The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Hi, Faith. Do you understand that this is how we feel about your idea that increasing variation doesn't create new varieties?Lack of intuitivity is not evidence of inaccuracy. You have argued this yourself on this thread.I have given you evidence of an "error" that turned out to be a good thing for its host. Perhaps it still seems "wacko" to you, but it's real. The conclusion is that reality is "wacko," not that demonstrated evidence should be rejected on the basis of wackiness.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Some people think it's 'better' that we call them 'apples' rather than 'napples'. Some people think it is better to have a 'nick name' rather than an 'eke name'.Likewise some people prefer to sing

"Chorus.-For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne.
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For the sake of auld lang syne. "

despite the fact that 'the sake of' is an error. Adding the extra syllables means there is one word per note which makes it easier and thus more communally pleasing, some people feel. It has become the 'standard' in may people's minds. But evolution isn't about getting a single correct answer. It's about finding a solution to a problem that's good enough to approximately optimise reproductive success. One of the results of this is that you don't need to start with the best solution, as long as your lineage remains in the top reproductively productive individuals. As long as you out-compete your peers it doesn't matter.Watch how some copying errors lead to better cars.You might not think it applies in genetics. But errors producing improvements, however counter-intuitive you find it, is a demonstrable fact.

You do not attribute this quote to any particular fool, so that we can laugh at him. And yet we know for a fact that genetic algorithms are highly effective. So call it "bizarre" and "wacko" all you like, so long as you add the phrase "and known to be absolutely true". And yet as a mathematician and computer scientist I know for a fact that genetic algorithms have been used with great success to solve math problems. As has been confirmed by direct observation of evolution. You think so? Here are some of the minds that accepted that idea: In case you don't recognize their names, that was 72 scientists who've won the Nobel Prize. You think that there is something wrong with their minds. And they think that there is something wrong with yours.Well, let me know when you're a Nobel Laureate, rather than a nobody posting ignorant gibberish on the Internet.

Hi FaithI bought a Mega Millions ticket Friday. I said 14, but the clerk heard 40. That so totally sucks. Because of her error I won ten bucks instead of nothing. My mum and dad are just wacko. They think that's a good thing.Do you ever say anything that isn't wrong?

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

You seem very hung up on the term "error". It is better thought of as an imperfect copy. An imperfect copy that can be "better", "worse" or neutral in terms of the effect it has in the environment in which it occurs.But having read your responses I am of the opinion that others have also reached. Namely that there is little point pursuing this with you. So you are absolutely wedded to the idea that no beneficial changes can ever occur to anything as an incontrovertible truth? (except bacteria of course which you discount)So according to you nothing ever adapts to it's environment in any beneficial way. And you think this is consistent with the evdience?

It is a common creationist statement that experiments on bacteria are irrelevant to demonstrating evolution. I think they genuinely believe this.I was just hoping to use examples of things other than bacteria. If you have already done that then I won't bother. But I am bemused as to how Faith does think beneficial genetic changes ever do occur in organisms?I shall have a read of your Great Debate thread and see if Faith ever answers that question.

I would even restrain from using the term "imperfect copy" because it implies that the parent copy was perfect.I would prefer "inexact copy" because exactness does not imply perfection. Someone, as Faith has shown, can be exactly wrong. An inexact copy can be preferable as compared to the original as long as that inexact copy is more beneficial.

Fair point. I was picking up my terminology from that commonly used in reference to "imperfect replicators" but in this context I think your wording is more helpful."Inexact copy" it is - Faith if you are reading.

People should be aware that Faith has been suspended indefinitely.I've been exchaning PMs with Faith, and she believes the problems stem from unfair treatment of her by both participants and moderators (meaning me). She feels she begins unemotionally, but she's subjected to a great deal of abuse during discussion, and when she gets mad I "spring into action" as if it were her fault.I told Faith that I would like her to find a partner who shares her views and who could share the load and serve as emotional supprot, but she does not seem amenable to that.I don't know what Faith might decide in the future, but people should be aware that Faith may not be returning soon when deciding whether to post responses to her threads.Edited by Admin, : Typo.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Contents of duplicate post removed.Edited by Admin, : Duplicate post.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Personally I think that is a shame and I am sorry to hear that. But at the same time I can fully undestand why and I guess it was almost inevitable.

There is some truth to her claim. The tone in a lot of threads she belongs in usually has a negative one. It goes both ways really. The critical difference is in how she handles it versus other people. There seems to be some kind of disconnect with her that other people don't share. She flies off the handle at even a hint of a personal slight, whereas others seem to be able to recognize that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.It is also true that she does try to be on her best behavior, but it doesn't take but a few exchanges before it deconstructs. The issue really is one of self-restraint, which she doesn't have. She gets too emotionally invested in the forum and her position and it doesn't take much to get her fired up.Personally, however, I think she's been on much better behavior for a few weeks now. I have noticed a difference and she seems to really be trying. She may be incapable of it in the long haul, I don't know. Regardless, you have much more history with this, so I'm not here to question your judgment, but lately I've seen some improvement for what it is worth. What difference does this make? She has a few allies at EvC, not that I understand what difference it would make.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I left out a couple details. I'm asking Faith to find a partner who shares her views, and she and that partner can only advocate positions they both share. In this way I hope to avoid the constant protests of "That's not what I said, you're all misunderstanding me," and also to avoid the advocacy of positions that make no sense to anyone, creationists included, because when Faith gets her dander up she won't back away from any position, no matter how ridiculous.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Percy, sad news, but not unreasonable. Perhaps then, it is time to post summary statements and close this thread that she started (she could send you a summary of her position if she wants to have that posted). Same for the Great Debate thread.My summary would be:

1. that it has not been demonstrated that mutations cannot lead to new variation/s,
2. that it has not been demonstrated that a mechanism for causing new variation/s from any other process exists,
3. that it has not been demonstrated that natural selection (drift etc) causes loss of alleles at a rate faster than mutations can create new alleles,

and that all three of these would need to be demonstrated (with evidence and math, not just assertions) to consider the Faith Hypothesis a possible explanation of facts.Enjoy

---

I think the saddest part of Faith's short participation here is the amount of effort she put into defense of a flawed argument.If she put that much effort into studying the actual science of genetics and what geneticists and evolutionary biologists have discovered from their research she could have understood why it makes so much sense to them.Instead she grabs little shreds of information from numerous sources and creates an odd composite idea of how biology and genetics works that does not fit a single example of what can actually be observed in all of the many thousands of species that have been studied in nature and the laboratory.She endlessly repeats her fantasy idea with out once supporting it with actual observations of actual populations of organisms while dismissing every single example of evidence that contradicts her.She would be the perfect example of a really bad scientist, (who defends a flawed argument, no matter how much the evidence shows she is wrong) if she actually knew anything about science. Fortunately, that type of scientist really only exists in really bad movies about scientists.She does not let her ignorance of any subject stand in the way of her desire to spout gibberish about her concocted fantasies over and over while she mis-understands and misinterprets every response from those who disagree with her.Surprisingly, she lasted a week longer than I thought she would and left a lot of us (who were drawn to read her threads like moths to a flame) with headaches.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley