Darwin's Illusion

[TagliatelliMonster]

If many “genes” have to change at the same time via independent mechanism in order to get a selectable benefit

Why would that "have to" happen?

…………. This would be a limit or a barried that can´t be overcome by “mutation+selection”

Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But they don't ALL have to change at the same time. Why would you think that would be required?

I'm guessing the answer has something to do with an assumed conclusion that one is trying to paint a bullseye around.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If each mutation is positive, then sure you can go from mutation 1 to mutation 100 though Darwinian mechanisms.
But if say mutations 5,6,7 and 8 would be useless by themselves , unless you have them all at the same time , this would be an insuperable barrier.

Only for those who can only think while committing teleological fallacies and refuse to learn about evolutionary mechanisms.

The issue is that you need both mutations to occur at the same time.

You don't. A neutral mutations would not have a negative impact, thus there is no reason why it would be selected against.
The first neutral mutation can sit there quitely until the other occurs.
The do not need to happen at the same time.

So unless the first mutation has a benefit, you would have barrier that would be very hard to overcome,

The vast majority of mutations are neutral.
Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
They are not selected against. They are neutral. They have no impact on selection process.

My point is, that we don’t know…………… we have no idea , we don’t know the details no how to evovle an eye, so we can´t know if there are insuperable barriers or not.

You might want to change the word "we" to the word "i" there...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am open to be corrected, but as far as i know that is very very very uncommon

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982220304267

Is like winning the lottery twice………… sure it sometimes happens but is rare.

Only if you engage in teleological fallacies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

reeeeeeeeed the complete sentence, I said most RELEVANT mutations have to be possitive, this is true by definition, otherwise it wouldnt be the thepry of evolution by natrual selection



Then one wonders, why did you quote a random and unrelated article instead of an article that refutes my claim?

Just to keep trak you have to give me a combo of 3 neutral mutations in organisms that reproduce sexually, such that the combination of these 3 mutations is beneficial but 1 or 2 mutations by themselves are neutral

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982220304267

What that article says is that neutral mutations open up the path to new phenotypes that otherwise wouldn't have been accessible. It gives various examples also.

So the combination of various accumulated neutral mutations, made it for another mutation possible to change phenotype.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since Random Variation only leads to chaos then the only options available to selection is to clean the random mess

It's more like filtering it, off course. Keep the good and discard the bad.
It's why this mechanism is so efficient to develop practical applications like genetic algorithms for optimization of systems for just about any parameter.

, selection cannot create something meaningful out of random mess. Selection is not a creative force.

Whatever you wish to call it. It still works extremely well as an optimization process.
It molds systems into very optimized products of, and for, their environment.

All it requires is a stream of "random" input to filter.

Selection and Random Variation working together is analogous to a deaf and a blind joined forces to have new abilities

Off course not.

, regardless, there still no mechanism for them to be able to hear or see.

Regardless, it's a terrible analogy which only serves as a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fruit flies are said by scientists to become something other than fruitflies I suppose maybe? NO ONE SAYS DIFFERENT TYPES OF FRUIT FLIES ARE NOT PRODUCED.

How many times have I explained this to you?
This silly "...but they are still fruitflies!!!!" strawman is just willful ignorance on your part.

Willful, because you had this precise mistake pointed out to you SO MANY TIMES that I can no longer pretend that you aren't doing this on purpose.

I find it amazing how creationists can so insist on being wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if you whant to claim that evolution occured through the mechanism proposed by Darwin (random variation + natrual selection) you do need this level of detail

But the claim is that it very probably occurred and did so by the application of natural selection to genetic variation across generations over time. No specific pathway is needed. If John, who lives in California, is seen driving his car in New York with an extra 3000 miles on its odometer, we can surmise that his car "evolved" from the West to the East Coast without specifying the route, just the mechanism - he drove.

If each mutation is positive, then sure you can go from mutation 1 to mutation 100 though Darwinian mechanisms. But if say mutations 5,6,7 and 8 would be useless by themselves , unless you have them all at the same time , this would be an insuperable barrier. My claim is that there is no way of knowing if such barriers exist.

