EvoTARDS, Still Choking on Natural Selection
-
Those dumbass evoTARDS still cannot get it through their thick skulls that natural selection is the RESULT of three process- variation, heredity and fecundity. And it is the blind and undirected nature of these processes that makes natural selection blind and mindless.
What's the point? If the variation is guided/ directed then the blind and mindless part is gone, as is the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. Ya see designer mimics do not have designers as their causal agency. And if mutations are guided/ directed then that would be the hand of the designer (just as computer programs are the hand of their designers).
Those dumbass evoTARDS still cannot get it through their thick skulls that natural selection is the RESULT of three process- variation, heredity and fecundity. And it is the blind and undirected nature of these processes that makes natural selection blind and mindless.
What's the point? If the variation is guided/ directed then the blind and mindless part is gone, as is the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. Ya see designer mimics do not have designers as their causal agency. And if mutations are guided/ directed then that would be the hand of the designer (just as computer programs are the hand of their designers).
posted by Joe G @ 7:38 AM
31 Comments:
At 5:50 AM,
ReneX said…
Are there any proposed mechanisms through which this designer acts?
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
What does your question have to do with the topic?
At 8:30 PM,
ReneX said…
You are describing the basic mechanism of natural selection, or more accurately it's basic ingredients, and as you point out mutation is usually understood to occur randomly and without guidance through mechanisms such as radiation and viruses.
Since you make an alteration in this ingredients, or at least alludes to the possibility of an alteration, proposing a designer, whatever it is, guiding the mutations it seemed that the question of what would be the mechanism of action of this entity is a natural one.
I'd like to hear your 2 cents on this one.
At 9:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Well Dr Spetner has provided more than 2 cents on this one with his "built-in responses to environmental cues"- see "Not By Chance", it only came out 15+ years ago.
I'm OK with that.
I am of the conviction that there is actual software running that controls what the DNA does, and what goes on inside cells. So I see targeted searches occurring- searches that seek to repair or respond. And even searches just for maintenance and day-to-day functionality.
See also "Programming of Life" by Donald Johnson.
At 7:35 AM,
Afarensis said…
I'm sorry, but Lenski's latest paper has just proved that:
1) There is no such thing as built in responses (only one of the colonies evolved ability to use CIT+). If you uphold that there is then you would have to explain why it didn't occur in the other colonies and why it did occur in this particular colony.
2) The genomic analysis indicated a three step mutation (not present in other colonies).
You have forwarded the hypothesis of a software, so the question is why was it not working in the other colonies? What activates the software? and finally what is the software? IE where does it physically reside.
Here is the copy of the research.
http://bms.ucsf.edu/sites/ucsf-bms.ixm.ca/files/20121011.strauli.nicolas.pdf
I would greatly appreciate an your specific explanation to the events reported.
At 9:56 AM,
Joe G said…
How did Lenski's paper prove that there aren't any built-in responses to environmental cues?
Only ONE organism needs to find the solution even though all may be working on it.
Genomic analysis doesn't say the blindwatchmakerdidit.
"The Cit+ trait originated in one clade by a tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter."
That sounds like a built-in response...
At 10:55 AM,
Afarensis said…
Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning of built in response... If it's built in should it not be activated in all colonies? By what mechanism should it be activated in some and not others? Why can it not be identified in other colonies? And fundamentally where does this information reside?
In lenski’s case specific mutations arose in the population that were precursory to the CIT+ trait but were of no particular use. So in your view this first mutation was a built in response to what?
The actual mutation involved is quite complex. It re-arranged part of the bacteria's DNA, making a new regulatory module that had not existed before. This new module causes the production of a protein that allows the bacteria to bring citrate into the cell when oxygen is present.
Therefore it is clear that no built in response exists.
At 11:01 AM,
Joe G said…
A built-in response would only activate when triggered. And as far as we know the other colonies were actively searching for solutions to their problems.
With bacteria only ONE needs to find the solution so that the colony survives.
Also Lenski started out with bacteria that had already been altered- ie not the originally designed bacteria.
But anyway what is the evidence that blind and undirected chemical processes didit?
