Denying all evidence

[Papias]

Skywriting wrote:

You know the Earth is an ovid don't you?
It seems generalizations are running ramped in society.
Same mistake on your part.

Skywriting, let's not play word games. I asked you if all those writers who wrote in ancient times who described the earth as flat (I don't mean the few who wrote about it as a sphere, like Eratosthenes) really thought the earth was a sphere, and were just using a generalization? Is that really what you are proposing? By "sphere" I mean "within a +/- 1% of a constant radius, if you are going to continue to split hairs.

If we are going to nitpick, then frist, Ovid is a Roman Poet (not a shape), and that's what Shernren is referring to with metamorphoses. Second, the slightly flattened shape of the earth is a kind of ellipsoid, not an ovoid. Third, the deviation from being a sphere is only about the same amount as is allowed in pool balls, so it's pretty close to being spherical (I assume you consider pool balls to be spherical, right?).

Assyrian - we are all set, right?


**********************************************
It doesn't look like we are getting very far with the questions for Greg, but here we are:

A. You agree that some change occurs over time. What stops that change over time from adding up?

Greg has only given the vauge and unsupported statement that: Nope, it remains in the courtyard. This was already given. He also mentioned his writing about cars, which still fails to explain why changes won't add up.

B:
Greg wrote:

Im telling you that I could draw up a nested hierarchy of cars.

OK, go for it. Be sure to include most of the features of cars. (still waiting for his nested hierarchy, after he again said he could do it.) OK, now he is saying he won't do it (a few examples of car features of course don't constitute a nested hierarchy). What a surprise! Greg, are you familar with what a nested hierarchy is?

Greg wrote:

Examples were given. Not going to write out the entire thing.

​

Selection is simulated.
​

C. One cannot accuately simulate selection over millions of generations in a tiny fraction of that number. How are you saying selection over a huge number of generations was accurately simulated?

Natural Selection acts on random mutation. Different organisms exhibit different mutation rates. By speeding up the mutation rate in a fruit fly,increasing he chances of large morphological changes, millions of years of mammalian mutation is simulated, large mammals having a lower mutational rate than the tested organism.

I didn't ask how more mutations were made - that's obvious. I asked how natural selectionover a huge number of generations was accurately simulated. Please answer the question about natural selection, thanks.

Natural selection is replaced with artificial selection, where the results of mutation is monitored without the need for natural selection to preserve it in the wild, when predation, finding food, environmental conditions are not a factor.

Greg, you are aware that a much smaller number of generations were used, right? You realize that selection over a tiny number of generations is not an accurate simulation of selection over thousands of times as many generations, right?

Do you understand that because of natural selection, harmful mutations are not relevant, because they are removed? Hence your quote from Dobshansky is irrelevant.

D. You responded to my pointing out that saying that alterations to a text of language is pre-programmed because the language is already established is the same as allowing evolution after DNA is established. How is that not the case? You have only responded with:

Not what is being said.

Still unanswered, other than with another unsupported assertion that bacteria can't evolve into men.



There you ignored:

​

E. You are aware that natural selection is not random, right?

F Still waiting on whether or not you know that macroevolution has been observed.

G. Btw, are you aware that the classification system predates Darwin, and was put together by a creationist?

To E, F, and G, Greg responded:

All this was already given.

Greg, you ignored them last time. I'm not asking for more creationist word salad, but rather whether or not you are aware of those things.

Natural selection is taken into account in the random assembly of anything, chance cannot build a man.

(to answer E, right?) If you are "taking natural selection into account in the random assembly", then that assembly is not random. Just as if I lumped the picking out of all the 6's in an iterive set of die rolls, it would not be random. Why do you continue in calling a nonrandom process random?

A creationist is in fact a human.

Did I ever dispute that?