You seem to think that the possibility of irreducible complexity appearing in nature is an impediment to the theory. It's not. Possible is not good enough, just as it wasn't when the ID people looked for it. You need actual. You need to find it.

I read this from you earlier: "How can you possibly know that? nobody understand genetics to such level to make those assertions." Does that not apply to your assertions, like the one above and below? You don't know what an insuperable barrier would look like. Here you are about to propose one, beginning with "We NEVER have ..." As you said, you can't know that.

We never have
Mutation A neutral
Mutation B neutral
Mutuation c neutral.
But the combination of A B and C is positive.

You remind me of the problem with carbon nucleosynthesis, also once thought to contain an insurmountable barrier:

"Stars produce carbon through the triple-alpha process, where three alpha particles (helium nuclei) collide and fuse within a tiny fraction of a second. This process is so unlikely that for many years astrophysicists were at a loss to explain how carbon and heavier elements could be created in the universe. In 1953 renowned astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle suggested a solution to the conundrum: a previously unknown excited state of carbon, very close to the energy of the triple alpha process. This excited state, now known as the Hoyle state, and would act as a stepping stone to producing stable carbon."

@shunyadragon posted about synonymous mutations in base pairs not being as neutral as was assumed. Look at your comment again in the light of that. These "neutral" states might actually facilitate changes the way the Hoyle state facilitates an otherwise unlikely to impossible change from three separate lithium nuclei to one carbon nucleus.

 

[leroy]

I rebutted the OP - falsified it's argument - and also provided alternate hypotheses as well as an explanation as to why they were preferred to supernaturalism. That was a complete and thorough answer. You missed it. That's your fault. And you haven't found it even after being told how. That's also your fault. You have no legitimate complaint about me.

No, you're lying now, and the evidence for that is available to you, although not from me.

At this point, I am curious to see how long it takes you to either do that digital search or move on. A week? A month? A year?

I remember a bird that once flew into my bedroom through an open French door under a half-moon piece of glass. It kept flying into the glass even though the door was open a foot or two lower. I got him out with one of those dusters on a long pole by pushing him down from the glass to the open doors so that he wouldn't hurt himself and to relieve his terror, but if it wouldn't have harmed him, I might have let him solve the problem himself.

Things are very simple

1 I asked you to develop and explain with detail a spcific hypothesis, and expalin why is it better than “resurection”

2 you answered with a list of hypothesis (none of them where developed, just mentioned)

3 I replied by saying that, you didn’t answered to my demand , I was not asking for a list, I was asking for a well developed and well explained hypotheiss

4 I asked you multiple times to “develop and explain with detail a specific hypothesis, and explain why is it better than “resurection”

5 “You said that you already did”…… (you already provided the hypothesis according to my specifications)………. Which is a lie

I don’t what a long and endless post , all I what is ether acknowledge that you lied………… or tell me exactly which of these 5 points do you think is wrong.

I rebutted the OP - falsified it's argument - and also provided alternate hypotheses as well as an explanation as to why they were preferred to supernaturalism. That was a complete and thorough answer. You missed it.

Irrelevant, even if that where true, it wouldn’t refute any of the 5 points.

 

[leroy]

But the claim is that it very probably occurred and did so by the application of natural selection to genetic variation across generations over time. No specific pathway is needed. If John, who lives in California, is seen driving his car in New York with an extra 3000 miles on its odometer, we can surmise that his car "evolved" from the West to the East Coast without specifying the route, just the mechanism - he drove.

You seem to think that the possibility of irreducible complexity appearing in nature is an impediment to the theory. It's not. Possible is not good enough, just as it wasn't when the ID people looked for it. You need actual. You need to find it.

I read this from you earlier: "How can you possibly know that? nobody understand genetics to such level to make those assertions." Does that not apply to your assertions, like the one above and below? You don't know what an insuperable barrier would look like. Here you are about to propose one, beginning with "We NEVER have ..." As you said, you can't know that.