The first mutation would be the set up and that complex rearrangement supports the blind watchmaker how?
At 5:48 AM,
Afarensis said…
you state that the built in response would only activate when triggered... what is the trigger meccanisim that you have identified? Where does it reside? and why was it triggered in only one bacteria?
Now lets suppose that you are right and it is some sort of built in trigger.. You must agree with me that this trigger is activated by chance and chance alone, seeing that none other of the bacteria in all 12 colonies had a trigger event.
At 7:51 AM,
Joe G said…
southstar-
You have serious issues- just because the other bacteria did not find the solution doesn't mean they were not attempting to do so.
At 8:25 AM,
Afarensis said…
I am in no way saying that the others are not attempting, they might be, but, all we can say is that none have succeeded. However that is not the issue.
Rather I was wondering how chance, fit into your equation since it was evidently chance that triggered the events whether built in or not.
I noticed you forgot to answer some questions that I posted that are very important to furthering your argument I'll repost them for your convenience
what is the trigger mechanism that you have identified?
Where does it reside?
why was it triggered in only one bacteria?
At 12:05 PM,
Joe G said…
The environment triggered the response. And it was not just triggered in one bacteria. Only one bacteria needed to find a solution in order for the population to survive.
And I noticed to didn't answer my questions
At 6:05 AM,
Afarensis said…
Initially you had identified the trigger mechanism in some sort of software that controls DNA, why have you changed to indicate the environment? When it clearly cannot be this, as has been shown, the other colonies do not present even the precursor mutation. So on what basis do you say that the others are "working on it"?
Further if the enviroment was a trigger, all the bacteria would be mutating in the same way.
This brigs us to the question of chance, was it pure blind chance that that particular bacteria "found a solution" at that particular point in time?
I didn't answer the questions regarding the evolution as Lenski et al have already done so, further I'm more interested in your point of view after all it's your blog and I wouldn't want to bore you with the official answers.
At 7:04 AM,
Joe G said…
I didn't answer the questions regarding the evolution as Lenski et al have already done so, further I'm more interested in your point of view after all it's your blog and I wouldn't want to bore you with the official answers.
Bullshit- pure bullshit.
Initially you had identified the trigger mechanism in some sort of software that controls DNA, why have you changed to indicate the environment?
BUILT-IN TRIGGERS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CUES.
When it clearly cannot be this, as has been shown, the other colonies do not present even the precursor mutation.
Are you dense? Not every single bacteria needs to come up with teh SAME solution- they are all working on finding some solution. And perhaps some don't care and are OK
Further if the enviroment was a trigger, all the bacteria would be mutating in the same way.
Nice strawman.
This brigs us to the question of chance, was it pure blind chance that that particular bacteria "found a solution" at that particular point in time?
Please put that in the form of a testable hypothesis- thanks.
At 7:45 AM,
Afarensis said…
>Bullshit- pure bullshit.
I'm sorry you feel this way about a person who is kindly enquiring about your specific view point.
>BUILT-IN TRIGGERS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CUES.
Great, could you specify where you have found these triggers where do they reside. You state the environment causes the trigger mechanism.... So where is it physical "built in" trigger mechanism that you have identified in the bacteria.
>Not every single bacteria needs to come up with teh SAME solution- they are all working on finding some solution. And perhaps some don't care and are OK.
So on the basis of what information do you state this? You had previously stated that all were working on the solution, now it seems some possibly don't care... I'm sure you are not implying that some decide willfully to mutate or not. But it does leave you open to a new question, what are the other solutions they are working on? Since they are all "built in" they can be identified right?
>Please put that in the form of a testable hypothesis- thanks
Well the question came up because the precursor mutation arose in only one of the 12 colonies. You must have a reason for this... I'm sure you have quite a clear idea of why only this bacteria mutated. After all, having identified the cause of the trigger (the enviorment) and the trigger (still waiting for this one), it's quite simple for you to state why it worked in this bacterial colony and not in others. If this information does not exist then you're left with blind chance... also note that whether the response is "built in" or not does in no way alter this point.
At 8:16 AM,
Joe G said…
I'm sorry you feel this way about a person who is kindly enquiring about your specific view point.
1- I was responding to your nonsense about Lenski
2- This is a thread about natural selection
3- My specific view point is in my blogs
Great, could you specify where you have found these triggers where do they reside.
Inside cells
So on the basis of what information do you state this?
Observations of other populations.
You had previously stated that all were working on the solution, now it seems some possibly don't care...
Some times the best solution is to do nothing.
what are the other solutions they are working on?
The solution is to survive in the new environment. And others are trying to find another solution to the problem.
Well the question came up because the precursor mutation arose in only one of the 12 colonies.
So what?
Still waiting for a testable hypothesis- why is that?
At 10:24 AM,
Afarensis said…
>Inside cells
That's extremely vague please be more specific.
>Observations of other populations.
Other populations have developed no such ability so you cannot base any finding on a negative result.
>Sometimes the best solution is to do nothing.
So for this subset the trigger mechanism doesn't activate. Why? If it's "built in" it must respond to the trigger event (environment).
If it doesn't we have a problem either there is no trigger, or the trigger event is not the environment.
For the sake of clarity I'll reformulate as I have understood your reasoning, please correct me if i'm wrong: An event (environment) causes a trigger (still not defined)inside the cell to activate thereby causing a specific pre-determined mutation.
>The solution is to survive in the new environment. And others are trying to find another solution to the problem.
E.colli can get along just fine in the medium in which they are held actually e.colli in all the world do not need to use citrate. So there is no survival problem to start with.
Also others are not trying to find a solution to the problem (a) because as explained there is no real problem and (b) because there are currently no precursor mutations found in other colonies.
>So what?
Well it means it can't be a "built in response" and it also means it's random.
>Still waiting for a testable hypothesis- why is that?
Actually I had stated it... but I’ll reword for clarity.
Hypothesis: specific pre-determined mutation has arisen due to a reaction of a built in mechanism found inside the cells to a specific trigger event.
To test this claim, you need to identify:
a) the event, in this case i believe you mentioned the environment.
b) the trigger... you said it's inside the cell, but what we need to know is what it is exactly, not only a vague description of where it is. (this part would determine the "built in" part that reacts)
c) Show how in the presence of a trigger event the trigger activates. (this part would link cause and effect, identifing the reaction)
d) Indicate exact nature of future mutation events given known triggers. (This part would pin down the pre-determination part)
e) (optional) Show why in the presence of a trigger event most of the time the trigger is not activated but that other identified triggers are undergoing reaction.
At 10:38 AM,
Joe G said…
The entire theory of evolution is vague, so I am in good company.
Other populations have developed no such ability so you cannot base any finding on a negative result.
All populations were designed with the ability.
So for this subset the trigger mechanism doesn't activate. Why?
Communication- bacteria do communicate ya know. As I said sometime the best thing is to do nothing.
For the sake of clarity I'll reformulate as I have understood your reasoning, please correct me if i'm wrong: An event (environment) causes a trigger (still not defined)inside the cell to activate thereby causing a specific pre-determined mutation.
Nope, no predetermined mutation.
Look at Dawkins "weasel" program- each run comes up with different solutions to the same problem.
Also I asked for a testable hypothesis for the claim the blindwatchmakerdidit.
IOW a testable hypothesis for YOUR position.
Good luck with that...
At 6:36 AM,
Afarensis said…
>The entire theory of evolution is vague, so I am in good company.
Saying that another theory is vague adds nothing to supporting your view. If you have not identified the trigger and are clueless to its existance your whole hypothesis colapses...
>All populations were designed with the ability.
really and where is this design physically held? (please answer specifically not vaguely)
Why is the specific design active in some and not others?
You state that there is not only one solution but many so there are many designs that you have identified could you give indicate a comparison?
>Communication- bacteria do communicate ya know. As I said sometime the best thing is to do nothing.
yes but the colonies are kept seperate physically they are in different vials. Besides unless you have dicovered a way in which bacteria comunicate when and what to mutate it's really a mute point.
>Nope, no predetermined mutation.
Look at Dawkins "weasel" program- each run comes up with different solutions to the same problem.
Yes but the weasel program regarded generic cumulative mutation through natural selection.
Further it has an in-built target for end development (methinks it is like a weasel).
>Also I asked for a testable hypothesis for the claim the blindwatchmakerdidit.
IOW a testable hypothesis for YOUR position.
Good luck with that...
Again asking for or attacking another theory in no way adds credibility to your own. However for the fun of it I could think up something but you really need to be clear on the hypothesis... "blindwatchmakerdidit" doesn't really give anyone much to go on. How about: Random cumulative mutations together with natural selection have increased fitness of e.colli. Feel free to change it as you please and we'll take it from there.
In the mean time here is your corrected hypothesis, let me know if it's okay:
Hypothesis: specific mutation has arisen due to a reaction of a built in mechanism found inside the cells to a specific trigger event.
To test this claim, you need to identify:
a) the event, in this case i believe you mentioned the environment.
b) the trigger... you said it's inside the cell, but what we need to know is what it is exactly, not only a vague description of where it is. (this part would determine the "built in" part that reacts)
c) Show how in the presence of a trigger event the trigger activates. (this part would link cause and effect, identifing the reaction)
d) (optional) Show why in the presence of a trigger event most of the time the trigger is not activated but that other identified triggers are undergoing reaction.
At 7:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Saying that another theory is vague adds nothing to supporting your view.
No but it puts my view on the same level as the accepted paradigm.
Again asking for or attacking another theory in no way adds credibility to your own
Again if you are unable or unwilling to support your position then I have nothing to say to you.
I am not going to have someone ignorantly attacking my position when it doesn't have the courage to ante up.
Random cumulative mutations together with natural selection have increased fitness of e.colli.
Your bald assertion means nothing to me. And if that is all you have then we are finished here.
Ya see if you can just baldly assert then so can I. If you don't have tpo support your claims then neother do I.
At 9:31 AM,
Afarensis said…
>No but it puts my view on the same level as the accepted paradigm.
Yes but only subjectivly, in your eyes only. For someone who is trying to evaluate your specific hypothesis it adds nothing other than "I can't answer and I need to push attention elsewhere"
>I am not going to have someone ignorantly attacking my position when it doesn't have the courage to ante up.
I am in no way attacking your position, I have simply asked for information which you must have to uphold your hypothesis.
>Your bald assertion means nothing to me. And if that is all you have then we are finished here.
You insisted I make an hypothesis I put one forward and even asked you to change it if it didn't suit you. Again please feel free to modify it to your likeing.
However I have to insist that I'm really more interested in what you have to say then what the "official" version is. So if you're Ok with the built-in hypothesis as stated could you answer the relative questions?
Thanks.
At 10:56 AM,
Joe G said…
You want to evaluate?
Then please read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner- heck you have only had 15 years to evaluate it so I doubt that you are sincere.
At 10:11 AM,
Afarensis said…
>Then please read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner- heck you have only had 15 years to evaluate it so I doubt that you are sincere.
I'm sorry but you stated (correcting me) that the mutation was NOT predetermined....
If it's not predetermined it's by chance. Now why on earth would you want me to read a book that was written before Lenski's experiments and with which you do not agree??
At 10:52 AM,
Joe G said…
The book introduces and explains the concept "built-in responses to environmental cues".
It explains why most mutations are not random, chance events.
IOW by reading it you would be educating yourself as to the opposition's explanation. Or is educating yourself just not an option?
At 10:59 AM,
Afarensis said…
So you changed your mind?
And you accept that all mutations are pre-determined given a specific enviroment???
Also I'm sure the author wrote to Lenski before hand telling him of the CIT+ mutation that would occur should he go ahead with his experiment.
At 11:17 AM,
Joe G said…
southstar,
I am sorry to hear about your dementia. Perhaps you should adjust your medication.
Mutations do not have to be pre-determined. In a genetic algorithm only the solution is pre-determined.
I never said, thought nor implied mutations are pre-determined. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" does not require them to be pre-determined.
