primary colors. That's a whole extra range of color sense. Granted that it's green and sort of a greenish aqua which we trichromats aproximate by mixing green and blue, that they're sensitive to, but they do see four primary colors allowing them to distinguish color to a much greater accuracy than ordinary people.

[billwald]

Is the concept of primary colors due to the mathematical way that the light frequencies combine (like hetrodyning or whatever) or is it a psychological phenomenon do to the way we perceive color?

Didn't Edward Land discover and wasn't the origional Poloroid color film based on the concept that we can "see" all colors if we are shown black and white plus a red scale?

[Stratnerd]

I'm pretty sure it's the result of light interacting with the pigments in our cone cells that have peak absorbancy at red, blue, and green. As Ben points out, there are humans that are tetrachromatic. These people can see into the UV. There isn't a pigment that peaks at UV but the blue pigment is sensitive to it. The reason we don't see UV is that our ocular media (eye goo) filters it out. Most non-mammalian vertebrates are truly tetrachromatic and have a pigment that peaks in the UV along with our three. Birds not only have these four pigments but also have oil droplets to filter out light "off" the peaks so they see in amazing detail. Humans at least see better than most dichromatic mammals (which do not see in B & W).

[Scrimshaw]

Scrim said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"if you assert that beneficial mutations are the PRINCIPLE catalyst for the all the billions of advantageous changes......" etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Stratnerd
AGAIN, says who? who's theory is this?


I didn't want to overlook this question so I am finally answering it now. I should emphasize that natural selection plays a big role in evolutionary theory, and I am not overlooking it. But mutations are the engine of change, and natural selection is the steering wheel. As we all know, you can't "steer" something unless it is already moving. Mutations are the engine of change according to TOE (the "mover" if you will), that is why I am calling it the "principle" catalyst.

[Mr. Ben]

Scrimshaw,

So you tell us, what can prevent those billions of beneficial mutations from happening over 2 billion years? During each of those 2 billion years, the population size of the ancetral lineages of most animals was at least 10,000 - 1,000,000 or so. Add to that the fact that our earliest anscestors were fast reproducing bacterium. All in all, that's an astronomical number of mutations.

So tell us, how can billions of beneficial mutations can be kept from occuring amongst this overwhelming number of total mutations?

[Stratnerd]

Mutations are the engine of change according to TOE (the "mover" if you will), that is why I am calling it the "principle" catalyst.

This is why I think you are just working on a straw man: if you go to the most popular general biology texts and look up the historical evolution section you will find mutation - for sure. But you will also find pages on endosymbiotic theory. If you read the literature you will find that the people that work on "deep" phylogentics, you will find that lateral transfer is very popular among these people for explaining the movement of genetic informatoin among early lineages. Natural selection and mutation are important in small-time scales but endosymbiosis and lateral transfer are probably just as important in explaining life forms we have today.

[Mr. Ben]

Lateral gene transfer is just sort of a type of recombination when you think about it. Sex supposedly emerged from LGT.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
During each of those 2 billion years, the population size of the ancetral lineages of most animals was at least 10,000 - 1,000,000 or so. Add to that the fact that our earliest anscestors were fast reproducing bacterium. All in all, that's an astronomical number of mutations.

So tell us, how can billions of beneficial mutations can be kept from occuring amongst this overwhelming number of total mutations?


"Overwhelming number"?

Are you suggesting that higher organisms share the same procreation rate of bacteria? Because unless you are, you still eventually run into the generally slower procreation rates of the more complex organism.

That's one of the dumbest arguments I keep hearing. Quick reproducing bacterium still doesn't get to complex oraganism very fast, and even if it did, it hits the preverbal brick wall after that.

My father used to say (about a different topic though), "Getting from one to five very fast, doesn't help much when you've got to get to one million."

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
Scrimshaw,

So you tell us, what can prevent those billions of beneficial mutations from happening over 2 billion years? During each of those 2 billion years, the population size of the ancetral lineages of most animals was at least 10,000 - 1,000,000 or so. Add to that the fact that our earliest anscestors were fast reproducing bacterium. All in all, that's an astronomical number of mutations.

So tell us, how can billions of beneficial mutations can be kept from occuring amongst this overwhelming number of total mutations?

That's just it. If "billions" of beneficial mutations occurred, then multiple TRILLIONS of harmful mutations occurred as well. I think the destruction and setbacks produced by the TRILLIONS of harmful mutations would override the infrequent beneficial mutations from being any kind of "mechanism" for macro-evolutionary change.

[AsLan]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben You are gravely mistaken.

Actually, the gravest mistake would be if your arguments are incorrect, not the others.

Originally posted by Mr. Ben Scientists don't use slogans.. they use evidence

ahahahahah, missing link frauds

Originally posted by Mr. Ben scientists..all universally agree that life has evolved

hahahahaha, except the ones that don't

[ThePhy]

Scrimshaw:

I value my time. I would be more amenable to continuing this dialogue with you if there were a few changes. I hope that those that I correspond with put forth a sincere effort to accurately understand and respond to the things I post. I do not respond lightly to your posts, and I do not try to twist what you say into something you clearly do not mean. I do not make assertions that I cannot back. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. By way of unsolicited advice, I would recommend that you avoid making broad general statements that sometimes have occasional, but significant, exceptions (such as your statement that mutations do not cause better eyesight - see later.) I would also recommend in your postings that you clearly differentiate your personal beliefs from those things that you can produce clear independent backing for (I will note such in the context where they appear).

You said:But it should also be noted that TOE is not a model that PhDs convert to based on their own primary research in a field of science. Aspiring scientists go through YEARS of formal education in evolutionary theory before they even set foot inside a laboratory or conduct any primary research of their own. As far as holding a job, if someone wants to be a biologist, I'd love to know how anyone could get a job unless they - a) have taken numerous years of education in evolutionary theory, and, b) follow along with the "standard model" that was taught to them, which is TOE. Having spent some time within the walls of several college campuses, I wonder what you are talking about. Is the training that these PhDs go through different in some significant way from the training any other scientist goes through? Most PhDs that enter into evolutionary studies spend approximately the same amount of time in school as any other PhD. Many students in evolutionary studies are enlisted to participate in field trips, laboratory work, and data analysis during their college years. They are fully capable of examining the theory and seeing how well it is supported by the data long before they graduate. Yes, they take a number of courses built around evolutionary theory, simply because the scientific world is strongly united on the correctness of the ToE. But students who can recognize and elucidate errors or improvements in the theory are not automatically muzzled. A credible attack or correction on a theory is recognized as beneficial, not something to be squashed.

Just for interest, I checked the major university near where I live. I found that there is an active and on-going evolution research program that is largely staffed by the students. One new program in particular is a forefront research program in astrobiology (http://depts.washington.edu/astrobio/)), which looks in detail at various conditions under which life might have originally arisen on earth, and then looks to see where similar conditions might be found in places other than our earth.

In my posting prior to your entering this thread I was discussing the spread of beneficial mutations through a population. When you responded to this idea you distorted my claim into one saying that I thought beneficial mutations were responsible for ALL advantageous changes. When I responded and mentioned genetic drift as an additional factor, you responded with something almost as distorted as your original assertion when you said: I think a little more than "genetic drift" is required if all lifeforms on earth descended from a microscopic, single-celled organism, don't you? Since you had already acknowledged that I believe mutations were a factor in evolution, it seems your above statement is less designed to clarify our positions than to twist it into a parody that ignores what I had already made clear.Your response on this point failed to explain HOW and WHY the ratio of harmful vs. beneficial mutation rates does not affect the respective claims each party is making. At the end of the posting you are referring to I verbally outlined the answers you claim I am remiss on. Nevertheless, I shall present the concept in more detail at the end of this post.Remember, I am only dealing with the observable FACTS here. I want to be very clear here. Obviously, for either you or I to simply declare something to be a fact is empty rhetoric if we cannot substantiate our claims. I would ask for you to be quite specific on what you are referring to that you so fervently assert to be observable facts. In the course of your postings, I have seen several ideas that you have brought up.

For example, you claim that the rate of occurrence of harmful mutations is much higher than the rate of occurrence of beneficial mutations. Even though I am not aware of any study directed explicitly to establishing that ratio, I think it highly likely that you are right. Additionally, I am not aware of any scientist (including evolutionists) who dispute that. If that is one of the things that you hold to be an “observed fact”, I think we are nearly in agreement on that issue.

Another idea that you espouse is that the great predominance of occurrence of harmful mutations over beneficial ones would lead to the extinction of a species. (Later in your last long post to me you seem to deviate from that idea, so I am not really clear on what your feelings are on this issue). If this is an idea you claim to be an observed fact then I would request you present some clear evidence that backs your position. The claim that the substantially more numerous occurrences of harmful mutations necessarily causes the net degradation or extinctions of a species is an idea that I do not buy into, specifically because of the way natural selection treats the two type of mutations differently. I will amplify on this idea later at the end of this post.

Yet another idea you have mentioned is that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. In comparison to harmful mutations, you are probably correct, but in terms of specific numbers I think we hold widely divergent opinions. I think the number of beneficial mutations might well have been adequate to account for the observed diversity of life that we see, presuming that it all originated from some relatively simple life form long ago. As you infer, this would necessitate probably billions of beneficial mutations over the span of evolutionary history. Your expressed belief is that the number of beneficial mutations that has been observed is very small, and certainly too small to account for the diversification of life as we see it today. On this idea, if this is what you are categorizing as an “observed fact”, please come forth with supporting data.I simply said that mutations are far more likely a catalyst for extinction/disease and I produced a massive list of thousands of genetic diseases in support of that claim. Your massive list in fact had less than 800 entries, which in most peoples counting is something less than one thousand, and certainly less than “thousands”. And you have a dogmatic adherence to the idea that the sheer numerical predominance of harmful mutations over beneficial ones is the determining factor in the overall effect of mutations. I defer further consideration of this idea to the end of this post.On the other hand, TOE apologists claim that mutations are catalysts for the evolution/survival of all species, and can scarcely produce more than 5 examples of advantageous mutations. This is a clear example where your credibility is not enhanced by exaggerating. Contrast your number in the statement above with your acknowledgment later in your post that Itzpapalotl listed more than 5 CATEGORIES into which advantageous mutations are classified.You can throw out your obsession with PhD's at this point. As I have already said, when I need to find out about a field in which I am not a primary participant, I tend to rely on those who have studied it and demonstrated their competence in the field. I wonder who you rely on for the ideas you espouse?This is an issue of LOGIC, and you have not provided any empirical evidence, or made any logical arguments that have undercut my claim. This is a difference of perception. You may have rejected all the arguments presented to you, but that hardly means the other readers will concur with your judgment. I, and most of the others who have responded to you, are equally able to use and evaluate ideas using logic.

