What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

I was actually just parodying your style of argument by unsupported assertion. However, since you ask, vestigial genes would be a good place to start. Or the structure of human chromosome 2.

---

Okay than, explain how do those patterns show evolution. And while you're at it, define evolution.

quote:

---

Which of the two words "small" and "population" is giving you problems?

---

None. Which of the words "WHAT" "NUMBER" "DEFINES" "A" "POPULATION" "TO" "BE" "CALLED" "SMALL"?

quote:

---

Quite. And Dembski ... well, "elaborated" would be quite a good word for what he has done. But one cannot say that this has resulted in any sort of operative definition.

---

That will be true once when you told me exactly what is wrong with this here article.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

No. My inquiry was prompted by your ludicrous failure to understand PaulK.

​

Might I suggest that, if English is not your first language, you should take extra-special care to ensure that you really do understand what people are saying before laughing at it for being absurd. Only it might be, as in this case, that the absurdity lies solely in your own incomprehension.

---

That how do you explain the fact that I have no problem understanding anyone else?

quote:

---

To the functioning of the flagellum in allowing the bacterium to move. Isn't that obvious ?
Are you really going to tell me that the whip is catalysing chemical reactions rather than acting as a propellor ?

---

The propellers motion is a subset of catalysing chemicals. How the hell do you think the flagellum get's it's power?

quote:

---

Actually it does answer your question, if you understood it. The point is that you have to deal with the origins - in fact all the possible origins - to calculate the information. The information is the same - but you can't even calculate it without considering origins.

---

Let's go for the third time. Is the informational content the same or not?

quote:

---

That is exactly what Dembski FAILED to do, True the information of the genes has to be accounted for, but neither you nor Dembski have made any honest attempt to measure that.

---

Well duuuuh!!!? It's 50 proteins! That is the informational content!

quote:

---

Utterly, utterly wrong. The cubic shape of a salt crystal and the organised lattice of sodium and chlorine that make it up is a perfect example of a specification.

---

What does it specify?

quote:

---

It is the information content that is low, because the probability of slat forming crystals is high.

---

If it has high probability, than that pattern is not attributed to design but to regularity - i.e. natural law.

quote:

---

It's Dembski's method, not mine. And of course Dembski is content to allow false negatives in his method so failures of that sort are not significant. And certainly no excuse to change the method in a way that would make it more susceptible to false positives.

---

But in this case Dembski would claim that cars are designed even if they were assembled by machines. Becasue information was needed in the first place to program the machines to construct cars, and to build the machines themselves.

quote:

---

You're right that Axe didn't need to - but you do. And therefore you can\t rely on Axe's work.

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

Your understanding of the English language fails again. "...can cause the extinction of populations of small size" implies that the risk is only significant to small populations.

---

No, it means small populations wii die out sooner than large populations. Explain to me why exactly would large populations not die from genetic entropy. WHY?Since you are so clueless an illogica, I made yet another picture for you. Here you go. This here picture represents the effects of genetic entropy leading to genetic meltdown.People represent the population. Green numbers represent beneficial mutations, red numbers represent deleterious mutation, and black number represent 25 and above mutations which I choose as a threshold for the genetic meltdown.Now, our population starts in Gereation 1, with 2 beneficial and 6 deleterious mutations. The person has his offsprin which inherit 2 beneficial and 6 deleterious mutations. And since DNA replication machinery isn't perfect, they will gain some more beneficial and deleterious mutations. On average there will always be more deleterious ones.Now blue people represent those that get selected for by natural selection. Grey ones that are crossed out do not reproduce. In generation 2. 2 people have reproduced because the had the most beneficial and least deleterious mutations. And they spread both their deleterious and beneficial mutations to their children.So in generation three we have the same thing. Yet now, we have reached those who got 25 or more deleterious mutations which makes their genomes defective enough to cause them to be either still born, or sterile. They obviously do not reproduce anymore.This goes on untill generation 7 when the whole population has suffered a genetic meltdown.Now, what I want you to do is to tell me, HOW EXACTLY IS INCREASEING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE POPULATION GOING TO MAKE THIS EFFECT OG AWAY!!?!?!? HOW!?

quote:

---

In other words they agree with me !

---

No, they don't. They said genetic recombination will SLOW DOWN genetic entropy, and you said that it will HALT IT. Big difference.

quote:

---

Combine that with the fact that they think that larger populations will NOT be driven to extinction by genetic entropy and we see that your interpretation of the paper is thoroughly at odds what what it actually says.

---

Wrong. They never said that.

quote:

---

Go ahead and blame Dembski all you like. It hardly makes ID look good.

---

I'm not blaming him, I'm blaming you becasue you misrepresent everything.

quote:

---

Let's start with the definition: Evolution is change in gene frequency across a population over time.

---

Great. You do know that this change does not imply or produces common descent of all life as a necessity?

quote:

---

Extremely simple and awful hard for you to claim it doesn't occur, since it's OBSERVABLE.

---

I like your definition. It's observable, and it happens.

quote:

---

As to how (vestigial genes) show evolution:
The presence of the genes themselves don't demonstrate evolution, they are remnants of evolutionary change. However, the presence of these genes is predicted by evolution, fits the evolutionary model, couldn't possibly have been known to exist prior to the evolutionary model being put forth.

​

As such they are strong confirmation of evolutionary theory.

---

Evolution predict everything, therefore evolution predicts nothing. If evolution can accont for both outcomes (working and vestigial genes which are polar opposites) with the same mechanisms, than it predicts nothing and is useless.If you predicts that tommorow will eitehr rain or will not rain, you have effectively predicted nothing. The same goes for evolution. Genes will either work, or they will be vestigial. This isn't a prediction, it's a copout.

quote:

---

More importantly, however, is this: These genes can not be explained in ANY WAY by either Creationism or ID. Neither claim makes any predictions about non-used remnant fragments found in different populations which co-exist in descendant populations.

​

Like MOST of the evidence we'll discuss, the "Magic" lobby simply can't address it while evolution not only can explain it, but actually predicts it's presence AHEAD of time.