H. I read the paper and the section you posted again. It is simply showing how larger mutations, as opposed to the smaller point mutations often thought of, are relevant too. This was a conversation at a conference, and more than that, is nearly a decade old. Science works by investigation of ideas, and this has had a lot of time for more work and understanding. Do you have more recent work based on that start showing the larger (and already known) mutations? Have you asked actual biologists and biology professors to help you understand that paper?
(waiting on answers to the last to subquestions after Greg again stated that his mutations listed in the paper somehow aren't mutations are somehow aren't subject to natural selection like any other mutuation). In addition to that ingnoring of the points and the content of the paper, Greg also appears to be ignoring the bolded questions.


I. Gregg, do you agree that speciation has been observed in fruit flies? This is part of the discussion of how creationists just run up the classification until they find a common name that encompasses both creatures (like "bacteria"), and then say that the admitted change has some barrier to prevent that change from adding to more change.

Only adaptation.

OK, Greg, I can provide references to speciation in fruit flies that you deny here. Are you interested in seeing them?

Papias

 

[sfs]

Stop it... I've got this nostalgic grin wrapped around my face now.

You're the right age to have read it as a kid, too. A classic.

They just don't make nostalgia they way they used to. . .

 

[SkyWriting]

...and there is a much more plausible reason for the ancient Hebrews to have used flat earth language (namely that they actually thought the earth was that way).

I agree. It is flatish. There is no need to think otherwise. Just as it is a sphere because you choose to think it that way, even if airline pilots use flat maps.

And it is actually an ovoid because I choose to prove your language to be similarly inaccurate.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian - we are all set, right?

No, sfs has set me off again

 

[SkyWriting]

Skywriting wrote:


Skywriting, let's not play word games. I asked you if all those writers who wrote in ancient times who described the earth as flat (I don't mean the few who wrote about it as a sphere, like Eratosthenes) really thought the earth was a sphere, and were just using a generalization? Is that really what you are proposing?

My comment is that you are playing word games. Because of the culture and the audience, flat is a correct description. Without good information about how gravity effects mass, a curved surface would be a distracting idea.

Just as you prefer ellipsoid as a generalization over ovoid.

I'm afraid you will find the "curve of the earth" to be much closer to flat than not and well within your stated margin of error.

 

[shernren]

My comment is that you are playing word games. Because of the culture and the audience, flat is a correct description. Without good information about how gravity effects mass, a curved surface would be a distracting idea.

Just as you prefer ellipsoid as a generalization over ovoid.

I'm afraid you will find the "curve of the earth" to be much closer to flat than not and well within your stated margin of error.

The standard text on matters of whether the flat-earth theory is right or not is Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. He says:

on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.
​

The absolute error between a flat earth and a spherical earth, therefore, is 8 inches, while on the same scale the absolute error between a spherical earth and an oblate spheroidal earth is about 0.1 inches. It is thus about 80 times more wrong for one to believe that the earth is flat, given that it is spherical, than for one to believe that the earth is spherical, given that it is oblate spheroidal.

The other thing is this: the age of the universe (and the earth) is at the end of the day just a number. If the Bible is allowed to fudge one number (the curvature of the earth), why isn't it allowed to fudge another?

 

[Greg1234]

Do you understand that because of natural selection, harmful mutations are not relevant, because they are removed? Hence your quote from Dobshansky is irrelevant.

Natural selection doesnt remove mutations from the genome. Natural selection is not a DNA modifying agent, it doesn't influence the mutations performed, the rate of mutation or the location of the mutation. Natural selection only preserves a given mutation. Being in a labratory setting, without the wild, the need for food, predation, and with constant observation, every mutation,whether good or bad is detected and automatically selected, rendering the natural selection mechanism needed to preserve a population,obsolete. The size of the generations is not a factor, the generation size increases the number of chances for a random mutation to take place given a normal mutational rate over a period of time. With the mutational rate sped up, the number of generations needed reacts inversely, together with a lower gestation period, enabling scientists to simulate millions of years of normal mutations in a larger mammals with a lower mutational rate. Dobzhansky's results stand.

