Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The limits of darwinism.

Posted: Jan. 28 2010,18:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2010,17:49)

YOU GUYS ARE TEH MEANIES

HAHAHAHA this is Richard!

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Timothy McDougald

Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Jan. 28 2010,18:45

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,12:26)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)

�

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,10:10)

Behe's argument is that evolution can't go beyond a certain point, the Edge of Evolution. That means only one or two mutations. He claims that Lenski's Experiment supports this because it took a long time for trillions of bacteria to discover this pathway, and many lines didn't discover it at all. (It's funny when they talk about trillions as a lot when it comes to bacteria.)

So anything that requires more than one or two mutations, e.g. three at a time, is beyong the reach of evolution, according to Behe.

That's Behe's confusion. The odds of mutations are fairly well known. Multiple rare events are rare, of course. But if each successive mutation confers a benefit, then it will become fixed in the population much faster than chance.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)

�

Quote

In Lenski's Experiment, there was a potentiating mutation that was probably neutral, so it wasn't selected. It became dominant in the population by chance. This sets up the second mutation which is selectable in a citrate-rich environment. Theoretically, this is non-controversial. Fixation has been part of population genetics for generations. What is interesting is actually observing it. Without actual observation, it isn't possible to know how often such events occur.

So they knew that such mutations could happen, but they didn't know how rare they would be. It, therefore takes trillions of e-coli to produce one such mutation. Of course, as one critique observed, there are 10 to the power of 16 e-coli in one ton of dirt. So such mutation, given this large population size, should be common....???

Sorry. That wasn't clearly expressed. Mutations rates are well-established. The rate a neutral mutation will fix is a matter of analysis. What isn't known is how often a neutral mutation will potentiate a beneficial mutation. And therefore, whether evolution is primarily contingent on happenstance or adaptation. In this case, it appears happenstance was important because the other lineages never discovered the adaptation. Generally, it seems there is more neutral evolution on the molecular level than with macroscopic structures, but even that is not known with certainty.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)

But was it Behe's argument that the citrate utilizing capacity was not possible without the two mutiations? Therefore there is a whole class of functional developments that are not reachable by incrementatal adaptation?

That was the result. It took two mutations, the first of which was neutral and fixed by chance. His argument then is that this is the most evolution could accomplish. Of course, if a third mutation comes along that improves the mechanism, then there is no reason it can't be selected and fixed in the population. Or a fourth. Then a potentiating mutation, then a selectable one. As long as there is a selectable pathway, there is no Edge of Evolution.

By the way, there is no doubt that there are whole classes of functional developments beyond the reach of incremental adaptation. The vast majority of genomic sequences will never be searched by evolution.

Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 28 2010,19:39

Screw Lenski, the piker! Intelligently designing his experiment. Some help he was promoting the atheist evolutionist agenda!

Now, take those bacteria who developed nylonase on their ownself. Now, that's science! And without scientists!

Oh, sorry, Ut, hate to bring up observed evolution in the wild. Well, in any case, they're still bacteria, so you can go back to your wine and wafers and have a nice evening.

Zachriel

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Jan. 28 2010,20:24

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)

Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

Quote

These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Jan. 28 2010,20:34

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 28 2010,14:26)

I'm not a biologist but from my understanding, Lenski's experiment just displayed what was already known.

Now Behe says that the probability to get from point a to point b is a gazillion to one. What he overlooks is:

1. Evolution is not goal orientated and there could be a bazillion proteins that could perform the same function. He should take these into account.

2. Proteins are not binary as a near hit can have a partial effect.

3. there are a bazillion ways to go from a to b. Behe only looks at a single path straight from a to b.

Not only that, but if we consider "point b" as an island of reproductive advantage, there may be many, many points b.

Obvious, I know. But someone had to say it.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 28 2010,21:04

The only islands of reproductive advantage I know about are in the south Pacific.

Cubist

Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,03:23

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:46)

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,14:36)

Doesn't Behe know better, you ask? Of course he does. Does that make him intellectually dishonest (like all creationists)?

You tell me.

If this is true for Behe, then there is really nothing to ID. You'd think Lehigh University would have canned him by now...