I was interested in your provisional answer when I directly asked:
If there are more documented expressed harmful mutations than beneficial ones occurring in a species, then will that necessarily lead to a degradation or extinction of the species? You responded with:ONLY if random mutations are the "PRINCIPLE" catalyst of biological CHANGE. Obviously, I don't think that mutations are really the catalyst for anything. My argument is that *IF* they were, we have FAR more reason to think mutations are the catalyst for extinction/disease, because that is EXACTLY what the statistical evidence shows. Stratnerd responded to your first sentence by elucidating other factors that may be more important than mutations. The information he presented was new to me, and I will need to gain a better understanding of the processes he mentioned before I will be comfortable with how they compare with mutations. So far you have been silent on Strat’s correction of mutations versus other factors.

Your second sentence is the interesting one. At least you don’t hesitate to break ranks with just about every biologist in the world on this one, whether Christian or not. It is this complete negation of the judgment of the nearly unanimous opinion of the biological community that makes me suspect you are really no more than a very vocal upstart whose technical credibility is marginally low. I realize this is a direct affront to your integrity, but I base that judgment on the ideas you have brought to this discussion. If you can defend your position with clear evidence, I will reverse my opinion.

In your final sentence above you refer to what statistical evidence shows. Statistics are precisely defined mathematical entities, and are often based on measurements. Please give the citation to the article or study that lists the exact numbers that support the statistics to which you refer.

I asserted that there are probably a limited number of researchers who dedicate their efforts towards finding and documenting beneficial mutations by saying:Of all the specialists that enter the medical and biological professions, how many dedicate their efforts towards finding the cause and cures for diseases and illnesses? Now contrast that with the number that are looking to see how many beneficial mutations they can identify. The ratio will probably be, as you say “THOUSANDS and thousands” of doctors chasing illnesses, and a “mere handful” on the trail of beneficial mutations. Your response:There are far more than a mere "handful" of evolutionary scientists who study genetics. There are THOUSANDS of them worldwide, and... Note how innocuously you ignored my specific criteria of scientists who were specifically dedicating their efforts toward finding beneficial mutations, and instead inflate the number by talking about ALL evolutionary scientists who study genetics. Perhaps you really think that the only thing all geneticists do is look for beneficial mutations. In fact the vast majority of the work in genetics is, as has already been pointed out, in identifying and treating the results of harmful mutations and similar studies. If you really think there are thousands of geneticists dedicated to finding beneficial mutations, I would invite you to back this claim with some evidence.

You then say:Even if I were to ignorantly concede that there is only a "handful" of evolutionary geneticists, there is no reason to believe that that "handful" of researchers could not or would not have the capacity to discover hundreds if not thousands of beneficial mutation events. Once again, you manage to distort what I really said into sounding like I claimed there were only a “handful” of evolutionary geneticists. To use your own characterization above, perhaps you “ignorantly” omit the qualifier that I stipulated that the "handful" is referring only to the number of geneticists that specialize in looking for advantageous mutations, not evolutionary geneticists in general.

The idea that a small number of researchers could discover thousands of beneficial mutations is worth evaluating. Since you claim they should be able to find such mutations (presuming they exist), I would ask – how? Someone like you who does not believe in the existence of a large number of beneficial mutations could very legitimately take on the task of looking to see if they exist, perhaps as a graduate thesis. But to do that, the criteria for clearly deciding that a particular animal has or does not have a beneficial mutation must be defined. I would ask you, even in general terms, to describe what criteria you would apply to make that determination. Keep in mind that, as creationists so often point out, there is already a wide range of natural variability in many species. If you cannot make a clear distinction between an animal that is on the exceptional end of natural variability and one that seems almost identical but has a beneficial mutation then your study is doomed.

The difficulty in clearly identifying beneficial mutations is not as difficult in the simpler world of single-celled animals. Their extremely fast reproduction rates and sometimes clear changes in their ability to live in or tolerate new environments can be studied “in a test tube”, and the study can sometimes be completed in relatively short times (in human terms, even though it may encompass many generations from the viewpoint of the micro-organism). One common technique to assure that the effect is due to a mutation is to repeatedly “strain” the starting sample of bacteria (using techniques that can differentiate between variants) until all of the remaining members are identical in their genetic makeup. Then repeatedly introduce samples of this pure group to the new environment. Presuming the new environment is nominally lethal the researcher may have to repeat the test many times. But eventually, it has been observed that from within the originally pure strain a few members can tolerate, or even thrive in the new environment. Some new beneficial factor is in evidence, and it was completely missing in the initial refined parental strain.

The complexity of large animals, and humans in particular, make such tests almost impossible. So again, I ask for some definitive criteria that the researchers might realistically apply to say there were or were not beneficial mutations in the specimens they examine.

When I speculated on whether or not human physical condition might have improved over the past few millennia, you said:
… the fact that examples of advantageous mutations are all but non-existent for most species. Once again you assert something as fact without any supplying any evidence. Can you specifically point to the documented evidence that advantageous mutations are “all but non-existent”?What constitutes an "advantageous" mutation is a good question, and one that only the proponent of the idea must prove. As I said before, I don’t get very excited over this game of assigning responsibility for proving ideas. I post my ideas here to show why I believe as I do, and with the expectations that interested parties can make their own judgments. I really doubt that nature will suddenly change the way she works if I fail to carry my case.

In my last post to you I used the example of the complexity of a car, making the point that small random changes in the car might drastically degrade its performance. I also made the point that an equally small change that happened to improve something in the car would likely not even be noticed. Your response:
It is easy to understand the concept, especially when simplified to something as simple as engine mechanics. However, to make the correlation true, we have to talk about how small, insignificant improvements (like the one you described with the spark plug) could evolve a car into an F-16 fighter jet with turbo-fan jet engines, digital avionics systems, and aerodynamically correct fuselage and wing structures so that it can not only fly, but fly at speeds up to Mach 2. Indeed, how much advantageous "fiddling" would be required to transform a Honda civic into an F-16? My car example was purposely designed to illustrate a point that was true whether or not evolution is true. I made no inference that a car could be transformed into an airplane in the way biological evolution is believed to do. My example of the efficiency of the car would be equally valid completely external to any consideration of evolution. I don’t know if you didn’t want to admit I might be right, or if you couldn’t resist the temptation to ridicule evolution with your parody. Your attempt to twist this car example into an example of evolution does your credibility no credit.

Let me try one more time. This time, try to answer what I ask. 1) If a random small change were made to a car, is it possible that the functioning of the car could be seriously degraded? 2) Could the degraded functioning be fairly obvious? 3) Is it possible (even though rare) that a random change might improve the car? 4) Is it likely that the improvement would be anywhere near as obvious as the problems that the detrimental changes introduced?

The improvements to a car that might be introduced by a small random modification could very easily escape detection, and would probably only be noticed if some careful tests were performed on the specific attribute of the car that was changed.

The same thing is true in the world of biology. Since life forms, especially multi-celled ones are vastly more complex than a car, detection of a small improvement is likely to be hard to detect and quantify, even when one is specifically looking for improvements. In the simpler world of single-celled animals, a number of beneficial mutations have been documented. Recent threads within this forum have itemized a number of such examples.How much advantageous "fiddling" would be required to transform an amoeba into a human? Do we see any evidence in our study of mutations that reveal mutations are capable of doing anywhere that much *advantageous* fiddling? No. In diametric opposition to your one-word “no” is the Theory of Evolution that is backed by tens of thousands of studies showing that exactly what you deny is very likely what happened. Given the choice between your unsupported assertions and the documented studies of thousands of PhDs, I prefer the latter.True science is based on observability, testability, and repeatability of phenomena. May I assume that you don’t think astronomy, archaeology, and other fields that deal with things long ago qualify as real sciences? Hard to get a supernova to happen twice. Maybe we could get Vesuvius to erupt again and bury Pompeii, but I doubt it.With mutations, the pattern we observe, test, and see repeated is that mutations cause detriment/disease 99.9999543% of the time they occur. (Do you like my new number? ) In fact I have found several references in the technical literature to the total error rate in duplication of DNA. In a number of places I have seen it stated that the average human DNA differs from the pure combination of their parent’s genome by 4 or 5 mutations. That means that there are 6 billion people on the earth today that are (whether they like it or not) mutants. Since most mutations occur in non-coding parts of the DNA, these errors are often of no effect. Some parts of DNA seem to be more likely to suffer mutations than others; these are the ones that lead to some of the more commonly found diseases. But every one of us is an evolutionary experiment.

Of interest is the number of mutations that are advantageous. Your own numbers (99.9% or 99.99% detrimental) are still of a size to permit 6 million (or 600 thousand) beneficial mutations to exist in the current human gene pool. (Your latest figure given above, even though facetious, would still say that there were 6 beneficial mutations in the human gene pool today). BTW, the rate of beneficial mutations is estimated to be in or just below the original ranges you postulated. As far as evolution goes, it is highly misleading to focus just on humans, since this DNA duplication is a universal part of almost all life. For every living human there are tens of thousand of other animals, every one of which is a subject in this gigantic evolutionary test tube called earth.

So where you say there would need to be billions of beneficial mutations, you are right. There are. Remember, the numbers I put up are of life as we see it today. Every generation is a new set of specimens. Man is an exceptionally long-lived animal, so the turn-around for most animals from one generation to the next is anywhere from weeks to a couple years. Literally, there have likely been trillions of beneficial mutations since life first appeared, just as demanded by evolution.So if we are to make assumptions about the past, we need to base those assumptions on the evidence that exists in the present. Agreed? Agreed.

Relative to the long list of diseases you posted, I listed some criteria to measure against to see if each disease was significant in terms of its effect on a species. The central point was that anything that either dies out quickly or that prevents its bearer from passing it on is of little interest, since it cannot spread through the population.

In summary, the diseases must not be lethal (at least before the bearer has had children), they must not severely lessen the bearer’s ability to procreate, and they must be inheritable. In one of the responses to my criteria, you make an interesting point:…the purpose of the list is to demonstrate mutations are catalyst for dysfunction/disorder/disease, NOT advantageous features.) I was not looking at them as advantageous either. However, as I have already stated, the importance of a disease in the survival of a species is related strongly to its ability to spread through the population. For evolutionary purposes, the onset of disease in a single animal is insignificant unless somehow it appears in many members of the population or it is indicative of some factor that will have a major effect on a substantial number of the members of the species (such as the introduction of some new poisonous plant or chemical agent).…the *size* of the gene pool is what determines whether or not these mutations are a species issue. That is certainly a factor, especially in harmful mutations. However, as I will cover at the end, beneficial mutations are not as sensitive to the species population once the mutation has gained a good foothold in the species. It spreads until it essentially is universal.… when a new species first appears, and there are, say, four individuals, such harmful mutations would represent 25% of the population. Obviously if a population is small enough, such mutations could easily result in a meltdown/extinction. In large animals I doubt that very many new species originate from such a small gene pool. The chance that such a few members would have some genetic change or other factor that kept them reproductively isolated from the rest of the parent population yet reproductively compatible among themselves is very small. In most endangered wildlife preservation efforts, a population of only 4 individuals would be probably be considered an extinction level.

