Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Sigh.
Great_ape | Quote | | If you are referring to neutral theory, neutral theory provides a means to statistically evaluate claims for selection by providing a null hypothesis. A multitude of examples of positive selection on characters are published and continue to be published. Neutral theory has cemented the case for positive molecular selection. |
I meant to warn Great_ape about the inevitable conflation of the term "Darwinism". But, alas, it was too late.
scordova | Quote | | A multitude of papers is no substitute for the truth. These papers are being presented as science when they are merely assertions and circularly reasoned arguments. |
Just hand-waving. Great_ape is referring to numerous published observational studies that follow from theoretical predictions, fruitful sources of new hypotheses. You also ignored the point about the null-hypothesis.
scordova | Quote | Policing such large regions of conserved regions incurs a cost and is inconsistent with the population resources available.
See Nachman’s U-Paradox to get an idea of why this is prohibitive. |
Do you mean Michael Nachman who recently published Detecting selection at the molecular level, Human Adaptive Evolution and The genetic basis of adaptation?
scordova | Quote | “What’s most mysterious is that we don’t know any molecular mechanism that would demand conservation like this,” Haussler says.
No mechanism? Not even natural selection! |
A Gap!! A Gap!! Call the ID Squad before they fill it!
Is that David Haussler of Haussler Labs who published that fascinating study on rapid evolution of the human brain? Gee, it's been nearly three years since Haussler et al. published Ultraconserved Elements in the Human Genome. I wonder if anyone has followed up on that... Dembski? Behe? Oh well. Just a couple of bioinformaticians. You know. Math.
Signatures of adaptive evolution within human non-coding sequence : Although the amount of the human genome that harbours functional, yet non-coding, elements remains ill-determined, models of sequence evolution are unanimous in predicting at least as much functional non-coding sequence as protein-coding material in the genome...
(Actually, take a look at the list of articles that cite Ultraconserved. The mark of a good paper is the number of new studies it sparks.)
scordova | Quote | | There is always the obligatory salute to Darwin. I will quote Kimura himself (who makes the obligatory salute to Darwin, while simultaneously refuting Darwin)... This is double speak by Kimura, but even then it betrays a significant truth. |
In other words, you are calling Kimura a liar, but you want to somehow cite his research.
In any case, you are conflating two uses of the word "Darwinism". Darwinism can mean the Theory of Evolution generally, or among neutralists it often refers to natural selection. No scientist of note, not even Darwin, believes that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution.
scordova | Quote | | The double speak phrase is “neutral in natural selection.” If it’s neutral, it’s not in natural selection. |
The actual phrase is "almost neutral in natural selection". The difference is very important, and a subject of some scientific interest with regards to Nearly Neutral Theory. It also eliminates the so-called double-speak. As Great_ape points out, neutral evolution is the null-hypothesis with natural selection being a measurable effect.
scordova | Quote | | At this stage we can only disagree, but the time will come when one of us will be shown wrong. |
Thank God It's Wife of Wóden Day!!! That day has come and gone.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
