Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, July 21, 2019

UK Jerad- Totally Ignorant of Science

UK Jerad, the scientifically illiterate troll, thinks that ID has to have all of the answers before it can be taken seriously. Yet, when we look at Jerad's lame-ass position we see that it cannot answer anything. Jerad's is supposed to be a mechanistic "theory" describing the how things evolved but yet no one has any idea how things evolved. Jerad's doesn't have a testable mechanism and doesn't make any predictions.

And yet Jerad the ignorant ass thinks that is OK cuz some mysterious scientists are working in some mysterious labs trying to figure it all out. Too bad that if they do exist they have yet to publish anything of substance to support their position.

The sad part is that in an attempt to refute something Dt. Behe wrote evolutionists have destroyed any chance that unguided evolution can produce the diversity of life. That destruction came via a peer-reviewed paper Waiting for TWO Mutations. The paper concluded:
For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral.
TWO specific mutations would take several million years in a population of fruit flies. Fruit flies' reproductive cycle is  much, much faster than mammals. That means the waiting time for two specific mutations in mammals would take tens to hundreds of millions of years. And that is only two. We know, for example, that color vision required more than two. It is out of the reach of unguided processes. Yet it exists.

So we can infer that it was not unguided evolution that produced color vision. That and the fact there is no way to test the claim that unguided evolution did it.

So Jerad doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing what we observe and he doesn't have any methodology to test his claims.


  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger JV said…

    From the paper you linked to:

    Arguing that (i) there are 1 trillion parasitic cells in an infected person, (ii) there are 1 billion infected persons on the planet, and (ii) chloroquine resistance has arisen only 10 times in the past 50 years, [Behe] concludes that the odds of one parasite developing resistance to chloroquine, an event he calls a chloroquine complexity cluster (CCC), are ∼1 in 1020. Ignoring the fact that humans and P. falciparum have different mutation rates, he then concludes that “On the average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait a hundred million times ten million years” (Behe 2007, p. 61), which is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given.

    Indeed his error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N = 106 and μ1 = μ2 = 10−9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with Math having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600.

    We are certainly not the first to have criticized Behe's work. Lynch (2005) has written a rebuttal to Behe and Snoke (2004), which is widely cited by proponents of intelligent design (see the Wikipedia entry on Michael Behe). Behe and Snoke (2004) consider evolutionary steps that require changes in two amino acids and argue that to become fixed in 108 generations would require a population size of 109. One obvious problem with their analysis is that they do their calculations for N = 1 individual, ignoring the population genetic effects that produce the factor of Math. Lynch (2005) also raises other objections.

    (Some of the mathematical formulae do not survive copy and paste and get rendered as 'Math'. The original three paragraphs can be easily read via the link in the OP.)

    So, in fact, the paper you cite disagrees with your use of it to support your and Dr Behe's contentions.

  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Also, you quote a single sentence in the conclusion which should be read in its entirety:

    For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral. This theoretical result is consistent with the observation of rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila and gives some insight into how these changes might have happened. Our results show that when two mutations with rates u1 and u2 have occurred and
    then the first one will not have gone to fixation before the second mutation occurs, and indeed A mutants will never be more than a small fraction of the overall population. In this scenario, the A mutants with fitness r are significantly deleterious if Math is large, a much less stringent condition than the usual condition that 2N(1 – r) is large. Also, the success probability of the B mutant is dictated by its fitness relative to the wild type rather than relative to the A mutant. This follows because the fraction of A mutants in the population is small when the B mutant arises, and hence most individuals are wild type at that time.

    The very simple assumptions we have made about the nature of transcription factor binding and mutation processes are not crucial to our conclusions. Our results can be applied to more accurate models of binding site structure and mutation processes whenever one can estimate the probabilities u1 and u2. However, the assumption of a homogeneously mixing population of constant size is very important for our analysis. One obvious problem is that Drosophila populations undergo large seasonal fluctuations, providing more opportunities for mutation when the population size is large and a greater probability of fixation of an A mutation during the recurring bottlenecks. Thus, it is not clear that one can reduce to a constant size population or that the effective population size computed from the nucleotide diversity is the correct number to use for the constant population size. A second problem is that in a subdivided population, A mutants may become fixed in one subpopulation, giving more opportunities for the production of B mutants or perhaps leading to a speciation event. It is difficult to analyze these situations mathematically, but it seems that each of them would increase the rate at which changes occur. In any case one would need to find a mechanism that changes the answer by a significant factor to alter our qualitative conclusions.

    And, again, no matter how much you wish to cast aspersions on the ability of unguided natural processes to create the wide variety of biological forms we see extant and in the fossil record you have yet to provide any solid, physical evidence that any kind of physical guiding mechanism exists. Even if your scorn is well placed it doesn't support your ideas. You still have to establish that some guiding mechanism exists. Which you cannot do even though you've been claiming it exists for quite a few years now at least.

    So, unless you want to cop out and claim an undetected, undefined and unnamed designer did it leaving no physical trace of their existance then you've got some work to do regardless of your claims about unguided processes. No amount of grandstanding ordeflection or abuse will change that.

  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! As much as you wish that unguided processes can produce what you say you don't have nay evidence to support it and you don't have a methodology to test it.

    And no amount of YOUR deflection will ever change that.

  • At 5:59 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Not only me will have noticed that you didn't address my point which is that you misinterpreted the focus of the paper you linked to.

    The paper says that Dr Behe was wrong and explains how he was wrong.

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Dr. Behe responded and they had a back and forth. That has no bearing on the fact that universal common descent, even if possible via differential accumulations of genetic changes, requires thousands to millions of specific changes. You need to build the entire genetic toolkit required for developmental biology.

    Only an ignorant moron would think unguided processes could pull that off all without trying or wanting to. It all just happened due to some just-so differential accumulation that nature didn't cull.

    You guys are worse than any other cult that has ever existed. Scientology makes more sense than what you want us to believe.

  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They tried to refute Behe and instead demonstrated the severe limits of unguided evolution.

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger JV said…

    So you choose to believe Dr Behe and his supporters. Doesn't make them or you correct though.

    It's fine with me if you want to be in a fringe that is not taken seriously.

  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you choose to believe people who cannot support what they say.

    Taken seriously? No one takes blind watchmaker evolution seriously- no one that can think, anyway.

    No one uses it for anything. It has not helped us advance our knowledge. It is useless


Post a Comment

<< Home