Behe on Falsifying ID & Evolution

[Ray Martinez]

YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

Ray

[backspace]

In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
natural selection?

[Dana Tweedy]

As long as we are arguing by posting links;

http://www.talkreason.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?article=/articles/blogging.cfm


specifically, this point addresses Behe's claim in the above video.


"The notion that an intelligent designer was involved is not in any way
falsifiable. There is no conceivable set of data that could falsify that
proposition. But specific arguments that purport to point to such a
designer can be falsified, and it's important to distinguish here
between facts and theories. Behe's argument offers both factual claims
and a theoretical or explanatory claim. It goes like this:

Factual claim: Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning
that if you took out any single component of the system, the system
would fail to function.

Factual claim: Irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved step
by step because the intermediate or precursor systems would not have
been functional.

Explanatory claim: Therefore, when we find an irreducibly complex
system, we know that it must have been designed from scratch and came
into existence all in one step.

Only the explanatory claim is an explicit statement in support of ID,
but one can still falsify the argument if one shows that either of the
two factual claims it is based upon is false. For instance, when we look
at Behe's example of the blood clotting cascade, we can falsify it
simply by looking at the first factual claim. Is the blood clotting
cascade irreducibly complex? The answer is no. There are animals who
lack one of the components of the system, yet their blood clots just
fine. Dolphins, for example, lack Hageman factor (or Factor 12). By
Behe's definition of irreducible complexity, this should be impossible.
The fact that it's not shows that this is not, in fact, an irreducibly
complex system.

Likewise on the bacterial flagellum, Behe's favorite example of
irreducible complexity, the fact that one subset of the system works
well for another function shows that the second factual claim in Behe's
argument is not necessarily true. We have lots of examples in molecular
biology of components for one system being adapted or co-opted for use
in a different system. Even Behe would admit as much. Lots of examples,
for instance, of a given gene duplication resulting in the production of
two proteins, one of which is then coopted for a different function in a
system it was not originally involved with inside the organism. So when
we see that the flagellum includes a subset that functions well in a
different type of system, we can reasonably infer that perhaps it was
coopted in exactly the same way. Add this to the fact that we in fact
have multiple different types of flagella at work in the bacterial
world, suggesting that rather than being irreducibly complex there are
multiple different ways to get to the same result, and you have good
reason to think that Behe's second example fails because the second
factual claim may well not be true."


end quoted material


DJT

[Friar Broccoli]

Why do you think Behe says that scientists might claim that they didn't
have enough time or a large enough population to test the evolution of
the flagellum from a bacterium without this type of equipment?

Also Behe accepts the common descent of all animals from a common
ancestor. Doesn't this show that he is in fact an atheist, and
therefore that everything he says must be a lie?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Mitchell Coffey]

What do you mean with video?

Mitchell Coffey

[Syamsu]

On Jun 27, 10:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/12 1:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> > Ray
>
> As long as we are arguing by posting links;
>

> http://www.talkreason.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?article=/articles/blogg...

As always, your opposition to intelligent design is ideological and
not really scientific. One can take down right theories with
hypercriticism,which is what you are trying to do. That many parts of
DNA are decided as a whole is a reasonable theory. There is no reason
to suppose that the DNA being accidently assembled in bits is a better
theory. YOU ARE IDEOLOGICALLY OPPOSED TO THEORIES BASED ON A LOGIC OF
FREEDOM, such as intelligent design.

This is not motivated by intellectual curiosity on your part, but just
that you want to stop people believing in God. You want to deny people
the freedom to choose to believe in God or not, and that is why you
exclude theories based on a logic of freedom. Intelligent design is
likely for many reasons, not the least of which is the intuition that
freedom could not be so irrellevant in the universe, that there would
not be sophisticated ways of deciding in the universe. But in any case
decisionmaking can be modelled, and the models of intelligent design
can correspond with the facts, or not, intelligent design is science.

[Frank J]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:10:14 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On Jun 27, 4:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez

> wrote:
> >
> > > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
> >
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
> >
> > > Ray
> >
> > In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
> > natural selection?
>
> What do you mean with video?
>
> Mitchell Coffey

Last I heard, Ray despises Behe. He calls him an "evolutionist" but always stops short of calling him an atheist. Though it took me several tries to get Ray to specifically say, rather than just imply, that he did not consider Behe an atheist. His evasion was expected because he wants to equate evolution with atheism, but only when convenient. And he will never turn down an anti-evolution sound bite no matter how much the source disgusts him.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 27, 1:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/12 1:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> > Ray
>
> As long as we are arguing by posting links;
>

> http://www.talkreason.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?article=/articles/blogg...

Dana: You need to read what your source is actually saying. It simply
asserts the flagellum **could have** been assembled in an evolutionary
manner: "....we can reasonably infer that **perhaps** it was coopted
in exactly the same way....because the second factual claim **may**
well not be true." A lot of verbiage all dependent upon "perhaps" and
"may."

In any case what Behe said in the very short YouTube NOT addressed.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

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.

Ray

[Ron O]

On Jun 27, 3:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/12 1:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> > Ray
>
> As long as we are arguing by posting links;
>

> http://www.talkreason.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?article=/articles/blogg...

You may be missing the fact that Behe admits that IC isn't testable in
this video. He does it by claiming that natural selection can't be
falsified in the example of the flagellum because of all the things
that we don't know yet. This means IC is not testable because Behe
would not know how to do the experiment to evolve a flagellum. It is
just sad.

Behe knows why his falsification testing of his IC notions is bogus.
He even says why it is. What is required to evolve a flagellum? We
don't even know what all the original parts were so what starting
material do you have to look for? What selective conditions existed
at each step of the process? No one expects the environment to have
stayed constant over the hundreds of millions of years that the
flagellum was likely evolving. It took around a billion years to
evolve the materials that the flagellum evolved from. The reason that
Behes test is so lame is that he doesn't even know how to start the
experiment to falsify his IC claims. If he knew how to start the
experiment why hasn't he done the experiment and falsified his own
claims? Isn't that what a real scientist would do. Why is it up to
someone else to falsify your bogus notions when all such similar
notions have had a 100% failure rate throughout the history of
science. Who was responsible for creating those complex babies?

Both Minnich and Behe put forward their "test" during their Dover
testimony, but neither ever tried it, or if they did they never
reported the results. IC is just as untestable as it ever was. It
never made it past the untestable hypothesis stage. If it did why
isn't Behe testing it? It has been 7 years since Dover and 16 years
since he wrote Darwin's black box so if IC is testable why hasn't he
tested it, at this time? You obviously can't just keep claiming that
it is testable and never test it.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 27, 2:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> Why do you think Behe says that scientists might claim that they didn't
> have enough time or a large enough population to test the evolution of
> the flagellum from a bacterium without this type of equipment?
>

He offers several reasons Evolutionists might use to explain failure,
which supports his claim of fact that evolution, contrary to the
claims of Evolutionists, is not readily and easily falsifiable.

