I was under the impreswsion that both Down's syndrome and sycle cell were defects.
Yes, they're defects. Sickle cell is a defect of ancient origin now permanently part of the human genome in those from a certain region of Africa and is heritable. Down syndrome is almost always the result of a new defect, often occurring during gamete (sperm/egg) production. They're both defects that turn into biological features, and since you said, "Random accidents in their genomes are defects...but none turn into biological features," you're wrong.
Firthermore, if genetic accidents, somehow turned into biological features by "natural selection" is a strawman,...
It's a strawman because you're arguing against it as if it were a claim of evolution when it isn't. The expression of mutations as "biological features" is not caused by natural selection.
...all you have to do is explain the real origin of biological features according to NeoDarwinism.
Mutations and allele remixing are the source of novelty in evolution. Natural selection is the pruning mechanism.
What you're doing is akin to someone completely ignorant of Christianity criticizing it for believing that Jesus delivers eggs on Easter in a bunny suit. You have to know at least a little bit about something before your criticisms can make any sense.
But I was attempting to ignore your errors and just point out that your claims about ID need an observable mechanism by which your intelligence operates. However, I seem to have failed to notice that ID is not the topic of this thread. Perhaps you should propose an ID topic over at Proposed New Topics.
Some people have suggested that the color of the peppered moth is a matter of gene regulation. In any case gene regulation does exist. Tell me, do you believe the genes that regulate the expression of other genes also originated by accidental DNA copying errors (random mutation)?
Questions about Materialism http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
I was under the impreswsion that both Down's syndrome and sycle cell were defects.
Nobody is denying that mutations often cause a lot of problems. But this doesn't mean that all of them are disadvantageous. It just so happens that heterozygous sickle cell gives you immunity to malaria, which is a prevalent disease in Africa. The African population would have been wiped out by this disease if they didn't gain this mutation. But in a malaria-free environment, heterozygous and homozygous sickle cell cause a lot of problems. It all depends on the environment on what is considered advantageous and what's non-advantageous.
Firthermore, if genetic accidents, somehow turned into biological features by "natural selection" is a strawman, all you have to do is explain the real origin of biological features according to NeoDarwinism.
Somehow? What somehow? Environmental factors made sure that the sickle cell mutation was just advantageous enough to keep it alive within the population. That's not "somehow".
Look at it this way. It sure beats trying to get a miracle out of your god.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Some people have suggested that the color of the peppered moth is a matter of gene regulation.
Regardless of how the difference came about, the point is that the population changed in response to an environmental factor, and what used to be an adaptive feature became maladaptive, favoring a formerly maladaptive feature.
Tell me, do you believe the genes that regulate the expression of other genes also originated by accidental DNA copying errors (random mutation)?
Yes. And, you know what? If a regulating gene were to become mutated, it would change the way the gene it regulates is expressed. This is a known and well-documented phenomenon.
"Look at it this way. It sure beats trying to get a miracle out of your god."
Sorry, I am an agnostic and don't have a god. A miracle is a miracle whether it happens by god or by random mutation. My alternative to miracles is an organizing intelligence innate to living systems, an intelligence no more miraculous than the intelligence that allows cells who know where to go and what to do during growth and development.
Bolder-dash writes: I just want to say (before Percy finds another bullshit excuse for suspending me again) that this is one of the best posts I have ever read here from a evolutionist or anyone for that matter.
Given the general quality of your arguments, I should perhaps consider your post as damning with faint praise.
To make my position clear, I am a proponent of evolution, and have been so for several decades. I was never a creationist, though there was a period when I was undecided as to whether evolution was a satisfactory explanation.
Yup, any time Bolder-Dash is telling you how right you are and Brad McFall tells you how clear and understandable you are, you better check to see that you aren't just talking unintelligible hooey.
As for neo-Darwinism, there are actually a number of evolutionists who do not consider themselves to be Darwinists.
In the case of the statement Larry Moran makes that seems mostly to be because he has made up his own idiosyncratic meaning for the term, as representing an ultra-adaptationist view. You could maybe make a tiny fragile case if you think of Darwinism being exactly derived from what Darwin formulated in the 19th century and no further, but in terms of neo-darwinism its just balderdash.
