Pete's Quite Thread post

[mark kennedy]

Maybe you can show me where my math is wrong or what I have forgotten to factor in. But to me the math is clear. Deleterious mutations harm individuals, but do not normally harm the species. Deleterious mutations are prevented from accumulating in any significant sector of the population, while accumulation of beneficial mutations is encouraged.

Show me where I am wrong.

You factored in nothing, these were abstract elaborations on what formulas are used. You never applied them to anything like human evolution. I didn't waste my time bothering with natural selection because it offers nothing of substance. I was defending the scientific integrity of genetics and comparing it to the pithy statements of antitheisitic argument now known as natural selection.

 

[mikeynov]

You factored in nothing, these were abstract elaborations on what formulas are used. You never applied them to anything like human evolution. I didn't waste my time bothering with natural selection because it offers nothing of substance. I was defending the scientific integrity of genetics and comparing it to the pithy statements of antitheisitic argument now known as natural selection.

Translation: I was so owned that I had no response, and choose to pretend you're arguments are somehow abstractly atheistic when I've demonstrated a persistent incapacity to make a case for any of my wild conjecture.

Note that you didn't take her challenge. You didn't correct a single element of her math or calculations. You just handwave it away because you don't like the implications, or dismiss it as irrelevent. You are demonstrating 0 intellectual integrity by doing so, and everybody who is reading this and knows anything about population genetics, I'd wager, is perfectly aware of that fact.

P.S. Read my previous post and explain to me how natural selection is a myth if we have hundreds of examples of positive selection actually quantified and analyzed over the past century and change.

 

[mikeynov]

Also, this fine resource lists some books Mark should be interested in buying that similarly cover observed examples of selection and their implications:

John Endler's classic book "Natural Selection in the Wild" (1986, published by Princeton Univ Pr; Call Number: QH375 .E53 1986 ; ISBN: 0691083878 ) can be found in most university libraries and is availiable from Amazon.com.

"Adaptive Genetic Variation in the Wild" (1999, published by Oxford University Press; Call Number: QH401 .A395 2000 ; ISBN: 019512183X) by Timothy A. Mousseau (Editor), Barry Sinervo (Editor), John A. Endler is also recommended.

"Selection in Natural Populations" by Jeffry B. Mitton.(1997, published by Oxford University Press, Call Number: QH371 .M68 1997 ; ISBN: 019506352X)

Mark reminds me of Baghdad Bob. "The infidel are being beaten back! They are not in our cities! It is a great lie!"

"There is no natural selection! Modern genetics is revealing that evilutionists have been wrong all along! It is a great lie!"

Separated at birth, perhaps.

 

[Jet Black]

owned

no no, it's pwned.

 

[mark kennedy]

Translation: I was so owned that I had no response, and choose to pretend you're arguments are somehow abstractly atheistic when I've demonstrated a persistent incapacity to make a case for any of my wild conjecture.

Note that you didn't take her challenge. You didn't correct a single element of her math or calculations. You just handwave it away because you don't like the implications, or dismiss it as irrelevent. You are demonstrating 0 intellectual integrity by doing so, and everybody who is reading this and knows anything about population genetics, I'd wager, is perfectly aware of that fact.

P.S. Read my previous post and explain to me how natural selection is a myth if we have hundreds of examples of positive selection actually quantified and analyzed over the past century and change.

Translation: I refuse to accept the responsibility of a postive argument for the common ancestor model. Its ok to have no genetic basis for the transition as long as you don't attribute it to any kind of theistic reasoning, that would be unscientific.

Don't waste my time with generalities, I am very busy these days. If you have some kind of a substantive argument get to it, otherwise I am not interested in romps around the mayberry bush.

 

[mark kennedy]

Also, this fine resource lists some books Mark should be interested in buying that similarly cover observed examples of selection and their implications:





Mark reminds me of Baghdad Bob. "The infidel are being beaten back! They are not in our cities! It is a great lie!"

"There is no natural selection! Modern genetics is revealing that evilutionists have been wrong all along! It is a great lie!"

Separated at birth, perhaps.

Notice that this pedantic satire has nothing of substance to support it which is typical on these boards.

 

[mark kennedy]

no no, it's pwned.

And you have the nerve to criticize my grammer and spelling.

 

[mikeynov]

Translation: I refuse to accept the responsibility of a postive argument for the common ancestor model. Its ok to have no genetic basis for the transition as long as you don't attribute it to any kind of theistic reasoning, that would be unscientific.

Don't waste my time with generalities, I am very busy these days. If you have some kind of a substantive argument get to it, otherwise I am not interested in romps around the mayberry bush.