So what is going on in your head that caused to have some very, very narrow view about what I posted?
At 5:12 AM,
Afarensis said…
Interesting, so let's see, would you agree to these points? if not which ones and why? (feel free to change the points to match your ideas)
1) That all mutations are random they are not pre-determined.
2) That mutations occur at random times, they don't occur at pre-determined times.
3) That there is no way of knowing which way a creature would mutate.
4) That the environment is random or at least is an independent variable (it doesn't depend on the specific life form)
5) That mutations are cumulative
6) That life forms that are fittest relative to their environment have a higher chance of living and passing on their genes.
7) That genetic mutations are passed on between generations.
At 7:05 AM,
Joe G said…
1) That all mutations are random they are not pre-determined.
Nope. And not being pre-determined does NOT mean they are random.
2) That mutations occur at random times, they don't occur at pre-determined times.
Don't even know what that means. The directed mutations occur when ( a time) they are induced.
3) That there is no way of knowing which way a creature would mutate.
Not until we have access to the program
4) That the environment is random or at least is an independent variable (it doesn't depend on the specific life form)
An independent variable
) That mutations are cumulative
Only in a designed world.
6) That life forms that are fittest relative to their environment have a higher chance of living and passing on their genes.
Umm who is the fittest is determined by reproductive success, which makes it an after-the-fact assessment.
7) That genetic mutations are passed on between generations.
They can be- ya see with sexual reproduction that is NOT a guarantee.
But anyway if you are not going to read the book then really, fuck off.
At 7:54 AM,
Afarensis said…
>Nope. And not being pre-determined does NOT mean they are random.
really? enlighten your readers if they are not predetermined (which is opposite of random) Then what exactly are they???? The suspense is killing us!
>Don't even know what that means. The directed mutations occur when ( a time) they are induced.
Great! If you can't specify a specific time before hand or specify a time frame or a model for mutation time then they are random.
>Not until we have access to the program
What program? Please identify the nature of this program where is it physically stored. (please don't say inside the cell that would just make you look stupid again, be kind to your readers and tell them the specifics that you surely must have) If by unlucky chance you haven't identified it please at least let your readers know how you know it exists at all by indicating exact evidence.
> That mutations are cumulative
Only in a designed world.
Great! Please specify how design acted in Ara-3 also please indicate examples of non design cumulative mutations and show differences.
Umm who is the fittest is determined by reproductive success, which makes it an after-the-fact assessment.
yes I agree, the others lines die out because of faulty design...
>They can be- ya see with sexual reproduction that is NOT a guarantee.
no not a guarantee, really.. but if the outcome is predetermined certain mutations are chosen to pass while other not... Wow
>But anyway if you are not going to read the book then really, fuck off.
Now that's impolite and that's not the first time you have been impolite so I thought I’d be a little impolite too...
The book is: said plainly, codswallop, mixed with woo woo and camel piss for oriental charm and written by an engineer who knows dipshit about biology. The idiot in question has never written a single research paper to back even one of his fantasies but rather relies on blind fundamentalist religious bigots to lick his ass while paying him cash. As long as people like you read his snake oil he's quite happy to continue to pump it out so as to feed your deluded fantasies while the bucks keep lining his pockets. Actually I'm quite glad that you like his book at least he's stealing from a a tard (not that he could steal from anyone else).
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
If you can't specify a specific time before hand or specify a time frame or a model for mutation time then they are random.
Nope.
The book is: said plainly, codswallop, mixed with woo woo and camel piss for oriental charm and written by an engineer who knows dipshit about biology.
Spoken like an ignorant asshole. Spetner was a BIOphysicist, who worked with biology.
But anyway asswipe, you have nothing but ignorant spewage and you sure as hell can't support the premise of unguided evolution but you blindly follow the evoTARD leaders because you are a clueless dolt.
At 8:21 AM,
Joe G said…
So littl;e faggot southstar, never read the book but feels it can shoot it down.
Typical cowardly evoTARD.
Evolutionism, said plainly, codswallop, mixed with woo woo and camel piss for oriental charm.
Post a Comment
<< Home