Define 'species'

[Mistermystery]

How far do you want to carry this nonsense? That's your terms? Ok, from now on, every word that you use I want sources. If you happen to mention, say, a book written by an evolutionist, I want proof of authorship. You have to prove to me that he was the one who wrote that book, even if that fact is totally irrelevant to your argument, even if the CONTENT of the book is really the issue in debate, not the authorship.

Last words on this issue: You first qouted a bunch of sources (good, I'm okay with that), and then made a post that indicated that "Oh jeez, Moses did something else as well". I was not sure what you were talking about, so I ask you for sources on this. If you were reffering to a bible quote or whatever just say it man. Why are you acting so uptight about this?

If you don't see it, then I have to conclude that you don't really read my material.

We were discussing circumsision in a topic about species definition. Hello? Do we really have to make an apologetic debate out of this as well?

 

[gluadys]

(Certainly I don't expect any Muslim to prove Mohammed's authorship of the Quran before borrowing his name).

To continue to be nit-picky, Mohammed did not write the Qur'an. He was illiterate. He did recite it, and his followers wrote it down and gathered it together. The Muslim tradition of verifying the authenticity of both the Qur'an and the Hadith is quite sophisiticated --- much more reliable than anything verifying the origins of biblical texts.

That said, the majority of ancient Hebrew tradition supported Mosaic authorship as well as the entire New Testament. ... You really expect me to break with the Hebrew tradition of Mosaic authorship just because a bunch of liberals feel starved for a way to refute it? Is that really what you're getting at?

But the rabbis invented the tradition. What makes you think they had any evidence of Mosaic authorship to go on?

 

[JAL]

To continue to be nit-picky, Mohammed did not write the Qur'an. He was illiterate. He did recite it, and his followers wrote it down and gathered it together.

I am aware of this. I never said he wrote it down. I said he authored it.

The Muslim tradition of verifying the authenticity of both the Qur'an and the Hadith is quite sophisiticated --- much more reliable than anything verifying the origins of biblical texts.

That may be, I don't know. Given the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think we've got a pretty reliable tradition. And frankly I don't think this issue was the crux of my original post. Nor am I entirely sure why you seem to assume that a person who is illiterate is more credibly establishable as an author than literate people. His illiteracy counts as prima facie evidence against his authorship until that burden of proof is overcome.

But the rabbis invented the tradition. What makes you think they had any evidence of Mosaic authorship to go on?

Joshua's book is next and it confirms the Mosaic authorship at least in a general way. I've never heard of any literature of that period or in proximate generations disputing that tradition. If people had stood up and shouted, we don't believe Moses wrote it! Fine. But what you have is a whole nation that did believe it, apparently based on having watched him do it. In any case, I really don't have any need to prove this point. I base my beliefs on what I seem to hear from God. To start with, He seems to tell me that the NT is true, and the NT indicates that Moses gave us the law. If you disagree, fine. Guess what? It really doesn't matter to me since I still can't see why this is issue is paramount to my original post. I've had enough of this. You can have the last word - but please make sure you don't cite any sources without first proving that the reputed authors are the true authors. If you're going to hold me to that standard, hold yourself to the same standard, thank you.

 

[yossarian]

How about the meaning of epistasis...are you kidding me? 'epi' and 'stasis' are are compond word and the word is supposed to have nothing to do with stasis?

in this context?
no

http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/E0182500.html
definition number 1 is the meaning they're referring to in the paper - and as you can see, it doesn't have anything to do with stasis

Fine, quote them and demonstrate how this is so.

"The mutational deterministic hypothesis postulates that sex is an adaptation that allows deleterious mutations to be purged from the genome; it requires synergistic interactions, which means that two mutations would be more harmful together than expected from their separate effects."

What it demonstrates is that synergeistic and anagonistic mutations both are produced in relatively equal numbers, and in effect, this demonstrates stasis.

no, this is incorrect

mutations themselves are NOT synergistic or antagonistic, these terms refer to the interactions between them and their combined effect on fitness. The paper is only looking at interactions between deleterious alleles

neither does it demonstrate stasis - it simply shows that in some instances epistasis between deleterious alleles is synergistic: that their combined effect decreases fitness beyond a simple addition of their separate fitness costs
and that in some cases the epistasis is antagonistic: their combined effect decreases fitness costs less than would be expected from a simple addition of their separate fitness costs

I said that strains with one mutation had a better chance of survival then the ones with multiple ones and you think this is a misunderstanding? Just read the paper and we can get back to this one.