---

Genetic entropy is what causes defective genes that lose their function. Since biological functions are only transmited by matter, and imperfectly at that, and do not arise by it, ID predicts that biological functions will deteriorate.

quote:

---

Population size is dependent on a number of factors, some of which would be longevity and reproductive rates. A "small population" of elephants which reproduce slowly would have a different number of members than a small population of rats.

​

The point of discussion when referring to "small population" is how frequently individuals are breeding with other individuals with whom they are closely related. Think cousins.

​

The smaller the population, the more frequently closely related individuals interbreed, the more a particular gene can be expressed.

​

This is why isolated populations (island evolution) produces rapid and unusual changes while mainland populations tend to change slower.

---

Basicly you agree with me that the words "small" and "large" are relative when applied to population sizes?

quote:

---

The article claims an intelligent causation but offers no explanation is to who/what this "intelligence" is and by what method it could "cause" the things it claims were caused.

---

Exactly. Because the article claims that it can detect design without knowing all those things you mentioned.

quote:

---

Attributing an alleged pattern to an imaginary source using imaginary powers to generate it is childish at best.

---

True. Which is why the article I linked to, does not do that. It attributes observable patterns to a well known cause called intelligence.

quote:

---

Until Dembski can present a testable MECHANISM through which this alleged design occurred, there's really no discussion to be had.

---

Sorry, ID doesn't work liek that. It's about the detection of design, not about it's mechanisms of implementation. A totally different field of investigation should do this job. Just liek evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution is not supposed to explain that. Evolution is about how life develops, not how it originates. We have abiogenesis research to tell us about how life originated. The same goes for ID, it does not have to talk about the mechanism of design implementation, just as evolution does not have to account for origin of life.Actually random mutations, naturala selection and common descent could have been the mechanism that design of life got implemented by. But that would be another theory that should deal with that, not ID itself.

quote:

---

Anyone can pretend that anything could be caused by some unknown, unknowable, undescribed and unmeasurable force.

---

True. That is why my article does not do that.

quote:

---

When I turn the key to my car, an undetectable invisible faerie who lives in my spark plug fires off a magical lightning bolt which ignites the fuel. Prove me wrong. You can't. It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove me wrong because I stated that the magical being is undetectable. My claim is just as valid as Demskis and it didn't take me a whole bunch of $20 words to dress it up.

---

Well this is so wrong I don't even know where to start.First of all, you named your source. You said it was a fairy. Obviously you have no evidence for that. ID does not name the designer, becasue it has no evidence for it's identity.Second, ID does not claim teh effects are undetectale. The marks of design are very detectable. They are called specified complexity.And third, ID does not claim that soembody should prove it wrong. It has the burden of proof on itself. That is why we have a method to eliminate design called the Explanatory Filter. First step is to show that a pattern can be attributed to a regularity, which means a natural law. If such a pattern arises by a natural law, than the design hypothesis is falsified. If it is shown that a pattern does not arise by natural law than we go to step 2. Next step is to show that we can account for a pattern by chance. If we can show that, than again, the design hypothesis is falsified. If it can not be shown, than we infer design, as the last resort.

quote:

---

It is often those who understand the least that claim they fully understand. The fact that you think you understand what other people are discussing on the forum is not evidence that you actually understand. It could simply indicate that you know so little that you aren't even aware of the factors you don't understand.

---

Does this apply to you too?

quote:

---

Large populations NEVER die out. _ONLY_ small populations can go extinct.

---

What is a "small" and "large" population? Didn't you basicly say in your previous post that it's a relative term?

quote:

---

If you have a population of 1,000 widgets and 90% of them die off, you are left with 100 widgets. If 90% of them die off, you're left with 10 widgets. Now you no longer have a large population. You instead have a small population.

---

Why is 1000 a "large" population and 10 a "small" population?

quote:

---

In ALL cases of extinction, there is a "last" individual to die. That "last" individual represents a SMALL population.

---

Oh, so only 1 individual is a "small" population? But above you said that 10 individuals are a "small" population.

quote:

---

As for genetic entropy, each individual member of a population is subject to natural selection which is a STRONG force fighting against harmful entropy.

---

This is an assumption. Do you have any evidence that natural selection is strong enough to remove all effects of genetic entropy?

quote:

---

As a result, there is a constant weeding out of any negative genetic changes.

---

This would be correct if it was not wrong. Rats have aworking GULO gene that let's them synthesize Vitamin C. Humans, Chimps and Guinea pigs do not. Their GULO gene is defective. Obviously evolution did not weed out that mutation. Therefore, your assertation that natural seelction weeds out ANY negative genetic changes if flawed.

quote:

---

Thus a large population could split into two different successful populations, but that large population will never splinter into a million different non-breeding individuals as a result of genetic drift. That's simply not reality.

---

If the deleterious mutations keep accumulationg, than obviously it will.

quote:

---

First, you are not introducing any genetics from spouses.

---

It would be to complex and would fit the image size. But it doesn't help you anyway. I assumed that the offsprng inherits both parent's genetic material. The inherit both deleterious and beneficial mutations, and the count of both increases.

quote:

---

Second, you are assuming that ALL mutations positive and negative get passed on in each generation.

---

No, I'm not ASSUMING it, I KNOW it. Parents pass 100% of their genetic material to their offspring.

quote:

---

Third you are assuming that there is an insanely high rate of both positive and negative mutation

---

I did it for the sake of simplicity. Do you expect me to draw a million generations?

quote:

---

with absolutely no consideration no neutral mutations.

---

Which are by definition neutral and don't do anything. Actually there are no 100% neutral mutations. The so called slightly deleterious, or almost neutral mutations are the ones that are effectively neutral and can't be weeded out by natural selection. It's becasue their effect is to weak. Therefore, they are the ones that accumulate the most and are causing most of genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Fourth, you are assuming that there is no gene duplication.

---

Again, was I supposed to draw the whole process of DNA transaltion!? DNA duplication does not help you in any way, shape, or form. What do you intend to gain by duplicating genes?

quote:

---

And all of that's just off the top of my head.

---

Which are possibly the worst argument I heard in my entire life. Your arguments consist of telling me that I did nt draw enough details, and telligen me that I didn't include totally worthless mechanisms that which will either only slow down genetic entropy or won't do anything at all.

quote:

---

Hi Smooth Operator,

​

Well, I'm completely convinced by your theoretical argument. Now please explain to me why E. coli - which has a generation time measured in days (sometimes even minutes), and does not reproduce sexually - is not extinct due to this disasterous genetic fate you've so neatly outlined?