Relative to your allusions to a very few known beneficial mutations, I mentioned Itzpapalotl providing a list of categories into which beneficial mutations are grouped. You responded with:
All the diseases I listed were also "categories". Here is another case of your desire to make a point clouding your judgment. I spent a few minutes, starting at the top of the list you provided. I looked up the diseases, and in many cases, there were variants of the diseases, thus the disease as you listed it might be called a category. However, according to Northwestern Memorial Hospital Health Library (http://health_info.nmh.org/Library/HealthGuide/IllnessConditions/topic.asp?hwid=nord106) Aase Syndrome has no variants. It is not a category of diseases, it is a disease. Continuing through the list, Ablepharon Macrostomia was listed by the National Organization for Rare Disorders (http://www.rarediseases.org/search/rdbdetail_abstract.html?disname=Ablepharon%20Macro stomia%20Syndrome) as a disease. This is not central to the point being made, since the list adequately shows a large diversity of inheritable genetic diseases that are caused by mutations. But honesty would dictate that you not claim the entire list is of categories when it is not true.

Another sidelight that fell out of my examination of your list was that it is padded. For a specific example The U.S. National Library of Medicine (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/jablonski/syndromes/syndrome542.html) lists Abdominal Muscle Deficiency Syndrome, Obinsky Syndrome, Prune Belly Syndrome, and Eagle Barrett Syndrome as different names for the same disease. Likewise, Bassen-Kornzweig Syndrome and Abetalipoproteinemia are synonymous. It appears your list of something under 800 entries more correctly should be half or less the size you posted.

Again, this does not dilute the fact that there are many heritable mutation-caused diseases. I found a number that were not on your list, and I have personal experience with one such disease in my own family.If I had listed every medical case of every one of those diseases, my list would have been numbered in the millions. If a large percentage of a population inherits a mutation, in fact the mutation only occurred once, in the original animal that had it. All of the receiving progeny are only receiving a faithfully reproduced copy, just as the rest of the DNA is faithfully copied. Millions of animals may manifest the mutation that only one distant ancestor started. Humans are the end result of the accumulations of millions of such mutations starting with grandpa Adam (who was a microbe in the primordial muck3 billion years ago), who imbibed some chemicals that caused a mutation that made him better able to absorb and metabolize some new nutrients, and from there on it was all uphill leading to us.

I mentioned the definition of beneficial mutations and harmful mutations as being relevant to the reproductive success of the owner in the environment in which it lives.

Your response:I understand how the "theory" works, that has never been the problem. Just to make sure we are on the same page, let me quote from Spetner (who does not agree with neo-Darwinism) in his book “Not by Chance”, pages 51 and 52 where he is talking about heritable variations (Spetner uses the word variations to include the effects of mutations):Positive variations are those that help an organism have more surviving offspring.

Negative Variation are the opposite – they reduce the number of surviving offspring. At the end of this post I will use these definitions.The problem exists when we consider the evidence found in reality. In reality, we don't see mutations cause better eyesight. But we do observe them causing blindness. Get my drift? Yes, I get your drift. I also noticed when Itzpapalotl gave evidence that your unqualified assertion was wrong, you accused him of selective reasoning. I fail to see what is selective about him showing that your blanket claim was false. In fact I think you would have purposely let your lie go unrecognized had someone not exposed it. It would have very easy for you to have some simple qualifiers in your original statement that would have been true – “we rarely see mutations cause better…” or “mutations seldom cause better …”.

I am not sure what your real intent was when you responded to my request for mathematical backing when you said:I don't see how mathematics can resolve this issue. It may be that you are not comfortable with mathematics, or that you really feel these questions are not amenable to mathematical treatment. If the former is true, then I would suggest you find a new cause to defend, because in-depth studies on these subjects are often very mathematical. I was recently reading an article by a Professor of biology who commented on how many of his new students are dismayed when they find that a non-trivial amount of mathematics was required in his courses.

Your last major point is cogent and correct:…the actually occurrence of beneficial mutations and whether or not they ever occurred with enough frequency, or efficacy to be considered a principle mechanism for the survival and evolution of every species that has ever existed on this planet - now *that* is the specific point in question. I want to spend the rest of this post focusing on this question. Some points I have already covered above, so now I will look at a specific numerical example to see how both kinds of mutations propagate through a species. It will be mathematical, but at a very low level. You mention statistics, populations, and such, and mathematics is a major tool that science uses for such questions.

I am proposing a stable population of 100,000,000 members (this is very reasonable for many species). I will presume that somehow 1,000,000 members have inherited a common mildly harmful mutation (perhaps it was spread rapidly when the species discovered a new ecological niche they could expand into). The species also has 100 members with a mildly beneficial mutation (this is in accordance with your lower figure of 99.99% of expressed mutations being harmful).

Translating the idea of “beneficial mutations” and harmful mutations” as being measures of reproductive success into mathematical terms, I will use a reproductive success value of 1.05 for the animals with the beneficial mutations, and 0.95 for the animals with the harmful mutations. In plain English, this just means that a group of 100 animals with the beneficial mutation will on average have 105 offspring grow to maturity, and a group of 100 animals with the harmful mutation will on average have 95 offspring grow to maturity.

In reality, the values of 1.05 and 0.95 are measured against the “normal” animals (who are the primary competitors for the ecological niche), and are not quite correct for the beneficial versus the weak mutations. That ratio would be slightly higher (a second order effect), but can be ignored here.

To see the effects though a single generation – we will use math no harder than what you would use to see if the bank was compounding your interest correctly in your account.

Start – 100 good mutation animals, 1,000,000 bad mutation animals, and the rest are normal (98,999,900).

After one generation, (100 good mutation animals) * 1.05 = 105 good mutation animals, (1.000.000 bad mutation animals) * 0.95 = 950,000 bad mutation animals, and the rest in the new generation are normal (99,049,895).

It is interesting to note that the number of normal animals actually increased, because they are slightly more successful at having kids than the bad mutation animals. The increase in good mutation animals was insignificant compared to the total population, but notable when compared to the number of original good mutation animals.

Repeating for the next generation gives 110 good mutations, 902,500 bad mutations, and the rest normal (99,097,390). Note again the normal animals gained (by 0.0002%), and the good animals gained (by 5%) over the last generation.

After 10 generations have passed, the numbers are 163 good mutation animals, 598,736 bad mutation animals, and 99,401,101 normal animals.

After 100 generations, the numbers of good mutation animals is up to 13,150, but only 5921 bad mutation animals are left, and the rest are normal (99,9809,29).

Unlike bank balances, we cannot keep multiplying the 1.05 factor for each generation of good mutation animals forever, since bank balances can grow to infinity (in theory), but the number of animals cannot exceed the stable population value of 100,000,000. For practical purposes, the spread of good mutation animals ceases when the entire species effectively has the good mutation, which occurs in a little under 300 generations. 300 generations for most species is a couple of millennia, and even for humans it is less than 10,000 years.

Note the bad mutation animals dropped by a factor of 160 in 100 generations, and another 100 generations would drive the number of bad mutation animals to only a few dozen. It effectively dies out.

The mathematics above show that in this idealized scenario, not only are good and bad mutations handled differently by natural selection, but that bad mutations tend to die out of the population, and good mutations spread.

The equations I have used here are almost the same ones I used earlier in this thread in answer to Bob’s claim. This is a very idealized sample, which does not account for the on-going introduction of either new good or new bad mutations during the span of the study. If you feel this mathematical treatment is wrong, then please explain why and then show and explain the mathematics that support your position.

[Underdog]

It is difficult to folow or participate in this, shot-gun style, attack on evolution, in any logical mannor. The points of debate are numerous and all over the place in this thread. Each of the points in the OP really should have their own thread.

[ThePhy]

Ping.

Scrimshaw, at the time he entered this thread, promised to defend the ideas he espoused. It has been nearly two weeks since the last response was posted challenging the ideas he put forth.

I hope the unusual delay is due to other demands on his time or his desire to research and present a well-expressed reply, and not an indication that he was not honest in his initial promise to remain and defend his position. Obviously he also has the option of acknowledging the receipt of new information or ideas in this thread that he does not have adequate answers to.

Scrim – are you still there?

[Scrimshaw]

Hi ThePhy,

Yes, I am still here and I acknowledge your last post. I have been very busy lately and my grandfather passed away last week. I have saved your response in a Word document and I have begun working on my response. I should have it posted in the next couple days.

Thanks for your patience.

Scrim

[evseeker]

I do not wish to get into an argument with a person who makes such long posts on a simple discussion forum, but he does seem to be making some rather dubious assumptions in his grossly simplified "mathematical analysis".

One, a selection coefficient of 1.05 seems to be a greatly overstated number for analyses of this kind and two he seems to be ignoring the fact that each new generation results in brand new mutations, both beneficial and otherwise, which can offset the effect of ones in the original starting situation. This may be one reason that Kimura deemphasized selection as an evolutionary mechanism and instead favored his "genetic drift" mechanism.

[ThePhy]

From evseeker:I do not wish to get into an argument with a person who makes such long posts on a simple discussion forum, but he does seem to be making some rather dubious assumptions in his grossly simplified "mathematical analysis".

One, a selection coefficient of 1.05 seems to be a greatly overstated number for analyses of this kind and two he seems to be ignoring the fact that each new generation results in brand new mutations, both beneficial and otherwise, which can offset the effect of ones in the original starting situation. This may be one reason that Kimura deemphasized selection as an My last paragraph specifically mentions the idea that I was ignoring the introduction of mutations during the period I was mentioning. In fact any new mutations will serve to accelerate the spread if they are beneficial, and to a lesser extent, to retard it if harmful. This is another point that Spetner mentions in his book.

The 1.05 was just an illustrative value, which is probably high for an unperturbed stable population. As my sample showed, the spread through the population is effectively complete with a few millennia, which is very fast in evolutionary timescales. Smaller values of the selection coefficient will still evidence exponential growth.

Not mentioned was that in stressing times (famine, disease, natural disasters, etc.) a small selection value may become greatly magnified. For example, a nominal slight advantage in access to food can become a major survival element in times of famine. Over the period of millennia most species encounter several such stressing periods that accentuate survival advantages.

I don’t know if the word “grossly” is meant to emphasize that the scenario I posited is much simpler than found in reality, or if evseeker has fundamental objections that can be pointed out. I would invite the elucidation of the latter. The underlying mathematics of exponential spreads does not need to be complicated (and should not be) unless the added complexity is indispensable to the truthfulness of the analysis.