its a complete misunderstanding of the point of the paper - especially since the paper is specifically only looking at deleterious mutations, and that it is looking at the epistasis between them and not some simple measure of fitness

Of course there is a slight problem of a selective advantage as a result. It does not help if the change leads to extinction.

there are EXTANT organisms that do both mark - so the change quite obviously does not lead to extinction

The question is if it occured.

not at all mark - of course it occured, else there wouldn't be sexual reproduction

this particular paper is adressing why it occured

The hypothesis left the question unanswered except in the negative, that is why it is called the greatest mystery in biology. Exactly what Darwin said about the essense of species 'an undiscoverable mystery'. This demonstrates a major misunderstanding on you're part, the article is related directly to the subject of the thread.

Of course it isn't, the evolution of sex has nothing to do with species concepts

Of course saying it and proving it are two different things.

i've been showing it all along - you keep demonstrating it everytime you post

All I have to demonstrate the truth or falsity of what you say is that you say you did. Believing something to be true and demonstrating it to be so or two different things. Read the article and we can talk about this some more.

i've read it mark, and crucially - i've understood it

Given the fact that you have not refered to the actual evidence once I would have to say that the evidence is beside the point with you.

i've repeatedly referred to the paper, and what its actual point was - the very evidence you brought up in the first place

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-Ra:

Much of your last reply to me consisted of strawmen. For example you said that there was no evidence for Adam. That missed my point. I explicitly said that I wasn't ASKING you to believe in Adam. I was merely using him to show how it could be logically POSSIBLE that even infants stand guilty before God.

Perhaps you don't know what a strawman argument is? I went through my whole last post to you, and was unable to find a single comment that could be called a strawman, this one included. You wrongly assumed my "presumption" had to do with something it didn't have to do with. That was the strawman. I just corrected you by telling you what my problem with the Bible really was.

You gave examples of immoral people who CLAIMED to be sure that God was speaking. Those claims don't impress me because I don't believe them.

What a coincidence. I don't believe you either. Oh, I believe you really think you're hearing God, just as I really believed that I was hearing and seeing and feeling all the paranormal experiences I've had as an occultist. But I don't believe me anymore. As I mentioned in my explanation of my former spiritualism, I have discovered that faith is an auto-deceptive process, and everything you're talking about is much too easy to [accidentally/unintentionally] fake.

I react to those immoralities the same way you did - with outrage. Had I lived in Abraham's day, therefore, I would have been equally outraged at his attempt to slaughter his on - UNLESS THE SAME VOICE CONVINCED ME THAT ABRAHAM WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING. And that's exactly what happened to me. That is to say, God's voice convinces me that Abraham did the right thing, so I cannot feel outraged at his act, much as I might try, even though I would feel terribly outraged at anyone else who tried to do the same violence today.

If this voice in your head, (which you're convinced is that of God himself) tells you to do something like this, and you're unable to question it, (which I would define as "insane") then what's the difference between today, and 2,500 years ago?

And even if we pretend that Abraham really did hear the voice of God. If such a being requires such sick demonstrations of devotion, then that being is unworthy of worship, even if he does follow that twisted request with "just kidding, Abraham, you don't really have to kill your kid. I just wanted to see if you'd really do it." If God were really the universal overlord he's made out to be, then he would not be a prankster, and he would never demand anything to prove our faith. He wouldn't ever have wanted us to perform ritual sacrifice either. The god of the Bible is a very petty being inconsistent with everything Christians promote God to be.

So instead of debating about all these perpretators named by you, I would rather debate your assumption that religion based on God's voice is an illogical concept.

You're on.

You seem to believe that religion should be believed only if it can be demonstrated logically and scientifically. But if God exists, you are tying His hands severely.

No sir. If God exists, then it would be possible to provide logical, scientific evidence that is consistent with that idea. I have not tied God's hands, nor could I. I have only tied yours, by demanding that you can't just make up whatever you want, exaggerate it as much as you like, and assert it as fact without any basis or backing.

You want to be logically and scientifically shown, point by point, that every possible objection to the doctrines of the Bible has been convincingly refuted. To begin with, you would have to master all science, all philosophy, all theology, and all Hebrew and Greek. And then you would have to be shown, point by point, that a particular intepretation of the Bible is correct. All this would take at least an entire lifetime of research at a library. Not only would this requisite exclude all children from knowing their heavenly Father, but even adults in third world countries who can't get to a library to do the research would stand no chance of ascertaning the truth about religion. Whereas any infant can know Him instantly if it's just a matter of hearing His voice. The very fact that the Bible depicts God's voice as the central issue lends it a bit of credibility as a religion.