As has already been pointed out, Behe can't be canned because he's got tenure... but his university has explicitly disowned him with a "this guy's views are strictly his own, and have nothing to do with science as she is spoke by the rest of the faculty" disclaimer. Not exactly a common thing for universities to do, eh?

Quote

That said, I would like to go through some of his arguments in detail. Hopefull people will be patient enough for that.

Okay by me! How about we start with Behe's arguments re: "irreducible complexity"? According to Behe, a system is "irreducibly complex" if every individual component in the system is required to be present in order for the system to perform its function. Thus, an irreducibly complex system which lacks any one of its components cannot function. So there is no way for evolution to produce an irreducibly complex system, because the immediate evolutionary precursor to an IC system would be lacking a component, hence would not function.
That's Behe's argument, as best I understand it. The problem is, his argument assumes that evolution can only add new parts to a system -- but evolution can also remove previously-existing parts from a system, and evolution can also modify a system's previously-existing parts.
So okay, Behe's IC argument ignores two of the three classes of change evolution can produce. Fine. Does that mean he's wrong? Well, sort of. Yes, Behe is correct that you can't get an IC system from any evolutionary process in which all the steps are "add a new part". But if you allow your evolutionary process to include "remove an old part" and/or "change an old part" steps in addition to "add a new part" steps, you can get an IC system in the following manner:
Step one: Add a new part to the system. At this point, the new part is not necessary for the system to function.
Step two: Modify one of the old parts so that said old part cannot function in the absence of the new part which was added in Step One.
For Behe's IC argument to be valid, it must not be possible for evolution to modify existing parts of a system... and it should be patently obvious that it bloody well is possible for evolution to modify existing parts of a system. To the best of my knowledge, Behe has never even acknowledged the existence of this counter-argument, let alone demonstrated that his argument survives said counter-argument.
What say you, Utunumsint?

midwifetoad

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,06:21

At the risk of jumping in over my head, might I point out that when evolution is confronted with a do or die necessity of getting from a to b, the odds favor die.

Hence extinctions.

B is not a goal. It is a result. The lottery winner.

Saying B couldn't be reached is a bit like saying any observed event couldn't happen because the cumulative odds against each and every preceding event are astronomical. (such as the odds against your parents meeting, and the odds against your particular sperm and egg meeting)

Behe's followers love him because he has found a couple of structures where we haven't found a complete chain of one step variations that obviously led to the structure.

Of course they ignore the inconvenient fact that since he first described these structures, a number of gap structures have been found. His whole house of cards is just another god of the gaps argument.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,08:54

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,20:24)

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)

Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

Quote

These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

I had some time to look over your comments. So I gather that Behe and IDers are not bothered by Lenski's results because the results are within the parameters defined by Behe in the Edge for what falls within the possibility of Darwinian evolution. In other words, it hasn't crossed the edge.

They also cry foul because it took an artificially created ecological niche to make the transition happen.

I guess my follow up question, given that I can't understand the Zhang quote :), is how likely is it for the e-coli to develop a new functionality through three mutations, to reach a functional combination not accessible to single, or even double mutations? Whether it be two neutral mutations potentiating a third selectable mutation...

You may notice that I'm trying to use jargon that I barely understand, so bear with me if I'm being obtuse. :)

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,08:56

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,19:39)

Screw Lenski, the piker! �Intelligently designing his experiment. �Some help he was promoting the atheist evolutionist agenda!

Now, take those bacteria who developed nylonase on their ownself. �Now, that's science! �And without scientists!

Oh, sorry, Ut, hate to bring up observed evolution in the wild. �Well, in any case, they're still bacteria, so you can go back to your wine and wafers and have a nice evening.

We you beaten by albino monks at some point in your childhood? :)

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:01

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)

They also cry foul because it took an artificially created ecological niche to make the transition happen.

Yes, the "but it took an Intelligent Designer to design the experiment so it does not count" line.

I'm sure you can see why that is preposterous. If not, then I'm sure it can be added to the discussion.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:06

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2010,16:10)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:51)

1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

Behe: � �

Quote

Yes, I�m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV. So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.