D. You responded to my pointing out that saying that alterations to a text of language is pre-programmed because the language is already established is the same as allowing evolution after DNA is established. How is that not the case? You have only responded with:

This is what we have tested. We didnt deprogram DNA and then tested random mutation. The fact that it is a language does not automatically make random alterations viable. And tests show just that.

 

[SkyWriting]

The standard text on matters of whether the flat-earth theory is right or not is Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. He says:

on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.
​

The absolute error between a flat earth and a spherical earth, therefore, is 8 inches, while on the same scale the absolute error between a spherical earth and an oblate spheroidal earth is about 0.1 inches. It is thus about 80 times more wrong for one to believe that the earth is flat, given that it is spherical, than for one to believe that the earth is spherical, given that it is oblate spheroidal.

Interesting that you can't see Asimov's blatant deception.
The issue is not between the error of a sphere. It's the amount of error between being flat
- 0 inches per 63360 (mile)
- and being curved, 8 inches per 63360.
Or 1 inch in 8000. Or .0125% error.
That is under your specified "I mean within a +/- 1% of a constant radius" by a factor of 100.

So a fiction writer sticks a biased foot in mouth. No surprise.

 

[sfs]

Natural selection doesnt remove mutations from the genome. Natural selection is not a DNA modifying agent, it doesn't influence the mutations performed, the rate of mutation or the location of the mutation. Natural selection only preserves a given mutation. Being in a labratory setting, without the wild, the need for food, predation, and with constant observation, every mutation,whether good or bad is detected and automatically selected, rendering the natural selection mechanism needed to preserve a population,obsolete. The size of the generations is not a factor, the generation size increases the number of chances for a random mutation to take place given a normal mutational rate over a period of time. With the mutational rate sped up, the number of generations needed reacts inversely, together with a lower gestation period, enabling scientists to simulate millions of years of normal mutations in a larger mammals with a lower mutational rate. Dobzhansky's results stand.

I don't know exactly what the background for this post is, but much of what you've written here is wrong. First, natural selection does remove deleterious mutations from the genome. Trivially, it removes lethal mutations, which don't permit the organism to live. But it also removes many others, ones that make an organism less fit than its neighbors. It doesn't do it by modifying DNA; it does it by making those with specific DNA less likely to breed.

Second, your claim that "every mutation is detected" in the lab is completely wrong. Even today, when fairly cheap genome sequencing is available, the great bulk of mutations in a lab population will not be detected, because we do not yet have that capability. In Dobzhansky's time, only a minute fraction of mutations would have been detectable, and they would have been the ones of extremely large effect. Third, lab populations are still affected by natural selection; the forces are somewhat different than in the wild, but selection certainly still acts.

Evolution in fruit flies (I assume we're talking about fruit flies) is indeed faster than in large mammals. Their generation time (in the lab) is about 500 times shorter than human generation, while their mutation rate is only about a factor of two lower. So the rate at which neutral genetic changes accumulate is perhaps 300 times faster than for humans. Studying flies for ten years can (for some purposes) be equivalent to studying changes in humans over a span of 3000 year. That's not nothing, but it's really quite a short time, genetically speaking (on average genetic variants in humans are about half a million years old), and several orders of magnitude smaller than the millions of years you claimed.

 

[SkyWriting]

And we know for a fact the Earth was not created in 6 literal 24 hour days. It's called metaphor.

And man as well that week:

God created man in present form: 44% say yes

 

[Assyrian]

The standard text on matters of whether the flat-earth theory is right or not is Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. He says:

on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.
​

The absolute error between a flat earth and a spherical earth, therefore, is 8 inches, while on the same scale the absolute error between a spherical earth and an oblate spheroidal earth is about 0.1 inches. It is thus about 80 times more wrong for one to believe that the earth is flat, given that it is spherical, than for one to believe that the earth is spherical, given that it is oblate spheroidal.

The other thing is this: the age of the universe (and the earth) is at the end of the day just a number. If the Bible is allowed to fudge one number (the curvature of the earth), why isn't it allowed to fudge another?