---

Because it takes a lot of time for that to happen. You don't expect them to be dead in 7 generations like in my picture do you?

quote:

---

Even if they work by catalysis (and I would want to research that !) the proteins which provide the power are not in the whip.

---

It doesn't matter where they are. They are doing their job soemhow and are providing power to the flagellum.

quote:

---

If you are having problems understanding my answers, perhaps you should ask for clarification. BEcause there are some important points there.

---

So, what's the answer. Please do clarify.

quote:

---

That's not the base 2 log of a probability, so obviously it isn't Dembski's information content.

---

Than that would be log2p(10^2954) for the whole flagellum. And if we include Axe's work, than we have log2p(10^2363).

quote:

---

The structure of a salt crystal, obviously !

---

Can you specify that structure without observing the event that forms the structure? If not, than it's not a specification.

quote:

---

Almost right - it is because of natural laws that the probability is high. That is you have to include the natural law explanation when measureing the information of salt crystals.

---

Yes, and we do. And that is why salt crystals are not designed.

quote:

---

We know for a fact that life has been around for a long time without going extinct, which strongly indicates that it is not so big a problem as you think.

---

LOL, no, you ASSUME it's been here for a long time. Care to show me any evidence for that? And even if it was. It would just mean that it takes longer for the meltdown to occur.

quote:

---

Your picture simply illustrates your assumptions.

---

Name me ONE assumption.

quote:

---

You offer no reason as to why the numbers should come out as you say.

---

Which number exactly do you have problems with?

quote:

---

Also it seems that you don't even allow for the effects of beneficial mutations to counter the effects of detrimental mutations.

---

LOL! How in God's name would that help you? For God's sake, it doesn't matter if you evolve wings or infra red vision, or you evolve te ability to run 200 km/h, if you are sterile or still born!!!Obviously those beneficial mutations will be useles if you're dead or you can't pass on your great evolved traits! Please think before you speak!

quote:

---

Which makes your picture "stupid and illogical".

---

I wonder who is stupid an illogical for making ZERO valid arguments agains the picture I made.

quote:

---

And the numbers are just made up, to (and way too high).

---

You see? This is the effect of genetic entropy on you. You can't say anything that has any grounding in reason. Of course they are made up! I even said so at the start. I made them like that to demonstrate how genetic entropy leads to genetic meltdown. Did you expect me to make a picture representing 10.000.000 generations?And the best aprt is, you did not explain how a larger population will fix this. Please do. Make a picture or explan how by increasing the population will you make the genetic entropy go away. Go on, do it, or shut up already.

quote:

---

The difference between large and small populations is that natural selection is more effective in large populations.

---

No kidding Einstein!?!?!?

quote:

---

It's statistics, chance effects are always greter in small samples). Natural selection will tend to make detrimental genes less common, and beneficial genes more common (rememebr it is the individuals with the best mix of genes in each generation that contribute most offspring).

---

Again... SO THE HELL WHAT!?How does that help you? How does that FULLY STOP genetic entropy? It doesn't! It just slows it down, but it doesn't stop it! Even the best offspring have deleterious mutations and they pass them on to their offspring, and the deleterious mutations still accumulate. Which means that the geentic entropy still exists, and at aslower pace is still leading to a genetic meltdown.If you disagree make a new picture that models your magic natural selection at work! Show me how large populations effectively stop ALL genetic entropy! I'm waiting!Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Correct. "Common descent" is not a conclusion which arises from the definition of evolution alone. It arises instead from the evidence.

---

Great, as long as we're clear on that I'm happy. So, can you show me some evidence for common descent now?

quote:

---

The problem here is your failure to understand the mechanisms involved.

---

Oh, I doubt it.

quote:

---

Chickens have a gene which codes for teeth. Chickens also have a gene which codes for a beak. The teeth gene activates first, then gets overwritten by the beak gene.

​

If a chicken did not have the teeth gene, it would still have a beak. The beak gene arose later.

​

However, the teeth gene is still present.

---

What? The beak gene arose later? How do you know that? How do you know the gene was not always there?

quote:

---

The presence of a teeth gene is completely unexplainable using ID/Creationism. There is NO reason for its presence.

---

Oh it's very explainable. It was designed that way. Just because YOU can't see any reason for those genes there, that doesn't mean there IS no reason for them to be there. What bad logic. That's called an argument from incredulity. If the animal changes it's habitat, that the natural ques could affect it, and some genes could be either turned on or off. Which could be the case with chickens today.

quote:

---

The same is true for a chicken's long tail which grows, then shrinks, during embryotic development.

---

Yes, I know. It was designed that way.

quote:

---

Evolution explains these factors.

---

How?

quote:

---

Evolution does not predict "rain and/or no rain".

---

Yes it does. If it predicts animasl loosing and animals gaining traits, than it predicts someting and it's polar opposite. It predicts rain and no rain. Therefore, it's useless.

quote:

---

Evolution would have a HELL of a time explaining why a chicken embryo developed an exoskeleton and then lost it.

---

No, it wouldn't because evolution predicts everything and also nothing. And that's called convergent evolution. Animals can lose and gain traits. Therefore, chickens could gain and lose an exoskeleton. Just like water animals are supposed to have evolved feet and the ability to live on land, just to have in few million years lose all of that and go back into the water. Which is a case of the whale evolution.

quote:

---

Or why a chicken would share absolutely no DNA with any other bird.

---

It would simply mean that it evolved so much that all genes are different.

quote:

---

The first case would imply a relationship evolution does not predict between chickens and crabs, the second would imply a lack of relationship which evolution does predict between all birds.

---

Based on what logic does evolution predict that?

quote:

---

I suspect that you know this and are being deliberately dense as though making simple mistakes on your part would somehow convince me or others to throw out established science and embrace witchcraft. I think that you should reassess that strategy as it is extremely unlikely to work.

---

You are the one who believes in witchcraft. You believe people come from rocks.

quote:

---

And nylonese alone disproves that claim.