BTW, I also hope not to get into an “argument”, but rather an honest and impartial discussion of ideas.

[evseeker]

It seems to me that the idea of exponential growth is not at issue. Certainly exponential growth is very powerful under certain circumstances, but one has to be careful not to simply assume that it is true, evidence is needed to warrant its applicability.

What puzzles me is that the fossil record seems to falsify the realism of the exponential models, for the typical case is said to be stasis for millions of years.

[Stratnerd]

One, a selection coefficient of 1.05 seems to be a greatly overstated number for analyses of this kind I didn't think that there were numbers > 1! I thought the selection coefficient was s and represented the proportion (hence < 1) of individuals having a particular that did not reproduce.
This may be one reason that Kimura deemphasized selection as an evolutionary mechanism and instead favored his "genetic drift" mechanism. I thought Kimura's main things is that many aspects of the phenotype can have variation without fitness and are essentially neutral and so he came up with, of all things, neutral theory.

[ThePhy]

From evseeker:What puzzles me is that the fossil record seems to falsify the realism of the exponential models, for the typical case is said to be stasis for millions of years. Can you explain in detail what conflict you see between periods of stasis and an exponential beneficial mutation spread model?

[evseeker]

Can you explain in detail what conflict you see between periods of stasis and an exponential beneficial mutation spread model?

I would judge that an exponential model would generally lead to rapid change for the range of selection coefficients usually employed. Since from the fossil record we can see that such rapid change is generally not the case, we should probably conclude that other factors play a part. Because these "other factors" are not specifically contained in the model, it is my opinion that the model should be used only to demonstrate that rapid change may be possible depending on circumstances, ones that are typically suggested after the fact and hence are somewhat speculative.

[evseeker]

Stratnerd,

I apologize for my error in referring to the 1.05 number as a "selection coefficient". My intent was merely to suggest that the stated number did not represent a typical case.

You may be right that Kimura's real motivation was supplemental rather than substitutional (but I don't think so).

[ThePhy]

From evseeker:I would judge that an exponential model would generally lead to rapid change for the range of selection coefficients usually employed. I think you are using the term “selection coefficients” (with due respect to the alternate definition that Stratnerd was familiar with) as being the same as what I termed “reproductive success value”. Would you explain why you say the selection coefficient would undergo a rapid change in an exponential model? A numerical example would be useful in illustrating your point.Since from the fossil record we can see that such rapid change is generally not the case, we should probably conclude that other factors play a part. If the fossil record shows that rapid change is not typically what is seen, then what is? It seems the other possibilities are slow change (as in original Darwinian evolution) or none (as would be the case in the unique special creation of each species). You earlier mentioned long periods of stasis as contradicting an exponential spread model. Wouldn’t a period of exponential spread serve as a reasonable explanation for why there is limited fossil evidence for the transitions from one stasis level to the following one?Because these "other factors" are not specifically contained in the model, it is my opinion that the model should be used only to demonstrate that rapid change may be possible depending on circumstances, ones that are typically suggested after the fact and hence are somewhat speculative Unless you can be specific enough to delineate these “other factors”, I have no basis for knowing if you have something that is of real import to the discussion. Additionally you mention “circumstances” without any elucidation. Putting forth broad generalities such as these sometimes serves as a smoke screen for a lack of concrete arguments. Please be specific and expand on what you are referring to.

[Psycho Dave]

I go away for a while, and return to see Bob B. making the same nonsensical, already disproven, and tired creationist claims.

Is he still using the same authorities for his answers -- himself?

[evseeker]

Phy,

Wouldn’t a period of exponential spread serve as a reasonable explanation for why there is limited fossil evidence for the transitions from one stasis level to the following one?

Gould thought so. However, this still leads unanswered the periods of stasis, which I understand is the usual case.

Using "lack of evidence" for evidence of rapid change is only compelling to those who already believe in a particular connection between the two situations.

Would you agree that your model does not explain stasis?

[ThePhy]

From evseeker:Using "lack of evidence" for evidence of rapid change is only compelling to those who already believe in a particular connection between the two situations. I don’t know about it being compelling, but lack of evidence seems like a perfectly natural indication that the change occurred rapidly. It seems that if there is a lack of intermediate fossils between two stasis levels, we can infer there were no transitionals, or that the change occurred quickly enough or in a small enough geographical area that we have not found (and may never find) the intermediate forms. Selecting the first option as the definitive answer is to abandon the search for a natural answer. There have been thousands of questions in science that went unanswered for many decades, yet eventually were answered. Why pick this question as one that is not given the same opportunity?Would you agree that your model does not explain stasis? I agree, but only because it was never intended to even address stasis. It was pointedly directed to showing the potential for exponential spread of beneficial mutations, and for showing that harmful mutations do not likewise spread exponentially. At a minimum for this to cause problems with stasis would require evidence that during the period of stasis there were beneficial mutations that should have spread, but didn’t, or that harmful mutations did spread in a stable population. If you cannot provide such, then my model and stasis are causally unrelated.

It should be remembered that transitions between stasis periods is primarily evidenced by clear changes in the fossil record. But presume there was a population of some animals, for example “proto-rabbits” that evidenced an extended period of stasis as shown by the fossils. Is this stasis proof that there were not exponential spreads of beneficial mutations in the rabbits during the stasis duration? Consider what the fossil record would show if the beneficial mutations occurred in the areas of a) improved eyesight, b) improved hearing, c) improved smell, d) improved ability to digest flora, or e) improved resistance to diseases. There could be multiple beneficial improvements in every one of these areas that could sweep through the population, yet leave almost no evidence in the fossil remains. To demand that the fossil record show evidence of every beneficial change is to impose limitations that are at variance with the requirements of biology.

In your first posting you commented on the excessive length of my prior post. Apparently your way of keeping posts short is to respond only to those ideas that you feel you can gain mileage on, and to ignore answering direct questions that I posed asking for clarification of things you have already said. If you cannot provide clarification on the ideas I asked about, then I will presume that was just empty hyperbole that you hoped to impress somebody with.

You were willing to question the realism of the selection coefficients I used in my example, but so far that is as deep as you have been willing to go in providing specific numerical examples or mathematical equations that support your position. You are not alone in this use of dialog in place of providing concrete counter examples to mine, this seems to be a norm for the opponents of evolution that have commented in this thread.

[ThePhy]

From Psycho Dave,I go away for a while, and return to see Bob B. making the same nonsensical, already disproven, and tired creationist claims.

Is he still using the same authorities for his answers -- himself?
You must have been gone for a while. For reasons not entirely clear, Bob is no longer a moderator, and as far as I can tell, not even active on this board at all any more.

[Mr. Ben]

I've been around here a while. Bob disappears for a while, but will usually turn up again filled with moxy and vinegar and post a half dozen or so incendiary anti-science content free posts. I think maybe they pay him to keep things lively here.

[ThePhy]

Evseeker, you seem to have abandoned this thread. You used some vague terms (“other factors” and “circumstances”) that I asked for clarification on, but you have not responded. Your initial thrust in this thread seemed to be directed towards showing that the exponential spread of good mutations conflicted with periods of stasis. Can you defend your claim, or is abandoning threads your preferred way to avoid admitting you were wrong?

[evseeker]

Phy,

I saw no further need to continue this thread, since it was obvious that your model was not an accurate depiction of the real world, as evidenced by the fossil record.

I assume that the reason that your model does not reflect reality is that there are factors other than the ones included in your model that operate in the "real" world. As to what they may be I leave that to the "experts" to explain.

[Mr. Ben]

I saw no further need to continue this thread, since it was obvious that your model was not an accurate depiction of the real world, as evidenced by the fossil record.

Hmmm.. what fossil record would that be? I've never heard you actually mention anything specific.

I assume that the reason that your model does not reflect reality is that there are factors other than the ones included in your model that operate in the "real" world. As to what they may be I leave that to the "experts" to explain.

But you've shown a pattern of ignoring the consensus of the experts when it seems to suit you without offering any real evidence for your own position.

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben

Hmmm.. what fossil record would that be? I've never heard you actually mention anything specific.
.

"Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." Robert Carroll, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32

[Mr. Ben]

Creationists I believe are fond of the seemingly authoritative quote, because it fits in with how they argue biblical doctrine. It's one scripture vs. another.

Unfortunately science is not done via quotes (much less dishonest quotations neatly sliced from their proper surrounding context), but via evidence. I will look up this quote as well and restore it's context if I can, but eventually evseeker you'll have to learn to forgo the dishonest quotes, and actually take a crack at the evidence itself.

I challenge you to find any modern fossil mammal in any mesozoic strata or lower. Or a trilobite in any marine sediments above the triassic.

Also, explain the timewise sequence of early gymnosperms and angiosperms in the carboniferous (former) and triassic-jurrassic (latter). Why should we find these sequence of species in these periods. Wouldn't this sequence both in the order of the strata, and the particular features of the species indicate that progressive change was taking place?

Or why not take a stab at the actual transitional fossils Carroll describes himself...

Creationists claim that there are no transitional forms. This claim is made over and over as if it were a mantra. The plain fact is that there are transitional sequences but they never discuss the details. This is a sequence of fossils which occupy the transition from fish to amphibian.

378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish.Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb.(Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508). This fish also had lungs and nostrils (Vorobyeva and Schulze, 1991, p.87) but also had gills. These things really looked like tetrapods until you see the fins. The teeth had infolding enamel which is identical to that of the earliest tetrapods. Unlike all fish but like the tetrapods, the Panderichthys have lost the dorsal and anal fins, leaving 4 fins in the place where legs would be in the Tetrapods.(Ahlberg and Milner, p.508). This contradicts Gish's claim that there is no fossil which shows loss of fins. (Gish, 1978, p. 78-79). Unlike fish, Panderichthys had a tail, like the amphibians with the fins stretched out along the top (Carroll, 1995, p. 389; Carroll, 1996, p. 19).

Panderichthyids and all other osteolepiform fish had a choana, a hole between the nasal passage and the mouth. This hole is missing in all other lobe-finned fish. It allowed air to pass from the nose into the mouth.. But Panderichthys also had external nostrils which were in the same position as those of the early tetrapods. (Schultze, 1991, p. 58). The lower jaws of panderichthyids had broad coronoids with fangs (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299)

370--Fish similar to Sauripterus. A very recent discovery in Pennsylvania by Daeschler and Shubin (1998, p. 133) is of a fish which has fins, which is not unusual, except that inside of the fins were 8 fingers attached in a similar way to those of the earliest amphibians (see below). This is obviously a transitional form between fins and legs. Interestingly, as we shall see some of the earliest amphibinas also had 8 digits on their hands.