I'm tired of you strawmanning the living h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of every opponent you engage.

Look, you're interested in genetics. That's good.

But then you say stuff like "natural selection is a myth," something most creationists would have a problem with. To call that out in left field is an understatement, and I went ahead and linked you to at least one study and three books which give literally hundreds of examples of something you claim doesn't even exist.

How you think that you, layperson Mark (who, I'd remind you, didn't know some basic biology terminology around the turn of the year, including fundamental terms like "eukaryote"), have somehow figured out these critical flaws in genetics as they relate to evolution, while all the world's finest geneticists have been deceived or are plain dumb, is mind-blowing.

By your own admission, you haven't even had a single class in population genetics. And you're lecturing people on the state of genetics based on your own reading around the web?

I really do ask that you think about the sorts of things you are saying. If you're going to stick to "this guy is a big meanie so I'll ignore him," that's cool too. But you could start by picking up the books I listed, and looking through the meta-analysis I presented. When there's an abundance of research on a topic you claim doesn't exist, that's going to make you look rather foolish.

So even if it's just to improve your arguments, you might want to read actual literature on this topic, instead of sort of assuming that it must not exist.

 

[mikeynov]

Notice that this pedantic satire has nothing of substance to support it which is typical on these boards.

Let me remind you of a quote you made on the previous page:

There is no such thing as natural selection

I've now given at least one study and three books on that topic which could be of tremendous benefit to a person who apparently isn't aware of research exists for it. So that's at least some substance right there.

And sure, it was satire - but it seems pretty fitting to me. You can ignore that and go straight to looking into the material you claim doesn't exist, though.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm tired of you strawmanning the living h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of every opponent you engage.

Look, you're interested in genetics. That's good.

That is natural selection as opposed to real science, ie genetics.

But then you say stuff like "natural selection is a myth," something most creationists would have a problem with. To call that out in left field is an understatement, and I went ahead and linked you to at least one study and three books which give literally hundreds of examples of something you claim doesn't even exist.

I'm short on time buddy, my real problem is with the single common ancestor model. Get to the point where you address the genetic basis for this assumption or you will be real disappointed with my responses.

How you think that you, layperson Mark (who, I'd remind you, didn't know some basic biology terminology around the turn of the year, including fundamental terms like "eukaryote"), have somehow figured out these critical flaws in genetics as they relate to evolution, while all the world's finest geneticists have been deceived or are plain dumb, is mind-blowing.

Ask one of them how they use the scientific models produced by natural selection and they will look at you dumbfounded. Then ask them what role Mendelian genetics plays in their work and they will elaborate endlessly. Natural selection is not a myth, its a misnomer, the term should have been natural preservation of favorable traits minus the antithestic arguments.

By your own admission, you haven't even had a single class in population genetics. And you're lecturing people on the state of genetics based on your own reading around the web?

Gee, I'm sorry I was more interested in getting a degree as a paralegal. I do intend to study molecular biology and genetics when I go for my four year degree but I am a little busy right now waiting for them to send me to Iraq.

I really do ask that you think about the sorts of things you are saying. If you're going to stick to "this guy is a big meanie so I'll ignore him," that's cool too. But you could start by picking up the books I listed, and looking through the meta-analysis I presented. When there's an abundance of research on a topic you claim doesn't exist, that's going to make you look rather foolish.

Oh, I don't mind looking foolish, I am a creationist, that goes with the territory. What I don't like is the fact that evolutionists don't want to defend their views with real world science, they just argue around their presumptions.

So even if it's just to improve your arguments, you might want to read actual literature on this topic, instead of sort of assuming that it must not exist.

Dude, I have at least a dozen books on my shelf by Dawkins, Dennett, Darwin and that is just the Ds. I have read their literature, the scientific papers, the endless pedantic satire the grows up around it and I find it theologically focused. If you want me and other creationists to leave science alone we will be glad to. Just stop intruding into the Bible as history and the creation/evolution issue will disappear tommorow.

 

[mikeynov]

Just one main thing I'll address:

Natural selection is not a myth, its a misnomer, the term should have been natural preservation of favorable traits minus the antithestic arguments.

What you're saying is that all natural selection is of the purifying/stabilizing variety. But the first full-text, peer reviewed article I gave you had examples of positive selection, which, by the line above, you must assume doesn't exist.

There are evolutionists who are atheists, and, further, some who are anti-theistic. But there's nothing more or less inherently "atheistic" about evolution than any other discipline in science, though I realize you'll ignore this observation. That there are racist theists doesn't make theism racist. That there are anti-theistic evolutionists doesn't make evolution/evolutionary theory anti-theistic. Get it?