> Also Behe accepts the common descent of all animals from a common
> ancestor.  Doesn't this show that he is in fact an atheist, and
> therefore that everything he says must be a lie?
>
> --
>   Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
>    I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

This is a separate issue. The issue at hand is his claims in the
YouTube.

Ray

[timoth...@gmail.com]

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

> wrote:
> >
> > > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
> >
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
> >
> > > Ray
> >
> > 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.
>
> Ray

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.

[Ray Martinez]

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.

Ray

[_Arthur]

Furthermore, there are hundreds of species of bacteria with a
flagellum, none of of which with the exact _same_ "42 essential
proteins".

Isn't that strange ? Those 42 proteins are asserted to be irreductibly
complex, but every single protein can have a different formula ?

Are those the same irreductible complex, that allows wide variations
in its component proteins, or are those 100+ separate irreducible
protein systems, each Created individually ?

Of course the protein variants can be explained by way of Evolution.
Maybe even "the Creator" created the first flagellum, and it evolved
since. Behe would have thus proven both Creation and Evolution.
Pity he failed to prove the creation part so far.

[Ron O]

Behe is a tweeker theistic evolutionist. He admits that common
descent is a fact for life on earth, he just thinks that his god
sticks his finger in every once in a while to make things happen. He
admitted under oath in the Dover trial that the intelligent designer
may no longer exist (his god may be dead). Life started around 3.8
billion years ago on this planet, Behe's flagellum evolved around 2
billion years ago, and the blood clotting system and immune system
that Behe makes a big deal about evolved over 400 million years ago.
Behe's god hasn't done much since so he might be dead. There are
apparently no IC systems that separate chimps and humans. Humans may
have evolved from fish without tweeking. No one can tell because you
can't tell tweeking from what is expected out of evolution without
tweeking.

Behe's incompetent YEC supporters either do not understand Behe's
arguments or they lie to themselves about it in some way that only
they can understand.

Ron Okimoto

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:45:54 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 2:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>

.

>> Why do you think Behe says that scientists might claim that they didn't
>> have enough time or a large enough population to test the evolution of
>> the flagellum from a bacterium without this type of equipment?
>>
>
>He offers several reasons Evolutionists might use to explain failure,
>which supports his claim of fact that evolution, contrary to the
>claims of Evolutionists, is not readily and easily falsifiable.

You must have watched a different video clip than I did. In the one I
watched he was claiming that Intelligent Design IS falsifiable. He
appeared to be explaining why ID could not in fact be falsified with
real tests - apparently contradicting his own argument.

>> Also Behe accepts the common descent of all animals from a common
>> ancestor.  Doesn't this show that he is in fact an atheist, and
>> therefore that everything he says must be a lie?
>

>This is a separate issue. The issue at hand is his claims in the
>YouTube.

True, but accusing us of being atheists is often the only argument you
have against the arguments we regularly present you in support of common
descent. Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?

[raven1]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
>> natural selection?
>
>Since natural selection is limited

By what?

>in the number of modifications that
>it can preserve at any one time,

What number is that? Show the math, please.

>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.

Why not? Detail the mechanism, and show why it doesn't work.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[timoth...@gmail.com]

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. If you think otherwise, do you want to propose a figure for the upper limit on a "tolerable" number of parallel mutations?

[Burkhard]

Well yes, since the claim the falsify is a strong one - "could not
have been assembled by evolutionary methods" - demonstrating that it
_could_, by showing just one way how it _may_ have happened, is enough
to falsify it. Strong claims require only weak counter evidence to
falsify them, weak claims require strong evidence to falsify them

[Burkhard]

That contradicts what you conceded more or less above in your post:
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc71a3d50575355?hl=en

Showing that it "may" have been produced by Darwinian mechanism,by
giving even one possible pathway, is inconsistent with the claim it
"could not and cannot produce said phenomena" and hence falsifies
them.

[Ron O]

It isn't just the strong claim. Behe doesn't deny that biological
evolution happens. He knows that he can't falsify it because it is
reality. What he wants to falsify is not the fact that organisms have
evolved over billions of years (he accepts the fact of common
descent). He only wants to falsify the claim that no designer is
required for the observed biological evolution.

That is what he is trying to claim with his "could not have evolved by
evolutionary methods" arguments. He knows that such a claim can't
stand up because he had nothing backing it up in the first place.
Once he admitted that IC systems could have evolved the game was
over. He just hopes that there are some IC systems that could not
have evolved, but he can't figure out how to identify such systems.
He claims to have a test, but he never applies the test to see if it
is any good. That is the state of IC. Just watch the video. Behe
claims that his claims about IC can be tested, so why hasn't he tested
them? Just making the claim obviously doesn't mean that the claim has
merit because Behe has had over 7 years to test his junk since he made
the claim that it might be testable in court.

Ron Okimoto

[Dana Tweedy]

I have. It's clear you have not.

> It simply
> asserts the flagellum **could have** been assembled in an evolutionary
> manner: "....we can reasonably infer that **perhaps** it was coopted
> in exactly the same way....because the second factual claim **may**
> well not be true." A lot of verbiage all dependent upon "perhaps" and
> "may."

Yes, which contradicts the claim that you, and Behe make that it can't
happen.

>
> In any case what Behe said in the very short YouTube NOT addressed.

What Behe said was that "ID" could be falsified, when it in reality
cannot be.



DJT

[jillery]

In this video, Behe says "all the scientists has to do to prove me
wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the
genes for the flagellum in it, a bacterium, go into his lab and grow
that bug for a long time, and see if it produces anything resembling a
flagellum."

If this happened as Behe described, what's to stop him from claiming
that a Designer made it happen? How does this experiment exclude a
designer? More to the point, how can *any* experiment exclude Behe's
designer, especially when he refuses to define the nature of his
designer?

[jillery]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:45:54 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 2:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>> Why do you think Behe says that scientists might claim that they didn't
>> have enough time or a large enough population to test the evolution of
>> the flagellum from a bacterium without this type of equipment?
>>
>
>He offers several reasons Evolutionists might use to explain failure,
>which supports his claim of fact that evolution, contrary to the
>claims of Evolutionists, is not readily and easily falsifiable.

In the video which you cite, Behe explicitly states "I claim for
example that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural
selection.", and explicitly asks "How do we falsify the contention
that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum?" Not
evolution. In point of fact, Behe doesn't directly challenge
evolution in your cite.