368-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)

368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod. This creature also shows the coronoid fangs of the Panderichthys but they were also smaller than the panderichthyid fangs.

365-363 MYR -Hynerpeton-more advanced legs and pelvic girdle than Ichthyostega. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19) The coronoid fangs are not present. It lacked internal gills (Daeschler et al, 1994, p 641). There is no mention of feet having been found in Daeshler's report. The shape of the pectoral girdle implies both an aquatic and a terrestrial lifestyle.

363 MYR-Ichthyostega-- Is the first animals with feet but they are different than most tetrapod feet. They are much like Acanthostega but has 7 digits on his hindlimb. His legs were only good for being in water. They could not support his weight. (Coates and Clack, 1990, p. 67) These are half evolved legs since they have more digits than the normal tetrapod but fewer bony rays than the fish and they are unable to support the weight. This contradicts Gish's statement that there are no half-evolved feet. (Gish, 1978, p. 79) . Ichthyostega had external nasal openings and a choana like that of the Panderichthys (Schultze, 1990, p. 35). He has lungs and gills. His tail was long with fins above and below like that Panderichthys and Acanthostega. (Carroll, 1992, p. 46). His legs were tetrapod having humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (see diagram Carroll, 1992, p. 46).

363 MYR- Acanthostega- has four legs, lungs but still has internal gills. (Coates and Clack , 1991, p. 234) He has 8 digits on his front leg; seven on his back feet. (Carroll, 1995, p. 389) His legs could not support his weight either. (Coats and Clack, 1990, p. 66-67). Ahlberg (1991, p. 301) points out that the front legs were more fish-like than the back legs. He has fishlike lower arm bones (Coates and Clack 1990, p. 67). Once again, contrary to Gish (1978, p. 79), these are still half-evolved legs. He also retains a caudal fin (Coates, 1994, p. 175) and an elongated tail with fins stretched out along the top. (Carroll, 1995, p. 389). The stapes, the bone which eventually became part of the hearing apparatus in tetrapods was still used for ventilation of the gills (Clack,1989, p. 426).

340 MYR ago. Fully evolved amphibians. Amniator, Crassigyrinus, Loxommatoidea, Temnospondyl, Colosteidae, Acanthracosauria.

References

Carroll, Robert L. 1988, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,(New York: Freeman).

Carroll, Robert L.,1992. "The Primary Radiation of Terrestrial Vertebrates," Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1992: 20: 45-84.

Carroll, Robert, 1995, "Between Fish and Amphibian", Nature, 373: 389-390.

Carroll, Robert L., 1966, "Revealing the Patterns of Macroevolution", Nature, 381,pp. 19-20.

It is quite obvious that Carroll doesn't believe there are any transitional fossils... yeah right.

[ThePhy]

From Evseeker:I saw no further need to continue this thread, since it was obvious that your model was not an accurate depiction of the real world, as evidenced by the fossil record.

I assume that the reason that your model does not reflect reality is that there are factors other than the ones included in your model that operate in the "real" world. As to what they may be I leave that to the "experts" to explain. Maybe you are a bit on the slow side. Several times in this thread, including my discussions with you, I pointedly said that my model excluded significant factors that are operative in the real world. But the fact that there are other factors at play does not negate the concept of the exponential spread of beneficial mutations. I have never pretended anything above that point.

But you and I both know that your belated realization of the fact that my model does not include some significant factors in the real world is nothing but a smoke screen. You tried to show that stasis and my exponential spread model were in conflict. You are now seeking excuses to get out of admitting that you can’t defend that point.

You say that the evidence from the fossil record makes it obvious that my model is not a good real-world model. I am pretty sure this is a bluff on your part. To prove me wrong, please tell us in sufficient detail what evidence the fossil record presents and tell why that shows my model is not applicable to the real world. And trying to shove this off on to the “experts” is a pretty lame way to avoid this. After all, you are the one who said it was “obvious”. It doesn't take an expert to point out obvious things.

[evseeker]

Phy,
please tell us in sufficient detail what evidence the fossil record presents and tell why that shows my model is not applicable to the real world. And trying to shove this off on to the “experts” is a pretty lame way to avoid this. After all, you are the one who said it was “obvious”. It doesn't take an expert to point out obvious things.

Obviously I did not learn about the fossil record by going out to the field and finding out personally. Nobody really does this because there is too much evidence for one person to gather all by oneself.

So how do people find out? Obviously by reading the work of others. But who to trust, since there is not unanimous agreement?

My choice is to trust the conclusions of experts in the field. Sorry if that doesn't include you and others like you on this forum.

The experts say the record is primarily one of abrupt appearance without apparent ancestors, followed by millions of years of statis with little major change, followed by extinction. This pattern is not what your simple model predicts. Thus, I conclude that the model is too simple to be realistic, although I do agree that exponential change can be very effective provided that it continues without limiting factors. The evidence of statis would imply that some sort of limiting factors exist even if we are not able to specifically identify what they are.

Many things become "obvious" once they are pointed out. This the experts did and I now concur with their conclusion that the Darwinian concept, validated only by simple population genetics models like yours, is effectively dead in the water in the face of the evidence of the fossil record.

[Dimo]

Evseeker posted:

Obviously I did not learn about the fossil record by going out to the field and finding out personally. Nobody really does this because there is too much evidence for one person to gather all by oneself.

Dimo:

You may not have, others here have.

Evseeker posted:

So how do people find out? Obviously by reading the work of others. But who to trust, since there is not unanimous agreement?

Dimo:

There is not unanimous agreement on a lot of things in science. Do you deny that smoking cigarretes is bad for your health?

Evseeker posted:

My choice is to trust the conclusions of experts in the field.

Dimo:

This is your claim, but the evidence does not support your claim. You reject the vast majority of experts in the filed of paleobiology and geology. You find some quotes that are discussing the lack of gradualism in the fossil, while lending credence to the theory of PE, and yet you do not accept PE. You have challenged the current understanding of this subject. And yet you have offered only tired old arguments and illogical conclusions as an alternative. If your argument is better than that of the mainstream, then by all means lets hear it. So far all your claims are marred by your own incompetence and suplemented with your own strange and impotent form of bravado.

Evseeker posted:

Sorry if that doesn't include you and others like you on this forum.

Dimo:

And it certainly does not include you. So why would we take your word for it?

I certainly think that Mr. Ben, Stratnerd, and ThePhy have a better grasp of logic than you. Aye, and a more comprehensive understanding of the issues involved here as well.

Evseeker posted:

The experts say the record is primarily one of abrupt appearance without apparent ancestors, followed by millions of years of statis with little major change, followed by extinction. This pattern is not what your simple model predicts.

Dimo:

That is called PE. It reflects the climatic history of this planet. That being relatively long periods of climatic stability surrounded by relatively short periods of catastrophic events. Do you see how the environment leaves a mark of the geological strata? Perhaps, you missed that day in earth science class.

Evseeker posted:

Thus, I conclude that the model is too simple to be realistic, although I do agree that exponential change can be very effective provided that it continues without limiting factors.

Dimo:

Why didn't you just say this in the first place.

It took you all those words to tell us something we already knew.

Evseeker posted:

The evidence of statis would imply that some sort of limiting factors exist even if we are not able to specifically identify what they are.

Dimo:

That is called equilibrium. The same force that tends to stabilize the climate. Both water and heat seek equilibrium in the atmosphere. Because of the axis that the earth is on different parts heat up at different rates creating the weather systems we all know and love. Every once in a while meteor strikes the earth, or an earthquake occurrs, or (a) volcanoe(s) erupt(s)....These are catastrophic as well. The atmosphere creates catastrophic events hurricanes, tornadoes...but these tend to be less influential on the force of equilibrium. You might know this force as SLoT.

Evseeker posted:

Many things become "obvious" once they are pointed out. This the experts did and I now concur with their conclusion that the Darwinian concept, validated only by simple population genetics models like yours, is effectively dead in the water in the face of the evidence of the fossil record.

Dimo:

Whatever you say Evseeker. I do not believe that you concur with anything these professionals accept as accurate science. Perhaps you read into those quotes that the "Darwinian concept" is effectivley dead in the water. But many here have tried to point out where you are mistaken. Me thinks you are not really a seeker at all. I would say that you are a politician not a scientist. Your words are not descriptive they are slippery. Neither do you seem to be genuinely concerned with knowledge.

Your little soft shoe has been quite amusing.

[Mr. Ben]

Obviously I did not learn about the fossil record by going out to the field and finding out personally. Nobody really does this because there is too much evidence for one person to gather all by oneself.

Speak for yourself buddy. I've collected rocks/fossils on the moggolon rim, around the colorado plateau, and even done a bit of prospecting down in the deserts in AZ. Now the thing is that in the deserts we're mostly back in the proterozoic. Sure there are the occasional stromatolite fossils, and there have even been some trace fossils found, but no vertebrates or fish. The mogollon is a different story. It rises above the proterozoic strata in the lower portions of the state, and it goes progressively from the carboniferous all the way up to the triassic. Now you might think that the grand "flood" which supposedly created the grand canyon would have laid down some modern fossils near the base of the rim. Not so. We only find carboniferous fossils down there (as predicted by modern geology and evolution).. as we rise, we do not find unsorted flood fossils, but each set of fossils in their proper order, as we do everywhere else in the world.

If you're looking for trilobite species.. you know which layers to look between because trilobites only existed within a given time period in the geological record. Your not going to find them in most of the desert because the paleozoic strata has largely eroded away there (bits of it are still here and there on top of the granites of the desert though), and you're not going to find them up in utah in the grand staircase, because that's above the triassic strata found in northern az, and that's when the trilobites died out.

Are you beginning to get the picture? The fossil record as known generally in modern geology is not even close to being what you think it is. You are oblivious to facts that every geologist (even rank amateurs like me) simply knows from first hand experience.

[Mr. Ben]

Not to mention the amount of sediment that needs to be deposited to create the layers on the colorado plateau, or the amount that has been subsequently eroded in the lower portion of the state. I think the energy required to do both of these things in a year would be beyond that which would allow life to survive.

[evseeker]

Ben,

Now you might think that the grand "flood" which supposedly created the grand canyon would have laid down some modern fossils near the base of the rim.

My, my, two major misconceptions in one sentence!!!!

BTW, I prefer to listen to the statements of experts in the field.

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." Ernst Mayr, Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University, "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," 1988, pp.529-530)

[Mr. Ben]

The incorporation of the geographical dimension was of particular importance for the explanation of macroevolution. Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record. This is not surprising, since new evolutionary departures seem to take place almost invariably in localized isolated populations that are not apt to leave a fossil record (Mayr 1954; 1963; Essay 25). Therefore, a purely vertical approach is unable to solve the seeming contradiction. -- Mayr, _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology_, Harvard University Press, 1988, p. 529-530.