---

No, it doesn't you funny little man. It shows that genes can be fine tuned when needed by built in genetic machinery. This is what is known as natural genetic engineering. You see, living organisms have build in mechanisms like transposons that will be turend on on certain ques and will modify the genes to fit it's environment.

quote:

---

The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

---

As you can clearly see here, this particular trait does not evolve by random mutations and natural selection. It is turned on on an environmental que. And can be gained whenever the bacteria needs it. It happens in mere 9 days.The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste - creation.com

quote:

---

As does the E. Coli/Citrate experiments.

---

Nope. Wrong again.

quote:

---

I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active.

---

You see, all the mutation have been degenerations of already existing genes. No new functions were evoved.http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O

quote:

---

In his new paper Lenski reports that, after 30,000 generations, one of his lines of cells has developed the ability to utilize citrate as a food source in the presence of oxygen. (E. coli in the wild can’t do that.) Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a citrate permease which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior.

​

In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.)

---

And again. A supposed new function is not a new function at all. The bacteria have had ALL the machinery the needed to perform a certain function. In this case the the ability to utilize citrate as a food source in the presence of oxygen. Nothing new has evolved. A simple gene has only been needed to be tweaked a bit, to get expressed a bit more, and it allowed the bacteria to utilize citrate while oxygen is present. The machinery to do that was already there. it did not evolve. This is a great example of fine-tuning, not of evolution by random mutations and natural seelction.

quote:

---

As does the fossil record. Etc etc etc

---

Please explan how does fossile record give you any evidence agains ID? Or for evolution?

quote:

---

In science, a single failed prediction is reason to reassess your claim. In the case of ID/Creationism, every single prediction to date has been demonstrated to be wrong.

---

Show me one which has been shown to be wrong.

quote:

---

How many times are you willing to be wrong before you rethink your position?

---

You keep asserting I'm wrong. But you dont' actually show it.

quote:

---

I will go a step further and state that the words "small" and "large" are _ALWAYS_ relative.

---

Thanks. Than you do understand that you can't tell that only "small" populations will die because of geentic entropy, becasue they are "small" only in relative terms. And you also can't say that "large" populations will not suffer from genetic entropy, becasue they being "large" is also relative.

quote:

---

And that's ridiculous on its face.

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

I'm going to change a couple words and present the same sentence.

​

"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because gravity and weather patterns shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."

​

"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because the designer shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."

​

"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because Harry Potter and wizard magic shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."

​

Now, I believe #1 is correct. You believe #2 is correct. You, however, don't believe that #3 is correct. But #2 and #3 are the _EXACT SAME SENTENCE_.

---

Wrong. By the use of the explanatory filter we come to the conclusion that Mount Fuji is best explained by natural laws.

quote:

---

If you can't name the force nor give a mechanism through which the force has acted, no give examples of the result of the force, nor make predictions about future actions from the force, nor adequately explain the existing evidence allegedly left behind by the force then YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

---

Let me show you how painfully illogical this argument is by turning it against you...If you can't show how life originated by evolution, than evolution is a useless theory and should be discarded!See?

quote:

---

Obviously this is another example of you being deliberately dense because you don't want to concede the point.

---

There is nothing to concede except that the point is stupid.

quote:

---

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life because life must exist and be able to reproduce in order for evolution to occur.

---

In other words it's not supposed to explain the origin of life. In the same manner ID does not have to explain the mechanism of how the design got implemented.

quote:

---

ID doesn't explain the mechanism of ID because it's make believe.

---

Maybe evolution is makebelive because it can't exlain teh origin of life?

quote:

---

Can you not tell the difference?

---

I'm asking you the same question. Is it possible that evolution can't explain the origin of life becasue evolution is a big fat lie?

quote:

---

If IDers don't want to explain the origin of life, I won't force them. However, they are specifically claiming that functions are occurring yet they can't describe those functions. That's a big fail.

---

What functions are you talking about?

quote:

---

Further, you claim that IDers only job is to detect design, however they don't have a testable method by which a person can determine if a new thing is either designed or not.

---

Hmm... let's see.The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design.I suggest you start reading.

quote:

---

If I presented you with a perfect sphere, you could not tell me if it was magically designed by the Jew Wizard, cosmically designed by the Silver Surfer, or simply a piece of lava the dripped into water.

---

Maybe, maybe I could. Some things are designed but it's design isn't detectable. But some things are designed any are very well detectable. Just like the Rosetta stone. Do you disagree that it was designed?

quote:

---

It treats "intelligence" as a noun. Intelligence is not a noun, it is an adjective.

---

Naw... "Intelligent" is an adjective.

quote:

---

If you treat it as a noun are you saying that it is a being.

---

If I treat a rock like a noun am I calling it a being?

quote:

---

This being can not be seen, nor detected, nor described, etc etc etc. Therefore it is make believe.

---

Oh I see. So before people could detect radio waves, they were also make believe?

quote:

---

Now you are claiming that the designer (let's just call him the Jew Wizard since we all know that's what Demski is saying) "designed" using evolution.

---

You shouldn't call him that becasue that's not what I'm arguing for. When you go and argue with Dembski, than please do use that name.

quote:

---

So rather than allowing the observable, measurable and detectable solution which does NOT requiring adding in a layer of magic, you are suggesting that we arbitrarily add in the Jew Wizard just to make the people at the ID institute feel better?

---

No, becasue a.) Intelligence is not magic, unless you are claiming it does not exist, than that means you are not intelligent and your arguments are also not intelligent or reasonable, because you have no intelligence to create reasonable arguments.b.) natural selection and random mutations alone can not produce the complexity of life we see today. So they are obviously not enough. Intelligence had to be involved.And c.) I think there is no evidence that natural selection and random mutations were the mechanisms which implemented the design so I disregard them.

quote:

---

Why not have Intelligent Gravity? Gravity is the force two masses have on one another at a distance as overseen by a Jewish Wizard.

​

Why not have Intelligent Fire? Fire is the release of energy as carbon molecules are combined with oxygen when stared at by a Jewish Wizard.

​

How are these claims BETTER science by adding in Jewish Wizard Magic to the equation?

