Elizabeth Liddle- STILL Choking on Darwinian Processes

-
Lizzie, you are a pathetic little person- please stop posting as you are embarrassing yourself. She spews

You are right to distinguish between purely “Darwinian” processes (the tendency for features that help reproduction to be reproduced more frequently, as logic dictates it should) and other processes including “drift”, which is the tendency of traits to increase in probability of propagating the more prevalent they become, which, interestingly, is an analogue of my last two examples in the OP – chance processes, but ones which tend to result ultimately in either “fixation” – all members of a population have the trait/all throws are heads, or extinction – no members of a population have it/no throws are heads, even though neither is intrinsically “favoured” by the program).

No Lizzie, Darwinian processes require happenstance changes to produce something that works, ie something that is NOT fatal (seee Mayr "What Evolution Is"). IOW darwinian processes are the various ways genetic accidents accumulate. THAT is important as you have to show that all genetic changes are accidents, ie happenstance events. Intelligent Design says they are not. ID is NOT anti-evolution.

So the bottom line is Lizzie refuses to understand that it is those gentic accidents that bring about those features (whatever they are and however numerous they are- she doesn't say) that help reproduction.  She refuses to grasp the fact that ID is OK with genetic changes and that is why she equivocates, all day, every day. Which again proves that she just doesn't understand what is being debated and she thinks her ignorance somehow refutes ID.

Oh, and all of this well after she declared unguided evolution is unscientific- darwinian evolution is unguided evolution- the mutations are accidents and natural selection is a result, meaning the only "guidance" it offers is the survivors may get the chance to reproduce- the feedback system that produces a

All of that said, the Pallen/ Matzke paper does not address thgis- ie it does NOT demonstrate in any way or form, that any bacterial flagellum can evolve via accumulations of genetic accidents, is darwinian processes. THe same can be said of the Liu/ Ochman paper, which relies on gene duplication.

And BTW AVIDA produces NOTHING when the relevant parameters are used. That Lizzie clings on to that program as evidence for darwinian evolution demonstrates just how delusional she is.