What you posted as a broad statement about evolution in GENERAL is actually a particular statement about the a particular aspect of the fossil sequence.

i.e. "The incorporation of the geographical dimension was of particular importance for the explanation of macroevolution."

It certainly sounds as if Mayr is talking about a particular quality of the fossil record in that it does not in any one point show a vertical progression, but a progression over fossils distributed in many locations in progressively ascending strata. So this passage isn't about evolution in general but about a particular point, but of course you couldn't tell that by the way the creationists have omitted the surrounding context.

This is what is meant by "out of context" dishonest quotes.

[Mr. Ben]

Anyone know the link to the "creationist" misquote page. The page where every know creationist is quoted as accepting evolution? It's really pretty funny to hear Gish, Ham, Behe, Wells, and the rest quoted in the same way they misquote others.

[Stratnerd]

Seeker,

My, my, two major misconceptions in one sentence!!!!
Request #5 Since we all seem unaware.... What are the expectations from a single global flood ca. 6000 years ago?

[evseeker]

Mr. Ben,

It certainly sounds as if Mayr is talking about a particular quality of the fossil record in that it does not at any one point [geographic location?] show a vertical progression, but a progression over fossils distributed in many locations in progressively ascending strata. So this passage isn't about evolution in general but about a particular point, but of course you couldn't tell that by the way the creationists have omitted the surrounding context.

I agree that Mayr is saying that the fossil record does not at any one geographic location show a vertical progression (as a general rule and when talking about major transformations).

Although it is possible to explain why this might be so we might wonder that this is so common and why exceptions are so rare. Certainly this is not what one automatically thinks of when one reads Darwin or most textbooks on evolution.

One idea, advanced by Gould and others, is that major transformations do not normally occur in large populations, but instead occur mainly in small populations where changes occur so rapidly that no clear record of them is left in the fossil layers.

This is an interesting idea, but how can we be sure that this is a sound idea?

Perhaps we could look at population genetics to see if this science can validate the concept. What do you think, Phy? Does the science of population genetics predict that major changes will be seen primarily in small populations (as opposed to large ones) where they occur rapidly?

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
Seeker,


Request #5 Since we all seem unaware.... What are the expectations from a single global flood ca. 6000 years ago?

All in good time. First I would like to establish firm agreement here regarding what the evidence of the geographic layers and the fossils within them actually is. Only then can we see whether one theory or another does a better job of explaining the evidence.

[Stratnerd]

You also need to present non-naive expections about the fossil record. Evolution claims that intermediates existed but not necessarily are represented in the fossil record because the fossil record is extremely imperfect - and always will be.

[ThePhy]

From Evseeker:… who to trust, since there is not unanimous agreement?

My choice is to trust the conclusions of experts in the field. Sorry if that doesn't include you and others like you on this forum.
Don’t be sorry. If you had accredited me the status of expert, then your judgment would have seriously been called into question. But I am curious about these “experts” you have referred to in a number of posts. If you feel they are recognized and credible in their fields, can you provide their names and qualifications?The experts say the record is primarily one of abrupt appearance without apparent ancestors, followed by millions of years of statis (sic) with little major change, followed by extinction. This pattern is not what your simple model predicts. Thus, I conclude that the model is too simple to be realistic, although I do agree that exponential change can be very effective provided that it continues without limiting factors. The evidence of statis (sic) would imply that some sort of limiting factors exist even if we are not able to specifically identify what they are. Here is a good example of what I just referred to. I am well aware of the idea of punctuated equilibrium as developed by Eldridge and Gould. But the periods of stasis (note you misspelled that word twice in the above paragraph – why do you keep doing that? That word is much more common than some names, such Prigogine, and should be easy to remember.) are not predicated on no “apparent ancestors”. The only group I am aware of that posits the rise of a major group without any preceding ancestors are Creationists, so I presume it is from within their ranks you have found the “experts” on which you rely. Am I right? If not, then please identify these scientists that hold this scientifically unorthodox idea of no apparent ancestors.Many things become "obvious" once they are pointed out. This the experts did and I now concur with their conclusion that the Darwinian concept, validated only by simple population genetics models like yours, is effectively dead in the water in the face of the evidence of the fossil record. Ouch, you caught me. According to you the evidence in the fossil record shows extinction after stasis. The evidence shows abrupt appearance. The evidence shows no apparent ancestors. And my model missed these.

In desperation to salvage what little credibility you have left me, I offer the following. My model focused on two central ideas - showing whether or not beneficial mutations can spread exponentially, and harmful ones do not. I struggled for a long time on how to include extinction factors in the analysis of harmful and beneficial mutations, but I failed. I just couldn’t figure out what coefficients to adjust to show the global impact of an asteroid, such as caused huge extinctions 65 million years ago. I also failed to figure what harmful gene caused the ice ages and the extinctions they resulted in. The idea of showing how the devastation caused by a new disease ravaging a population just didn’t fit well in my harmful genes mathematics. And when a new non-native species find its way into an ecosystem and quickly displaces the native population, well, I just couldn’t figure out which beneficial (or harmful?) gene to blame.

Since this failing of my model ignored these aspects of the real world, I really am curious. If I were to carefully explain to you how the doorknob and latch on the front door of your house work, would you reject that explanation because it failed to include how the thermostat senses the temperature in your house? Since my doorknob explanation missed that then it is obvious the explanation has no application to a real house.

I took your advice. I had my auto mechanic explain the accelerator on my car, but I blew him off since his explanation didn’t say anything about the brakes. No way could what he said be true on real cars, because it totally missed the way windshield wipers work.

[evseeker]

Phy,

But I am curious about these “experts” you have referred to in a number of posts. If you feel they are recognized and credible in their fields, can you provide their names and qualifications?

Spare me. ;) Mayr, Gould, Stanley, Raup, etc.? I purposely chose some of the most famous evolutionists going.

If you don't know look them up yourself. The names are quite familiar to most here and anyone who follows evolutionary writings.

Sorry about the misspelling. I will try to remember in the future.

[Mr. Ben]

Spare me. Mayr, Gould, Stanley, Raup, etc.? I purposely chose some of the most famous evolutionists going.

evseekers idea of the "experts" are really just small snippets of text peeled off of creationist websites where noted scientists are quoted out of context.

He doesn't like it when the full text surrounding the quotes is printed.

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben


evseekers idea of the "experts" are really just small snippets of text peeled off of creationist websites where noted scientists are quoted out of context.

I am glad that someone here recognizes that my quotes come from "noted scientists".

He doesn't like it when the full text surrounding the quotes is printed.

Actually I love it when people try (and so far have failed) to demonstrate that I "quote out of context". If any of my quotations actually are unfair I would like to see this demonstrated and if correct I will then remove that one from my rather extensive list. I do not wish to misrepresent anything just to win a debate. There is plenty of evidence to support most of the positions I take, even though some are admittedly speculative. I hope I make it clear the difference between these two categories.

I honestly do seek for the truth.

BTW, whenever I quote from a noted scientist I do not wish to imply that they have abandoned "the faith", for there are many alternative explanations and reasons from many fields why they still firmly believe in evolution. I simply want to try to restore some balance in the debate because some here tend to oversimplify and exagerate in their zeal to "win".

Each posted quotation is aimed at only a narrow point that needs to be highlighted. It is not intended to be some kind of "silver bullet" for "slaying the dragon". ;)

[Mr. Ben]

The problem with your quotes is that they are dishonest. They are intentionally taken from their original context in such a way as to change the meaning of the statements. I've already posted one example where you have taken Mayr out of context and inflated his discussion on the geographic distribution of fossil sequences into something else.

The second problem with your quotes is that they are quotes. They are not evidence at all. If science was done by quote bashing, it would be properly called religion. Let's leave the quoting of verses where it belongs, in bible class, and return to the actual substance of science, which is the evidence itself. If you can put forward any evidence which supports your positions on evolution, they would be far more convincing that a couple of dishonest heavily stilted quotations.

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
The problem with your quotes is that they are dishonest. They are intentionally taken from their original context in such a way as to change the meaning of the statements. I've already posted one example where you have taken Mayr out of context and inflated his discussion on the geographic distribution of fossil sequences into something else.

I have already dealt with your complaint and shown why it is invalid. The objective of the quote had to do with what the record actually looks like, not what a rationalization that would explain it might be. The rationalization was omitted because we know that rationalizations are always possible, but that is another matter from what the evidence actually is.

The second problem with your quotes is that they are quotes. They are not evidence at all. If science was done by quote bashing, it would be properly called religion. Let's leave the quoting of verses where it belongs, in bible class, and return to the actual substance of science, which is the evidence itself. If you can put forward any evidence which supports your positions on evolution, they would be far more convincing that a couple of dishonest heavily stilted quotations.

I reject your complaint on the grounds that we are interested in the totality of the fossil record and it would be impossible to cover the close to a million species found there, not to mention the many locations from which data has been obtained. Therefore we are forced to rely on expert opinion, which is what I am doing.

It is absolutely futile to cite specific cases in an argument over the "typical" pattern found in the fossil record.

[ThePhy]

From Evseeker:Actually I love it when people try (and so far have failed) to demonstrate that I "quote out of context". If any of my quotations actually are unfair I would like to see this demonstrated and if correct I will then remove that one from my rather extensive list. I do not wish to misrepresent anything just to win a debate. There is plenty of evidence to support most of the positions I take, even though some are admittedly speculative. I hope I make it clear the difference between these two categories.

I honestly do seek for the truth. With only minor changes this claim from Evseeker is identical to claims that I have seen on the Internet made by those who feel that Christianity is based on a miserable excuse of a book that purports to be divinely authored. The have amassed a list of things they feel are errors and contradictions in the Bible, and seem to enjoy the logical contortions some Biblical advocates will resort to in their apologetics. The bible bashers all the while wave the banner of truth, and wonder how the believing masses can be so completely deceived. When presented with something that is a reasonable explanation for an alleged Bible discrepancy, they simply counter with a dozen more questionable passages they have found that further proves in their minds the silliness of the book. The exchange is never really looking at the underlying message, it is a public show to discredit a book they have already passed final judgment on. Just like Evseeker, they do seek for the truth, and if every single passage in the Bible is not satisfactorily explained, they have feel justified in concluding that its author is the author of confusion and error.

[evseeker]

I am always encouraged when the only reply a critic can come up with is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the facts of the particular case under question: my position must be very strong indeed. ;).

[Mr. Ben]

I reject your complaint on the grounds that we are interested in the totality of the fossil record and it would be impossible to cover the close to a million species found there, not to mention the many locations from which data has been obtained. Therefore we are forced to rely on expert opinion, which is what I am doing.

You are misstating the opinions of the experts, and you are intentionally avoiding the evidence.

