Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[justlookinla]

Maybe not for you.
But your strawmanning opinions are quite irrelevant.

It's not for those who are forthright enough to admit that the process of bacteria evolving into bacteria isn't transferable to the worldview that some unknown life form of the past evolved into both a pine tree and elephant.

Biology is not a "worldview".

I agree. The unscientific view that all life is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago is a worldview. Darwinist evolution, in other words.

Random people on the internet aren't relevant to what the science actually really says.

Ok.

One only needs to make a distinction between the actual science of biology and the irrelevant opinions thereof.

Biology is based on the scientific method. Darwinist evolution isn't.

No. It addresses the development of them. Evolution of existing life. Speciation.

There are various guesses and suppositions concerning the 'how' of the development of life with no scientific bases for certain worldviews of how life developed per the worldview of Darwinist evolution. (Not abiogenesis).

It does not address the origins of life.

Darwinist evolution only addresses the development of life with a series of guesses and suppositions.

See? That's what I was talking about previously.
You should read up on some of the basics, because clearly you don't have a clue. You have been reading from a few very bad sources. It's disinformation all the way down.

Try reading some actual science books instead of religious shenannigans.

I've read UC-Berkley's site on evolution quite extensively. The only 'religion' promoted there is the 'religion' of mankind being the result of only naturalistic mechanisms. Typical Darwinist worldviews.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you apparently wasn't even aware of it until i posted it.

The wording of that last post gave me another impression of what you are trying to say.
This last post of yours seems to be what I just said: we don't know everything and we learn new things everyday.

Why would you hold that against that which we already know?
Isn't it a good thing that we expand our knowledge?

because if you were, you would NEVER have presented boxcar2d as some kind of evolutionary model, because it isn't.

No, that is false.
Nothing you said makes genetic algoritms any less of a heuristic/model based on the principles of natural evolution.

The role of natural selection is still a central tenant of evolution.
So is mutation, descent with modification etc.

These are still central themes and mechanisms of evolution.
And they are very unlikely to go away any time soon. Seeing as how they are actually observable mechanisms.

Expanding the model is not the same as throwing the model away.

Genetic algoritms are what they are.

As Loudmouth just told you as well, the core of the model is the introduction of changes that are random with respect to fitness followed by a selection process.

Exactly what happens in genetic algoritms.

 

[justlookinla]

the ONLY reason i "embrace" evolution is because it's the only thing that makes any sense.
it certainly isn't because we have all this hard evidence that proves it.
for example:
However, some of the assumptions at the foundation of The Modern Synthesis started to crumble in the 1970s with the discovery of super-abundant genetic variation that arguably often didn't evolve under the strict aegis of natural selection. Then cells were found to incorporate genes, mobile genetic elements, and organelles of diverse historical origins. Furthermore, it became apparent in the last decades of the 20th Century that DNA sequences often evolved in ways that reduced the fitness of the organisms that bore them. It is now abundantly clear that living things often attain a degree of genomic complexity far beyond simple models like the "gene library" genome of the Modern Synthesis.

the MA experiment i presented says this decrease in fitness appeared not in 5 or 6, or most, but in ALL lines tested.

the piece goes on to say:
Even systematics has had to abandon many strictures that were part of the Modern Synthesis. If species are the durable unit of biology, and if natural selection quickly molds genes to current utility, then most genes should diverge at the time of speciation events, given views like Mayr's. Here again, analyses of newly abundant sequence data in the late 20th Century showed that rather than a highly congruent coalescence of genes at the times of speciation events, the coalescence times of alleles among species are highly variable. As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated.
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

We all take the information available to us, analyze it, and then arrive at a conclusion. For me, the idea that both a pine tree and elephant were produced, by random (mutation) naturalistic mechanisms isn't supported by the data we have available. Of course the natural selection is an integral part of Darwinist evolution but natural selection only populates life forms already changed by mutation. Mutation then becomes the 'creator' of every life form we observe today; something which isn't supported by the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

No. In fact, I didn't get an answer to that. I didn't get any evidence presented from Dawkins book for evidence other than for the stories about how the eye evolved. I said we could come back and discuss it later; as I wanted more evidence for his assertions from his book and Dogma decided that since he couldn't provide it he would just say that I didn't really want it. Imagine that?

Well......let's just say that I'm not surprised.

 

[Loudmouth]

As Loudmouth just told you as well, the core of the model is the introduction of changes that are random with respect to fitness followed by a selection process.

Exactly what happens in genetic algoritms.

whois probably has me on ignore, so you have my permission to plagiarize my posts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. In fact, I didn't get an answer to that.

I'll agree to the statement.
Sorry, must have missed it.

I didn't get any evidence presented from Dawkins book for evidence other than for the stories about how the eye evolved.