This is a strawman too. I don't need to have every possible objection convincingly refuted. I just need to see a reason to believe that it wasn't all made up the way I explained when I wrote about the auto deceptive illusions faith creates.

Of course you will complain, "but how can I believe something if I think it's illogical?" That's the whole point. If God exists, He knows that there is really only one solution to this problem as follows. He had to give everyone a conscience that warns them, at least occasionally, that some kind of God might exist. The right thing to do is cry out for truth (just like some atheists in mortal danger who have cried out, "God, if you are there, please help me now!). That's all He asks. If this is done persistently, He must speak in such a way that the Voice CONVINCINGLY apprises you of the true religion (whether it be Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or something else). My experience convinces me it's Christianity so I would be a fool to accept anything else.

I think you're a fool anyway. The reason so many people feel inclined to believe in Gods is because, historically, believers tend to kill off the infidels, ensuring that memes are preferential in the subsequent gene pool.

I have cried out for truth. In fact, I think I could sum up my life with those words. But what you, (and many other believers) want me to do is to talk to imaginary beings and pretend they're really there until I finally hear them respond. One thing I have discovered is if you have faith enough in whatever your desired delusion is, you can manifest it no matter how real it isn't. As a Druidic padowan, I was able to make my subjects hear, see, or even feel whatever they already believed in simply by taking advantage of their faith. My mentors in Transcendental Meditation and astral projection were also able to do the same with me. Due to my own experience, and to the assorted testimonies of believers from various other religions, I have come to realize that you can experience premonition, psychic visions, mystical wards, effective witchcraft, past life memories, Jesus, Yahweh, Krsna, Bast, Gaia, the Tao, extraterrestrials, the illuminati / MIB, astral projections, demons, leprechauns, fairies, el chupacabra, Bigfoot, even the ghost of your dead aunt Myrtle, if you obsess on any of them hard enough. For every one of these perceptions, I now know, or have known persons who swore they were real due to their personal experience, usually with much more convincing stories than yours. The way you manifest the voice of your god is no different than the way the hippie spiritualists read psychic auras. Just because you make yourself believe it doesn't mean its really real. If it were really real, it would still be that way even if you didn't believe it. So it wouldn't require faith of any kind to discover it, understand?

Secondly, God is a person. Tell me, why do you believe in people? Can you prove that they exist? They could be hallucinations, right? Isn't it true that you believe in them because of the evidence presented to your senses? That is to say, YOU HEAR THEIR VOICE AND SEE THEIR FACES AND BODIES?

Yes I believe that people exist, and no, I can't prove that they do. I could take the red pill tomorrow, and discover that its all an illusion. But as Morpheus said, even the illusion is still a world that is built on rules. So if my senses are only illusory, they still only indicate the programs I can test within the matrix of that world, and in no way indicate any master programmer such as you're pleading for. So I still have no reason to believe that said entity, or illusion, exists.

According to the NT, every Christian not only hears God's voice but receives at least vague impressions of God's enthroned form and face (see 2Cor 4:4-6). That is why Jesus rebuked the Jews thus, 'Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape' (John 5:37). Thus 'every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life' (Jn 6:40).

I find it amusing that the same people who quote this line also believe that Jesus and God were the same person, even though this quote is a denial of that.

Even if you were blind, you would believe in me by the sound of my voice. So please don't try to convince me that God's voice could not be good reason for believing in Him. (Of course He has to convince you that the true God is speaking).

Most Christians I've talked to also warn that Christians do not hear God talking to them, and that if they do, they should seek professional help.

God would never condemn people for ignorance of Jesus Christ. He only condemns those who refuse to seek "God" in the general sense as defined by their conscience.

But that's definitely not what the Bible says, is it? Where did you get this idea? And why do you call yourself a literalist? Because the Bible says that everyone who hears the "word of [the Christian] God" and doesn't become a tool of that religion because of their disbelief, -will be punished. Without blind subservient gullability giving power to the priests, then all your good works are said by them to be like "filthy rags" to the Lord, and you'll be punished heinously anyway. Carl Sagan, Mahatma Ghandi, Mark Twain, Hypatia, all of them now supposedly suffering anquish in the pit simply for not believing what didn't make any sense on any level, and violated everything they did know for sure. This may not be fair or just, and it certainly doesn't indicate any kind of benevolent intelligence. But that's what the Bible says about God's system of judgement.

