Jerry Coyne is an Ignorant Coward

-
Jerry Coyne has proven, once again, that he is nothing but a blowhard and a coward. I had posted the following:

ID is not anti-evolution and fossil evidence does not support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Your alleged reptile-mammal transition would require so many just-so mutations as to be well out of the reach of blind and mindless processes. Just the evolution of the inner ear from the jaw bones is too much for blind and mindless processes.

To which Jerry responded:

Oh dear, Joe G., I’ve missed most of your comments about ID, which show a profound ignorance of both evolution and even ID. You spout nonsense with no backing (“ID is not anti-evolution”–seriously?), and you have no data or calculations showing that the reptile-mammal transition could not occur by “blind and mindless processes.” We’ve seen very rapid evolution in real time depending on those “blind” processes (a 10% change in finch beak size in ONE YEAR), as well as humans using those random mutations to create big changes through artificial selection. You can give no reason why natural selection, an analogue of artificial selection in which nature determines the optimum, couldn’t do the same thing. Your dislike of evolution is based on no data at all, but your ignorance and perhaps your religiosity. I don’t know if you’re religious, but you’re certainly ignorant about the things you speak of.

As Laura Nyro sang, “Goodbye, Joe.”

Yes, Jerry, ID is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution. ID is OK with descent with modification, ie evolution. It is only if you define evolution as the blind watchmaker thesis that ID is anti-evolution. ID is OK with every textbook definition of evolution I could find. You lose, Jerry

The calculations to support my claim are in the peer-reviewed paper titled "Waiting for Two Mutations". It shows the difficulty of getting a mere TWO specified mutations. The change from reptile to mammal requires more than that. You lose, Jerry.

Beak size- wow! Too bad beak size means nothing in the grand scheme of things and as far as you know it is all designed in variability. You have nothing that can account for the existence of birds, loser.

Natural selection is not an analogue of artificial selection. Ernst Mayr explained the differences in "What Evolution Is":

Page 117:

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

Page 118:

Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

"BY CONTRST" means they are not analogues but dissimilar. So clearly there is no "nature determines the optimum" except in the ignorant and wishful minds of evpoTARDs, like Jerry Coyne. Natural selection could never do what we can do. It could never produce the different breeds of dogs but take away humans and NS will take away those breeds. NS is good at undoing what we have done.

Jerry Coyne is an ignorant loser feeding the Kool Aid to the ignorant minions.