Unless, of course, you assume natural selection is the only method of
biological evolution. Do you so assume?

[backspace]

Which still begs the question, what is a natural selection. The
concept wasn't defined by you or behe.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:15:13 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>>Ray
>
>
>In this video, Behe says "all the scientists has to do to prove me
>wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the
>genes for the flagellum in it, a bacterium, go into his lab and grow
>that bug for a long time, and see if it produces anything resembling a
>flagellum."

.

>If this happened as Behe described, what's to stop him from claiming
>that a Designer made it happen? How does this experiment exclude a
>designer? More to the point, how can *any* experiment exclude Behe's
>designer, especially when he refuses to define the nature of his
>designer?

This looks like a great question (that I wish I had noticed) - Since
Behe accepts common descent, he presumably thinks the Designer selects
from or encourages available variations to achieve His plan, which is
exactly what a scientist in a lab would be doing to encourage the
development of a new flagellum.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:47:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:10:14 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 4:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>> >
>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>> >
>> > > Ray
>> >
>> > In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
>> > natural selection?
>>
>> What do you mean with video?
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>
>Last I heard, Ray despises Behe. He calls him an "evolutionist" but always stops short of calling him an atheist. Though it took me several tries to get Ray to specifically say, rather than just imply, that he did not consider Behe an atheist.

Behe is Catholic, surely that's worse than atheism?

> His evasion was expected because he wants to equate evolution with atheism, but only when convenient. And he will never turn down an anti-evolution sound bite no matter how much the source disgusts him.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>...what is a
>natural selection?

Differential reproductive success, due mainly to
environmental influence. Or, if you prefer, unguided
differential reproductive success. Therefore, "selection by
natural processes".

I'm *sure* you've been told this in the past; perhaps if you
wrote it on a yellow sticky and pasted it on your monitor..?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

>...your opposition to intelligent design is ideological and
>not really scientific.

No, it's based on the facts that ID has never been
demonstrated and that it's not required to explain any
observations.

Plus, of course, no one, specifically including ID
proponents, has yet devised a test which is capable of
differentiating between "designed" and "not designed".

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 28 juin, 18:49, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu

> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >...your opposition to intelligent design is ideological and
> >not really scientific.
>
> No, it's based on the facts that ID has never been
> demonstrated and that it's not required to explain any
> observations.
>
> Plus, of course, no one, specifically including ID
> proponents, has yet devised a test which is capable of
> differentiating between "designed" and "not designed".

It is interesting to notice that in this particular case you ask for
"devising a test which is capable of differentiating between
"designed" and "not designed": you are not so demanding for the
distinction "living/nonliving"!

[backspace]

On Jun 28, 5:44�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

> <stephan...@gmail.com>:

>
> >...what is a
> >natural selection?
>
> Differential reproductive success, due mainly to
> environmental influence. Or, if you prefer, unguided
> differential reproductive success. Therefore, "selection by
> natural processes".
>
> I'm *sure* you've been told this in the past; perhaps if you
> wrote it on a yellow sticky and pasted it on your monitor..?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � - McNameless

Darwin never said DRS - who are you referring to.

[backspace]

By evolutionary it is meant that at each step the process represented
only itself and not a design template in the mind of a Designer. We
need to clarify the meanings of evolutionary,random etc.

1) A process that only represents itself(evolution) as opposed to a
process representing something other than itself(design).

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

Who argues that we are nonliving? I mean, besides you?

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:39:21 -0700, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Behe has said that natural selection happens, but is insufficient to
explain all biological change. He argues that at least some, and
likely most, IC systems required the direct intervention of a
Designer. His problem is that all of his IC candidates have been
shown to not require the intervention of a Designer. Nor is Behe
willing to say when or how his Designer intervenes.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> >> > Ray
>
> >> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
> >> natural selection?
>
> >Since natural selection is limited
>
> By what?
>
> >in the number of modifications that
> >it can preserve at any one time,
>
> What number is that? Show the math, please.
>

Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
per generation, none is needed.

> >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.
>
> Why not? Detail the mechanism, and show why it doesn't work.
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight

So 42 proteins suddenly appeared and were selected simultaneously? Is
this your claim?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 27, 6:44 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:45:54 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 27, 2:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
>  .
>
> >> Why do you think Behe says that scientists might claim that they didn't
> >> have enough time or a large enough population to test the evolution of
> >> the flagellum from a bacterium without this type of equipment?
>
> >He offers several reasons Evolutionists might use to explain failure,
> >which supports his claim of fact that evolution, contrary to the
> >claims of Evolutionists, is not readily and easily falsifiable.
>
> You must have watched a different video clip than I did.  In the one I
> watched he was claiming that Intelligent Design IS falsifiable.  He
> appeared to be explaining why ID could not in fact be falsified with
> real tests - apparently contradicting his own argument.
>

Since the clip is well under 2 minutes in length this particular reply
supports a claim that you are suffering a sudden bout of mental
retardation.

> >> Also Behe accepts the common descent of all animals from a common
> >> ancestor.  Doesn't this show that he is in fact an atheist, and
> >> therefore that everything he says must be a lie?
>
> >This is a separate issue. The issue at hand is his claims in the
> >YouTube.
>
> True, but accusing us of being atheists is often the only argument you
> have against the arguments we regularly present you in support of common
> descent.

Actually, what I do say, quite often, is that since no God exists to
cause anything to exist Atheists MUST accept the concept of evolution
(species producing species) in order to explain the existence of
species and diversity.

> Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?
>

Because I judge Behe not to be an Atheist. He is actually worse than
an Atheist. In the book I am currently writing the big guys over at
the DI, along with the Dana Tweedy's, Ron Okimoto's and Tony Pagano's
of the world, receive the brunt of my wrath. You won't be
disappointed. The problem is that the "Christian-Evolutionist" is much
harder to explain. In addition: I am also writing and preparing a
paper called "The Case Against Tony Pagano." I have decided to use
material from my book in the paper, which means, of course, plenty of
references and some re-working of the sentences and paragraphs. I
could actually title the work "The Preliminary Case Against Christian
Evolutionists" because my text seeks to explain why persons who
consider themselves Christians accept the same explanations of nature
that Atheists MUST accept. Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work,
will get what's coming to them.

Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

In parallel to what? What's the point?

> 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
needed.

Ray

[Prof Weird]

On Jun 28, 4:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> > >> > Ray
>
> > >> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
> > >> natural selection?
>
> > >Since natural selection is limited
>
> > By what?
>
> > >in the number of modifications that
> > >it can preserve at any one time,
>
> > What number is that? Show the math, please.
>
> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> per generation, none is needed.

Where did you get THAT silly idea from ?

Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?