When they seek the God-of-conscience, they end up, in my opinion, finding/hearing Christ (though not necessarily by that name). And if they eventually learn the name Jesus Christ at a later date, the same Voice confirms to them that He is the same God they already knew/heard in their conscience. Thus the OT saints made it to heaven merely by knowing God instead of the name jesus christ. It's the same person.

Not in every case. Remember what George Harrison said?

"Everybody is looking for KRSNA. Some don't realize that they are, but they are.
KRSNA is GOD, the Source of all that exists, the Cause of all that is, was, or ever will be. As GOD is unlimited, HE has many Names. Allah-Buddha-Jehova-Rama:
All are KRSNA, all are ONE.

By serving GOD through each thought, word, and DEED, and by chanting of HIS Holy Names, the devotee quickly develops God-consciousness.

By chanting
Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna
Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama
Rama Rama, Hare Hare
one inevitably arrives at KRSNA Consciousness.

(The proof of the pudding is in the eating!) ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE (KRISHNA)

I've read a number of Hindu claims, and they all sound just like Christians when they say that if you'll just pray to Krsna, focus, and meditate exclusively on HIM with an undeviated mind, then you WILL sense his presence. Harrison says that you'll not only hear his voice but see him too, so that you'll know for sure that he is actually there, actually with you! Now how does Krsna consciousness differ from the voice in YOUR head?

By the way, many Hindus claim that Jesus is the 9th avatar of Vishnu, a more modern incarnation of the 8th avatar, Lord Krsna, the supreme personality of the god-head who appeard 5,000 years ago. They also say his name, (Krishna) means "Christ". I just mention it as a point of interest.

You spoke of your earlier days as a Christian. If you now think Christianity is illogical, I believe it's because you let the voice wax dull. It gets louder with prayer. It becomes quite convincing as it gets louder. If you won't seek God this way, you are actually tying His hands and, worse yet, possibly violating your own conscience.

No sir. It would be a violation of my conscience, as well as my consciousness, if I were to forcibly evoke these manifestations as I, Harrison, and you, have all done before. I have come to realize that faith is naught but a means of deception. Truth can only be winnowed from delusion by scrutiny and doubt. Having no reason to believe something is already a damned good reason to doubt it. But one should never assert an assumption as fact without substantial evidentiary backing that is objectively demonstrable. And the inconsistent subjective delusions of faith provide no reason to believe the assumption at all.

I know you won't understand this, but I need to explain it anyway. If you want to use the excuse that God is beyond reality, (which to me would mean he wasn't real) and that it is impossible to qualify or quantify anything of a supernatural nature, fine. Have fun with whatever you want to dream up. Just remember that what you're describing is magick, pure and simple. (Don't forget you're literally supporting the idea that a "god" simply wishes complex matter out of nothing merely by uttering the equivielnt of "Abra-cadabera".) But if any entity from some plane of the paranormal wants to reach into, and effect physical changes in the material plane, he'll pull his arm out dripping with physics. In other words, there would be some evidence of some kind as to their disturbance of the physical plane. Get it?

Furthermore, I don't care what you or anyone else believes. All that will ever matter to me is why you believe it. Also understand that you can't say what God is, wants, did, or will do if you can't verify any more accuracy for your claim than anyone else's. That would amount to nothing more than idle speculation of no use to me or anyone else, and no more significant than similar assertions made by those of other religions. Do you understand that?

 

[JAL]

Mr. Aron-Ra

I haven't argued that I hear God's voice or that Christianity is true. I opined such, but you respond as if you think I'm trying to convince you of these opinions. (Only once did I offer an argument, namely the circumcision issue). What I have been trying to convince you is that a voice-religion is not insanity. This might be my final argument on the issue.

Most parents feel wronged when their children disobey their voice. Why? Can the child prove he is not hallucinating? Can he prove that the voice is real? Can he prove that the parent should be an authority figure? You say you want a reason to believe in God, not voice. Would you let your children off the hook so easy? Suppose your child said, "I"m sorry, Dad, or whoever you think you are, I'm still waiting for a scientific reason to believe in you, so I'm just not going to obey your voice until then. People who heed voices are just INSANE! That's RELIGIOUS! I would NEVER do that!" Mr. Aron-Ra, I have a feeling that you wouldn't let your child off the hook so easy. You can rant and rave until the cows come home that obeying voices is insanity, but I fail to see the consistency. Parents feel that their children have a sense of right and wrong (a conscience) that morally constrains the child to obey the parent. When the parents feel that the children are disobeying the voice of conscience (for example by disobeying the parents' voice), they punish the child.

