Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
66 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK (3 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 210 of 296 (644015)
12-14-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Kaichos Man
12-14-2011 6:44 AM


Re: Kimura redux
Sorry, my computer was telling me I hadn't posted this.

You and your computer make a good team.

---

Wounded King has reposted some of your Kimura nonsense on a thread where it was already being discussed, in an attempt to stop you from further derailing this one. Feel free to participate on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 6:44 AM Kaichos Man has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 296 (644017)
12-14-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Kaichos Man
12-14-2011 7:00 AM


Re: Kimura redux
I don't think throwing a drowning man a straw is lying. It's just placating those who believe the man isn't really drowning.

You claimed that he knowingly wrote what he did not believe to be true. If you do not count that as "lying" then ... then that goes some way towards explaining your own behavior.

This from Motoo:

"More than a decade and a half ago, in collaboration with Ohta, I enumerated five principles that govern molecular evolution, one of which states that functionally less important molecules or parts of a molecule evolve (in terms of mutant substitutions) faster than more important ones."

Even here Kimura is throwing the neo-Darwinists a bone. He could equally have said that functionally less important parts of a molecule evolve, while important ones don't. After all, this is precisely what his research shows.

So, you once more accuse him of falsehood.

"When this principle was proposed, accompanied by its neutralist explanation, much opposition was voiced by the neo-Darwinian establishment"

You boys got your knickers in a twist.

"... but I am glad to note that it has become a part of common knowledge among molecular biologists

Yes, all evolutionists agree with Kimura. As does he with them.

I was right. Suck it up.

What do you imagine you were right about?

Hey, you can still pretend that selection somehow -magically- evolves the phenotype while leaving the genotype untouched.

I cannot "still" do that because I have never done it.

You were having a hard enough time lying about Kimura's opinions behind his back. Now you are lying to me about my own opinions to my face. How do you think that is going to work out for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 7:00 AM Kaichos Man has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 229 of 296 (645115)
12-23-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by zi ko
12-23-2011 10:53 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
Nature's intelligence springs out of universal laws. You can't just wipe off universal laws becouse they let detrimental mutations to happen as they can afford it.

And you can't just wipe off the universal law that I always win at roulette just because in fact in the long run I lose. It's still a law, even though it isn't actually true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by zi ko, posted 12-23-2011 10:53 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by zi ko, posted 12-23-2011 12:07 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 244 of 296 (645212)
12-24-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by zi ko
12-24-2011 9:54 AM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
They are not the same. Try to replace with one another in different expressions and you will realise it.Why use then fitness and not life preservation?Life preservation has a much wider meaning.Any way for the sake of conversation let us accept they are the same.Mutations then are random to life preservation.So life has not any tedency to preserve itself.It is just ahuman fallacious impression, in spite of all common knowledge. Then how do you explain the "repairing mechanisms" inside cells biologists talk about?

Living things have some methods of preserving their lives but not others. This is so obvious that I feel embarrassed for you that it's necessary to point it out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by zi ko, posted 12-24-2011 9:54 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by zi ko, posted 12-26-2011 12:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 249 of 296 (645348)
12-26-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by zi ko
12-26-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
It does't make any difference.All have tried hard to preserve it.

And yet their efforts have not led to them being able to perform genetic engineering on themselves any more than it has led to them developing time travel or learning to violate the law of conservation of energy, useful though these abilities might be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by zi ko, posted 12-26-2011 12:17 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022