How many more did he "overlook"? So, even by his own words his criteria must be falsified. He's no expert in the field. Miss one, miss 100. Same difference when you don't allow comments on your books at amazon, after all it's only about separating $$ from the faithful.

Ut-I'm not sure I understand the significance of this.... Can you dumb it down for me?

�

Quote

2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

So
�

Quote

2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Perhaps. Define "destroy". Show that what happens when citrate becomes digestible is "destructive"? How? What was destroyed? How did you know the thing that was "destroyed" was not also "destroyed" itself previously? etc.

Oh, what's that? You could put the citrate digesting strain back into the original environment and see if it's beaten out by the "undamaged" bacteria you say? �:p

Ut-I think when he made those comments, he was looking at the results of what he called the Trench warfare between malaria and the human immune system. Basically the human immune system was not able to combat malaria. It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence. But it did so at a dreadful cost to the functionality of hemaglobin. He also provides other examples of mutations involving the hemaglobin, showing the same results. No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Anyway, I don't know if the above helps to clarify things.... what do you think?

Cheers,
Ut

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:51)

1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

Behe:

Quote

Yes, I�m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV. So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.

How many more did he "overlook"? So, even by his own words his criteria must be falsified. He's no expert in the field. Miss one, miss 100. Same difference when you don't allow comments on your books at amazon, after all it's only about separating $$ from the faithful.

Ut-I'm not sure I understand the significance of this.... Can you dumb it down for me?

Quote

2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

So

Quote

2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Perhaps. Define "destroy". Show that what happens when citrate becomes digestible is "destructive"? How? What was destroyed? How did you know the thing that was "destroyed" was not also "destroyed" itself previously? etc.

Oh, what's that? You could put the citrate digesting strain back into the original environment and see if it's beaten out by the "undamaged" bacteria you say? :p

Ut-I think when he made those comments, he was looking at the results of what he called the Trench warfare between malaria and the human immune system. Basically the human immune system was not able to combat malaria. It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence. But it did so at a dreadful cost to the functionality of hemaglobin. He also provides other examples of mutations involving the hemaglobin, showing the same results. No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Anyway, I don't know if the above helps to clarify things.... what do you think?

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:10

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)

You may notice that I'm trying to use jargon that I barely understand, so bear with me if I'm being obtuse. :)

I'm no expert, just an interested dabbler.

But when you have loads of people on one side, most with actual peer reviewed science to their name and on the other side a man (Behe) who has no interest in proving his own claims (see Dover transcripts where he's asked what he's doing to provide evidence and reply's that that is for others to provide) and who only seems to be interested in selling books (why not write a paper?) then I'm inclined to dismiss the lone guy as a crank. Sure, if he's right then he'll be proven right eventually. But as I've noted, he's not even right by his own admission. And he thinks it's not his job to provide evidence for his own arguments.

No, it's not "science by consensus" because Behe has had 20+ years to come up with experimental evidence to make his case. He has not. He just keeps on writing the books. And making blog posts at UD where nobody is allowed to comment.

He's not interested in science, he's interested in making his argument sound like science to the extent that it can impress non-scientists who then think he's making a scientific argument.

Actual scientists? Not so impressed.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/behe-replies-to.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/an-open-letter-3.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1150421
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/behe-versus-rib.html
http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/10/12/behe-jumps-shark/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....t_i.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng...._pa.php
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/behes-bad-math.html

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:14

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)

No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The question you have to ask yourself is could malaria be any more successful then it already is?

Malaria has had a very long time to evolve, yes. And yet it's still malaria.

Quote

Each year, there are approximately 350�500 million cases of malaria,[1] killing between one and three million people,

In what way would malaria need to step outside of it's niche to continue to be successful? Why would you expect it to change significantly given how successful it is? Seems to me this "still just malaria" is doing just fine.

Are you Dave Scot?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:17

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)

It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence.

What could a "positive" mutation have done then? What is a negative mutation and how do you determine if a given mutation is negative or positive? Can a negative mutation be a positive mutation really, depending on the environment?