---

Becasue natural law is enough to explain gravity and all those effects. People coming from rocks in a span of 4.6 billion years is not.

quote:

---

Dembski HAS stated FOR THE RECORD that the Designer is the CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST GOD. (aka Jew Wizard)

---

Nope. He said that he believes it's God whi is the designer. But points out that that conclusion does not follow from the evidence that ID presents. It's simply his own belief.

quote:

---

YOU are linking Dembski's paper, therefore YOU are backing his claim. You can't have it both ways.

---

I can accept his math without accepting his theology.

quote:

---

But they can not quantify nor define this complexity. Nor can they detect the CAUSE of this complexity.

---

On the contrarry.The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design.Start reading.

quote:

---

AND, before you start "Jew Wizard" is not the CAUSE of complexity. "Jew Wizard" is the SOURCE of the Cause. The cause is "Magic Jew Beams".
Until you can measure the Magic Jew Beams in action, you don't have a cause.

---

I never said that.

quote:

---

Except that that is NOT what you do.

---

Than what am I doing?

quote:

---

Behe was forced to admit ON THE STAND that all of his claimed IR features were NOT IR.

---

Why should I care? I'm not talking about Behe now.

quote:

---

If inferring design is a LAST resort and you've incorrectly inferred design MULTIPLE times, then you are getting to your LAST resort entirely too early.

---

Where did I infer it incorrectly? Show me one case?

quote:

---

You need to do more steps. For example. AN EXPERIMENT.

---

That is an experiment. Using the Explanatory filter is an experiment.

quote:

---

Again, let me remind you that NO ONE on your side of the debate has ever even attempted to do an experiment to test your claims. Nor do they intend to.

---

The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design.Start reading.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, they are relative. The terms refer to size. A "small" size is relatively _smaller_ than a large size.

---

Thanks. Than you do understand that you can't tell that only "small" populations will die because of geentic entropy, becasue they are "small" only in relative terms. And you also can't say that "large" populations will not suffer from genetic entropy, becasue they being "large" is also relative.

quote:

---

Because 10 is less than 1000. Are you seriously having this much of a problem with this.

---

But to "1000000000000000" "1000" is a small population. So it's all relative.

quote:

---

The numbering system we use is base 10. It goes from 0-9, then repeats with an additional digit added to the front. That new column of digits likewise goes from 0-9, increasing each time the column to the right cycles completely. This process is repeated infinitely forward.

​

So, 1000 takes up four columns of digits, while 10 only takes up two. Therefore 1000 represents a greater numeric value than 10.

​

I suggest that before we continue a discussion of biology (which is a fairly complicated science) you may want to familiarize yourself with 1st grade counting to prevent further confusion.

---

And I want you to understand that if you claim that a population is only small in relative terms, than you can't pick some random population, claim it's "large" and that it does not get affected by genetic entropy.

quote:

---

An animal which dies before it reproduces does not pass its genetic material onto the next generation. So, unless the Jew Wizard also has a magic beam to correct that problem, we can assume that that individuals "genetic entropy" is not being passed along.

---

What about the deleterious mutations in those individuals that do reproduce?

quote:

---

How is their working GULO gene which allows them to synthesize vitamin C a negative genetic change?

​

Do I need to go into a detailed explanation of the words "negative" and "positive"?

---

Obviously it isn't. The DEFECTIVE GULO genes are the ones that are negative. Yet natural selection did not remove them. Why?

quote:

---

And if donkeys farted gold dust we'd all be millionaires. However, since they don't we aren't. And since deleterious mutations don't accumulate causing each individual in a population to spontaneously be unable to reproduce with any other, I suggest you drop this line of theoretical thinking.

---

The only difference is that they DO accumulate. I already gave links to two articles that show that!

quote:

---

And that's a failure on your part.

---

Wait it's a failure on my part that I didn't draw 10.000.000 generations? What drugs are you on?

quote:

---

If a 1234 produces an offspring with 1 positive "a" mutation and 2 negative "b" mutations the offspring is:
1b2a34b.

​

Now that offspring meets up with another equally mutated 1234 named: 1b23b4a.

​

They mate and produce a number of offspring, that offspring is NOT going to have multiples of the mutations. It's going to have one or the other from each gene.

​

So, in this scenario is WILL have a 1b since both parents have it, but it could just as likely have a normal 2 or 2a. It could either have 4b or 4a.

​

Your chart does NOT account for this.

---

Wrong. I never said it will have multiple mutations. It will only inherit those beneficial and deleterious mutations that it's parents had. BUT!!! He will also gain more mutations of his own, this increasing the cound of both deleterious and beneficial mutations. Which means they do accumulate.

quote:

---

And again we see that what you "KNOW" is actually incorrect. You do not have 100% of your mother's DNA and 100% of your father's DNA. You have a mix which adds up to 100% (assuming you have no unique mutations yourself).

---

I know that. I said it gets PASSED ON 100% from the parent. Later on it gets recombined. But on average, the mutations do accumulate even with this mechanisms that slows down the accumulation.

quote:

---

Gene duplication neither adds new function nor deletes old function. It does, however, present a platform upon which later positive mutations can occur which provide new function without detracting from existing function.

---

First of all, this is an assumption. This has never been observed. Second, it doesn't help you because it doesn't remove the deleterious mutations from the genome. An organism will not care if it evolved new function if the effects of genetic entropy made it sterile.

quote:

---

So, the "worst argument" you've ever heard in your life was pointing out that you failed to accurately represent the model you were claiming to offer as evidence?

---

No, because your arguments were that I was not detailed wnough, which is stupid. Please you draw a picture that represents 10 million generations.

quote:

---

That's odd. The "worst argument" I've ever heard was when someone claimed that a Jew Wizard magic beamed undetectable design into populations using Jew rays.

​

Wanna guess where I heard it?

---

I have no Idea. I know that I never made that argument. And I know I'm not making it because I'm not a Christian. So now what?

quote:

---

I will happily go into great detail about ERVs in a different thread. It would unfortunately take up a lot of space and be deemed off topic here.

​

If you want info, I suggest you search for existing ERVs threads or start a new one and I'll join you over there.

---

No problem. We'll deal with it later on.

quote:

---

Because proto-avians in the fossil record have teeth, not beaks.