You remind me of the problem with carbon nucleosynthesis, also once thought to contain an insurmountable barrier:

"Stars produce carbon through the triple-alpha process, where three alpha particles (helium nuclei) collide and fuse within a tiny fraction of a second. This process is so unlikely that for many years astrophysicists were at a loss to explain how carbon and heavier elements could be created in the universe. In 1953 renowned astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle suggested a solution to the conundrum: a previously unknown excited state of carbon, very close to the energy of the triple alpha process. This excited state, now known as the Hoyle state, and would act as a stepping stone to producing stable carbon."

@shunyadragon posted about synonymous mutations in base pairs not being as neutral as was assumed. Look at your comment again in the light of that. These "neutral" states might actually facilitate changes the way the Hoyle state facilitates an otherwise unlikely to impossible change from three separate lithium nuclei to one carbon nucleus.

Remember I have reading comprehension problems…………. Do you disagree with any of my claims?

If so please my quote my actual claim, and start your post with “I disagree because----“

 

[leroy]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982220304267

What that article says is that neutral mutations open up the path to new phenotypes that otherwise wouldn't have been accessible. It gives various examples also.

So the combination of various accumulated neutral mutations, made it for another mutation possible to change phenotype.

You don’t seem to have followed the conversation from the beginning. I am not making any controversial claims

All I am saying is that the specific mutations that helped to build the eye or any other complex system, where likely mainly beneficial mutations. (the key word is “mainly” nobody is denying the impact of neutral mutations)

If you disagree, and therefore claim that mutations where mainly neutral, then you can´t really call it “evolution by natural selection”

And borrowing from Dawkins analogy, you would be climbing mount improbable , whithout the help of natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don’t seem to have followed the conversation from the beginning. I am not making any controversial claims

All I am saying is that the specific mutations that helped to build the eye or any other complex system, where likely mainly beneficial mutations. (the key word is “mainly” nobody is denying the impact of neutral mutations)

If you disagree, and therefore claim that mutations where mainly neutral, then you can´t really call it “evolution by natural selection”

And borrowing from Dawkins analogy, you would be climbing mount improbable , whithout the help of natural selection.

Wow! Your claim has morphed quite a bit from its origin.

 

[leroy]

Why would that "have to" happen?


Why?

Again, you are not following, in this context I am talking about multicellular organisms with slow reproductive cycles, (so bacteria are expluded)

The claim is that *IF* ….you need 2 or more specific neutral mutations to get a benefit then this this combo will likely never happen (or it will happen few times)

• Lets say that John was born with a neutral point mutation (call it A)
• Lets say that if a descendent of John would benefit if it also obtains “B” (as long as he also has “A”
• 
  
• The problemas are
• 1 genomes are big (3 Billionbase pairs long) so hitting the correct spot to get B is unlikely
• 2 given that mutation A is neutral, it is unlikely to survive much…………..genetic drift will soon get rid of it.
• 
  
• Of course the evidence that confirms this, is that such an event has never been observed, in multicellular organism. (just in microbes that reproduce asexualy and very very fast)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1 I asked you to develop and explain with detail a spcific hypothesis, and expalin why is it better than “resurection”
2 you answered with a list of hypothesis (none of them where developed, just mentioned)
3 I replied by saying that, you didn’t answered to my demand , I was not asking for a list, I was asking for a well developed and well explained hypotheiss
4 I asked you multiple times to “develop and explain with detail a specific hypothesis, and explain why is it better than “resurection”
5 “You said that you already did”…… (you already provided the hypothesis according to my specifications)………. Which is a lie

Funny that you just gave me a list that included an item about not wanting a list.

Sorry, Leroy. We've been down this road already. I don't know what would satisfy you. I gave you my number one hypothesis (mythopoeia) and why I considered it likely (the recurring pattern of the resurrected demigod). I gave you my least likely hypothesis (supernaturalism) and explained why it made the bottom of the list (Occam's Razor). And I filled in the middle with other logically possible explanations for the appearance of a claim of a witnessed resurrection. There is nothing more to add to that, however many words you require.