If God exists, He is our father, and the voice of conscience came from Him. In a sense, the voice of conscience is His voice in a preliminary sense. When the conscience warns us that God might exist, those who respond to this warning by seeking Him will, as their reward, hear His real voice. That's my opinion, that's what I believe the Bible teaches. I don't know where you got the idea that the Bible ties our salvation to priests. Paul says we are saved by the faith of Abraham (Rom 4:1ff). Abrahams got faith by hearing God's voice (Gen 15:6). He heard it, it sounded convincing, it sounded authoritative, and He believed it. Abraham did what any good child would do. Priesthood is ipso facto in the sense that Abraham first had to hear the voice in order to hear about priesthood.

You would say that Abraham did evil by trying to kill his son. Evil is doing something believed to be immoral. It is my opinion, based on my expereince with God, that He used His power to force Abraham to believe that he was doing the right thing. And He forced Abraham to believe that disobeying the voice is immoral. When a person has no choice what to believe, he is not doing evil. The one controlling his mind is perhaps evil.

Was it evil for God to so command Abraham? A father can command his child to kill a chicken. That's not evil even though the chicken actually dies. Abraham's son did not even die, so it's not entirely clear where the so-called evil comes in.

Orthodox Christianity assumes that Christ alone atones. I have a problem with that assumption but I can't debate it here. I would say that Christ is responsible for 99.99% of the atoning, but the salvation of many depends on our little contribution as Christians. So we have to suffer too. How much suffering should we gear up for? Well, that's precisely why God tested Abraham in this way, namely to SHOW us how much we should be willing to suffer, and to what extent we are required to obey the voice. God gave up what was most dear to Him - His Son. Here we see that Abraham is asked to give up the same thing. The moral of the story is not to kill our kids. The moral is that we are supposed to obey the Voice even if it costs us everything that we hold dear. You speak as though God is portrayed as having fun testing Abraham this way. If you know Yahweh, you would know that it broke His heart to test Abraham like this, and He only did this to have Abraham become a model of obedience for all generations. Tell me, do you like it when people around you obey their voice of conscience? Or would you rather have them mistreat you? Abraham's example inspires many people to obey their voice of conscience even when it costs them dearly.

 

[mark kennedy]

in this context?
no

http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/E0182500.html
definition number 1 is the meaning they're referring to in the paper - and as you can see, it doesn't have anything to do with stasis


"The mutational deterministic hypothesis postulates that sex is an adaptation that allows deleterious mutations to be purged from the genome; it requires synergistic interactions, which means that two mutations would be more harmful together than expected from their separate effects."

That is right as far as it goes since the idea is that in order for sexual reproduction to emerge from a single celled organism it must produce a selective advantage. It simple does not and this is a general summation of the facts demonstrated.

1. An asexually reproducing genotype should have twice the fitness of its sexual counterparts, all else being equal. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why sexual reproduction is so widespread in nature.

2. Two of twenty hypothesis propose that sex is an adaptation for purging deleterious mutations.

3. Muller’s ratchet depends on random genetic drift and thus provides an advantage for sex in small populations.

4. Multiple deterministic hypothesis is effective in large populations but depend on synergistic hypothesis since multiple mutations are more harmful then would be expected from their separate effects.

5. There is very little data to indicate deleterious mutations typically interact in a synergistic manner.

6. Each additional mutation reduces the level of fitness.

7. Synergistic epitasis causes a disproportionate fitness reduction.

Methodology:

1. Construct different genotypes and random mutations and measure their relative fitness.

2. The sampled adaptation was from 10,000 generations which resulted in a reduction its rate of evolutionary adaptation slowed dramatically.

Conclusion:

3. Synergistic interactions are neither stronger nor more common that antagonistic interactions.

no, this is incorrect

mutations themselves are NOT synergistic or antagonistic, these terms refer to the interactions between them and their combined effect on fitness. The paper is only looking at interactions between deleterious alleles

The effects are either synergistic or antagonistic and when they are produced equally, along with their effects, it is a zero evolutionary change. There is no demonstrated mechanism so you have to go back and rethink you're theory. This theory has produced many hypothesis that keep coming back null. There is no demonstrated mechanism for evolution in genetics and this is a fact demonstrated empirically.

neither does it demonstrate stasis - it simply shows that in some instances epistasis between deleterious alleles is synergistic: that their combined effect decreases fitness beyond a simple addition of their separate fitness costs and that in some cases the epistasis is antagonistic: their combined effect decreases fitness costs less than would be expected from a simple addition of their separate fitness costs

