Joe G
Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2014,12:30) | Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,12:09) | I take the side that the theory of evolution posits the processes are blind, mindless and undirected, ie accumulating genetic accidents.
Quote | Is that your definition of blind-watchmaker evolution? yes or no? |
That is the definition gleaned from the literature of evolutionary textbooks and evolutionary biologists. And if you knew anything you would know that.
|
As predicted, total refusal to answer the question.
note my use of the word "YOUR"
Quote |
Quote | So all we have to do is show that this happens and then we're done. Fine, done. Lenski has done it. I know what you're going to say about Lenski and you're STILL wrong about that. |
LoL! Lenski didn't show natural selection was capable of anything. If Lenski is the best you have then the game is over and you lost.
|
And yet, that strain took over... without humans interfering.
Quote |
And I have addressed Darwinian evolution on a chip:
For one RNAs do not reproduce. The RNAs in question were reproduced artificially. That is not Darwinian.
|
So, now you're saying that GAs aren't Darwinian either, because they don't reproduce? You're weird man.
And the RNAs were copied by a reverse transcriptase and T7 RNA polymerase.
How is that artificial? Oh yeah, in your world, anything in a lab is designed.
Quote |
Quote | The final evolved enzyme contained a set of 11 mutations that conferred a 90-fold improvement in substrate utilization, coinciding with the applied selective pressure. |
Wait, Darwinian evolution isn't like that- it doesn't respond to the environment.
So yes, change did happen but was it Darwinian? And why does all change have to be Darwinian evolution? Why are biologists so full of Darwin that they can't understand that there can be evolution without Darwin/ neo-darwinism?
|
What are you on about. Of course scientists think about other forms of evolution. Epigenetics for example.
Whatever, it's almost as though you have a clue. Shame you have no idea what's going on. Quote |
It's as if these guys have bought the strawman of the fixity of species, including RNAs.
And in the end the RNA ligase was still an RNA ligase, albeit an improved RNA ligase wrt that artificial environment. |
Ah, the classic JoeG dodge, "But it's still a ligase."
Yes it was. But this discussion wasn't and has never been about even speciation.
Read the definition again Joe. It's the one YOU stated on your blog, but now you are to chicken to admit to. |
Kevin, That is THE definition of blind watchmaker evolution. Notice that it doesn't produce any testable hypotheses.
Yes, Lenski had a strain take over. It fits in perfectly with Dr Spetner's non-random evolutionary hypothesis.
GAs are not Darwinian because they are directed towards some goal.
Quote | So yes, change did happen but was it Darwinian? And why does all change have to be Darwinian evolution? |
It doesn't and most likely isn't. That is the whole point of the debate you ignorant ass.
You say you have been at this for over 15 years and you still have no idea what your opponents say. You have to be one willfully ignorant asshole.
-------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|