Overall, if more people survive infection by malaria because of this "negative" mutation in what way is it negative (ignoring obviously the human suffering aspect of SSA)?

Survival rates increase. Deaths from malaria decrease. You call that "negative"?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:14)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)

No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The question you have to ask yourself is could malaria be any more successful then it already is?

Malaria has had a very long time to evolve, yes. And yet it's still malaria.

Ut-From what Behe seems to say is that Malaria itself is losing functional parts of its DNA in its struggle to defeat the human countermeasures, and even more so in its battle with antibiotics. But whenever an antibiotic is removed from the population, then regular malaria returns in force....

�

Quote

Each year, there are approximately 350�500 million cases of malaria,[1] killing between one and three million people,

In what way would malaria need to step outside of it's niche to continue to be successful? Why would you expect it to change significantly given how successful it is? Seems to me this "still just malaria" is doing just fine.

Ut-Good point.

Are you Dave Scot?

Ut-No. Not sure who that is..

Cheers,
Ut

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)

No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The question you have to ask yourself is could malaria be any more successful then it already is?

Malaria has had a very long time to evolve, yes. And yet it's still malaria.

Ut-From what Behe seems to say is that Malaria itself is losing functional parts of its DNA in its struggle to defeat the human countermeasures, and even more so in its battle with antibiotics. But whenever an antibiotic is removed from the population, then regular malaria returns in force....

Quote

Each year, there are approximately 350�500 million cases of malaria,[1] killing between one and three million people,

In what way would malaria need to step outside of it's niche to continue to be successful? Why would you expect it to change significantly given how successful it is? Seems to me this "still just malaria" is doing just fine.

Ut-Good point.

Are you Dave Scot?

Ut-No. Not sure who that is..

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:21

Quote

No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Sickle cell evolved did it not in response to malaria? How many "new evolutionary functions" do you want? 1 is more then none you know. Perhaps there are no other mutations within reach that provide better protection.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:17)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)

It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence.

What could a "positive" mutation have done then? What is a negative mutation and how do you determine if a given mutation is negative or positive? Can a negative mutation be a positive mutation really, depending on the environment?

Overall, if more people survive infection by malaria because of this "negative" mutation in what way is it negative (ignoring obviously the human suffering aspect of SSA)?

Survival rates increase. Deaths from malaria decrease. You call that "negative"?

Ut-Well it seems to be a trade off between one bad situation for another bad situation. SSA just kills you much more slowly. It also make you much weaker. Do you see this as a net benefit?

Cheers,
Ut

I got to get back to my day job.... :) I'll check back in tonight....

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:26

You're not being obtuse, Ut, you'd need an education for that.

No, you've simply snapped back to Stage 3.

Why don't be a nice creationist and just get on with blessing us and take a hike?

Or, if you're serious, and I know you're not because A) I'm a mind reader and B) I am an albino monk, answer this question. It's simple.

Explain to me at the molecular level the difference between what Lenski has observed in his experiment and what happened in that waste pit in Japan where nylonase evolved?

(For your cryptic puzzle enthusiasts here's a clue: There isn't any in nylonase! (4) )

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:21)

Quote

No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Sickle cell evolved did it not in response to malaria? How many "new evolutionary functions" do you want? 1 is more then none you know. Perhaps there are no other mutations within reach that provide better protection.

Ut-I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:30

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 29 2010,09:26)

You're not being obtuse, Ut, you'd need an education for that.

No, you've simply snapped back to Stage 3.

Why don't be a nice creationist and just get on with blessing us and take a hike?

Or, if you're serious, and I know you're not because A) I'm a mind reader and B) I am an albino monk, answer this question. �It's simple.

Explain to me at the molecular level the difference between what Lenski has observed in his experiment and what happened in that waste pit in Japan where nylonase evolved?

(For your cryptic puzzle enthusiasts here's a clue: �There isn't any in nylonase! �(4) � �)

I haven't a clue. :)

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:37

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:28)

Ut-I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

If you don't count "ability to better survive malaria" as a beneficial mutation then sure, I guess Behe is right.

