Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[Nihilist Virus]

Obviously, which is pretty much in line with what Frank Close states. Nothingness, scientifically considered, is not nothing. I just posted the video with Close in it because I like him better than I do Lawrence Krauss.

Lol, ok.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Bigger bolder text does not mean you are right.

I will post what you said are the most desperate and dishonest act below again. Would you like to quote from the scientist to show that I am wrong?

Quote from the research:
2009: In 2009, Barrick et al. reported the results of genome sequences from multiple time points in population Ara-1. They found that, unlike the declining rate of fitness improvement, mutation accumulation was linear and clock like, even though several lines of evidence suggested that much of the accumulation was beneficial, rather than neutral
2013 "the [fitness] increase would continue without bound as progressively lower benefit mutations were fixed in the populations"

So mutations always occur but good ones are progressively decreasing. In fact they didn't report any actual benefitial mutations since the cit change, most they notices are defects.

Nothing new here whatsoever. Literally all you did here was re-assert the same vacuous garbage I've already responded to numerous times.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But the earth is repeatedly revolving around the sun, and that is testable. Based on that we can calculate approxmily where the earth was X time ago (since there are always slight variations of different sorts, we can only be precises but not accurate).

Tell it to the "different state past" folks. There are plenty of them around here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The evolution we found all around us is micro evolution

Actually, what we see is the continued accumulation of micro changes.

1+1+1+1+1+....+1 = big number

, or in software engineer terms change application beheavior with pre-defined parameters.

False. Evolution introduces new parameters all the time.
This post, btw, is written by an actual software engineer who has coded a modular optimisation framework in the past, which made use of genetic algoritms.

You see this in software world all the time, that software are designed to be configurable to a certain degree, once the change required is out side the designed boundry, a re-design is nessessary, which matches exactly what we see out there.

As an actual software engineer who actually understands how genetic algoritms work, I can confidently tell you that you have no idea what you are saying and that what you are saying is in no way analogous to what actually happens in biology.

And that is why I could predict with high certainty that the long term e-coli evolution test, once all pre-designed permutations are over, will show no new mutations that can change its behavior much or just crash.

Except off course, for the mutations that happened around generation 31.000 in just one of the 12 populations, wich made it possible for that population to grow aerobicly on citrate. Which it couldn't do previously, and which the other 11 populations couldn't do.

So your prediction fell flat on its face.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, from what we observed from tests, those changes are difficult.
1. after 66k generation on e.coli, the mutation rates are const but actual different/survived mutations are reducing, strongly suggest a barrier

In genetic algoritms, there is something called the "local optimum". Which essentially means that, given all parameters stay the same, there comes a point where it becomes very difficult to continue "adapting" stepwise. Or even impossible.

I don't know much about the e-coli experiment to validate your assertion here, but from what I understand about genetic algoritms, I'ld pretty much expect it to end up in a "local optimum" sooner or later, because the environment these populations find themselves in, are controlled environments wich do not change.

In the real world though, the environment undergoes pretty much constant change, with highs and lows in certain periods. This also ties into "punctuated equilibrium". We expect to see "faster" evolutionary changes in periods of much environmental change, and less evolutionary change in periods of stability in the environment.

2. We actually find animals that existed for millions of years, we call them living fossils. Strong indication of mutation barrier.

No. Rather, strong indication that these animals find themselves in some type of "local optimum". In such case, the selection pressure is actually on "don't change".

This point also kind of ignores that there aren't many animals like that. In fact, it's an extreme minority. Most animals have not at all existed for many millions of years.

In short:
"look, look, this animal here hasn't changed much!!!"
"ok, what about the many millions that changed a lot???"

3. Have we ever observed a mutation from singled celled orgaism to mutli-celled orgaism yet?

Yes

Evolution: How yeast go multicellular

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. The test I refered to is E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, showing mutation boundry is very likely.

You contradict yourself. You previously stated that the mutation rate stayed pretty much consistent. What changed, at least per your claim (again: don't know much about it and it is actually not that relevant to my point), is the selection pressure.

I explained what a local optimum is.

The little information I have at this point, it seems incredibly reasonable to state that the populations in the controlled environment are closing in on their local optimum. At which point, there would be more and more selection pressure against mutations. The local optimum makes the chances of beneficial mutations significantly smaller.

