Enough Time for Evolution?

[savagewind]

As I said...



Your analogy needs more balls.

Haha Yes, there are many more balls. What are the chances balls fall together at the same time on the wheel right next to each other? Oh! All balls and no slots around the wheel. All balls, one slot. Got it!

 

[Shermana]

As for the BIO-Complexity critique of 'There's Plenty of Time for Evolution', the most glaring flaw is that Demski et al. ignore the fact that selection can , and does, act on multiple alleles at the same time. Genes do not exist in isolation. Dawkins has presented this before, and Herbert Wilf and Warren Ewens have shown the math.
Demski et al.'s figures rely on the misconception of a single change per generation, with multiple generations required to "fix" a change.

I'd like a detailed examination of a particular section combined with a link that demonstrates how exactly they are wrong in what they specifically say regarding multiple alleles. Such a "Glaring flaw" I imagine would not be so easily overlooked, but like the issue of the critique of Behe and the VPU protein as I pointed out on the other thread, it may just be misrepresentation of what he's saying.

 

[Falvlun]

While I appreciate the pointing out that it's more of a Review than a Peer-Review paper, I'm looking forward to seeing some actual criticism of the contents.

Ok, you can start with posts 2, 3, 6, 13, and 16, then.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Haha Yes, there are many more balls. What are the chances balls fall together at the same time on the wheel right next to each other? Oh! All balls and no slots around the wheel. All balls, one slot. Got it!

Nope. Many balls, many slots, many combinations.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'd like a detailed examination of a particular section combined with a link that demonstrates how exactly they are wrong in what they specifically say regarding multiple alleles. Such a "Glaring flaw" I imagine would not be so easily overlooked, but like the issue of the critique of Behe and the VPU protein as I pointed out on the other thread, it may just be misrepresentation of what he's saying.

I would like to see a more detailed critique myself.
Perhaps if they would submit their 'review' for actual peer review, we could get some professionals to do so.

 

[savagewind]

Nope. Many balls, many slots, many combinations.

Next to each other. When holes are close enough together you might call them all one hole. No?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Next to each other. When holes are close enough together you might call them all one hole. No?

No.

 

[savagewind]

No.

I bet if you step on that hole next to a hole it might become one hole. I mean between.

 

[Shermana]

Ok, you can start with posts 2, 3, 6, 13, and 16, then.

Sure, let's start with post 2, please quote from there anything you feel is a specific critique that accurately attacks what they say and backs up the accusations with counter-evidence.

And then feel free to demonstrate for the others. I'm not looking for generalities of the concepts.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have an idea Shermana.

Read and critique the actual peer reviewed paper and quote from there anything you feel is a specific critique that accurately attacks what they say and back up the accusations with counter-evidence from actual peer reviewed studies.

 

[Falvlun]

Sure, let's start with post 2, please quote from there anything you feel is a specific critique that accurately attacks what they say and backs up the accusations with counter-evidence.

And then feel free to demonstrate for the others. I'm not looking for generalities of the concepts.

Sorry, that's your job. You asked for a critique. There's one. It's now up to you to offer the counter-critique instead of whining that there are no critiques. That's how these things go.

 

[Shermana]

Sorry, that's your job. You asked for a critique. There's one. It's now up to you to offer the counter-critique instead of whining that there are no critiques. That's how these things go.

Well since there's no actual specifics in these "Critiques" that provide actual counter-evidence to counter-critique, all I have to do is ask them to specifically demonstrate where these "glaring flaws" are so demonstratably wrong with counter-evidence.

That's not whining, that's calling out to back up a claim.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Part of intelligent pattern recognition is identifying information worth spending time to read or not. My life is finite. Wasting it reading an obviously biased, hacky piece of claptrap in order to engage in a fruitless discussion with someone holding an irrational and dishonest position that I have no hope of changing would be rather asinine.

 

[Shermana]

Part of intelligent pattern recognition is identifying information worth spending time to read or not. My life is finite. Wasting it reading an obviously biased, hacky piece of claptrap in order to engage in a fruitless discussion with someone holding an irrational and dishonest position that I have no hope of changing would be rather asinine.

For future reference to all posters, as the OP says, please keep all responses focused on the actual contents of the paper instead of whining about it and smearing the authors or the poster and the basis, or you will be given a kindly reminder to stay on subject, thanks.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For future reference to all posters, as the OP says, please keep all responses focused on the actual contents of the paper instead of whining about it and smearing the authors or the poster and the basis, or you will be given a kindly reminder to stay on subject, thanks.

The actual contents of the paper are hacky, biased claptrap. Thanks for the reminder. This post was much more succinct and all that really needs to be said.

 

[LuisDantas]

I bet if you step on that hole next to a hole it might become one hole. I mean between.

DNA does not work that way.

 

[Shermana]

The actual contents of the paper are hacky, biased claptrap. Thanks for the reminder. This post was much more succinct and all that really needs to be said.

Well you should have no problem then showing which parts specifically are such "hacky, biased claptrap" in a demonstratable way with actual counter-evidence and links that show how the review is misrepresenting or distorting the claims of the original paper. If you're looking to make drive by smears that avoid any attempt to actually discuss the specifics of the Review, as stated, you are free to do so on another thread. This thread is not for stating your feelings or generality-based conclusion but for actual attempts at substantiated scientific debunking.

Let's try to keep the thread pollution to a minimum here everyone.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well you should have no problem then showing which parts specifically are such "hacky, biased claptrap" in a demonstratable way with actual counter-evidence and links that show how the review is misrepresenting or distorting the claims of the original paper. If you're looking to make drive by smears that avoid any attempt to actually discuss the thread, as stated, you are free to do so on another thread.

Let's try to keep the thread pollution to a minimum here everyone.

That's like asking someone not to drive by the coal power plant because then engine exhaust will pollute the area too much.

 

[Shermana]

That's like asking someone not to drive by the coal factory because it's polluting the area too much.

No it's like asking a person to actually bother to contribute thoughtfully to the thread in a rational and civil manner and not pollute it with their mindless smears.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well since there's no actual specifics in these "Critiques" that provide actual counter-evidence to counter-critique, all I have to do is ask them to specifically demonstrate where these "glaring flaws" are so demonstratably wrong with counter-evidence.

That's not whining, that's calling out to back up a claim.

You're doing a fairly good impression of Monty Python's Black Knight, you know.

http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)