Perhaps you should actually read the book...
But what good would it do? We all know by know that you don't accept anything as evidence of anything as long as the evidence presented doesn't agree with your a priori beliefs.

I said we could come back and discuss it later; as I wanted more evidence for his assertions from his book and Dogma decided that since he couldn't provide it he would just say that I didn't really want it. Imagine that?

No.

For months you have demonstrated that you don't care about evidence.
You'll ask for it, receive it and then pretend you never got it.

You have been presented with evidence of phylogenies, ERV's, nested hierarchies, observed speciation, practical applications,....

And you dissmiss it all with a handwave and a one-liner.

Sorry, I quit playing that waste-of-time game.

 

[whois]

No, that is false.
Nothing you said makes genetic algoritms any less of a heuristic/model based on the principles of natural evolution.

The role of natural selection is still a central tenant of evolution.

rose and oakely says otherwise.
why are you pretending they didn't?

So is mutation,. . .

again, the MA experiment i posted says otherwise.
it showed a DECREASING fitness in ALL lines with increasing mutations.
this is one of the primary reasons i don't wish to debate you on this, because you simply REFUSE to acknowledge it.

edit:
you might not know this, but mutation accumulation is the primary reason the origin of life research is a failure.
mutations DESTROY RNA before it accumulates enough nucleotides.
if that isn't enough of a problem, even if RNA accumulated enough nucleotides, you would still need to contend with how RNA transitioned TO DNA and its transcription system.

 

[whois]

For months you have demonstrated that you don't care about evidence.

oh man, the irony meter just exploded.

 

[Loudmouth]

rose and oakely says otherwise.
why are you pretending they didn't?

again, the MA experiment i posted says otherwise.
it showed a DECREASING fitness in ALL lines with increasing mutations.

What it shows is that a high mutation rate decreases fitness. What about normal rates of mutation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'll agree to the statement.
Sorry, must have missed it.

No problem, it happens.

Perhaps you should actually read the book...
But what good would it do? We all know by know that you don't accept anything as evidence of anything as long as the evidence presented doesn't agree with your a priori beliefs.

I have and like I said, stories and no evidence. Evidence really needs to be evidence, not just imagination and possibility. You hold a double standard in what constitutes evidence.

No.

For months you have demonstrated that you don't care about evidence.
You'll ask for it, receive it and then pretend you never got it.

You have been presented with evidence of phylogenies, ERV's, nested hierarchies, observed speciation, practical applications,....

And you dissmiss it all with a handwave and a one-liner.

I receive blanket evolution did it and evolution-of-the-gaps explanations. That is not evidence. That a gene can mutate is not evidence that a mutation caused some trait in some organism. That our genome CAN change doesn't provide evidence for a specific change. Nested hierarchy gives no evidence for specific evolutionary events. ERV's don't supply anything except for support of common ancestry and that is not confirmed but they don't provide evidence for molecular machines in the most minute cell in the simplest life form. This is blanket evolution did it and is circular and is not evidence for those things I've asked evidence for.

Sorry, I quit playing that waste-of-time game.

You can't provide what you don't have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

oh man, the irony meter just exploded.

I'm still blinded by the explosion. lol

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well......let's just say that I'm not surprised.

We'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he said he missed it.

 

[justlookinla]

We'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he said he missed it.

You're just too kind!

 

[DogmaHunter]

rose and oakely says otherwise.

Then they are wrong. However, somehow, I doubt they would say such stupid things if they are actual experts in these fields.

Can you please provide their full names?
I don't feel like going back in this thread and dig it up again.

again, the MA experiment i posted says otherwise.
it showed a DECREASING fitness in ALL lines with increasing mutations.
this is one of the primary reasons i don't wish to debate you on this, because you simply REFUSE to acknowledge it.

I've already told you that I don't know what you are talking about.
You didn't present this to me and I didn't see it.

edit:
you might not know this, but mutation accumulation is the primary reason the origin of life research is a failure.
mutations DESTROY RNA before it accumulates enough nucleotides.
if that isn't enough of a problem, even if RNA accumulated enough nucleotides, you would still need to contend with how RNA transitioned TO DNA and its transcription system.

Argument from ignorance in the making.

"we don't know how it happened yet, therefor it didn't happen".

how about this instead:

"we don't know how it happened yet, therefor we need more research"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have and like I said, stories and no evidence. Evidence really needs to be evidence, not just imagination and possibility. You hold a double standard in what constitutes evidence.

The book is called the BLIND watchmaker. The entire book handles this topic.
Furthermore, I gave you black on white evidence how blind processes are more then capable of producing the appearance of design.

If you are unwilling to accepting that which you can see happen right before your eyes at any time you wish to check it out, then I don't know what else to present to you.

I receive blanket evolution did it and evolution-of-the-gaps explanations

No. You received quite detailed explanation of exactly how this process works and why it produces the structures that it does.