Once a new modification has spread through the population, it becomes
the new baseline that other modifications will add to.

> > >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.
>
> > Why not? Detail the mechanism, and show why it doesn't work.
>
> > ---
> > raven1
> > aa # 1096
> > EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> > BAAWA Knight
>
> So 42 proteins suddenly appeared and were selected simultaneously? Is
> this your claim?

No - that is the claim of the IDiots and creotards when they argue
against evolution.

Usually via the Improbabilty 'Argument' : "The odds of these X
proteins arising all at once PURELY BY CHANCE is 1 in 10^gazookillions
against !! Therefore, GOD/DESIGNER DIDIT !!1!!1!!!!!!!11!!!!"

The reality-based community realized decades ago that complexity can
increase. Quite easily.

And that functions of a system can change. And that parts of a system
can be added, subtracted, or modified sequentially. A part can be
added that, at first, merely helps but, over time, becomes
indispensable.

The system BECAME 'IC'. Given the fact that there are many different
routes an IC system can evolve, finding an IC system does not show an
unknowable being somehow did something for some reason.

The reality-based community figures the flagellum built up over time;
the IDio-creotards 'think' it had to arise all at once in a single
'POOF !!!' of God/'Designer' intervention.

According to Behe, the immune system is IC - the evolution crowd could
look high and low for a Darwinian way to make it, but there is none.

Examination of REALITY (and actual real world experiments) showed that
the immune system could evolve.

According to the IDiots, the flagellum is IC - examination of reality
(and actual LAB WORK) showed it could have evolved.

According to the IDiots, blood clotting is IC - examination of reality
(and actual OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY) show how it could have evolved.

Every single IC system the IDiots have presented has been shown to be
evolvable.

More Raytardian posturing :

"Actually, what I do say, quite often, is that since no God exists to
cause anything to exist Atheists MUST accept the concept of evolution
(species producing species) in order to explain the existence of
species and diversity."

Nope - the reality based community accepts the validity of the ToE
because it actually works. Whether god exists or not is a seperate
question.

"> Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?

Because I judge Behe not to be an Atheist. He is actually worse than
an Atheist. In the book I am currently writing the big guys over at
the DI, along with the Dana Tweedy's, Ron Okimoto's and Tony Pagano's
of the world, receive the brunt of my wrath."

Good thing you're an inconsequential twit with delusions of grandeur -
the 'brunt of your wrath' is about as fearsome as being slapped with
wet spagetti noodles.

"You won't be
disappointed. The problem is that the "Christian-Evolutionist" is
much
harder to explain."

Only for you and your ridiculously strict 'definition' of 'Christian'.

"In addition: I am also writing and preparing a
paper called 'The Case Against Tony Pagano.' I have decided to use
material from my book in the paper, which means, of course, plenty of
references and some re-working of the sentences and paragraphs."

RiiiIIiiIIiiight !

"I could actually title the work 'The Preliminary Case Against
Christian
Evolutionists' because my text seeks to explain why persons who
consider themselves Christians accept the same explanations of nature
that Atheists MUST accept."

That reason being 'sanity and the strength to accept reality as it
truly is.'

"Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work, will get what's coming to
them."

Somehow, I doubt they'd find being screamed at by a deranged f*ckwit
with a tenuous grasp on reality is much of a threat ..

[Ray Martinez]

Darwin and his converts claim that an unguided and unintelligent
phenomenon called "natural selection" operates in nature----it, not
God, accomplishes the species making.

Said claim about said phenomenon is 100 percent nonsense. Anyone who
disagees does not understand natural selection.

Upthread Bob Casanova answered your question. Read his answer. His
answer IS nonsense.

So, the answer to your question, is: natural selection is nonsense.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

[timoth...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:39:16 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> >

> wrote:
> > >On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez

> wrote:
> >
<snip>

> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> per generation, none is needed.
>

<snip>
>
This is precisely the question you have been asked twice but haven't answered. What biological process exists to limit mutation and fixation to a single locus per generation. Where has this process been identified, studied and published, and by whom?

[timoth...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:39:16 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

>
> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> per generation, none is needed.
>

<snip>
> Ray

This is precisely the statement you have been asked about twice and haven't answered.

Can you tell me what biological process is involved in limiting mutation and fixation to a single modification per generation.

Who discovered this effect, and where were the results of the study published?

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 28, 2:21 pm, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:

Darwin 1859: an individual becomes modified (don't ask me how, it just
happens), it then breeds, then said modification becomes fixed in the
population = evolution has occurred. Repeat process over and over.
Eventually, the explanation as to how speciation occurs should be
inserted here.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/28/12 2:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:44 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:45:54 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 2:06 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>> .
>>
>>>> Why do you think Behe says that scientists might claim that they didn't
>>>> have enough time or a large enough population to test the evolution of
>>>> the flagellum from a bacterium without this type of equipment?
>>
>>> He offers several reasons Evolutionists might use to explain failure,
>>> which supports his claim of fact that evolution, contrary to the
>>> claims of Evolutionists, is not readily and easily falsifiable.
>>
>> You must have watched a different video clip than I did. In the one I
>> watched he was claiming that Intelligent Design IS falsifiable. He
>> appeared to be explaining why ID could not in fact be falsified with
>> real tests - apparently contradicting his own argument.
>>
>
> Since the clip is well under 2 minutes in length this particular reply
> supports a claim that you are suffering a sudden bout of mental
> retardation.

Which, if so, would still make him greatly more intelligent than you.

>
>>>> Also Behe accepts the common descent of all animals from a common
>>>> ancestor. Doesn't this show that he is in fact an atheist, and
>>>> therefore that everything he says must be a lie?
>>
>>> This is a separate issue. The issue at hand is his claims in the
>>> YouTube.
>>
>> True, but accusing us of being atheists is often the only argument you
>> have against the arguments we regularly present you in support of common
>> descent.
>
> Actually, what I do say, quite often, is that since no God exists to
> cause anything to exist Atheists MUST accept the concept of evolution
> (species producing species) in order to explain the existence of
> species and diversity.

Why would it matter what choice atheists may, or may not have? Science
is not the province of atheists alone, and the opinions of atheists has
little to do with science.

For that matter, atheists have other options than evolution to
explain the presence of the diversity of life, but evolution remains the
best scientific explanation for the evidence.

"God" is not an explanation for the existence of species, or the
diversity of life, even for those who believe there is such a being.
There has to be a mechanism by which species came about.

>
>> Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?
>>
>
> Because I judge Behe not to be an Atheist.

Which is an obvious double standard on your part.

> He is actually worse than
> an Atheist. In the book I am currently writing the big guys over at
> the DI, along with the Dana Tweedy's, Ron Okimoto's and Tony Pagano's
> of the world, receive the brunt of my wrath.