The combined effect in multiple mutations decrease fitness more then single ones. What you have in the first figure is an decreasing exponential curve, check it out for yourself, you have the paper, the evidence is right there.

its a complete misunderstanding of the point of the paper - especially since the paper is specifically only looking at deleterious mutations, and that it is looking at the epistasis between them and not some simple measure of fitness

I understood that 1 of 20 hypothesis have been tested in this instance since it was the only one that was effective in large populations as opposed to the ones effected in Muller's rachet that is only effective in small populations.

there are EXTANT organisms that do both mark - so the change quite obviously does not lead to extinction

The mutations are effectivly producing inferior organisms and without a selective advantage that is exactly what the result must be, extinction.

not at all mark - of course it occured, else there wouldn't be sexual reproduction

That is, as the quote in my signiture concludes, how the myth of evoltution is produced. You have presumed that it must have occured in this way or we would not have sexual reproduction. This completly ignores the other viable possibility that God indeed created creatures fully formed to be either sexual or asexual reproductive creatures.

this particular paper is adressing why it occured

This paper is demonstrating that there is no selective advantage for the change and thus no evolution is demonstrated. That is stasis no matter how much you chose to deny it.

Of course it isn't, the evolution of sex has nothing to do with species concepts

Nonsense, species is defined by reproductive success.

i've been showing it all along - you keep demonstrating it everytime you post


i've read it mark, and crucially - i've understood it


i've repeatedly referred to the paper, and what its actual point was - the very evidence you brought up in the first place

What can I say to that except:

No I have not.
No you have not.
No you have not, at least not yet.

Pedantic oversimplifications of the facts are not facts, they are rationalizations.

In the Grasse quote, I took out of context, he did say that there was a genuine science that demonstrated evolution. His point about using biology and genetics to try to demonstrate it was due to the fact that biology had reached it's limits. There is also reference made in the paper to some very compelling data generated in favor of the hypothesis in question if you ever bothered to check such things.

 

[yossarian]

That is right as far as it goes since the idea is that in order for sexual reproduction to emerge from a single celled organism it must produce a selective advantage. It simple does not and this is a general summation of the facts demonstrated.

No. Synergistic epistasis cannot be the selective advantage - thats the only conclusion one can draw from the paper (and really, even that would be too presumptuous)

The effects are either synergistic or antagonistic and when they are produced equally, along with their effects, it is a zero evolutionary change.

no, incorrect - it simply means that synergistic epistasis is not as common as would be predicted by their hypothesis - it has no real bearing on evolutionary change at all

There is no demonstrated mechanism so you have to go back and rethink you're theory. This theory has produced many hypothesis that keep coming back null. There is no demonstrated mechanism for evolution in genetics and this is a fact demonstrated empirically.

the theory has in fact produced such numerous verified hypotheses and predictions that is clearly the best theory available

to say that there is no demonstrated mechanism for evolution in genetics is utter unmitigated garbage - the paper you refer to doesn't even really deal with the actual genetics of the transition - it really only adresses a particular model of epistasis

The combined effect in multiple mutations decrease fitness more then single ones. What you have in the first figure is an decreasing exponential curve, check it out for yourself, you have the paper, the evidence is right there.

the whole conclusion of the article is that the combined effect of multiple mutations don't always decrease fitness more than single ones, and in fact, sometimes the opposite occurs - thats the reason they reject the hypothesis

I understood that 1 of 20 hypothesis have been tested in this instance since it was the only one that was effective in large populations as opposed to the ones effected in Muller's rachet that is only effective in small populations.

what?

The mutations are effectivly producing inferior organisms and without a selective advantage that is exactly what the result must be, extinction.

but thats exactly what the result isn't mark - organisms that do both sexual and asexual reproduction have been around a long time AND they continue to exist

organisms that sexually reproduce, likewise, have been around a long time and continue to exist

so your point is starkly contradicted by facts obvious to 10 year olds

That is, as the quote in my signiture concludes, how the myth of evoltution is produced. You have presumed that it must have occured in this way or we would not have sexual reproduction. This completly ignores the other viable possibility that God indeed created creatures fully formed to be either sexual or asexual reproductive creatures.

or both sexual and asexual and the same time - thus offering an intermediate stage between asexual and sexual reproduction

This paper is demonstrating that there is no selective advantage for the change and thus no evolution is demonstrated. That is stasis no matter how much you chose to deny it.

you really have serious issues with reading and understanding scientific papers

what the paper demonstrates is that synergistic epistasis provides no selective advantage, NOT that sexual reproduction provides no selective advantage

thats merely your unreasonable extrapolation

Nonsense, species is defined by reproductive success.

the evolution of sex is not an issue of taxonomy

No I have not.
No you have not.
No you have not, at least not yet.

