Alan Fox is a Pathological LIAR
-
Alan Fox is a total douchebag. Now he spews the lie:
Joe G has long been a fan of John Sanford and “genetic entropy”, the idea that the genes are degrading too fast for evolution to sustain and populations of organisms will inevitably go extinct. There’s no such effect observed with the LTEE even after thirty years and more than 70,000 generations.
I have never been a fan of John Sanford. I haven't even read his papers on this topic. The issue is NOT about mere evolution, as Alan would have you believe. Alan is one of those dishonest equivocators.
First, there isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced life. That means there isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes rule evolution. From what I do know about genetic entropy is that it pertains solely to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. In a scenario in which organisms are intelligently designed to evolve and adapt genetic entropy does NOT apply. Alan Fox is still too fucking stupid to grasp that fact.
Alan Fox is also ignorant of natural selection. Ernst Mayr said the first step of NS is the variation arises by CHANCE. THAT was also Darwin's entire point. Read Alan's ignorance:
Still, natural selection doesn’t “mandate” for mutations to be chance events. It just “mandates” that sufficient variation arises for there to be something to select. If the variation happened because there was some mutagen in the broth, for example, wouldn’t be a problem for natural selection to occur.
If the mutations did NOT happen by chance then it is NOT natural selection. It is that simple. Teleology is not allowed. So if Dr. Spetner is correct then it is not natural selection at play with respect to the LTEE.
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"
Alan is so stupid that he didn't even understand the first response to his cowardice. The evoTARDs say the mutations just happened, Alan, you ignorant ass. However there isn't any evidence to support that claim, dipshit. So, no, moron, I didn't contradict anything. You are just too stupid to be able to folow along.
Again, no new proteins were formed during the LTEE. No new genes. No new regulatory networks. Nothing that supports universal common descent. Even YECs are OK with the type of evolution observed in the LTEE. So the LTEE can be used to support their claims! Alan is also too stupid to understam that.
posted by Joe G @ 8:35 AM
8 Comments:
At 5:58 AM,
JV said…
From what I do know about genetic entropy is that it pertains solely to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. In a scenario in which organisms are intelligently designed to evolve and adapt genetic entropy does NOT apply
I think you have stated that some lifeforms show signs of genetic degeneration . . . stuff breaks?
If the mutations did NOT happen by chance then it is NOT natural selection. It is that simple.
I'm going to disagree with you there: natural selection (unguided) and breeding programs (guided) work on whatever variation occurs. Until recently we had no way of dictating what variation arose. But you could, technically, introduce genetic variations and then let natural selection do its thing.
Natural selection is A way to influence/affect which genes are more likely to be passed on.
Unguided evolutionary theory encompasses both natural selection AND non-determined variation.
At 6:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Again, for the learning impaired- Darwin's entire point with respect to natural selection is that it is a designer mimic- design without a designer. If the mutations occur via telic processes then it is NOT design without a designer. And that means it isn't natural selection.
Natural selection includes the variation/ mutations. And according to Ernst Mayr they have to be chance events. Teleology is not allowed.
And there isn't any unguided evolutionary theory.
And yes, stuff breaks due to random mutations. That is what random mutations do- break and degrade things. It is the telic processes that gets us beyond those.
At 9:03 AM,
JV said…
From Wikipedia: natural selection is most often defined to operate on heritable traits, because these directly participate in evolution. However, natural selection is "blind" in the sense that changes in phenotype can give a reproductive advantage regardless of whether or not the trait is heritable.
So, natural selection comes after variation arises, i.e, it's a separate process.
I agree that if any part of the total process is guided then the whole process cannot be called unguided. But I am saying that natural selection is separate from genomic and phenotype variation. If the selection part is guided but the variation is unguided then the total process is NOT unguided. Similarly if the selection is unguided and the variation is guided then the total process is NOT unguided.
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Holy shit. I quoted one of the architects of the modern synthesis. You quote wikipedia, which is not an academic resource.
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"
Even UC Berkeley's site on evolution, agrees.
At 9:19 AM,
JV said…
Mayr talks about the whole process having two steps which is what I am saying: there are two stages or steps, natural selection is the second step.
I think most people know what modern evolutionary theory says and how it works even if sometimes some terms can cause confusion. You're just nit-picking.
Your real objection (and the one that has some force) is that it's impossible to say that all mutations are unguided. You have a much better case there.
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
Holy fucking shit! He says it is the first step of natural selection.
“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin: Variation Inheritance Fecundity which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allan McNeil, professor @ Cornell
“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UC Berkeley
“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition
And seeing that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution no one knows what it says. And stating facts is not nit-picking. Grow up.
You can't have NS without variation. And you can't have NS if said variation is due to telic processes.
At 5:06 PM,
Alan Fox said…
Apologies, Joe. I misremembered Sanford as your hero when it was in fact Lee Spetner. I'll correct my comment at TSZ.
At 8:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Dr. Lee Spetner isn't my hero. He's just another qualified scientist who sees through the total bullshit that you and yours spew.
Correct your comment? Your entire point is bullshit. And you don't even understand natural selection nor the term "personal incredulity". Pathetic, really. But typical for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home