Ohhhhh, I'm on the receiving end of Ray's 'wrath'. Imagine how scared
I am not.

> You won't be
> disappointed. The problem is that the "Christian-Evolutionist" is much
> harder to explain.

Not really. A Christian who accepts evolution does so because it's the
best scientific explanation for the evidence. Nothing hard to explain
there.

> In addition: I am also writing and preparing a
> paper called "The Case Against Tony Pagano."

One must wonder why Ray feels this is necessary, or even rational to do
so.

> I have decided to use
> material from my book in the paper, which means, of course, plenty of
> references and some re-working of the sentences and paragraphs. I
> could actually title the work "The Preliminary Case Against Christian
> Evolutionists" because my text seeks to explain why persons who
> consider themselves Christians accept the same explanations of nature
> that Atheists MUST accept.

The answer is above. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for
the evidence. Whatever atheists accept is entirely irrelevant to that
fact. There are many other possible ideas to explain the diversity of
life that does not invoke a supernatural being, but only evolution has
scientific evidence that supports the idea.

> Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work,
> will get what's coming to them.

I'm sure that Tony, and Dr. Behe are just as terrified of Ray's "wrath"
as I am. Imagine, the sheer weight of Ray's "logic" and "scientific
acumen" being directed against one! It would be like being savagely
attacked by a dead field mouse.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/28/12 3:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:44 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 12:30 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Which still begs the question, what is a natural selection. The
>> concept wasn't defined by you or behe.
>
> Darwin and his converts claim that an unguided and unintelligent
> phenomenon called "natural selection" operates in nature----it, not
> God, accomplishes the species making.

Unless one wants to believe that God accomplishes this "species making"
by using the process of natural selection.

Natural selection can be easily observed operating in nature. No one
has ever observed any supernatural being operating, anywhere, at any time.

>
> Said claim about said phenomenon is 100 percent nonsense. Anyone who
> disagees does not understand natural selection.

Says the person who utterly misunderstands natural selection.

>
> Upthread Bob Casanova answered your question. Read his answer. His
> answer IS nonsense.

Why? Which do you deny, specifically? That selection occurs? or that
it's natural? Do you really think that all members of a population
have the same statistical chance of producing offspring, and that it has
nothing to do with the environment that population is in?

>
> So, the answer to your question, is: natural selection is nonsense.

Natural selection can be observed happening in nature. If you consider
reality "nonsense", then perhaps the source of your confusion has been
found.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> > > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> > > >> > Ray
>
> > > >> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
> > > >> natural selection?
>
> > > >Since natural selection is limited
>
> > > By what?
>
> > > >in the number of modifications that
> > > >it can preserve at any one time,
>
> > > What number is that? Show the math, please.
>
> > Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> > per generation, none is needed.
>
> Where did you get THAT silly idea from ?
>

Darwin.

> Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
> willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?
>

The issue was number of modifications. One per generation. And yes the
claim is that these modifications accumulate.

An individual becomes modified, then it breeds, eventually the entire
population inherits the modification. Where in the scenario is room
for multiple modifications? Herein we see the dual claim of
gradualism: slow rate and slight change (= Darwinian evolution).

Ray

[Frank J]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:01:14 PM UTC-4, timoth...@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

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
> > >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
> > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > 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.
> >

> > Ray
>
> 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.

Note how he conveniently omits the *number* of modifications, what "kind" (point, indel, inversion, etc.), *per what* (gene, chromosome, cell, organism, population, etc.) and then switches to talking about "the" flagellum.

Ray knows that Behe has been answered 1000+x about "the" flagellum. And that Behe has made it clear that, until he is given an atom-by-atom history of the origin of the first flagellum, and presumably every other species that followed, he will continue to use it as an argument against evolution to fool the "masses." The worst part, of course, is that in ~20 years of peddling that snake oil, Behe has not taken the first step to test his own alternate "theory." Behe, if not his clueless fans, knows how outrageous that double standard is.

And that is the one thing Ray does like about Behe!

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
> > > >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.
>
> > > Why not? Detail the mechanism, and show why it doesn't work.
>
> > > ---
> > > raven1
> > > aa # 1096
> > > EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> > > BAAWA Knight
>
> > So 42 proteins suddenly appeared and were selected simultaneously? Is
> > this your claim?
>
> No - that is the claim of the IDiots and creotards when they argue
> against evolution.
>
> Usually via the Improbabilty 'Argument' : "The odds of these X
> proteins arising all at once PURELY BY CHANCE is 1 in 10^gazookillions
> against !! Therefore, GOD/DESIGNER DIDIT !!1!!1!!!!!!!11!!!!"
>

The improbability argument and its conclusion is completely sound and
justified.

> The reality-based community realized decades ago that complexity can
> increase.  Quite easily.
>
> And that functions of a system can change.  And that parts of a system
> can be added, subtracted, or modified sequentially.  A part can be
> added that, at first, merely helps but, over time, becomes
> indispensable.
>
> The system BECAME 'IC'.  Given the fact that there are many different
> routes an IC system can evolve, finding an IC system does not show an
> unknowable being somehow did something for some reason.
>
> The reality-based community figures the flagellum built up over time;
> the IDio-creotards 'think' it had to arise all at once in a single
> 'POOF !!!' of God/'Designer' intervention.
>
> According to Behe, the immune system is IC - the evolution crowd could
> look high and low for a Darwinian way to make it, but there is none.
>
> Examination of REALITY (and actual real world experiments) showed that
> the immune system could evolve.
>
> According to the IDiots, the flagellum is IC - examination of reality
> (and actual LAB WORK) showed it could have evolved.
>
> According to the IDiots, blood clotting is IC - examination of reality
> (and actual OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY) show how it could have evolved.
>
> Every single IC system the IDiots have presented has been shown to be
> evolvable.
>

There must be a degree of complexity that evolutionary processes
cannot produce. If not said process not falsifiable. Do you agree?

Prof Weird defends Tony and Behe, priceless.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 28, 3:15 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:01:14 PM UTC-4, timoth...@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
> > >  wrote:
>
> > > > > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> > > > > Ray
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > 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.
>
> Note how he conveniently omits the *number* of modifications, what "kind" (point, indel, inversion, etc.), *per what* (gene, chromosome, cell, organism, population, etc.) and then switches to talking about "the" flagellum.
>

I "conflated" species evolution with the flagellum, yes.

> Ray knows that Behe has been answered 1000+x about "the" flagellum. And that Behe has made it clear that, until he is given an atom-by-atom history of the origin of the first flagellum, and presumably every other species that followed, he will continue to use it as an argument against evolution to fool the "masses." The worst part, of course, is that in ~20 years of peddling that snake oil, Behe has not taken the first step to test his own alternate "theory." Behe, if not his clueless fans, knows how outrageous that double standard is.
>
> And that is the one thing Ray does like about Behe!