The mutations achieving fixation will then flatline somewhat, sure.
But the mutations themselves, do not! They still happen! At about the same rate that they always did!

The only "boundry" here, is the boundry of a controlled environment. Change the environment = change the selection pressures.

Off course, if you are just going to ignore the role of natural selection....

2. WHY?? population evolved because individual mutate. You don't agree with that?

Individuals mutate, yes. But that's not "evolution". That's just a mutation in a single organism. We only talk about evolution, once such a mutation spreads throughout the population. So it is incorrect to state the "individuals" evolve. They don't. Individuals introduce changes. What happens after that introduction, happens on the level of populations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why not? So are you blantly saying that dogs can't evolve into something with wings? Even after billions of years (at which time we might not call the new thing a dog).

What possible selection pressure would push a dog population towards changing its forelimbs into wings?

 

[dcalling]

Nothing new here whatsoever. Literally all you did here was re-assert the same vacuous garbage I've already responded to numerous times.

I am adding nothing new to what you said was the most desperate and dishonest act below again. I am just re-quoting from the actual research.

However I do expect you to quote from the scientist and their research to show how I was most desperate and dishonest.

Quote from the research:
2009: In 2009, Barrick et al. reported the results of genome sequences from multiple time points in population Ara-1. They found that, unlike the declining rate of fitness improvement, mutation accumulation was linear and clock like, even though several lines of evidence suggested that much of the accumulation was beneficial, rather than neutral
2013 "the [fitness] increase would continue without bound as progressively lower benefit mutations were fixed in the populations"

 

[dcalling]

You contradict yourself. You previously stated that the mutation rate stayed pretty much consistent. What changed, at least per your claim (again: don't know much about it and it is actually not that relevant to my point), is the selection pressure.

I am not contradicting myself, I was simply quoting from the long term e.coli research. Their prior research from 2009 states mutations rate stayed constant, and their later (2013) paper said fixation of benifital mutations getting pregressively lower.

I explained what a local optimum is.

The little information I have at this point, it seems incredibly reasonable to state that the populations in the controlled environment are closing in on their local optimum. At which point, there would be more and more selection pressure against mutations. The local optimum makes the chances of beneficial mutations significantly smaller.

The mutations achieving fixation will then flatline somewhat, sure.
But the mutations themselves, do not! They still happen! At about the same rate that they always did!

The only "boundry" here, is the boundry of a controlled environment. Change the environment = change the selection pressures.

Off course, if you are just going to ignore the role of natural selection....



Individuals mutate, yes. But that's not "evolution". That's just a mutation in a single organism. We only talk about evolution, once such a mutation spreads throughout the population. So it is incorrect to state the "individuals" evolve. They don't. Individuals introduce changes. What happens after that introduction, happens on the level of populations.

Do you believe mutations are random? If that is the case, when there is no selection pressure (i.e. enough food etc), local optimum should be very board right (i.e. more mutation can fix without feeling the selection pressure), so more mutations should manifest correct?

 

[miknik5]

But to this day all the researches point out that threr are things that make accumulation of mutations more and more difficult, from the long term e.coli evolution tests to the uni-muli cell research.

If you really think you know that I am wrong, why can't you answer any of my questions?
1. Those are not true multi-celluar organisms. They are at most pluricellular. There is no division of work among cells, they were just clumped together via settlement.
2. To #2, Did they analyze the DAN composition and check if anything changed? For example for long term e.coli test they were able to determine certain mutations pretain to the citrit change. If they clump together without mutations, what kind of evolving is that?
3. To #1 (yeast), yeast was originally multi-cell (ancestors), was it a pluricellular, or a mutation back to their orginal mulit-cell state (i.e that they evolved to lost their multi-cell state but it remained hidden)?

Overlay

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you believe mutations are random?

Mutations are factually random. It's what we observe.

If that is the case, when there is no selection pressure

There always is a selection pressure.

(i.e. enough food etc), local optimum should be very board right

No.

(i.e. more mutation can fix without feeling the selection pressure), so more mutations should manifest correct?

No.

 

[dcalling]

OK, care to explain why when mutations are random (which you believe), you don't believe that we should have a board local optimum when there are relaxed selection pressure (i.e. enough food etc)?

Mutations are factually random. It's what we observe.



There always is a selection pressure.



No.



No.