Creationism claims the bible say the earth is 6,000 years old or 6x10[sup]3[/sup]years, when in fact it is 4.5 billion years, 5.5x10[sup]9[/sup], an order of magnitude that is out by a mere 6. More seriously, if the ancients were only talking about the shape of the world that knew about, that the world consisted of just the Ancient Middle East then being our by 8" in the mile is not that bad. But they are still talking about the whole world. They imagined that the earth was level, horizontal changed by 0° from end to end, or in some cosmologies, slightly higher in the middle, in fact the Middle East changes by about 30°. If the world did just consist of the Middle East that wouldn't be too far out, but it doesn't and the whole world changes by much more, by 360°.

 

[Assyrian]

So a fiction writer sticks a biased foot in mouth. No surprise.

science fiction writer was supporting your point.

 

[shernren]

Interesting that you can't see Asimov's blatant deception.
The issue is not between the error of a sphere. It's the amount of error between being flat
- 0 inches per 63360 (mile)
- and being curved, 8 inches per 63360.
Or 1 inch in 8000. Or .0125% error.
That is under your specified "I mean within a +/- 1% of a constant radius" by a factor of 100.

So a fiction writer sticks a biased foot in mouth. No surprise.

Unfortunately, that's not how errors are calculated. Scientifically, the relative error is

(Correct answer - wrong answer)/correct answer

which makes sense. After all 8 inches to the mile may not seem like much ... until you're flying in a plane.

So let's say the "spheroidal" answer is 7.9 inches to the mile, and the "spherical" answer is 8. The relative error is

(7.9 - 8)/7.9 ~= 0.1/8 = 0.0125 = 1.25%.

Pretty reasonable. But the error of the "flat" answer is

(7.9 - 0)/7.9 = 1 = 100%

which sounds like a pretty huge error to me.

 

[Greg1234]

I don't know exactly what the background for this post is, but much of what you've written here is wrong. First, natural selection does remove deleterious mutations from the genome. Trivially, it removes lethal mutations, which don't permit the organism to live. But it also removes many others, ones that make an organism less fit than its neighbors. It doesn't do it by modifying DNA; it does it by making those with specific DNA less likely to breed.

Natural selection does not modify DNA, that was the point of the post. Obviously if an organism dies the genome will die with it. The fact is, during the process of random mutation, natural selection does not act as a DNA modifying agent, You're still attempting to build a man randomly. As shown in laboratory testing, this is not viable.

Second, your claim that "every mutation is detected" in the lab is completely wrong. Even today, when fairly cheap genome sequencing is available, the great bulk of mutations in a lab population will not be detected, because we do not yet have that capability. In Dobzhansky's time, only a minute fraction of mutations would have been detectable, and they would have been the ones of extremely large effect. Third, lab populations are still affected by natural selection; the forces are somewhat different than in the wild, but selection certainly still acts.

What I am saying is that there is no need for natural selection to preserve a population under laboratory conditions. "Survival of the fittest" is replaced with just "survival". Selection will act, but, the fact that a mutant will go undetected no longer applies.

Evolution in fruit flies (I assume we're talking about fruit flies) is indeed faster than in large mammals. Their generation time (in the lab) is about 500 times shorter than human generation, while their mutation rate is only about a factor of two lower. So the rate at which neutral genetic changes accumulate is perhaps 300 times faster than for humans. Studying flies for ten years can (for some purposes) be equivalent to studying changes in humans over a span of 3000 year. That's not nothing, but it's really quite a short time, genetically speaking (on average genetic variants in humans are about half a million years old), and several orders of magnitude smaller than the millions of years you claimed.

"According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."
"Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them."

 

[sfs]

Natural selection does not modify DNA, that was the point of the post. Obviously if an organism dies the genome will die with it.

Natural selection does not modify DNA, but it does modify the genetic makeup of a population, or keep it from changing the face of new mutations. If what you're looking at is changes to a species (which seems to be what you're talking about), selection matters very much indeed.