Pedantic oversimplifications of the facts are not facts, they are rationalizations.

you're the only one guilty of that mark, in addition to drawing bizzare conclusions, contradicting the actual conclusion of the paper you're relying on, and misusing terms repeatedly

 

[mark kennedy]

No. Synergistic epistasis cannot be the selective advantage - thats the only conclusion one can draw from the paper (and really, even that would be too presumptuous)

"Therefore, it is difficult to understand why sexual reproduction is so widespread in nature. This problem remains unsolved not for want of theories, but rather for lack of compelling data."

Did you miss this or just simply chose to ignore it. In order for living systems to have emerged from single celled organisms they must make this transition. There is no demonstrated mechanism for this in natural science just a naturalistic presumption that it must have occured. This has produced a mythology as to our origins to this day. There is no selective advantage produced by any of the hypothesis generated by this theory of single common ancestory. No other theory in natural science would be given this kind of tolerance and it is, as Bacon described it, an idol of the mind.

no, incorrect - it simply means that synergistic epistasis is not as common as would be predicted by their hypothesis - it has no real bearing on evolutionary change at all

That is the whole point of the experiments, to test a hypothesis as to the origin and maintance of sex. You say that I don't understand the paper and you make a statement like that...you are in denial and that is putting it mildly.

the theory has in fact produced such numerous verified hypotheses and predictions that is clearly the best theory available

Such as?

to say that there is no demonstrated mechanism for evolution in genetics is utter unmitigated garbage - the paper you refer to doesn't even really deal with the actual genetics of the transition - it really only adresses a particular model of epistasis

On the contrary, to say that it has a demonstrated mechanism is unmitigated mythology.

the whole conclusion of the article is that the combined effect of multiple mutations don't always decrease fitness more than single ones, and in fact, sometimes the opposite occurs - thats the reason they reject the hypothesis

Go back and look at figure 1 and read the discussion. Then go back to Aron-Ra's step 3 and rethink you're theory.

what?

Among some 20 hypotheses...

(Kondrashov, A. S. Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J. Hered. 84, 372–387 (1993).),​

two postulate that sex is an adaptation for purging deleterious mutations from the genome...

(Kondrashov, A. S. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336, 435–440 (1988). Kondrashov, A. S. Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J. Hered. 84, 372–387
(1993).. Hurst, L. D. & Peck, J. R. Recent advances in understanding of the evolution and maintenance of sex.Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 46–52 (1996)..​

but thats exactly what the result isn't mark - organisms that do both sexual and asexual reproduction have been around a long time AND they continue to exist

They have both been around since the begining of life on earth, that is the point.

organisms that sexually reproduce, likewise, have been around a long time and continue to exist

Sure, but how did they evolve from asexual single celled organisms, that's the real question here.

so your point is starkly contradicted by facts obvious to 10 year olds

Maybe to a 10 year old but a mature adult...

or both sexual and asexual and the same time - thus offering an intermediate stage between asexual and sexual reproduction

There is no intermediate stage, that's a myth.

you really have serious issues with reading and understanding scientific papers

No, I know what the paper demonstrated and it's the opposite of what the descent from a single cell ancestor model predicts.

what the paper demonstrates is that synergistic epistasis provides no selective advantage, NOT that sexual reproduction provides no selective advantage

The larger implications are both evident and obvious, in fact, they are explicitly stated in the paper.

thats merely your unreasonable extrapolation

You don't like having you're naturalistic assumptions challenged do you?

the evolution of sex is not an issue of taxonomy

Then why is sexual and asexual reproduction part of the definition of kingdom in modern taxonomy?

you're the only one guilty of that mark, in addition to drawing bizzare conclusions, contradicting the actual conclusion of the paper you're relying on, and misusing terms repeatedly

Did you even read it because the conclusion was pretty clear.

"Even with this conservative approach, three synergistic and four antagonistic interactions are significant. Therefore, the mutational deterministic hypothesis seems to fail not because interactions between deleterious mutations are very rare, but rather because synergistic and antagonistic interactions are both common."