---

What does thatz have to do with chickens? Are you by any chance claiming that these supposed "proto-avians" are related to modern day chickens? Do you have any evidence for that?

quote:

---

Please don't ask me to explain chronological time to you. If you don't understand "before" and "after", I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you.

---

I'm sorry but we must go into full detail because your whole theory is built on assumptions and logical fallacies right at it's foundations. And I just want you to realize that.

quote:

---

Can you think of a SINGLE example which could NOT be explained by "it was designed that way"?

---

Yes, those that are produced by genetic duplication.

quote:

---

Can "It was designed that way" ever be applied as a predictive model? Or is it ONLY usable to explain evidence after the fact? Do you have a predictive example we can test?

---

ID predicts that if the genomes are designed, that it will contain high amount of CSI.

quote:

---

And they also have pixie levers which the minions of the Jew Wizard can twist when they need to activate the Magic Jew Beam receptors.

​

You can invent as many magical functions as you want to explain natural things. However, until you can start DEMONSTRATING their existence, they are nothing more than make believe.

---

You seem to be incredibly clueless about genetics. Here, take a look, the mechanisms is a very well known one. It's called a transposon. Why do you think you have any right to even address me if you are clueless about such basic stuff?Transposable element - Wikipedia

quote:

---

And "the Jew Wizard designed it that way" is useful how?

---

Who claimed that?

quote:

---

No, that's not how evolution works. Chickens could not spontaneously gain an exoskeleton. If that were to occur that would be unexplainable using the evolutionary model.

---

I didn't say spontaneously. With time, it could have gained and lost, and gained, and lost, and gaine, and lost and gaine, and lost ... ... an exoskeleton. And there would be no problem for evolution to account for that, because it can account for everything.

quote:

---

Likewise, if a donkey suddenly sprouted fully formed wings, it would be unexplainable using our model.

---

Again, you are building a strawman. I never said suddenly. I said, through time.

quote:

---

Our model is falsifiable.

---

Really? Well, name one possible falsification.

quote:

---

"Jew Magic" after the fact is NOT falsifiable because it is make believe and make believe can encompass anything.

---

That's true. And that's why I'm not arguing for that.

quote:

---

Re-read your quote. You are drawing a conclusion from a sentence which contains the word "suggests".

---

It suggests because we already know, for a fact that it has already happened that way in another experiment. Therefore, the best explanation is that it happened that way here also.

quote:

---

Again, if you don't understand the concept of a linear timeline, there is very little I can explain to you. This is sort of a fundamental part of your existence. Denying it really makes this conversation impossible since you can't sort out the sequence of questions and answers.

---

I'm waiting. Please start explaining the fossil record.

quote:

---

You are claiming that Dembski is not stating who the "intelligence" is. That's a lie. Either you are ignorant and therefore being honestly dishonest, or you are being intentionally dishonest.

​

Since I've pointed out that he's admitted that it's the Jew Wizard that's doing the designing, you can no longer honestly claim to not know that.

---

I tend to think that you are the liar here. Since I do not think you have read any of his books. I on the other hand did, and I don't remember him saying that God is the designer. Unless he was asked in an interview of who he believes the designer is, he would state that he believes it's God. But he would also point out that that's just his own belief, that has nothing to do with ID itself.

quote:

---

Clearly it isn't, since your team has failed to apply it to thing which have been demonstrated to be evolved and not designed.

---

Oh, really? Why don't you start reading NFL, you would be surprised.

quote:

---

Because they aren't negative if they aren't having a negative effect.

---

Tautology anyone?

quote:

---

There are tree rats in my back yard. They may or may not have a working GULO gene. However, since every single house on my block has lemon trees in the yard, whether or not this gene exists in these rats is moot.

---

Well if that is so you have just blured the line between beneficial and deleterious mutations. Which means that even if mutations are beenficial they still destroy biologic functions. Not only that, but since they are beneficial, they will get passed on to the next geenration, and this will only speed up the process of genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Your claim is that the mutation rate is high enough that all individuals will spontaneously be unable to reproduce with one another. You've provide NO evidence to support this claim.

---

Why are you such a filthy liar? I never claimed that. I said with time, populations will deteriorate. Did my picture show a sudden genetic meltdown, or did it happen gradually? Obviously it happened gradually. And the evidence for that exists. Populations die out pecause of genetic meltdown.

quote:

---

No, because you failed to include genetic material from both parents.

---

Again, that doesn't change the picture. Yes, sexual recombination is helpful. I mean that's obvious. But so what? It doesn't stop the degradation in any way! Yes, it does slow it down, becasue for instance, one parent can have a deleterious mutation, and the other parent not. When they have children, the child can inherit the gene that does not have the deleterious mutation. And yes, that helps.But thell me, how the hell is that going to help you when ALL individuals have this mutation? You do understand that the child will inherit teh gene from either parent, but it will still inherit the non-functional gene since both parent's genes are defective. Like in teh case of the GULO gene in humans. No amount of sexual recombination is going to help you here because whichever gene the child inherits is defective. 100% of people on Earth have this defective gene.So to conclude this part. Yes, sexual recombination slows down genetic entropy, but it does not stop it.

quote:

---

Okay, let's simplify:

​

You are claiming that in a made up world of your made up animals reproducing in a made up way using made up mutation rates and a made up effect of natural selection, your population will do something different than what happens in the real world under real conditions.

​

You're right. Your make believe world is different than our real world. Congrats.

---

So you are saying that in real world, ALL deleterious mutations from parents magicaly get weeded out before they are passed on to their children? Explain how.

quote:

---

Now I know you are deliberately being dishonest.

​

Is that because you think that the Jew Wizard rewards lying more than truth?

---

I could ask you teh same thing. Do you pray to Darwin every night?

quote:

---

You might as well complain that since the theory of gravity explains both why the book I just dropped fell to the ground and why the Moon doesn't, it's "useless" and a "cop-out".

---

Nope, because the Moon and the book are different objects.If somebody said that gravity explained why books fall down, and why sometimes books would not fall down if released, witht eh same mechanism, now that would be a cop out.

quote:

---

If you really don't understand what the theory of evolution has to say about vestigial genes, then have a look for my recent posts on the subject. It's off-topic here though.