The fact is, during the process of random mutation, natural selection does not act as a DNA modifying agent, You're still attempting to build a man randomly.

Of course natural selection doesn't act during the process of random mutation. It does work after the mutation occurs, however, determining which changes are kept and which aren't. Under the pressure of natural selection, a population can change very rapidly -- much more rapidly than we see in the fossil record, for example. So if you're not taking natural selection into account, you're simply not addressing the issue.

As shown in laboratory testing, this is not viable.

Sorry, but all the guys in the labs that do that testing think you're wrong.

What I am saying is that there is no need for natural selection to preserve a population under laboratory conditions.

Yes, I know that's what you're saying. What I'm saying is that it's wrong. A great deal of natural selection occurs in a lab population, maintaining the species' characteristics (and often changing them, as the population adapts to life in the lab).

"Survival of the fittest" is replaced with just "survival". Selection will act, but, the fact that a mutant will go undetected no longer applies.

I don't know what this means. How were the mutants detected, and what does this have to do with fruit flies evolving in the lab to no longer be fruit flies?

"According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."
"Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them."

Okay, so the mutation rate has greatly been increased. What your quotation says is still wrong, and a pretty bad misunderstanding of genetics and evolution. If you cause every possible mutation in a fruit fly population, you'll produce a lot of slightly different fruit flies and even more dead and malformed fruit flies, but there is no chance that you'll produce something that isn't a fruit fly. That's what evolutionary biology would predict, anyway.

In real biology (contrasted with creationist misunderstanding), evolution occurs when one of those slightly different fruit flies becomes the norm in the new population, either by chance or because it is better fitted for its current environment than the old fruit fly. Then another small change occurs and spreads, and another, and another. After a while, the fruit fly has changed enough that mutations that would have been destructive in the original fly, or that were impossible (a mutation in a recently duplicated copy of a gene, for example), are now actually beneficial; the genetic background has changed, and mutations have different effects in different backgrounds. This process simply cannot be simulated by zapping flies with x-rays (which, incidentally, produce a very different spectrum of mutations than spontaneous mutations).

 

[Greg1234]

Natural selection does not modify DNA, but it does modify the genetic makeup of a population, or keep it from changing the face of new mutations. If what you're looking at is changes to a species (which seems to be what you're talking about), selection matters very much indeed.

Bingo.Natural selection does not modify DNA. It does not help random mutation in any way. It does not change the fact that the genetic makeup in a population is supposedly a result of a random act and that you are attempting to build a man randomly. Random mutation was in fact isolated and tested.

Of course natural selection doesn't act during the process of random mutation. It does work after the mutation occurs, however, determining which changes are kept and which aren't. Under the pressure of natural selection, a population can change very rapidly -- much more rapidly than we see in the fossil record, for example. So if you're not taking natural selection into account, you're simply not addressing the issue.

The isolation of random mutations showed us just what would be selected. Thats the whole point.

Yes, I know that's what you're saying. What I'm saying is that it's wrong. A great deal of natural selection occurs in a lab population, maintaining the species' characteristics (and often changing them, as the population adapts to life in the lab).

Natural selection is said to preserve in light of environmental, predatory and dietary pressure. There is no pressure in a lab setting and with constant observation, all mutants are preserved, though they are weak and would die in the wild under different stresses, they are free to be observed here.

I don't know what this means. How were the mutants detected, and what does this have to do with fruit flies evolving in the lab to no longer be fruit flies?

A mutant is the resulting organism of a random mutation. According to Darwinism, These mutants are supposed to change into a plethora of organisms, not remain fruit flies. This is creationism.

Okay, so the mutation rate has greatly been increased. What your quotation says is still wrong, and a pretty bad misunderstanding of genetics and evolution. If you cause every possible mutation in a fruit fly population, you'll produce a lot of slightly different fruit flies and even more dead and malformed fruit flies, but there is no chance that you'll produce something that isn't a fruit fly.