Theism != your understanding of Genesis. Do you understand that? Theism is a belief in deity/deities. That's it. So pagans are theists, Hindus are theists, and deists are still theists.

They don't share your creation story - but that doesn't make them anti-theists, because they ARE theists. Evolution is an attempt to explain how nature accounts for the pattern of diversity of life. That this understanding conflicts with YOUR creation story (or, more aptly, your interpretation of it) does not make it atheistic or antitheistic whatsoever.

So even if you're trying to say that evolution flies in the face of a certain interpretation of scripture - just say that. Identifying your own religious beliefs as all-encompassing of the term "theism" is arrogant, and you do this by pronouncing evolutionary theory to be "anti-theistic."

 

[mark kennedy]

Let me remind you of a quote you made on the previous page:

Let me remind you of the context the statement was made in or don't you read things in context?

I've now given at least one study and three books on that topic which could be of tremendous benefit to a person who apparently isn't aware of research exists for it. So that's at least some substance right there.

You never told me why these books would be of interest to me.

And sure, it was satire - but it seems pretty fitting to me. You can ignore that and go straight to looking into the material you claim doesn't exist, though.

Wow! That is an amazing rationalization. I go straight to the evidence I find for independant descent from seperate ancestors for humans and chimps and you resort to satire...I'm going to stop there...you wouldn't like what follows.

 

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

And you have the nerve to criticize my grammer and spelling.

Leave your sense of humour at the door, Mark?

 

[mikeynov]

You never told me why these books would be of interest to me.

Because they cover a subject you clearly have limited to no comprehension of, and tacitly deny that certain aspects of natural selection exist when these works actually cover examples of those aspects (e.g. positive selection)?

And it's not just books - the first link was a full-text article on the topic of quantified positive selection. You can read that online, for free.

Wow! That is an amazing rationalization. I go straight to the evidence I find for independant descent from seperate ancestors for humans and chimps and you resort to satire...I'm going to stop there...you wouldn't like what follows.

I'm not sure how me saying in so many words that "you might want to read literature that's directly relevent to your claims" is rationalization. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

As has already been pointed out to you, Mark, you're just asserting that natural selection is a myth. When shown examples of it, and even the mathematics behind it all you do is handwave. Perhaps if you supported your arguments, and answered the criticisims people have of them you'd be taken seriously. As it stands you're merely a nay-sayer. Natural selection doesn't exist because you don't want it to, and it's not "real-science" because you don't want it to be, the mathematics is wrong because you say so and the evidence of it happening being shoved under your nose "doesn't interest you".

I'm sorry, but you have yet to demonstrate, in any single way, why natural selection is impossible. Whereas on the other side of the argument it has been proved logically, mathematically and with emprical evidence. Yet you still claim victory, as if your assertions are worth more than any actual proof. Even creationists accept natural selection.

EDIT: Look at this lovely picture Mark

Now show us where it's wrong. Prove with logic, genetic mathematics and peer-reviewed evidence.

Here are some instances of natural selection, tell us how they don't exist...

This is one species of snake (they can interbreed) that has adapted via natural selection to different environments.

Here are Darwin's famous finches.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just one main thing I'll address:



What you're saying is that all natural selection is of the purifying/stabilizing variety. But the first full-text, peer reviewed article I gave you had examples of positive selection, which, by the line above, you must assume doesn't exist.

I am saying that it does not exist on the level it is presumed to have, period.

There are evolutionists who are atheists, and, further, some who are anti-theistic. But there's nothing more or less inherently "atheistic" about evolution than any other discipline in science, though I realize you'll ignore this observation. That there are racist theists doesn't make theism racist. That there are anti-theistic evolutionists doesn't make evolution/evolutionary theory anti-theistic. Get it?

Natural selection was, is and allways will be an argument against special creation. It has become a dogma of evolutionary biology that has no right to intrude into history or religion. Had scientists stuck to observable and demonstrative changes in populations over time there would be no need for these discussions. But they have and Christians living in a free society will address them for as long as it takes.

Theism != your understanding of Genesis. Do you understand that? Theism is a belief in deity/deities. That's it. So pagans are theists, Hindus are theists, and deists are still theists.

Newsflash! Hindus don't care, ok? My biggest problem with neodarwinism is it smacks of eastern mysticism and bears a striking resemblance to Artemise worship. Meet me on the particulars or we are going to run out of time. I allways liked you but I am looking for evolutionary mechanisms, it is amazing that there are so few to be found dispite the fact that they are so common in nature.

They don't share your creation story - but that doesn't make them anti-theists, because they ARE theists. Evolution is an attempt to explain how nature accounts for the pattern of diversity of life. That this understanding conflicts with YOUR creation story (or, more aptly, your interpretation of it) does not make it atheistic or antitheistic whatsoever.