Behe's acceptance of natural selection, evolution and common descent
are the things that have undermined Black Box IC.

All the evos have done since 1996, unto the present (16 years), is
argue the basic claims of evolution as refuting IC systems.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>> >> > Ray
>>
>> >> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
>> >> natural selection?
>>
>> >Since natural selection is limited
>>
>> By what?
>>
>> >in the number of modifications that
>> >it can preserve at any one time,
>>
>> What number is that? Show the math, please.
>>
>
>Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
>per generation,

Since when? Have you been talking to DrDr?

>none is needed.


>> >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.
>>
>> Why not? Detail the mechanism, and show why it doesn't work.
>>
>> ---
>> raven1
>> aa # 1096
>> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
>> BAAWA Knight
>
>So 42 proteins suddenly appeared and were selected simultaneously? Is
>this your claim?

Your question assumes these proteins needed to appear suddenly and
simultaneously. That is the claim IC supporters.

[Ray Martinez]

Severe delusion.

> There has to be a mechanism by which species came about.
>

Materialism.

>
>
> >> Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?
>
> > Because I judge Behe not to be an Atheist.
>
> Which is an obvious double standard on your part.
>
> > He is actually worse than
> > an Atheist. In the book I am currently writing the big guys over at
> > the DI, along with the Dana Tweedy's, Ron Okimoto's and Tony Pagano's
> > of the world, receive the brunt of my wrath.
>
> Ohhhhh, I'm on the receiving end of Ray's 'wrath'.   Imagine how scared
> I am not.
>

Imagine that; a "Christian" who stands with Dawkins and not the Bible
not the least bit worried!

Exactly what I intend to explain.

> > You won't be
> > disappointed. The problem is that the "Christian-Evolutionist" is much
> > harder to explain.
>
> Not really.  A Christian who accepts evolution does so because it's the
> best scientific explanation for the evidence.   Nothing hard to explain
> there.
>
> > In addition: I am also writing and preparing a
> > paper called "The Case Against Tony Pagano."
>
> One must wonder why Ray feels this is necessary, or even rational to do
> so.
>
> > I have decided to use
> > material from my book in the paper, which means, of course, plenty of
> > references and some re-working of the sentences and paragraphs. I
> > could actually title the work "The Preliminary Case Against Christian
> > Evolutionists" because my text seeks to explain why persons who
> > consider themselves Christians accept the same explanations of nature
> > that Atheists MUST accept.
>
> The answer is above.  Evolution is the best scientific explanation for
> the evidence.

If you're an Atheist, yes.

> Whatever atheists accept is entirely irrelevant to that
> fact.   There are many other possible ideas to explain the diversity of
> life that does not invoke a supernatural being, but only evolution has
> scientific evidence that supports the idea.
>
> > Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work,
> > will get what's coming to them.
>
> I'm sure that Tony, and Dr. Behe are just as terrified of Ray's "wrath"
> as I am.   Imagine, the sheer weight of Ray's "logic" and "scientific
> acumen" being directed against one!   It would be like being savagely
> attacked by a dead field mouse.
>
> DJT

Ray

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Yes, but you are claiming that natural selection can only work on one characteristic of the organism at a time. When was this effect identified, by whom and where published?

[Frank J]

Only to you. They still fool his fans, who range from "virtual evolutionists" like him, to geocentric YECs. Many even know and approve of the big tent scam.

>
> All the evos have done since 1996, unto the present (16 years), is
> argue the basic claims of evolution as refuting IC systems.

Not "refuting IC systems" but showing how they originated. And it's more like 90 years, starting with Muller's "interlocking complexity." What they have refuted is Behe's bait-and-switch scam that pretends that lack of every last detail of the mechanism of origin is "evidence" of design. And he knew it was a scam 16 years ago or he would have started providing his own "pathetic level of detail" of when and how the designs got "built" instead of backpedaling.

>
> Ray

[jillery]

I'm almost certain that's not the case, but if you can provide a cite
that supports your claim, I will change my opinion.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/28/2012 05:58 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:

[snip]

> I'm sure that Tony, and Dr. Behe are just as terrified of Ray's "wrath"
> as I am. Imagine, the sheer weight of Ray's "logic" and "scientific
> acumen" being directed against one! It would be like being savagely
> attacked by a dead field mouse.

I admit doing it recently also, but the more his name is invoked the
likelier we will get another onslaught of Pagano-centric
self-congratulatory onanism threads directed against the usual suspects.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/28/2012 07:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> Ohhhhh, I'm on the receiving end of Ray's 'wrath'. Imagine how scared
>> I am not.
>>
>
> Imagine that; a "Christian" who stands with Dawkins and not the Bible
> not the least bit worried!
>
> Exactly what I intend to explain.

So if Dana doesn't side with the Bible in your view, does your wrath get
backed up by God himself as you smite the heathens and non-believers?
What should Dana fear then?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/28/2012 04:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

> In addition: I am also writing and preparing a
> paper called "The Case Against Tony Pagano." I have decided to use
> material from my book in the paper, which means, of course, plenty of
> references and some re-working of the sentences and paragraphs.

That remains to be seen. It's kinda like sprinkling pixie dust on a
unicorn. Neither exist, but people talk about them still.

[Rolf]

Ray is so scared of natural selection that he doesn't even dare to comment
on artificial selection!

He has erected a mental iron curtain agaist knowledge that might disturbe
his happy ignorance.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.t...@wanadoo.fr:

>On 28 juin, 18:49, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >...your opposition to intelligent design is ideological and
>> >not really scientific.
>>
>> No, it's based on the facts that ID has never been
>> demonstrated and that it's not required to explain any
>> observations.
>>
>> Plus, of course, no one, specifically including ID
>> proponents, has yet devised a test which is capable of
>> differentiating between "designed" and "not designed".
>
>It is interesting to notice that in this particular case you ask for
>"devising a test which is capable of differentiating between
>"designed" and "not designed": you are not so demanding for the
>distinction "living/nonliving"!

I find it gratifying that you find it interesting, and once
more state that I have no interest in debating semantics
with you.

Also, You might note that I asked for nothing; I merely
stated the fact that (as contrasted with the case of life)
no such test has been presented which will differentiate
even *most* design from non-design.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:21:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jun 28, 5:44 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >...what is a
>> >natural selection?
>>
>> Differential reproductive success, due mainly to
>> environmental influence. Or, if you prefer, unguided
>> differential reproductive success. Therefore, "selection by
>> natural processes".
>>
>> I'm *sure* you've been told this in the past; perhaps if you
>> wrote it on a yellow sticky and pasted it on your monitor..?

