Joined: July 2007
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,16:09)|
|As I thought, you aren't interested in adult conversation. You just want to prove that you are right, no matter what the cost.|
Your own quotes show that selection is non-random.
And, yes Joe, you are not getting this. Natural selection, is NOT guided, unlike artificial selection. You have even commented that you believe that they are the same thing. In my blog entries on selection, you have commented that I used an example of artificial selection to show natural selection.
This seems to imply that you think all selection is the same, it's equivalent. Selection is the result of intelligence. Is this true?
You still seem to think that dueling quotes is actual argument. This is one thing that most drives me nuts about you Joe. You cherry pick the things that people say that you think supports you.
Do you know Joe, that the quote from Starr, 5th edition, only appears on the internet as quoted by you?
Tell you what, would you scan pages 10-12 of that edition of the text book and put them up on internet for us all to review. It's not that I don't believe you, but I highly suspect that there is more to the story than just what you are saying.
Remember that time you quoted from the Berkley evolution site and the very next sentence refuted your claim of what the authors meant? Good times.
Oh wait, look you quoted it again...
Here's the very next sentence
| It has no goals; it’s not striving to produce “progress” or a balanced ecosystem.|
That's what undirected means... IN CONTEXT.
You use the UBerkley site a lot... so let's see what they have to say about Natural Selection
|Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. |
|Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.|
There you go Joe. Your own sources say that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. So which is it Joe, is it a mechanism or a result?
Or maybe... just maybe... it could be both, depending on how you look at it.
Let's see what William Provine actually says, shall we?
|Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty "natural selection" language and the "actions" of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets.|
The second major problem concerns natural selection at different levels of the evolutionary process. The rise of understanding of molecular evolution at both the protein and DNA (or RNA) sequence level has challenged the assertion that natural selection is (almost by definition) the most important process in understanding the evolutionary outcomes at the prtein and DNA sequences levels (Kimura 1968, 1983; Ohta 1973). The chances are small that a particular DNA sequence in mammals is "adapted through natural selection." The chances are great that the evolution of selectively neutral factors produced the sequence. Thus at the DNA level, explaining and random sequence invokes selectively neutral or nearly neutral factors as the null hypothesis, an amazing turnabout since the late 1960s. I now argue that each level (phenotypic, protein, and DNA sequence) marches to different drummers.
Hmmm.... seems pretty clear from a population biology point. He's not arguing that natural selection doesn't exist, but that certain levels (molecular) that selection isn't the most common or most important factor. Which is something every scientist has known and pretty much agreed on for the last few decades.
However, we now have evodevo and other molecular techniques which show that maybe natural selection isn't the most important part of evolution at all. It is a part however and no one is denying that... not even Provine.
Hey look at that... your third quote from McNeill also only exists on the internet as quoted by you. I guess it's too much to ask for actual links to things.
I really wish you would actually read these things instead of looking for quotes to use against the evil evolutionists.
Once you actually understand what you're talking about, it will be a lot easier to talk to you about them. Of course, I understand that you can only see things that you think helps you, which is why you don't understand how Dembski saying that ID is just the Logos theory of the Gospel of John isn't important or how Intelligent Design doesn't have any mechanism at all (as stated by Behe).
I know all you want to do is argue about evolution, because deep down, you know that there isn't a single piece of evidence to support ID. Not a thing.
Oh you can say lots of stupid things like "every evodevo paper is pro-ID" or stuff like that. It doesn't make it true.
Tell you what, why don't I just e-mail Dr. Provine and ask him what he meant by his statement in Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics? I'm sure he would be thrilled to see that his words are being used by ID proponents, he is a strong critic of the Intelligent Design movement after all. Shall I?
Yes Kevin, I know what evos say- that natural selection is non-random, but reality refutes that.
So what if the Starr quote comes back to me- READ THE FUCKING BOOK ASSHOLE. I have.
And I have already been over natural selection being both a result and a process- the process I have already described- differential reproducition DUE TO heritable chance variations. It doesn't do anything.
And again I never said Provine said natural selection doesn't exist. I SAID IT DOES EXIST YOU IGNORANT FUCK. I DESCRIBED HOW IT WORKS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
And you can ask Allen McNeil- he has a blog.
That said Intelligent Design has mechanisms, moron. DESIGN IS A MECHANISM, kevin. So is a targeted search and directed mutations.
However we do NOT have to know the mechanism used BEFORE determining an object was designed or not. You figure out the mechanism by studying the design, duh.
But anyway, email away. And once YOU actually understand what the fuck you are talking about I will be too old to care.
BTW evodevo has been a bust and I am sure that bothers you- or most likely you are too ignorant to understand.
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t
simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
I usually underestimate my abilities