Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

That explains why many scientists won't entertain a hypothetical belief without data.I'm still puzzled, though. Perhaps I am at a loss for words...

You're words that apply to "Evolution".And you don't see the discrepancy in those statements? ROFLMAO! When AZPaul3 says "Let me paraphrase", you can take that to mean "Let me setup a strawman".You don't check your references very well.
Olivia Judson's contribution was an opinion piece, and she never mentioned anything about the " ignorant and none-too-scientifically-inclined public". She merely asserted (without any evidence, after all it's just an opinion piece) that Darwinism...

quote:

---

suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”

---

And Eugenie Scott's beef with the term was that despite that "scientists and teachers use “Darwinism” as synonymous with evolutionary biology", she didn't like it because the term sometimes has ambiguous or bad connotations associated with it.You make it too easy.But if it really is a sore point for you, replace "evolution" with every instance I used "Darwinian processes" and I'll stand by it. which I assume links to your "differential reproduction". And may I assume that your talk of "differential reproduction" is involved with "evolution"?I would hope that is a safe bet, since your phrase above about "making babies" was in reference to the concepts of -

quote:

---

--More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
--Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
--Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
--When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.

---

...which are the central ideas of Darwinism (yes, the classical, from Darwin himself - version).But wait!!! I guess now those concepts do NOT have anything to do with evolution. Since.... So, I guess you're saying that if those concepts, which would include differential reproduction and any concept of Natural Selection, are not part of "Evolution" (that term that is oh so specific and the only one authentically used by scientists),..... what exactly are you referring to when you say "Evolution"????Really. If you want to equivocate on your terms, at least try to spread apart you're varying meanings by a few posts. Doing it all in the same post? You make it too easy.

Glad you liked it. Thank you. Except as a convenient turn of phrase, the objection to your characterization of search algorithms as examples of natural selection stands. It is not NS, it is TAS. To be sure, your search algorithms are modeled on some of the features involved in evolution but they are targeted, which is way different from the blind operation in evolution and the selection is totally artificial, again, way different from how evolution works. Use the term all you want but know it is not as close an analogy as you seem to need for some purpose.We can get wrapped in pedantic uselessness at this point.What gets creationists into deep doo-doo is their view that Natural Selection is some spooky ephemeral operation that somehow, by majik, chooses one phenotype over another. This leads them to try to fight against NS with their bogus large number arguments and their computer program analogies as if they can do damage to the edifice of evolution.The environment, an intricate part of the umbrella term NS to be sure, is actually just mindlessly chugging along doing the grunt work of making and killing babies.The term Natural Selection is more recognized in Evolution to be the accounting of what happens.The spreadsheet analogy is still there and is the essential piece. It shows us what babies from what sources reproductively impact the population and thus what phenotypes are "fittest" vis-a-vis the environment. NS shows us the fittest, the not so fit and the bride's maids waiting in the wings. Over time it shows us the movements within those numbers. It shows us the impact of environment on babies, on the population. It highlights. Natural Selection actually "selects" nothing.No objections to the term Natural Selection "selecting" phenotypes as a way of saying that, in the accounting, this phenotype grew "fitter" and had lots of babies.Natural selection "selects" phenotypes. That's a good shorthand for deeper processes. Just understand that, in actuality, natural selection does no such thing.Natural Selection is not open to the kinds of manipulation creationists love to imagine. And yet Evolution still works as advertised. Go figure. Not "a" mutation rate. Several. You know there are other species on this planet, right?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Given the different contexts in the different times ... nope. Glad you like that one, too. You didn't like my paraphrase? I'm crushed! I worked real hard on that. Oh, you are fun.We object to the "Darwin-anything" as some kind of synonym for The Theory of Evolution - The Modern Synthesis. No repudiation of Darwinian ideas/concepts.We object to this in the same way we would object to calling General Relativity Neo-Newtonianism. Which you may actually do. I wouldn't put it past you to not see the issue. Just for the fun of the exercise:

quote:

---

--More individuals are produced each generation than can survive (making lots of babies).
--Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable (in the babies).
--Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive (and make lots of babies).
--When reproductive isolation(you make your babies over there, we'll make ours over here) occurs new species will form.