>Darwin never said DRS

So? That is what the term means, and OtOOS makes that fact
quite clear. If you could read for comprehension as well as
you can fabricate spurious objections to facts you find
inconvenient you'd know that.

> - who are you referring to.

Yo' momma?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:41:15 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
>wrote:

>
>>On 28 juin, 18:49, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
>>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>> >...your opposition to intelligent design is ideological and
>>> >not really scientific.
>>>
>>> No, it's based on the facts that ID has never been
>>> demonstrated and that it's not required to explain any
>>> observations.
>>>
>>> Plus, of course, no one, specifically including ID
>>> proponents, has yet devised a test which is capable of
>>> differentiating between "designed" and "not designed".
>>
>>It is interesting to notice that in this particular case you ask for
>>"devising a test which is capable of differentiating between
>>"designed" and "not designed": you are not so demanding for the
>>distinction "living/nonliving"!
>
>

>Who argues that we are nonliving? I mean, besides you?

It's a navel-gazing issue, of no real interest to anyone
else.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:39:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>...only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
>per generation

"...can be..."? Care to explain why you think this is true,
and not simply a matter of probability? Cites would be of
help as you try to make your case.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:50:28 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jun 28, 2:21 pm, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:39:16 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
>> > per generation, none is needed.
>>
>> <snip>
>> > Ray
>>
>> This is precisely the statement you have been asked about twice and haven't answered.
>>
>> Can you tell me what biological process is involved in limiting mutation and fixation to a single modification per generation.
>>
>> Who discovered this effect, and where were the results of the study published?
>
>Darwin 1859: an individual becomes modified (don't ask me how, it just
>happens)

"How" is clearly known and has been explained to you many
times, and it should be pointed out that modifications to
the individual aren't generally passed on unless they occur
in the sperm or egg. But no one wishing actual information
would dream of asking you, so your wish will likely be
granted.

>, it then breeds, then said modification becomes fixed in the
>population = evolution has occurred. Repeat process over and over.
>Eventually, the explanation as to how speciation occurs should be
>inserted here.

Ah, so it's a comprehension and false assumption problem,
both on your part. OK.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 29 juin, 19:51, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 28 juin, 18:49, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
> >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >...your opposition to intelligent design is ideological and
> >> >not really scientific.
>
> >> No, it's based on the facts that ID has never been
> >> demonstrated and that it's not required to explain any
> >> observations.
>
> >> Plus, of course, no one, specifically including ID
> >> proponents, has yet devised a test which is capable of
> >> differentiating between "designed" and "not designed".
>
> >It is interesting to notice that in this particular case you ask for
> >"devising a test which is capable of differentiating between
> >"designed" and "not designed": you are not so demanding for the
> >distinction "living/nonliving"!
>
> I find it gratifying that you find it interesting, and once
> more state that I have no interest in debating semantics
> with you.
>
> Also, You might note that I asked for nothing; I merely
> stated the fact that (as contrasted with the case of life)

"(as contrasted with the case of life)"

I would be very much interested by the kind of tests you refer to to
demonstrate the relevance of the distinction 'living/nonliving'.

[raven1]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>> >> > Ray
>>
>> >> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
>> >> natural selection?
>>
>> >Since natural selection is limited
>>

>> By what?

>>
>> >in the number of modifications that
>> >it can preserve at any one time,
>>

>> What number is that? Show the math, please.
>>
>
>Since only one

OK, that answers the first question, but...

>modification can be spread into a breeding population,

Why?

>per generation, none is needed.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/28/12 5:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:58 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>>
>>> Actually, what I do say, quite often, is that since no God exists to
>>> cause anything to exist Atheists MUST accept the concept of evolution
>>> (species producing species) in order to explain the existence of
>>> species and diversity.
>>
>> Why would it matter what choice atheists may, or may not have? Science
>> is not the province of atheists alone, and the opinions of atheists has
>> little to do with science.
>>
>> For that matter, atheists have other options than evolution to
>> explain the presence of the diversity of life, but evolution remains the
>> best scientific explanation for the evidence.

As usual, Ray ignores the meat of the argument....

>>
>> "God" is not an explanation for the existence of species, or the
>> diversity of life, even for those who believe there is such a being.
>
> Severe delusion.

How is this a "severe delusion"? Saying "God" doesn't explain
anything, it's just wishful thinking.

>
>> There has to be a mechanism by which species came about.
>>
>
> Materialism.

Ray apparently lives in a "demon haunted" world, where natural laws and
processes don't exist.

>
>>
>>
>>>> Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?
>>
>>> Because I judge Behe not to be an Atheist.
>>
>> Which is an obvious double standard on your part.
>>
>>> He is actually worse than
>>> an Atheist. In the book I am currently writing the big guys over at
>>> the DI, along with the Dana Tweedy's, Ron Okimoto's and Tony Pagano's
>>> of the world, receive the brunt of my wrath.
>>
>> Ohhhhh, I'm on the receiving end of Ray's 'wrath'. Imagine how scared
>> I am not.
>>
>
> Imagine that; a "Christian" who stands with Dawkins and not the Bible
> not the least bit worried!

Ray, you seem to have forgotten that you aren't God, and I don't have
anything to fear from you. What I don't accept is your personal
interpretation of the Bible. You are the one who "stands with Dawkins"
in the belief that God and science can't co exist.

>
> Exactly what I intend to explain.

Intentions are all very well, but without any connection to reality,
your "explanations" fall flat.

>
>>> You won't be
>>> disappointed. The problem is that the "Christian-Evolutionist" is much
>>> harder to explain.
>>
>> Not really. A Christian who accepts evolution does so because it's the
>> best scientific explanation for the evidence. Nothing hard to explain
>> there.
>>
>>> In addition: I am also writing and preparing a
>>> paper called "The Case Against Tony Pagano."
>>
>> One must wonder why Ray feels this is necessary, or even rational to do
>> so.
>>
>>> I have decided to use
>>> material from my book in the paper, which means, of course, plenty of
>>> references and some re-working of the sentences and paragraphs. I
>>> could actually title the work "The Preliminary Case Against Christian
>>> Evolutionists" because my text seeks to explain why persons who
>>> consider themselves Christians accept the same explanations of nature
>>> that Atheists MUST accept.
>>
>> The answer is above. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for
>> the evidence.
>
> If you're an Atheist, yes.

One doesn't have to be an atheist to accept that evolution is the best
scientific explanation for the evidence. That's the whole point you
have been ignoring.