And, just like I said, you handwave it away.

That is not evidence. That a gene can mutate is not evidence that a mutation caused some trait in some organism.

Only if you deny that the actual DNA sequence is what produces traits in organisms.
So...yeah....

That our genome CAN change doesn't provide evidence for a specific change.

Only if you deny that DNA is what determines how organisms look and work.
So.....yeah....

Nested hierarchy gives no evidence for specific evolutionary events.

Only if you deny that an evolutionary pattern of descent with modification produces nested hierarchies.
So....yeah....

ERV's don't supply anything except for support of common ancestry

lol

Right, and common ancestry doesn't support evolution theory?

and that is not confirmed

Only if you deny the hereditary nature of DNA.
So.....yeah....

but they don't provide evidence for molecular machines in the most minute cell in the simplest life form.

All this data is small puzzle pieces.
If you are unwilling to put the pieces together to see the big picture, that's not my fault.

You could, by the way, also look up what we actually know about the evolution of "molecular machines".

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002983
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04000174?np=y
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/isnt-it-true-bacterial-flagellum-could-not-have-evolved

More stuff for you to ignore and handwave away...

This is blanket evolution did it and is circular and is not evidence for those things I've asked evidence for.

I've never seen anyone make such a blanket assertion.

You can't provide what you don't have.

Or.... you can't accept that which doesn't agree with what you have already decided to believe before asking the question.

 

[whois]

how about this instead:

. . . plugging your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs.

i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to call rose and oakely liars.

and i have posted the MA experiment no less than 3 times.

 

[DogmaHunter]

. . . plugging your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs.

Nice dodge of the obvious.

So you disagree that when we haven't solved a certain thing, that we require more research?

Instead, you feel like we can draw conclusions based on ignorance?

i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to call rose and oakely liars.

And I seriously doubt you have the credentials to undermind Dawkins, but that doesn't stop you either.

In any case, I don't think I called them liars.
I said that if they said that, they were wrong. To be wrong is not the same as to be a liar.

I asked you for their full names so I can look into these people. Why did you not give them?

and i have posted the MA experiment no less than 3 times.

And I must have missed all 3 of them. Do you read every single post on this forum that isn't addressed to you? Perhaps you do, but I don't have the time to do that. I spend way too much time on here as it is already.

In any case, Loudmouth just commented on your "MA" reference by saying that the only thing that the experiment shows is that fitness is negatively impacted if the mutation rate is too high.

Without knowing what this experiment is about, I can agree with that last part of his statement.

Indeed, if the mutation rate is too high, it will have a negative impact on fitness.
Species with a very high mutation rate will not be around very long. Natural selection will quickly weed those out of the genepool.

Perhaps this time when you reply, you could include the full names of those 2 people in the beginning of the post, as well as a link to one of the 3 posts where you presented the experiment.

Instead of just repeating your claims.

 

[whois]

In any case, Loudmouth just commented on your "MA" reference by saying that the only thing that the experiment shows is that fitness is negatively impacted if the mutation rate is too high.

Without knowing what this experiment is about, I can agree with that last part of his statement.

really?
We performed a classic MA experiment in which frequent sampling of MA lines was combined with whole genome resequencing to develop a high-resolution picture of the effect of spontaneous mutations in a hypermutator (ΔmutS) strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

notice the word SPONTANEOUS.

here is something else the piece says:
As expected, the average fitness of the hypermutator populations decreased significantly over time,
indicating that the average effect of spontaneous mutations was deleterious and that recurrent population bottlenecks inhibited the action of natural selection (mean mutational fitness effect = −0.16%). In fact, in some lines, fitness became so low that it was no longer possible to reliably measure.
-Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment.htm

 

[DogmaHunter]

really?
We performed a classic MA experiment in which frequent sampling of MA lines was combined with whole genome resequencing to develop a high-resolution picture of the effect of spontaneous mutations in a hypermutator (ΔmutS) strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

notice the word SPONTANEOUS.

here is something else the piece says:
As expected, the average fitness of the hypermutator populations decreased significantly over time,
indicating that the average effect of spontaneous mutations was deleterious and that recurrent population bottlenecks inhibited the action of natural selection (mean mutational fitness effect = −0.16%). In fact, in some lines, fitness became so low that it was no longer possible to reliably measure.
-Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment.htm

I notice you haven't included any references to the any of the 3 posts (where I assume there would be links to the actual sources of the experiment), nore did you go in on my request to share the full name of the 2 people you mentioned - which I asked for 3 times.

Nore did you answer any of my other questions.

What should I conclude from this?

 

[whois]

What should I conclude from this?

that you apparently don't know how to use google.

as for rose and oakely, their full names are:
michael r. rose
and
todd h. oakely