And as for Alan MacNeill , he says he isn't a Darwinist in the same way a physicist isn't an Einsteinian. That doesn't seem to say anything about faults or flaws in neo-darwinism, and again is an idiosyncratic approach to what Darwinsm is, and it should be noted this is a different interpretation to what Larry Moran says Darwinism is.
Why didn't you stick Lynn Margulis in there, at least she has a substantive and scientifically profitable alternative (even if she does over sell it, seeing most diversity in life as a biological nail for her endodymbiosis hammer.)
Does this mean you still have the same opinion of Neo-Darwinism and are still fermenting your own 'invasive theory'?
Well first, I am not very concerned with what name tag people choose to wear on their shirts all day long. If you like to be called an evolutionist, you can be called that, it is irrelevant to me. At least you understand that even while wearing your name tag, you still are allowed to think and question (the true definition of the skeptic, not the definition that has been hijacked by atheists.)
Of course there are problems with the neo-Darwinian model of evolution for explaining the complexity of life and you articulated some of those problems quite well.
The thing is, as soon as you start changing the paradigm, and loosen your grip on the classic neo-Darwinian model of randomness plus selection you allow all kinds of crows into your cellar that atheists adamantly do not want to let in-and that is why guys like Dawkins refuse to budge, and guys like PZ Myers are caught in a trap that they either don't realize or just don't want to admit. Because without this critical component of random mutations, this throwing out of the word "synthesis" can't keep the crows out. What is the synthesis? No one knows. No one can define it. How many aspects of change does it include? What are the origins of these mechanisms? Are some inherent? Does there become a point when we stop throwing in new elements into this stew we named synthesis? Or is it endless; can we just keep adding more and more complexity to development and just call it synthesis without taking a close hard look to what does this all mean? This is what honest scientists have to ask, and MacNeil and Moran are not the only ones.
What if the modern model of evolutionary theory completely lost the random mutation aspect at its core or the selfish gene? What if all the evidence keeps piling up in the "synthesis" department, and keeps falling out of the classic Darwinian model. We are already halfway there, and it does not look like it is going to be going back the other way anytime soon. Every atheist on the planet needs that core in tact or there is nothing left to hang onto. You can't go any further without it. You can't just say synthesis and hope that no one notices.
And let's be honest here, you can sense the near panic levels of discussion most of the people on this board and others have when approaching this subject. If you step back and look at some of the tone, do these people sound like they are seeking the truth, pondering the way, or do they just sound like people desperately attempting to save as many souls for their cause as they can? Do you think Wounded King is even aware of what he is saying when he writes:
Neo-darwinism can model a process of evolution and make predictions in line with that model, it has never claimed to be able to model or explain the entire evolutionary history of life on earth.
Wow, Do you think he almost wished he could figuratively grab those words and take them back after he wrote them, or is he just caught in the trap of someone with a science background but without a philosophical one? Do you think he is going to stick by those words, or will he try to run from them when confronted with what that means? And did you notice how he was trying to be critical of Behe for adapting his meaning of IC, but he sees no such problem with evolutionists rewriting their theory practically daily. If neo-Darwinism can't explain it, most atheists are smart enough to know that they have nowhere else to turn. That's why you can be darn sure they are not going to let it go, no matter what the evidence says.
It even sounded to me like Wounded King was basically just trying to say to you, "Hey we don't need to explain ourselves, we are experts and you are an idiot" and not much else-but he pulled up just short of that, I guess because you wear the right name tag.
You brought up some honest points. There are some huge fudge factors involved in some of these explanations (in all of them I contend). This fudge factor has now taken the ambiguous title of "synthesis"-as rubbery a scientific concept as one can find anywhere. It can explain everything because it means anything.
So I don't mind which name tag you prefer-you can interpret the data yourself anyway you want. But I reject anyone trying to tell me what the data means. Especially when 7/8ths of the people here are not interested in what the data says, they are interested in selling a concept that gets harder and harder to sell every day.
To me there are only a few people here whose posts are even worth reading if one wishes to be stimulated by thoughtful conversation (Wounded King is one despite his less than objective view in my opinion) I wasn't praising your point of view , but rather your ability to articulate it.
Whatever you believe you believe, it doesn't matter to me.