Not according to Darwinism. If you look in the mirror, you will see that youre not a bacterium.

In real biology (contrasted with creationist misunderstanding), evolution occurs when one of those slightly different fruit flies becomes the norm in the new population, either by chance or because it is better fitted for its current environment than the old fruit fly.

Again, the environment is a non issue in lab setting. Slight changes are documented. Not Darwinist predictions though.

This process simply cannot be simulated by zapping flies with x-rays (which, incidentally, produce a very different spectrum of mutations than spontaneous mutations).

The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process. (Shapiro, a 21st Century view of evolution)

 

[sfs]

Bingo.Natural selection does not modify DNA. It does not help random mutation in any way. It does not change the fact that the genetic makeup in a population is supposedly a result of a random act and that you are attempting to build a man randomly. Random mutation was in fact isolated and tested.

Are you reading what you're responding to? No, the genetic makeup of a population is not supposed to be a result of random mutations. It is supposed to be the result of random mutations that have been filtered by natural selection, acting on the then-present genome. You've got the random mutations covered, but have no way of assessing how the genome changes over time in response to selection. Therefore, the experiments you're citing tell you absolutely nothing about long-term evolution.

The isolation of random mutations showed us just what would be selected. Thats the whole point.

Natural selection is said to preserve in light of environmental, predatory and dietary pressure. There is no pressure in a lab setting and with constant observation, all mutants are preserved, though they are weak and would die in the wild under different stresses, they are free to be observed here.

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. It really would help if you would bother to learn a little science, rather than just trying to teach scientists material you don't understand. Yes, natural selection preserves in light of environmental pressure. The laboratory environment is an environment, and therefore exerts pressure. Even in a lab, flies with different mutations have to compete with one another, and therefore experience selection.

You still didn't tell me how the mutations were observed. Please do so. How were mutations detected?

A mutant is the resulting organism of a random mutation. According to Darwinism, These mutants are supposed to change into a plethora of organisms, not remain fruit flies. This is creationism.

No, according to Darwinism, random mutations result in very small changes to existing organisms. Understand what you're attacking.

Not according to Darwinism. If you look in the mirror, you will see that youre not a bacterium.

Sorry, but that's not a response. I understand the genetics of evolution quite well -- I study natural selection for a living. What you're saying is nonsense, scientifically speaking. You can't just make up stuff and claim that it's evolution, and then argue against it.

Again, the environment is a non issue in lab setting. Slight changes are documented. Not Darwinist predictions though.

Slight changes are the Darwinist prediction.

 

[Papias]

Sky writing wrote:

Because of the culture and the audience, flat is a correct description. Without good information about how gravity effects mass, a curved surface would be a distracting idea.

That sounds like you agree that these verses describe a flat earth. Maybe we agree?

You still have not answered the question I posted twice, which was:
I asked you if all those writers who wrote in ancient times who described the earth as flat (I don't mean the few who wrote about it as a sphere, like Eratosthenes) really thought the earth was a sphere, and were just using a generalization? Is that really what you are proposing? Could you either answer them or state that you are refusing to answer them (as is becoming increasingly obvious).

Just as you prefer ellipsoid as a generalization over ovoid.

If you don't understand the difference between an ellipsoid and an ovoid, you could go back to your basic montessori preschool shapes to learn.

*************************************************
Greg's questions:


A. You agree that some change occurs over time. What stops that change over time from adding up?

Greg has only given the vauge and unsupported statement that: Nope, it remains in the courtyard. This was already given. He also mentioned his writing about cars, which still fails to explain why changes won't add up. This whole question was ignored in his most recent post.

B:
Greg wrote:

Im telling you that I could draw up a nested hierarchy of cars.

OK, go for it. Be sure to include most of the features of cars. (still waiting for his nested hierarchy, after he again said he could do it.) OK, now he is saying he won't do it (a few examples of car features of course don't constitute a nested hierarchy). What a surprise! Greg, are you familar with what a nested hierarchy is? This whole question was ignored in his most recent post, so it is not clear that Greg understands what a nested hierarchy is. Greg, you could google it and learn, then post as if you always knew, you know.
​

Selection is simulated.