And I don't care whether you like the list format. I do. It's how I list things like competing hypotheses. If it helps you, go find the list and make a long sentence out of it with a lot of commas.

Remember I have reading comprehension problems…………. Do you disagree with any of my claims? If so please my quote my actual claim, and start your post with “I disagree because----“

No, Leroy. You want too much, and it still wouldn't be enough. Don't forget that reading comprehension problem, much of which is due to that confirmation bias that you also have refused to acknowledge seeing much less acknowledge or rebut. You still don't understand what parsimony is. Nor what eyewitness testimony is.

What am I going to tell you that you didn't understand last time but will this time? I don't have any problem with clarity in my writing, and I can't make these ideas more accessible to you by paraphrasing or repeating them unchanged. But you have difficulty rendering the words of others words into their thoughts. What you get is Leroy's transformation. And you want me to give you more words to filter out or misunderstand.

As I said, "I rebutted the OP - falsified it's argument - and also provided alternate hypotheses as well as an explanation as to why they were preferred to supernaturalism. That was a complete and thorough answer. You missed it."

That's all you get, and I'm not repeating it for you, although I have just now told you two elements on the list now and their positions and some of the associated argument. Suggestion: bookmark this post or copy-and-paste it to a note sheet for future reference. And go find the originals, which are complete, and do the same.

You still refuse to cooperate with me, yet give me elaborate rules for cooperating with you. You still refuse to discuss why you not only have taken none of my recommendations but also haven't even commented on seeing them. There's no moving forward if you don't change, and you never do. You don't modify your approach, but still hope for a different outcome. Nothing works like that.

 

[leroy]

Wow! Your claim has morphed quite a bit from its origin.

• Aja,
• But let me guess, you will not support that assertion
• 
  
• Why don’t you quote my original claim, and show that it is different from what I am saying now?
• ……….. o yea, you are an atheist, you don´t have to support your claims nor your accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you are not following, in this context I am talking about multicellular organisms with slow reproductive cycles, (so bacteria are expluded)

The claim is that *IF* ….you need 2 or more specific neutral mutations to get a benefit then this this combo will likely never happen (or it will happen few times)

• Lets say that John was born with a neutral point mutation (call it A)
• Lets say that if a descendent of John would benefit if it also obtains “B” (as long as he also has “A”
• 
  
• The problemas are
• 1 genomes are big (3 Billionbase pairs long) so hitting the correct spot to get B is unlikely
• 2 given that mutation A is neutral, it is unlikely to survive much…………..genetic drift will soon get rid of it.
• 
  
• Of course the evidence that confirms this, is that such an event has never been observed, in multicellular organism. (just in microbes that reproduce asexualy and very very fast)

You are repeating your error of calculating the odds of a specific outcome, something that is never done in evolution, instead of the odds of a any beneficial result. The two are nowhere close to being the same.

 

[shunyadragon]

Things are very simple

1 I asked you to develop and explain with detail a spcific hypothesis, and expalin why is it better than “resurection”

2 you answered with a list of hypothesis (none of them where developed, just mentioned)

3 I replied by saying that, you didn’t answered to my demand , I was not asking for a list, I was asking for a well developed and well explained hypotheiss

4 I asked you multiple times to “develop and explain with detail a specific hypothesis, and explain why is it better than “resurection”

The natural hypothesis is simple and specific. The claim of the "resurrection" is a supernatural event claim, like all religious supernatural claims cannot be historically or objectively determined as historical fact nor scientifically possible. It is a religious claim of the time and culture, which can't be verified.. By academic historical methods, these claims cannot be verified.

5 “You said that you already did”…… (you already provided the hypothesis according to my specifications)………. Which is a lie

No, the natural hypothesis has been repeatedly provided and you choose to ignore or explain your objections specifically to the hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

Funny that you just gave me a list that included an item about not wanting a list.