---

Yep. It's Darwinian all the way down. And its all about the babies. And the accounting of the babies.Gotta count those babies.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yip. Surviving, reproducing surviving babies.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

These numbers don't make any sense, but what I think you're doing is confusing an estimate of the average mutation rate per nucleotide with that per individual. A mutation rate of 1x10^-8 would mean about 0.5 mutations per individual with a genome the size of the malaria parasite's. You're many orders of magnitude off.

I'm tired of asking you if you understand logic, cause you evidently do not. So my asking: "Do you realize that a strawman is a logical fallacy, and you're cheering your strawman means your argument lacks merit?"
So then...you using a strawman, which you just admitted to, is a logical fallacy, and that means your argument is without any logical merit. Which cements that you still don't understand 'search'.
In a search process, there is always a target. But that target may have nothing to do with how things move in a search space. In the case of a random search, and in the case of PaulK's search, the target does not have anything to do with how the search is performed. So the location of where a search looks, the accounting of YOUR description of NS, is randomly determined.So what is the target? It is that part of the accounting, or a very specific subset of your NS spreadsheet, that notes a movement 'up' the landscape. This all translates to a beneficial mutation occurring that leads to a more fit organism that is shown, accounted for, demonstrated, selected as..... "more babies".So essentially, in all these evolutionary searches that are being discussed, we do recognize that there will be cases of less babies, same number of babies, and more babies (in comparison to each other category). The more babies is really the only one we are concerned with, the target, because that corresponds to a forward move of evolution. And yet you will proceed to do so over the next few paragraphs.But I especially like these two sentences - together at that.... So NS, in some manner, "selects". But in the same sentence, NS "does no such thing". Really??? LOL! Don't give this guy any more rope, please! Thought you didn't like the numbers. You seem afraid of them.
The NS numbers is what I have been using. Why can't you face them? One or several, doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Any mutation rate has an effect. You seem to be fighting that, and other than just to philosophically disagree with me, I can't figure why. Ah, but "Darwin-anything" IS used as a synonym for TOE, Modern-Synthesis. "Neo-Darwinism" is explicitly a term that corresponds to the modern theory. Even your hero Mayr advocated that term.And do you really think you can say you don't like using any term like "Darwin-anything" and not be repudiating Darwin's related ideas? Are you serious?!? And you think I am the one being pedantic? And you think it is creationists that a quibbling over terms? Pot, meet kettle. LOL!And as I said, since it is YOU that is hung up about the wording, replace every prior instance where I said "Darwinian process(es)" with "evolution" and I am fine with it.As for Neo-Newtonianism being used in place of General Relativity, I would have no problem with that. If that was a common phrasing for the idea, why would I object? Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.

Care to respond to message 91?Moose

Lovely response. Strawmen do have their uses. Oh, and if you’re tired of asking then just stop. That’s easy. There is no “forward move of evolution”. There is only “what develops next”.And why are you dissing the “cases of less babies, same number of babies . ”?These are not the dregs of evolution but, maybe, future product since they may be already adapted to just what’s needed with the coming changes in the environment. Did they target and search a temporally tangent fitness peak by mistake? Ok. So you have identified a phenotype that quite temporarily has your chosen “target” number of requisite babies. You have anointed a number and thus the underlying genetics as “selected for”. And I used Excel’s search function to target and list each cell where that number of babies is recorded.Thank you. That was very helpful.In a few generations large portions of that phenotype may not be so well adapted anymore. Things will change.Watch evolution create a species to climb your perceived fitness peak . and right back down again ... and maybe a couple of cells to the side just because there is nothing in evolution to stop it. No target, no search, just the constant movement of phenotypes in a population.Ultimately that species is doomed to extinction because evolution kills every species it touches which, of course, is all of them . uh . us. How did that get in the target space? And why is it always the last target selected?I guess you might say there is an ultimate goal to evolution after all - extinction. So much for a forward move. Nope. Just counts. Call it anything you want but all it does is count. This is a science thread. Looking after your best interests I thought you might want to present yourself as an educated man about campus able to toss the lingo around. Sounds a bit more, shall we say, in-the-know, cool, with it.But, ok. If you wish to appear as just another ignorant creationist yahoo crazy, go for it. I have no objection to that at all. Yeah. Yeah, I can. And I’m sure your intellect can inform you of how this could be so. I mean, you’re not really that far out of touch with the separation between those two different memes . are you? You can call it anything you so desire, sir. We know from where it comes.Edited by AZPaul3, : heavily revised