C. One cannot accuately simulate selection over millions of generations in a tiny fraction of that number. How are you saying selection over a huge number of generations was accurately simulated?

Your response indicates a simple lack of understand of what natural selection is and how it works with mutation to give evolution. Sfs has been very kind in working to explain it to you, and sfs is an real geneticist, who actually understands and works with this stuff.

Natural selection doesnt remove mutations from the genome.

No, but it does remove harmful mutations from the gene pool, which has the same effect after even just one generation. Do you agree that natural selection removes some mutations from the gene pool?

Natural selection only preserves a given mutation.

Or can eliminate the mutation in the same way it can preserve it. Your statement that natural selection can preserve a mutation shows that you are talking about the gene pool, and as such natural selection removes harmful mutations. That's why your use Dobzhansky's quote (not results, which you haven't referenced) is simply the misuse of a quote.

I didn't ask how more mutations were made - that's obvious. I asked how natural selectionover a huge number of generations was accurately simulated. Please answer the question about natural selection, thanks.

D. You responded to my pointing out that saying that alterations to a text of language is pre-programmed because the language is already established is the same as allowing evolution after DNA is established. How is that not the case? You have only responded with:

This is what we have tested. We didnt deprogram DNA and then tested random mutation. The fact that it is a language does not automatically make random alterations viable. And tests show just that.

I don't understand what that word salad is supposed to mean. Which tests, the lab, are you referring to? Could you cite the published results if you are referring to real work?



Then, as before, you ignored the rest of the questions:

​

E. You are aware that natural selection is not random, right?

F Still waiting on whether or not you know that macroevolution has been observed.

G. Btw, are you aware that the classification system predates Darwin, and was put together by a creationist?

You know, looking at your exchange with sfs, it appears that this (below), which I wrote before, could help you a lot. Have you read it?

If you are "taking natural selection into account in the random assembly", then that assembly is not random. Just as if I lumped the picking out of all the 6's in an iterive set of die rolls, it would not be random. Why do you continue in calling a nonrandom process random?

Other ignored questoins:

H. I read the paper and the section you posted again. It is simply showing how larger mutations, as opposed to the smaller point mutations often thought of, are relevant too. This was a conversation at a conference, and more than that, is nearly a decade old. Science works by investigation of ideas, and this has had a lot of time for more work and understanding. Do you have more recent work based on that start showing the larger (and already known) mutations? Have you asked actual biologists and biology professors to help you understand that paper?
(waiting on answers to the last to subquestions after Greg again stated that his mutations listed in the paper somehow aren't mutations are somehow aren't subject to natural selection like any other mutuation). In addition to that ingnoring of the points and the content of the paper, Greg also appears to be ignoring the bolded questions.


I. Gregg, do you agree that speciation has been observed in fruit flies? This is part of the discussion of how creationists just run up the classification until they find a common name that encompasses both creatures (like "bacteria"), and then say that the admitted change has some barrier to prevent that change from adding to more change. Greg has said this is "only adaptation", but refuses to look at references from actual scientists that show it is speciation.

​

Papias
​

 

[Jase]

And man as well that week:

God created man in present form: 44% say yes

All this proves is that participants of gallup polls are not very intelligent. Did you also know that about 70% of Americans cannot name the 3 branches of government or at least 3 members of the U.S. Supreme Court?

 

[Papias]

And that a wider poll found that about 1 in 5 people really, literally believe that space aliens live among us, disguised as humans? Another poll found that 1 in 5 Americans believes that the Sun goes around the Earth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html

data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

and:

(Reuters) - Aliens exist and they live in our midst disguised as humans -- at least, that's what 20 percent of people polled in a global survey believe.

from They walk among us: 1 in 5 believe in aliens? | Reuters

maybe those are just generalizations.