 

[Jet Black]

Did you miss this or just simply chose to ignore it. In order for living systems to have emerged from single celled organisms they must make this transition. There is no demonstrated mechanism for this in natural science just a naturalistic presumption that it must have occured.

ignoring all the intermediate organisms are you?

 

[mark kennedy]

ignoring all the intermediate organisms are you?

What intermediate organisms, this hypothesis was tested and failed to produce a demonstrated mechanism. Why is it that this theory is producing so many null hypothesis and still considered a theory?

 

[Jet Black]

What intermediate organisms?

heh. I'm not suprised. Your lack of knowledge rears it's ugly head. Again.

 

[Tomk80]

What intermediate organisms, this hypothesis was tested and failed to produce a demonstrated mechanism. Why is it that this theory is producing so many null hypothesis and still considered a theory?

Not to be too much on semantics, but an intermediate organism is not the same as a demonstrated mechanism. We observe intermediate organisms and try to find a mechanism to explain them.

 

[Jet Black]

Not to be too much on semantics, but an intermediate organism is not the same as a demonstrated mechanism. We observe intermediate organisms and try to find a mechanism to explain them.

the existance of intermediate organisms however is rather important, since it demonstrates that there are benefits to the differences in the various varieties of reproductions. Take bacterial gene mixing for example. Mycobacterium does not mix genes at all, but other populations exchange genes so rapidly, that their genes are in linkage equilibrium. so regardless of whether we know the precise mechanism, these things demonstrate that one exists, and there are reasons for the results.

 

[mark kennedy]

heh. I'm not suprised. Your lack of knowledge rears it's ugly head. Again.

Of course anyone who disagrees with you must lack knowledge. There is no transitional fossil or demonstrated mechanism for the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. The descent from a single celled organism is a myth whether you know it or not.

 

[h2whoa]

Of course anyone who disagrees with you must lack knowledge. There is no transitional fossil or demonstrated mechanism for the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. The descent from a single celled organism is a myth whether you know it or not.

Really?

What about those microorganisms that are able to produce both sexually and asexually?

hmmm....

h2

 

[mark kennedy]

the existance of intermediate organisms however is rather important, since it demonstrates that there are benefits to the differences in the various varieties of reproductions.

Yet the selective advantage is not produced by deletreous mutations, that is not my opinion, its a demonstrated fact.

Take bacterial gene mixing for example. Mycobacterium does not mix genes at all, but other populations exchange genes so rapidly, that their genes are in linkage equilibrium. so regardless of whether we know the precise mechanism, these things demonstrate that one exists, and there are reasons for the results.

Gene swapping may well account for changes within various populations (of what I don't know) but these are existing genes being exchanged. In order for there to be evolution the DNA must be written. We not only have no precise mechanism we have no demonstrated mechanism for this transition. There is no such thing as a single missing link, there are thousands of then at crucial points of transition.

 

[mark kennedy]

Really?

What about those microorganisms that are able to produce both sexually and asexually?

hmmm....

h2

They do not survive when they have to compete with unmutated strains. The selective advantage for asexually reproducing organisms is twice that of sexually producing ones. Natural selection would eliminate these supposed transitions at the first sign of trouble and this is a demonstrated fact.

 

[h2whoa]

They do not survive when they have to compete with unmutated strains. The selective advantage for asexually reproducing organisms is twice that of sexually producing ones. Natural selection would eliminate these supposed transitions at the first sign of trouble and this is a demonstrated fact.

Mark this isn't true. There are many organisms around today, doing pretty well, that can quite happily breed both sexually and asexually.

Sexual reproduction becomes advantageous under times of stress for the very reason that it carries greater adaptive potential.

However, I assume you have published sources to back up your assertion that I am in fact wrong?

h2

 

[Jet Black]

Yet the selective advantage is not produced by deletreous mutations, that is not my opinion, its a demonstrated fact.

can you repeat that in a way I might understand.

Gene swapping may well account for changes within various populations (of what I don't know) but these are existing genes being exchanged. In order for there to be evolution the DNA must be written.

DNA is always being written. what are you on about?

We not only have no precise mechanism we have no demonstrated mechanism for this transition.

what mechanism now? for writing DNA? crikey mark, learn some genetics. even an elementary introductory freshers text will give you a number of mechanisms.

There is no such thing as a single missing link, there are thousands of then at crucial points of transition.

typical creationist canard, which completely avoids the issues at hand, and demonstrates a naiive understanding of science. your argument is akin to denying that labradors and pugs had a common ancestor because you don't know exactly what it looked like or what it's DNA is.