Message from discussion Behe on Falsifying ID & Evolution
Received: by 10.68.227.67 with SMTP id ry3mr3986082pbc.8.1341021383019;
Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Behe on Falsifying ID & Evolution
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:56:20 -0600
Organization: University of Ediacara
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1341022493 38096 184.108.40.206 (30 Jun 2012 02:14:53 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:14:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authentication-Warning: serv1.gc.lax.giganews.com: news set sender to pos...@giganews.com using -f
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 6/28/12 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 27, 10:45 pm, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:16:59 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 5:01 pm, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:30:20 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez
>>>>>>> YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>>>>> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
>>>>>> natural selection?
>>>>> Since natural selection is limited in the number of modifications that
>>>>> it can preserve at any one time, and since the flagellum consists of
>>>>> least 42 indispensable proteins, he is pointing out that the Darwinian
>>>>> mechanism could not and cannot produce said phenomena.
>>>> Yes. Limited by the size of the organism's genome and the degree of phenotypic change induced by the mutation. If all mutations are neutral wrt to fitness,> then theoretically, all base pairs could change simultaneously with no effect on the organism's survival.
>>> But we are not talking about neutral mutations----quite the contrary.
>>> The issue is mutations and selection that "create" complex phenomena.
>>> My initial suspicion is that you don't understand the basic claims of
>>> selection and drift.
>> Non-neutral mutations can be fixed by selection in parallel so long as they either improve overall fitness or at least do not reduce fitness disastrously for the individual.
> In parallel to what? What's the point?
Parallel to other mutations in the individual, of course.
>> If you think otherwise, do you want to propose a figure for the upper limit on a "tolerable">number of parallel mutations?
> I don't even know what a "parallel mutation" is, and I don't really
> care. Evolution is ad hoc all the way. You guys just make stuff up as
For someone who claims to be knowledgeable about the "basic claims of
selection and drift", it's very clear you know nothing about the topic
at all. You don't even know that much, much more than one mutation is
in play in any population, at any given time. There are hundreds of
thousands of mutations in any population in a given generation.