It's not a story, its history. Evolution is nothing more then what happens before our eyes in nature. Making presumptions about unobservable history and presumed common ancestory is not science. There is no conflict between natural science and my understanding of Genesis as history, they dovetail quite nicely.

So even if you're trying to say that evolution flies in the face of a certain interpretation of scripture - just say that. Identifying your own religious beliefs as all-encompassing of the term "theism" is arrogant, and you do this by pronouncing evolutionary theory to be "anti-theistic."

The target was and is creationism but I warn you, the momentum will shift sooner or later. I am more concerned with the consequences of a massive shift to the other extreme then anything else. I don't like the secular extreme modern society has gone to but I worry about what will happen when fashions change. We could end up at the other extreme and there is no sense in that. All we have to do is to make things balanced and limit science to what is directly observed and demonstrated while leaving theology full reign to elaborate on it's area of expertise, the particulars of God.

 

[mikeynov]

Oh well, you said you always liked me, and I guess I have a soft spot in my heart for you too. So I guess I'll stop there. I think you do want to look over that PNAS paper, though. If nothing else, to help strengthen/modify your own arguments.

That and me finding out I worship Artemis has caused mental duress

 

[mark kennedy]

Here are Darwin's famous finches.

Finches are still finches and in the same circumatances humans do not speciate. I am out of time, thanks for a lively exchange.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

I am saying that it does not exist on the level it is presumed to have, period.

Please elaborate, what exactly do you mean by this? Natural selection does exist now, but "not on the level it is presumed to have" been? What level has been presumed, Mark?

Natural selection was, is and allways will be an argument against special creation.

Actually for the Bible to be correct it has to work as a higher "level" than is presumed by science. All those kinds needed to evolve pretty sharpish after the flood, don't you know?

I've never heard a creationist argue that natural selection is an argument against special creation, not just because it is required for YECism to work at all, but because it is common sense and fact.

Why do you believe it is an argument against special creation, when no other creationists do?

It has become a dogma of evolutionary biology that has no right to intrude into history or religion.

So because we know something happens today we shouldn't apply it to the past, when there is no reason not to? Are you equally critical of archeology and forensics?

Had scientists stuck to observable and demonstrative changes in populations over time there would be no need for these discussions.

But that's exactly what we did, and we've all shown you the literature to prove it. In fact you've even used the literature yourself, except you throw everything you don't agree with out the window.

Christians living in a free society will address them for as long as it takes.

You forgot to add the minority of Christians will address them.

It's not a story, its history.

What you believe is not empircal fact. Something you need desperately to learn. YECism is a belief, because it flys in the face of all available evidence. Nobody's arguing your right to that belief, but claiming it as proven fact is out of bounds.

Evolution is nothing more then what happens before our eyes in nature. Making presumptions about unobservable history and presumed common ancestory is not science.

You're also making presumptions about unobservable history, and the Bible. The difference is that yours are without any evidence and you claim them as fact. Science never claims to have all the answers on common descent, or even anything. There is no reason to assume that evolution didn't happen in the past as it happens today. All the evidence strongly points to a common ancestor. So much so that it is scientific fact. You may not like this, and may feel that science is stepping on the toes of your beliefs, but all I can say is "tough". Do you also believe that we can't apply the fact that the earth is round today to the passages in the Bible that say it's flat? What about the passages that say God moved the sun to change the sun dials, and thus that the sun orbits the earth?

We could end up at the other extreme and there is no sense in that. All we have to do is to make things balanced and limit science to what is directly observed and demonstrated while leaving theology full reign to elaborate on it's area of expertise, the particulars of God.

Do you think that origins and science are the area of expertise of theology? Because that's what you're arguing. The natural history of this world is a matter for science, not theology. Lets not forget that it was originally left in the hands of theology, and it failed miserably.

Finches are still finches

Speciation is not a requisite of natural selection, but a result of it over a long period of time. You seem to have things backwards. Those finches and snakes changed as a result of positive selection, something you claim doesn't exist.

humans do not speciate.

Would you like to support that assertion?

 

[gluadys]

You factored in nothing, these were abstract elaborations on what formulas are used.

So show me what I should have factored in.

You never applied them to anything like human evolution.

Did too. Did a fair bit on the ASPM gene based on the paper you referenced.

I didn't waste my time bothering with natural selection because it offers nothing of substance. I was defending the scientific integrity of genetics and comparing it to the pithy statements of antitheisitic argument now known as natural selection.

Don't you think you ought to have spent some time on natural selection in a debate titled "Natural Selection and Genetics"?