Sure, because you asked nicely. No. They are not the same. No. ID makes no attempt to identify the designer, it only infers there is a designing intelligence behind many of the features seen in nature. The designer could be the Christian God, a Hindu God, (in some contexts) a super-intelligent alien species, or any from a host of other potential intelligent entities (known or not) - but ID doesn't care. In other words, design is detectable by science, who the designer is is beyond science.I would assume that the method of design would involve some genetic engineering. I'm not sure what you mean by "guided evolution", as that term is somewhat an oxymoron, though that may depend on how you define "evolution". That is a bit of a vague statement, but IMO that would not be an accurate characterization. Behe in the past has indicated agreement in the idea of Common Descent, but he does not subscribe to M+NS as the sole mechanism. That might be true, but the statement is potentially a red-herring.
I do know Behe is religious and does believe in God. But that is rather irrelevant for his ID position. In his ID writings, he doesn't try to identify the designer, he just infers there is one. So, as it would refer to ID, it might be more accurate to say 'he thinks that a designer had its fingers in the operation in some subtle* way'. * - "subtle" is a quantitative description that is as yet undefined, and it is not needed in the statement. No. Design would be detectable, or at least inferred from the data. Standard evolutionary theory would not be the mechanism for bringing about many of nature's features. Maybe, or maybe not. It is irrelevant to ID

Hi Wookie, welcome to the fray, How do you know that?Please see Is ID properly pursued? -- an old thread but still valid methinks.Enjoy

About time you showed up.Have a nice nap?So, how are things?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I massively suspect that the vast majority of ID proponents (including yourself) have the Christian God as being the designer. Biological evolution (and I throw out this definition as being a geologist, not a biologist) is the change in a population from genetic change through time. Your "intelligent design" is changing the path ("guiding") evolution would take without the "intelligent design". Common decent is a chain of genetic change. Certainly Behe does not subscribe to M+NS as the sole mechanism. More like M + NS + ID (aka divine genetic engineering). No. Design would be detectable, or at least inferred from the data.[qs] What we see in life is more the picture of non-design or bad design.Moose

If you are asking about how "Design would be detectable", it is a technique that is used in other scientific endeavors. Information theory has a big hand in it, but design detection is used in Archaeology, Forensics, Crytography, search endeavors like SETI, and in many historical sciences.If you are asking about what Standard evolutionary theory can produce? It can produce some things very easily, but they are usually small changes that correspond to minor phenotypic traits, what is often referred to as micro-evolution. This is demonstrable, has an empirical justification, and ID doesnt dispute this kind of natural change.There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed. Things like new body plans and regulatory networks. Anything that require an measure of complex and specified information have never been demonstrated to be formed via a random process, but in all cases where we do have knowledge of the origins, it has always been by a mind, intelligence. M + NS are just not up to the task of producing such things. Yes, an old thread. From the OP, I can say there are some parts that I agree with, but I also was finding some things that are badly mis-characterized. On the whole, unfortunately, since I was finding many of the axioms put forward are not true, it ends up being a flawed argument.

That may be, but again, it is irrelevant. I don't have a census of all ID proponents, but I do know that there are a significant number that do not claim to be Christian. But even if the "vast" majority were, so what?ID definitely has unique properties with implications that may apply to religion. But the reverse is not the case. I think we might be getting lost in semantics, but I would probably agree here. The important distinction though would be is this a directed or undirected approach. Evolution and ID might both be working with the same matter (DNA, proteins, etc.), but the difference is in whether that work is by a directed (mind) process or undirected (random) process. Well, M+NS doesn't really comport with ID in the same instance. Behe (and most all ID proponents) would agree that M+NS does some things. But it doesn't do the other things well, or at all. Those things would be more likely to ID. (And just to make sure I'm couching these statements properly, nobody in ID is saying that evolution cannot EVER do something, nor or they saying the ID necessarily does everything.) Well, that is what is being questioned, isn't it? You'd have to be more specific for any further response. What are you seeing that you categorize as "non-design"? As for "bad design", I'd love to know what example you mean, but I would point out that "bad design" is still "design"