---

I do understand it, thank you for your concern anyway.

quote:

---

Because they only make sense in the light of the evolutionary history of the organisms (as inferred from the other evidence). Or a designer who's deliberately trying to mess with our heads (see my post on actualism, above).

---

Fine. Start explaining. How do they only make sense in light of evolution.

quote:

---

You've made how many posts on the topic and you still need evolution defining for you? It's heritable changes in a lineage.

---

I do need a definition from everyone because everyone has a different definition.

quote:

---

Those words did not actually appear in the post to which I was replying. But in answer to your question, a population is called small if it is small. I really don't know how to make this concept any simpler.

---

A population is small if it is small? Wow, Einstein, did you graduate at the University of Tautology?

quote:

---

If you wish to know at what point we might expect small size to lead to genetic catastrophe, then in order to answer that, I should require a histogram relating the effect on fitness of mutations to their probability.

​

Ecologists generally use the "50/500 rule" --- an effective (i.e. breeding) population of 50 is needed to avert genetic disaster in the short run, 500 in the long run. But this is just a rule of thumb and varies from species to species.

---

Okay, now tell me, why do you think this will have any effect of stoping the genetic meltdown at any future point in time when we know that all individuals are mutants?

quote:

---

First, his opposition of "design" to "chance". Does he really know no better? Has he never heard of evolution, or is he ruling it out a priori?

---

Evolution is an algorithm. It does not produce any CSI. It only transmits it. Let me show you a mathematical proof for that, right out of NFL.First we have a CSI j, and a detrministic natural law denoted by f. Natural laws are described as functions. Simply because they act on a certain variable, and than give the same result every time.Just like 2X + 10 = 20. X will always be 5. In the same way, when you put water under 0C, you will always get ice.So now, you are claiming that this natural law "f", brought about CSI "j", without intelligent cause. That means that there was some element "i" in the domain of "f", that was acted upon by "f" and it brought upon "j".This is represented by the equation => "f(i) = j"This actually does not create new information, since "i" will always produce "j" when acted upon by "f". This simply means that the natural law has shifted the same amount of information from "i" to "j". The problem of where did the CSI come from is not resolved by this. Simply because we have to ask where did CSI in "i" come from? Because that is the same CSI as in "j". It just got shifted around by "f" acting upon it.Now we have this equation: "I(A&B) = I(A) + I(B|A)", let's call it "*". It explains that information in an event A and B equal information in the event A together with information B given that A is certain. Which basicly means that if A happens, B is sure to happen. Therefore, if we see that A happened, that means B happened too.Let us now use this equation in our example. Since we already know that "i" fully determines "j", with respect to "f", that means that "I(j|i) = 0". This means that if know all the information in "i", we will also know all the information in "j", when "f" acts upon "i". Which means that if "i" happens, "j" also happens, and whatever we learn from "i" we also learn from "j". And this means that we can learn nothing more from "j" than from "i". Meaning, information gained is equal to zero.Which means that CSI that was generated is not created by a natural law, it was simply shifted from some other place. All natural laws act like this. Therefore natural laws are precluded from creating CSI. They can only shift them around.

quote:

---

There are subtler blunders, but that's the most obvious one. In order to detect design, we need a way of distinguishing things that were designed from the product of evolutionary algorithms (and other mechanisms, such as the random search that tailors our lymphocytes to the pathogens from which they defend us.)

---

Well we do have that. It's called the Explanatory Filter. And we also have a reliable mark of intelligence which is CSI, which can not be produced by an evolutionary algorithm.

quote:

---

Whereas observation of reality shows that they don't; and reality trumps what people write down on bits of paper. I know that this flies in the face of the fundamental dogma of creationsism, but such is the case.

---

Than how do you explain this.Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMC
Just a moment...
Just a moment...

quote:

---

I can't believe I'm going to have to go over this again.

---

Believe it.

quote:

---

Evolution makes a claim about how speciation occurs and offers mechanics through which this happens.

---

Great. And I'm not asking that evolution should produce anything else. If that is the theory of evolution, than that's fine by me. In the same way, ID offers to detect design in patterns we observe in nature. For that it has a method called an explanatory filter, and a measure of the pattern that we should find if a pattern is designed called CSI. And it offeres the source for those patterns to be an intelligence.

quote:

---

It does not need to explain the origins of life for two reasons. First, it doesn't claim to try and explain the origins of life. Second, it works off the assumption that life exists.

---

Great! I agree with that. The same goes for ID. It does not have to explain the mechanism of design because:1.) It claims that design is detectable without knowing the mechanism.
2.) That mechanism can not be reliably infered just by detecting design.

quote:

---

A person describing an internal combustion motor does not need to prove that fire exists. They start with the assumption that fire exists and proceed to describe the mechanisms which utilize fire to power their motor.

---

I agreee. In the same way, since design has for a logical neccessity a designer, and a mechanism that implemented that design, ID does not try to name the identity of the designer, or the mechanism.

quote:

---

ID is offered as a cancellation/replacement of evolution.

---

Wrong. ID can not be in any way, shape or form the replacement for evolution. If evolution is concerned with change of species over time, than ID has nothing to say about that. ID is the science of design detection only. And is not supposed to replace evolution. ID and evolution can coexist.

quote:

---

Therefore, it is being offered as an ALTERNATIVE explanation for how speciation occurs.

---

Wrong, again it's not. It has nothing to do with how speciation occures. People can accept both evolution and ID liek Michael Behe does. You are building a strawman argument here.

quote:

---

Therefore it _MUST_ offer mechanisms which are _BETTER_ at explaining the observable testable data than those seen in evolution.

---

Which it doesn't have to offer because a.) I already explain why it doesn't have to offer that. And b.) You only assumed it is trying to replace evolution. Which is where you were wrong, and this conclusion is likewise wrong.

quote:

---

So far, ID supporters have NEVER even attempted to do this.

---

Becasue they are not supposed to.

quote:

---

Until they do, there's really nothing to discuss. It's simply a bunch of cry babies whining that real scientists aren't taking their LACK OF EVIDENCE seriously.

---

Ok, so let's turn this stupid argument agains you nce more.Untill evolution offers us an explanation for origin of life, there is nothing to discuss.

quote:

---

Come up with a mechanism. Develop a method through which you can test it. Design an experiment and run it. Collect data. Then publish it. THEN we can START to talk about whether or not ID should be considered legitimately.