It is absolutely futile to cite specific cases in an argument over the "typical" pattern found in the fossil record.

(chuckle) Yeah, of course we all know that evidence is not built on the facts of numerous specific cases documented in academic journals or peer reviewed papers. Reality is defined soley by out of context quotes posted on creationist web sites.

Okay evseeker, close your eyes and stick your head in the sand. Repeat to your self "I will not look at any evidence! I will not look at any evidence!" I'm sure creationists can pull a few hundred more dishonest quotations from the scientific literature to satisfy you're need for comfort in your denial.

[Mr. Ben]

Phys.. the only difference is that scientific papers, popular books on science, and the rest were never advertised as inerrant. The Bible, on the other hand, is advertised as such. A single clear error in the Bible invalidates this claim, and there are numerous examples of errors in the Bible on logical, mathematical, factual, and historical matters.

Does that invalidate the Bible as the Word of God? No. Does it make those comitted to Biblical inerrancy look silly? Why yes it does.

[ThePhy]

From Evseeker:I am always encouraged when the only reply a critic can come up with is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the facts of the particular case under question: my position must be very strong indeed You may interpret as a personal attack if you like. It could also be looked with the idea of how to differentiate your approach so it did not so closely parallel that of those who refuse to accept the Bible. You made the choice to take it personally. It was not intended that way, it was a truthful observation that can easily be substantiated. Had my intent be to make a personal attack on you, I would have come up with something better than this.

How were you able to determine that it was “the only reply” I could have come up with? You really don’t know that at all, but in saying so anyway you try for all the mileage you can get out of a posting, even if you have go a bit beyond the truth.

The thing that caught my attention and prompted my reply was the apparent need for you to beat your own drum, just as you do once again in the assertion you offer above. When someone starts telling how honest and correct they are, it is time to make very sure your wallet is safe.

I have not responded to the “expert” quotes you offer, because I am familiar with the overall thrust of many of your expert’s works. The inference that you seem to want to derive from the quotes is to cast doubt on the credibility of evolution, which is in direct opposition to the views held by those same experts. Would you be willing to state that the experts you have drawn on feel that evolution is incorrect? I am aware that they may not agree with the gradualism that Darwin initially expected would be revealed in the fossil record. But do they think that, as currently understood, evolution is a theory that is likely to be shown to be incorrect (not just in need of fine tuning, but critically flawed)? To make sure we both understand what is included in what I will call the current belief of science on evolution, I offer the following definition:Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.
(courtesy of the National Center for Science Education) You made the claim that you have amassed a long list of quotes (presumably showing the problems in evolution) from the experts. That in itself is indicative of a distinct level of dedication to collecting such quotes.

Having expended the amount of time and effort that you have in researching evolution and collecting these quotes, have you concurrently collected a list of credible reasons for thinking evolution might be true? If you do not have such a list, either you could find not such reasons (meaning evolution is bankrupt as a credible theory), or your claim to seeking “truth” is a bit tainted. Truth, from a scientific perspective, involves an impartial evaluation of the evidence both for and against an idea. You have the “con” list, can you identify anything that is in the “pro” category?

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
Phys.. the only difference is that scientific papers, popular books on science, and the rest were never advertised as inerrant. The Bible, on the other hand, is advertised as such. A single clear error in the Bible invalidates this claim, and there are numerous examples of errors in the Bible on logical, mathematical, factual, and historical matters.

Does that invalidate the Bible as the Word of God? No. Does it make those comitted to Biblical inerrancy look silly? Why yes it does.

I don't know whether the Bible is "inerrant" or not, but it does seem to be the most errorfree human document I know about, particularly if one is talking about comparable time frames.

I keep hearing this "numerous errors" thing all the time, but when challenged to deliver critics never seem to come up with anything of real substance.

[evseeker]

Originally posted by ThePhy

[quote]I have not responded to the “expert” quotes you offer, because I am familiar with the overall thrust of many of your expert’s works. The inference that you seem to want to derive from the quotes is to cast doubt on the credibility of evolution, which is in direct opposition to the views held by those same experts. Would you be willing to state that the experts you have drawn on feel that evolution is incorrect?

Sorry youy missed it, but here is what I said a few postings ago:

"BTW, whenever I quote from a noted scientist I do not wish to imply that they have abandoned "the faith", for there are many alternative explanations and reasons from many fields why they still firmly believe in evolution. I simply want to try to restore some balance in the debate because some here tend to oversimplify and exagerate in their zeal to win."

I am aware that they may not agree with the gradualism that Darwin initially expected would be revealed in the fossil record. But do they think that, as currently understood, evolution is a theory that is likely to be shown to be incorrect (not just in need of fine tuning, but critically flawed)? To make sure we both understand what is included in what I will call the current belief of science on evolution, I offer the following definition: You made the claim that you have amassed a long list of quotes (presumably showing the problems in evolution) from the experts. That in itself is indicative of a distinct level of dedication to collecting such quotes.

Having expended the amount of time and effort that you have in researching evolution and collecting these quotes, have you concurrently collected a list of credible reasons for thinking evolution might be true? If you do not have such a list, either you could find not such reasons (meaning evolution is bankrupt as a credible theory), or your claim to seeking “truth” is a bit tainted. Truth, from a scientific perspective, involves an impartial evaluation of the evidence both for and against an idea. You have the “con” list, can you identify anything that is in the “pro” category?

The list of quotations I have accumulated are not inherently "for" or "against" evolution, they are simply statements regarding the status of essentially neutral evidence.

I would agree that the ideal of science is to be impartial, but I do not believe that this ideal is ever achieved, and is certainly very far from being achieved on forums such as this one.

So if you are asking me whether I am impartial, the answer is clearly no. I wasn't when I was an evolutionist and I am not now since I have discovered the many weak points that caused me to be skeptical in the first place.

However, as I keep repeating seemingly endlessly, I am interested in finding what the fossil record is really like, and the best way to do that in the limited time available to me is to rely on the opinions of the experts in the field. Although they continue to believe in evolution I also believe they are honest people and their opinions about the actual evidence can be relied on. This is why I distinguish between the evidence itself as opposed to opinions on how the evidence got the way it is.

[Stratnerd]

I am interested in finding what the fossil record is really like, and the best way to do that in the limited time available to me is to rely on the opinions of the experts in the field

Quoting is not data! And expert opinions are really meaningless since you can line up quotes that are totally contrary to each other even from the same author.

If you are really interested go read reviews of what's been done.

[Dimo]

Evseeker posted:

So if you are asking me whether I am impartial, the answer is clearly no. I wasn't when I was an evolutionist and I am not now since I have discovered the many weak points that caused me to be skeptical in the first place.

However, as I keep repeating seemingly endlessly, I am interested in finding what the fossil record is really like, and the best way to do that in the limited time available to me is to rely on the opinions of the experts in the field.

Dimo:

It is odd that you would choose not to accept evolution when you really are not sure what the fossil record really is like. If you don't know what the fossil record is "really like" now then you must not have known when you were an evolutionist. Why would you be so certain of anything, if you don't have a good understanding of the evidence involved? Was there something other than your less than comprehensive understanding of the fossil record that was compelling enough to change your paradigm?

[Mr. Ben]

I wasn't when I was an evolutionist...

Probably like Bob B. was an "evolutionist".

Evseeker.. why do you hide from the evidence?

Talk origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org

Search pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

The fossil record:
http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/
http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160sp98/12_toland.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/hominid.htm
http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html
http://www.palaeos.com/Ecology/Biota/index.html
http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm

Each of these pages provide REFERENCES. What this means is that they have information which can take you to the original research, fossils, and facts that they mention. You can follow everything back as far as you'd like.

Constrast that to creationist web sites, where they would prefer that you don't look behind the curtains.

And as for your claims about the supposed "randomness" of the fossil record.. well.. prove it. If the fossil record is not rigidly in the evolutionary order from bottom layers to top as I've claimed, then you should be able to show where human fossils have been found below or in the same layers as dinosaurs. At least you should be able to find a few places where fossils from different geological ages are mixed together naturally. All we ever find are the same fossils in layers in the same vertical ordering. Proterozoic, paleozoic, mesozoic, cretaceous. We never find fossils out of order in this sequence.

[evseeker]

Dimo,

I guess one could say that I was an evolutionist because evryone I knew in college was an evolutionist, including some professors who openly made fun of creationists.

But that was before I really knew very much about it.

As far as Christianity is concerned I think it is fair to say that I was a Christian because when growing up everyone I knew was a Christian, except some childhood friends of mine who were Jewish.

But that was before I knew very much about Christianity.

I stopped being a Christian in college because everyone I knew did also.

Again that was before I knew very much about Christianity.

But that was also before I really grew up and started thinking for myself and started believing in things because I took the time to look into them for myself.

Now that we have the internet it is possible to get information that was previously difficult to obtain. I never knew there were problems with evolution, because none of my textbooks ever mentioned any, and you certainly don't hear about them by watching PBS, which is nevertheless my favorite and also practically the only TV channel I ever watch..

[Stratnerd]

I never knew there were problems with evolution, because none of my textbooks ever mentioned any

If you check out most universities they have Ecology and Evolution Departments, which means these are areas of study, which means we haven't figured it all out.

Does it mean all those professors are headed in the wrong direction? Again, if the fossil record suggested that modern forms were jumbled in with their supposed ancestors in all layers, particularly the oldest then I would tell them that something was fishy. Is this the case?

DATA.... GIVE US SOME DATA

[Dimo]

Evseeker, after reading your last post, the last bit of confidence I had in your judgement has evaporated. Good luck with your whimsical search.

"You can't stop us on the road to freedom
You can't keep us cause our eyes can see
Men with insight, men in granite
Knights in armour intent on chivalry"

George Ivan Morrison

[Mr. Ben]

...started thinking for myself...

Why won't you consider any evidence then?

It seems that your quest has been merely ping ponging between who you believe.. a reasonable understanding and awareness of the evidence seems to never have been part of it.

I always thought thinking for yourself meant carefully examining and then weighing the evidence for yourself, not just blindly accepting what somebody else tells you.

[evseeker]

It would take a lifetime to examine all the evidence. Better to rely on people whoi have already done this and reserve one's time for judging what the evidence means.

[Stratnerd]

It would take a lifetime to examine all the evidence.

are you saying that you can't find any reviews?

[Mr. Ben]

It would take a lifetime to examine all the evidence. Better to rely on people whoi have already done this and reserve one's time for judging what the evidence means.

Give me a break. Is that the best excuse you can come up with for running away from any discussion involving actual facts?

You adamantly refuse to look at any evidence whatsoever, and instead rely on quotes taken out of context from creationist websites. Yet you don't even bother to read any of the books or papers from which these quotes were summarily ripped? These are the real experts speaking directly with the original meaning of their words left whole and unedited and in proper context.