Sorry, Leroy. We've been down this road already. I don't know what would satisfy you. I gave you my number one hypothesis (mythopoeia) and why I considered it likely (the recurring pattern of the resurrected demigod). I gave you my least likely hypothesis (supernaturalism) and explained why it made the bottom of the list (Occam's Razor). And I filled in the middle with other logically possible explanations for the appearance of a claim of a witnessed resurrection. There is nothing more to add to that, however many words you require.

And I don't care whether you like the list format. I do. It's how I list things like competing hypotheses. If it helps you, go find the list and make a long sentence out of it with a lot of commas.


No, Leroy. You want too much, and it still wouldn't be enough. Don't forget that reading comprehension problem, much of which is due to that confirmation bias that you also have refused to acknowledge seeing much less acknowledge or rebut. You still don't understand what parsimony is. Nor what eyewitness testimony is.

What am I going to tell you that you didn't understand last time but will this time? I don't have any problem with clarity in my writing, and I can't make these ideas more accessible to you by paraphrasing or repeating them unchanged. But you have difficulty rendering the words of others words into their thoughts. What you get is Leroy's transformation. And you want me to give you more words to filter out or misunderstand.

As I said, "I rebutted the OP - falsified it's argument - and also provided alternate hypotheses as well as an explanation as to why they were preferred to supernaturalism. That was a complete and thorough answer. You missed it."

That's all you get, and I'm not repeating it for you, although I have just now told you two elements on the list now and their positions and some of the associated argument. Suggestion: bookmark this post or copy-and-paste it to a note sheet for future reference. And go find the originals, which are complete, and do the same.

You still refuse to cooperate with me, yet give me elaborate rules for cooperating with you. You still refuse to discuss why you not only have taken none of my recommendations but also haven't even commented on seeing them. There's no moving forward if you don't change, and you never do. You don't modify your approach, but still hope for a different outcome. Nothing works like that.

You are mixing 2 topics.

As for the topic of the resurrection,

I gave you a list of 5 points………….I just what to know which of these points do you think is wrong

As for the topic of this thread (evolution)

I have problems in spotting points of disagreement………… so if I made a claim that you disagree with please quote my cliam and start your reply with “I disagree because….”


---
Your post is being ignored, because it is a red herring, even if you successfully refuted the OP, and all of my claims………. it would still be true that you lied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

• Aja,
• But let me guess, you will not support that assertion
• 
  
• Why don’t you quote my original claim, and show that it is different from what I am saying now?
• ……….. o yea, you are an atheist, you don´t have to support your claims nor your accusations.

Even though due to you actions where you made false claims Saturday and played your silly game again and I did show that you were not being honest. I will give you a link to the post where you started this nonsense. You keep changing your argument after that:

Darwin's Illusion

Your ridiculous post on a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian and your attitude concerning how evidence is handled is more than enough to document your dishonesty concerning the fact that you reject evolution. Yes, the history of your posts concerning your bogus claim of skepticism and doubt is more...

www.religiousforums.com

First it was they needed more positive than negative. Then you tried to say more positive "relevant" mutations. And now you are finally very close to what the scientists that support evolution says. It was interesting to see your claim evolve as everyone pointed out that it was wrong.

Here is a chance for you to earn some credit that might help you get the corrections only status lifted if you fail, then I only need to remind you of this and other failures of yours when pointing out that you do not get to demand soruces.

 

[leroy]

You are repeating your error of calculating the odds of a specific outcome, something that is never done in evolution, instead of the odds of a any beneficial result. The two are nowhere close to being the same.

Ok what calculation do you suggest instead? How do you know that there is more than one possible beneficial outcome?

If this is not unlikely to happen as I claimed, why is it that it has never been observed?

You seem to be confused

I am presenting this an example of a barrier that would be very hard to overcome with “random variation + natural selection” ………. I am not claiming that such barriers exist------ my cliam is that “we don’t know if these barriers excist” therefore we don’t know if there are always viable paths