---

And untill you have evidence evolution is responsible for the origin of life, that I will simply consider you nothing but a Darwin worshiper.

quote:

---

That doesn't even make sense. The proteins that make up the whip don't have the job of providing power to the flagellum, any more than the blades of a propellor have the job of providing power to the propellor.

---

I never said they do. But the flagellum is powered by something.

quote:

---

The answer is that the information content is described by possible origins, not by the structure of the thing itself. Anything with the same set of possible origins, with the same probabilities for each has the same information.

---

That's wrong. So you are saying that If I write a book of 20 pages by hand, or if I write the same book by a computer, and than print it out, that the informational content of those books are not identical?

quote:

---

Wrong on both counts. Even if you have mathematically calculated the correct probability of the gene sequences forming by pure chance then it still isn't the correct probability even for those genes forming.

---

Of course it is, because the structure is what is important.

quote:

---

Nor do you have a valid specification (it's an obvious "fabrication" in Dembksi's terminology).

---

No it's not. A fabrication is something that is just read of the event that exhibits a patternt. A specification is when a pattern can be described without first looking at that event. We can describe a "bi-drectional rotary propeller motor" without looking at the flagellum first. Therefore, it's a specification.

quote:

---

And you've misapplied Axe's figures, too.

---

Explain how.

quote:

---

Obviously we can. Any regular geometric structure can be described without reference to an object actually having that structure. (Try looking for "face-centred cubic lattice" for a start).

---

Than describe the snowflake. What is it's pattern called.

quote:

---

Exactly my point.

---

No, your point is that I was supposed to say that they were designed.

quote:

---

No, we have evidence that life has been around a long time.

---

Show me that evidence.

quote:

---

You may have heard of fossils.

---

Do fossils come with dates attached to them?

quote:

---

And if meltdown takes that long it isn't much of a problem.

---

If it's going to happen than it's a problem.

quote:

---

One obviously silly one is that the effects of beneficial mutations can't counter the effects of detrimental mutations. (By definition they can, and often will).

---

Explain how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn.

quote:

---

The number of detrimental mutations per generation. It looks way too high.

---

I used those numbers to show in as few generations as possible the effects of genetic entropy. Tell me, what would ahve changed if I set the rate of mutations to 5 per generation, and the threshold to genetic meltdown to 5000 deleterious mutations. What would change EXCEPT the numbers of generations that would ahve to pass untill teh geentic meltdown occures?

quote:

---

In other words you are not considering ALL detrimental mutations (which is ANY mutation that reduces fitness) rather you are considering a small subset, so that an accumulation of 30 (or whatever) produces a fitness of zero which cannot be countered by any beneficial mutations.

---

And again, I ask you, how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn.

quote:

---

So, you seem to have your own idea of genetic entropy, and you are going to have to significantly reduce the number of detrimental mutations per generation to fit your model to reality.

---

And once more, what would ahve changed if I set the rate of mutations to 5 per generation, and the threshold to genetic meltdown to 5000 deleterious mutations. What would change EXCEPT the numbers of generations that would ahve to pass untill teh geentic meltdown occures?

quote:

---

Let us try it more simply. A detrimental mutation is any mutation that reduces fitness. A beneficial mutation i any mutation that increases fitness. (Where "fitness" is defined as reproductive success). Obviously an increase can offset a decrease.

---

And for the third time, how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn.

quote:

---

If you are talking about what happens in large populations, with lower mutation rates over longer timespans then you are going to have to take account of those things somehow. Saying that you can't put them in your diagram is just a cop-out.

---

The same thing happens as in my diagram. Only in more generations.

quote:

---

Actually, I did. In large populations, over a long timescale - especially in sexually reproducing species - we can look at the fate of individual alleles, without worrying too much about the individuals that carry them. Those alleles which cary detrimental mutations will tend to decline and disappear.

---

No they won't. You arte simply asserting this. How would they disappear if the parents pass them on to their offspring.

quote:

---

Those that carry beneficial mutations will tend to spread and replace mutated and unmated versions of the gene.

---

No, they wouldn't. Becasue a parent passes on both deleterious and beneficial mutations to it's offspring.

quote:

---

The whole idea of genetic meltdown relies on detrimental mutations accumulating faster than natural selection can remove them.

---

Which is an observed fact.Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMC
Just a moment...
Just a moment...

quote:

---

In small populations, because chance effects are more significant this situation is far more likely to occur. In larger problems statistics favour selection over chance.

---

Where is your evidence for that statement?

quote:

---

Because natural selection will remove deleterious mutations, genetic entropy will be stopped whenever the rate of removal equals the rate at which new detrimental mutations are introduced to the population.

---

Where is the evidence for that?

quote:

---

You might like to consider the fact that the best offspring will typically have FEWER deleterious mutations than their parents, for a start. How does that fit with your idea of inevitable accumulation ?

---

No, becasue they inherit their parent's deleterious mutations and add their own.

quote:

---

How many generations do you think it needs? E.coli can divide every 20 minutes under ideal conditions, how many twenty minutes are there in the last six thousand years? Even if we drop it to one generation a day to account for variations in generational rates, that's over two million generations.

---

I don't know how much it needs. But it's a logical conclusion.

quote:

---

Why hasn't genetic entropy shown its head in E. coli?

---

It has. It affects all life. But like I said, a long time is needed for the actual meltdown to occure.

quote:

---

Logic can show all sorts of things if your assumptions are wrong; if your conclusion are demonstrable wrong then it follows your logic is flawed or your assumptions were wrong. Experiment always trumps theory.

---

I totally agree with you. That is why the experiments that show genetic entropy, trump any notions of evolution.

quote:

---

Then why don't we see any effect of it?

---

Yes, we do. We see them in ALL species.

quote:

---

Every E. coli bacterium alive today should have accumulated a minimum (using a conservative estimate of the number of generations) of over 7000 deleterious mutations in the last 6000 years. That's more mutations than they have genes.

---

No. We do not know how much mutations would they have accumulated. To predict real numbers is not possible, simply because we do not know what was the initial population size.