Use the preview button! Twice!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:48

OK, I looked up Dave Scot. Really? Do I sound like that guy? :)

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:02

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:28)

I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

No, it merely improved survival. Is that not a big deal to you?

Or is that small time on earth considered to be trivial when you think you have an immortal soul and an eternity in heaven (or hell).

[Please ignore the above rhetorical question. It's simply the best I can do when confronted with questions from someone who is clearly, and self-admittedly, ignorant about the basic mechanisms underlying his/her questions. It doesn't take a village, but it does take at least a minimal education in biology to get very far in this discussion. if you are frustrated with that progress, or lack thereof, I suggest you take an intro biology course, or read a real book (not an ID apologetics text like Edge of Evolution), or do something else that will allow you to understand that some of your assumptions and questions are merely ignorant. Ignorant is not a character flaw; it can be fixed. However, when you are willfully ignorant, like Behe, it is a character flaw.]

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:06

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 29 2010,10:02)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:28)

I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

No, it merely improved survival. Is that not a big deal to you?

Or is that small time on earth considered to be trivial when you think you have an immortal soul and an eternity in heaven (or hell).

[Please ignore the above rhetorical question. It's simply the best I can do when confronted with questions from someone who is clearly, and self-admittedly, ignorant about the basic mechanisms underlying his/her questions. It doesn't take a village, but it does take at least a minimal education in biology to get very far in this discussion. if you are frustrated with that progress, or lack thereof, I suggest you take an intro biology course, or read a real book (not an ID apologetics text like Edge of Evolution), or do something else that will allow you to understand that some of your assumptions and questions are merely ignorant. Ignorant is not a character flaw; it can be fixed. However, when you are willfully ignorant, like Behe, it is a character flaw.]

Sounds good.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:11

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:48)

OK, I looked up Dave Scot. Really? Do I sound like that guy? :)

No, just the "malaria is still malaria" bit was something he used to go on about. So it got me thinking.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:14

OK, so its obvious that I'm laking in education on this subject matter, so perhaps people could suggest to me some intro level reading that I can do on my own. I have three kids and very little time, but I am certainly interested in the subject.

Preferable, not something polemical, but a good intro series of books into the subject of evolution. Especially ones that deal with the microbiological issues.

Cheers,
Ut

Zachriel

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:15

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)

I had some time to look over your comments. So I gather that Behe and IDers are not bothered by Lenski's results because the results are within the parameters defined by Behe in the Edge for what falls within the possibility of Darwinian evolution. In other words, it hasn't crossed the edge.

Mutations happen all the time. Pointing to multiple mutations with surprise is not much of an argument.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)

They also cry foul because it took an artificially created ecological niche to make the transition happen.

Natural environments and populations are far more complex than anything in Lenski's Lab.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)

I guess my follow up question, given that I can't understand the Zhang quote :), is how likely is it for the e-coli to develop a new functionality through three mutations, to reach a functional combination not accessible to single, or even double mutations? Whether it be two neutral mutations potentiating a third selectable mutation...

To reach a predefined goal, not very likely. But that's not how evolution works, of course. The mouth might evolve into all sorts of shapes and sizes, neutral evolution, hundreds or thousands of meanderings. Then selection might grab hold, and adapt it into a complex organ for communication. In retrospect, you might wonder how all those changes occurred just as they did, but the wonderment is a result of retrospection.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Zachriel

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:29

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)

Ut-I think when he made those comments, he was looking at the results of what he called the Trench warfare between malaria and the human immune system. Basically the human immune system was not able to combat malaria. It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence. But it did so at a dreadful cost to the functionality of hemaglobin. He also provides other examples of mutations involving the hemaglobin, showing the same results. No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The human immune system is not helpless against malaria, and can build immunity over time. That why children are in the most danger from infection. Malaria has evolved in response to the immune system. That's why it comes in bouts, doesn't always kill the host, and attacks the immune system itself. Also, like most diseases, it is successful only when at a high enough prevalence to ensure propagation. In this case, that also includes the prevalence of its vector, the mosquito. It's a rough standoff where malaria has an upper hand in some areas, humans in others.

Humans persist. Malaria persists. Mosquitoes persist. What did you expect?

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006