You aren't even sure any of the quotes you use as "expert opinion" are even saying what you think they're saying because you haven't read the original sources.

I think it's quite clear to all of us now how diligently you "seek" for truth about "ev"olution.

The answer is: not very.

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
Give me a break. Is that the best excuse you can come up with for running away from any discussion involving actual facts?

My approach is to rely on experts to describe the facts. However I reserve the right to separate a discussion of the evidence from the discussion of their theory of how the evidence got the way they describe. It is simply a matter of separating fact from conjecture.

You adamantly refuse to look at any evidence whatsoever, and instead rely on quotes taken out of context from creationist websites.[/quotes]

When one wishes to determine the pattern of the fossil record it is necessary to consider ALL the evidence, not merely a few specific cases.

Many of my quotations were taken from the original source. You have yet to demonstrate any that were taken out of context. If you can demonstrate that any are, I will be happy to delete it from my list, and further I will attempt to encourage others to do the same. I seek only the truth.

[quote] Yet you don't even bother to read any of the books or papers from which these quotes were summarily ripped? These are the real experts speaking directly with the original meaning of their words left whole and unedited and in proper context.

You presume too much.

You aren't even sure any of the quotes you use as "expert opinion" are even saying what you think they're saying because you haven't read the original sources.

Again, you presume too much.

I think it's quite clear to all of us now how diligently you "seek" for truth about "ev"olution.

The answer is: not very.

You are not being very "scientific" by jumping to conclusions about things you can not possibly know are true about me. This only validates my comment to Stratnerd that the subfield of dealing with past events may be the least objective of all of the subfields: emotion seems to be alive and well.

[Stratnerd]

My approach is to rely on experts to describe the facts

even about radiometric decay, age of the earth, etc etc that aren't in line with your religious convictions? what then?

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
even about radiometric decay, age of the earth, etc etc that aren't in line with your religious convictions? what then?

I don't see what radioactive decay has to do with religious convictions. I became skeptical about the method after reading about some of its many problems and especially the practice of rejecting readings that did not fit expectations.

[Stratnerd]

I don't see what radioactive decay has to do with religious convictions.

Creationism is Biblical literalism and is a religious not a scientific explanation for the world. It might be consistent with observations but it did not arise from them. Isn't Genesis based on revelation to Moses and not Moses the geologist?

But the experts, believe that radiometric dating works. So are you picking and choosing what experts you listen too?

[Mr. Ben]

I became skeptical about the method after reading about some of its many problems and especially the practice of rejecting readings that did not fit expectations.

This is incorrect. Readings are rejected because the methodology of isochron dating requires them to be rejected. Readings are rejected when the samples do not form an isochron when plotted (i.e. they are contaminated), they are too young to be dated, they do not contain enough decay products to be measured, or they are from minerals that produce random dates.

Of course evseeker is spouting the typical creationist nonsense on dating as well. But evseeker, why is it that with these "unreliable" dating mechanisms, all of the dates from a variety of different isotopes with differing decay rates each converge on the same consistent set of dates for both the geological strata as well as the age of the earth. Don't you think that's rather absolutely miraculous, given the supposed "unreliability" of these dating mechanisms?

And if decay rates had changed in the past, the dates for different isotopes would not match eachother unless each decay rate for each isotope was changed for each isotope such that it would "appear" to produce the same dates today. This would be similar to the "God creating starlight in transit so that it would look like the universe is old" argument. God would have to have precisely tuned the decay rates of each isotope so that they would each look like they'd been consistent with eachother in the past.

[evseeker]

Mr. Ben,
Please describe to all us ignoramuses how radioactive methods are used to date sedimentary layers.

[evseeker]

Originally posted by Stratnerd


Creationism is Biblical literalism and is a religious not a scientific explanation for the world. It might be consistent with observations but it did not arise from them. Isn't Genesis based on revelation to Moses and not Moses the geologist?

But the experts, believe that radiometric dating works. So are you picking and choosing what experts you listen too?

Since you seem to have some misconceptions about radioactive dating, perhaps it is time for us to listen to what the experts actually say about it.

Perhaps I can help out here. ;)

[Stratnerd]

fire away.... but please present some data

[ThePhy]

From Evseeker:Please describe to all us ignoramuses how radioactive methods are used to date sedimentary layers. Interesting that you specifically identify a type of rock that is by nature composed of mixtures of pieces of previous rock layers, and therefore composed of rock pieces that may span many time periods. It turns out there are limited ways to radioactively date some sedimentary layers, provided at the time the layer was formed one of a limited number of accompanying minerals that are known to solidify as part of the sedimentation process are present. For example, see this site. (http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm)
But in general, radioactive dating is problematic in sediment.

Why did you specifically pick on one of the types of rock that is least amenable to radioactive dating?

[evseeker]

Originally posted by ThePhy
From Evseeker: Interesting that you specifically identify a type of rock that is by nature composed of mixtures of pieces of previous rock layers, and therefore composed of rock pieces that may span many time periods. It turns out there are limited ways to radioactively date some sedimentary layers, provided at the time the layer was formed one of a limited number of accompanying minerals that are known to solidify as part of the sedimentation process are present. For example, see this site. (http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm)
But in general, radioactive dating is problematic in sediment.

Why did you specifically pick on one of the types of rock that is least amenable to radioactive dating?

Thank you for finishing making a point that would not have been accepted by many here if it had been made by me in the direct manner that you have used.

[Stratnerd]

Seeker,

I think we all know here that sedimentary layers cannot be directly radiometrically dated. ALL of us would have accepted that statement.

[ThePhy]

From Evseeker,Thank you for finishing making a point that would not have been accepted by many here if it had been made by me in the direct manner that you have used.And you didn’t answer my question. Why did you specify sediment (the weakest kid on the block) to pick on? Best you can do?

[Mr. Ben]

Since you seem to have some misconceptions about radioactive dating, perhaps it is time for us to listen to what the experts actually say about it.

All quotes which are free of evidence or data will be summarily ignored. We're not interested in more quotemined out of context nonsense.

We want you to supply specific evidence as to WHY radiometric dating is supposedly flawed, or documentation from reliable sites, perhaps peer reviewed studies.

Bear in mind that some of us know how radiometric dating actually works.

[shima]

>>Request #5 Since we all seem unaware.... What are the expectations from a single global flood ca. 6000 years ago? <<

Now, evseeker, are you going to respond to this question or not?

I can take a stab at what we would expect from a 6000 year old flood:

1) No organism alive today would be older than 6000 years, unless it was on board Noah's Ark

2) All organism alive today are descendant from animals that were onboard the Ark, including the much more isolated forms like on the Galapagois Islands or the lifeforms indigenous to Australia/New Zealand

3) No civilisation would survive the flood, so we expect ALL archeological evidence to confirm that ALL civilisations were destroyed on the same time.

4) All civilisation alive today would NOT be any older than 6000 years.

5) Structures that were around during the flood would have signs of SEVERE water damage, because of torrential rain AND currents within the 8000 meter high sea.

These are just some of the things we would expect to see.

Now, since NONE of these leftovers were actually found, we would expect this to DISPROVE the theory that a world-wide flood occured roughly 6000 years ago that covered the entire earth with water.

[missedmarks]

Of course the whole theory is based on 400 years or so of the defense of a Roman Catholic Bishop who determined the earths age by counting names in the Bible.

Would it really hurt that much to admit that while the Bible has the questions of Life, Love and what God has planned for the human race answered, perhaps it is not the absolute best source for Geological data? I think God was answering the quesition "Why are you here" not "What is the chronolgoical age of the planet earth"

I thing God laughs pretty good and hard when we set up entire institutions to try and prove the book of Genesis is literaly correct

[shima]

missedmarks:
>>Would it really hurt that much to admit that while the Bible has the questions of Life, Love and what God has planned for the human race answered, perhaps it is not the absolute best source for Geological data? <<

Well, I agree that the Bible is not the best source for obtaining the age of the earth, nor for a geological account of the history of this earth.

It does provide awnsers about Life and Love and Why we are here. Wether they are the CORRECT awnsers is something else entirely, and this assumes that there indeed ARE correct awnsers to the questions.

I personally don't believe that there are CORRECT awnsers to these questions in the sense like a normal question. There are biological awnsers to these questions though: you are here because your parents had sex. Your goal in life is to procreate as often as possible while still ensuring the survival of those offspring. Love is an emotion that will help you accomplish that.

Ofcourse, humans being spiritual beings (in that they have a consciousness and what is often described as a soul) these awnsers somehow seem very unfullfilling, which is what most people discover when they reach about 50-55 years of age. However, most people don't realise that society cannot awnser these questions for you, you have to find your OWN awnsers to these questions.

I have had a shot at mine. So far, I've become pretty happy with my life (and trust me: it wasn't always nice) and now I've made it my goal to make other people happy. I'm not keeping love just for myself, but I try to give it away to those people open to receive it. And no, I'm not talking about romantic love here.

[Skeptic19]

Originally posted by missedmarks
Of course the whole theory is based on 400 years or so of the defense of a Roman Catholic Bishop who determined the earths age by counting names in the Bible.

When I was in Sunday School, before I realized how juvenile my teachers were, I repeated the calculation and got essentially the same results as Bishop Ussher. It's not that tough to do. The calculated Bible date is not what is in dispute, it's the credibility of such a date now that the scientists know how old the Earth really is.

Would it really hurt that much to admit that while the Bible has the questions of Life, Love and what God has planned for the human race answered, perhaps it is not the absolute best source for Geological data? I think God was answering the quesition "Why are you here" not "What is the chronolgoical age of the planet earth"

I disagree. It was a very important event in my life to discover that the Bible was so far wrong in the OT, because if it was wrong about something like that then why should we believe anything that it says, especially myths like a person who claimed to be God and who rose from the dead?

I thing God laughs pretty good and hard when we set up entire institutions to try and prove the book of Genesis is literaly correct

If you want to believe something that silly go ahead and be my guest.

[shima]

Its very hard to believe that the "Word of God" could be so far wrong concerning the age of the earth. It rather rules out the literal interpretation of some parts of the bible, raising the question what parts we SHOULD take literally.

After all, if the NT is anything to go by, "Jezus is the Son of God, and is God" should be taken literally, because that is what the Christian belief is about. But what happens if we don't take it literally, meaning that Jezus' words were not that literal, but rather meant the following:

-What I teach about life and love and humanity is "true". Following my teachings will make you live a happy life (Thus, entering "heaven" through Jezus) and believing that Jezus is God will make you follow his teachings (or, at least he thought that those believers would). So, it could be that he knew full well that he was NOT God, but that he said so because he knew full well that his teachings were important. If he didn't proclaim Godship, perhaps people would NEVER have listened to him.