>
>> Whatever atheists accept is entirely irrelevant to that
>> fact. There are many other possible ideas to explain the diversity of
>> life that does not invoke a supernatural being, but only evolution has
>> scientific evidence that supports the idea.
>>
>>> Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work,
>>> will get what's coming to them.
>>
>> I'm sure that Tony, and Dr. Behe are just as terrified of Ray's "wrath"
>> as I am. Imagine, the sheer weight of Ray's "logic" and "scientific
>> acumen" being directed against one! It would be like being savagely
>> attacked by a dead field mouse.

Again, it appears Ray has mistaken himself for God.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/28/12 3:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Jun 28, 2:21 pm, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:39:16 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
>>> per generation, none is needed.
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Ray
>>
>> This is precisely the statement you have been asked about twice and haven't answered.
>>
>> Can you tell me what biological process is involved in limiting mutation and fixation to a single modification per generation.
>>
>> Who discovered this effect, and where were the results of the study published?
>
> Darwin 1859: an individual becomes modified (don't ask me how, it just
> happens),

Darwin didn't claim an individual "becomes modified", but that
individuals in any population are born with variations. Later he
flirted with the idea of acquired traits being passed on, but that was
later found to be false. He didn't know about DNA, or mutations, but
he could see that variations happen in any population.


> it then breeds,

Not every variation in a population will be passed on to the next
generation, only those which either give an advantage, or are neutral.
An individual with a particular variation can only out breed it's
population cohorts if it can be more successful in leaving more offspring.

Without understanding the fact of differential reproductive success,
you miss the entire point of natural selection.

> then said modification becomes fixed in the
> population = evolution has occurred.

The modification becomes fixed in a population, only if that
modification has some advantage, or doesn't harm the individual enough
to prevent reproduction.

> Repeat process over and over.
> Eventually, the explanation as to how speciation occurs should be
> inserted here.

The explanation of how speciation occurs is that a population becomes
isolated from the parent population, and accrues enough genetic changes
to make it unable to interbreed with the parent population.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/28/12 4:23 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird<pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
snip

>> No - that is the claim of the IDiots and creotards when they argue
>> against evolution.
>>
>> Usually via the Improbabilty 'Argument' : "The odds of these X
>> proteins arising all at once PURELY BY CHANCE is 1 in 10^gazookillions
>> against !! Therefore, GOD/DESIGNER DIDIT !!1!!1!!!!!!!11!!!!"
>>
>
> The improbability argument and its conclusion is completely sound and
> justified.

Actually, it's not. Evolution doesn't operate purely by chance.

snip

>> According to the IDiots, blood clotting is IC - examination of reality
>> (and actual OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY) show how it could have evolved.
>>
>> Every single IC system the IDiots have presented has been shown to be
>> evolvable.
>>
>
> There must be a degree of complexity that evolutionary processes
> cannot produce. If not said process not falsifiable. Do you agree?

I suspect he would not agree, nor would anyone who knows how science
works. There's no reason why there would be a "degree of complexity"
that evolution could not produce. There are other ways of falsifying
evolution.


snip

>> "Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work, will get what's coming to
>> them."
>>
>> Somehow, I doubt they'd find being screamed at by a deranged f*ckwit
>> with a tenuous grasp on reality is much of a threat ..
>
> Prof Weird defends Tony and Behe, priceless.

He doesn't "defend" them. He's pointing out that you are not a threat
to anyone.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/28/12 4:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird<pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:

snip

>>> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
>>> per generation, none is needed.
>>
>> Where did you get THAT silly idea from ?
>>
>
> Darwin.

Darwin never said that "only one modification can be spread into a
breeding population per generation". Where did you get that silly
idea from?

>
>> Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
>> willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?
>>
>
> The issue was number of modifications. One per generation. And yes the
> claim is that these modifications accumulate.

No one ever claimed that only one "modification" per generation was
possible. That's entirely your own mistake. Darwin knew, as does
anyone familiar with populations, that there may be hundreds, if not
thousands of "modifications" in each generation. Each individual in
that population has at least several hundreds unique mutations, and a
breeding population needs to be several thousands to maintain genetic
diversity.



>
> An individual becomes modified,

No, and individual does not "become modified". It's born with a set of
mutations. Acquired characteristics don't get passed on in the DNA.


> then it breeds,

A individual's chance of breeding is directly influenced by the nature
of it's mutation, and the environment it faces. Not every individual
in a population lives to breed. There is a correlation with the chances
of passing on a mutation and the utility of that mutation. Harmful
mutations don't normally allow the individual to breed. Advantageous
mutations allow a greater chance for breeding. Neutral mutations, the
most common, don't affect the chances of breeding.

> eventually the entire
> population inherits the modification.

Not quite. The modification will become statistically more common in
the population. With enough selectional pressure, a advantageous
mutation may spread to the entire population.

> Where in the scenario is room
> for multiple modifications?

In that there is more than just one individual breeding. Each
individual carries several hundred mutations. Most of these mutations
are neutral, and have no effect on chance of breeding.

> Herein we see the dual claim of
> gradualism: slow rate and slight change (= Darwinian evolution).

Herein we see that Ray is woefully ignorant about statistics, change,
and how evolution really works.

snipping the rest


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/28/12 2:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
>>>> natural selection?
>>
>>> Since natural selection is limited
>>
>> By what?
>>
>>> in the number of modifications that
>>> it can preserve at any one time,
>>
>> What number is that? Show the math, please.
>>
>

> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> per generation, none is needed.

Ray, this is one of your more serious blunders. "Modifications" in any
population are hardly limited to one at a time, in any breeding
population. Each individual that breeds carries several hundred
mutations, and breeding populations are usually in the tens of thousands
of individuals, at the very minimum.

>
>>> 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.
>>

>> Why not? Detail the mechanism, and show why it doesn't work.
>>

>> ---
>> raven1
>> aa # 1096
>> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
>> BAAWA Knight
>

> So 42 proteins suddenly appeared and were selected simultaneously? Is
> this your claim?

There's no reason for "42" proteins to have appeared simultaneously.
The proteins could have been assembled individually over many
generations, with each step having a different functional reason for
being fixed. Again, your, and Behe's error is in assuming that
evolution can only add functions, not change, and delete them.



DJT





>
> Ray
>

[Dana Tweedy]

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

>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>>
>>>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>

>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> 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
> needed.

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.


DJT




>
> Ray
>
>

[Prof Weird]

On Jun 28, 6:05 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>

> > On Jun 28, 4:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 27, 8:00 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> > > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Jun 27, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >> On Jun 27, 8:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > YouTube: 1 minute and 36 seconds of your time:
>
> > > > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
>
> > > > >> > Ray
>
> > > > >> In the video, what does he mean with natural selection: what is a
> > > > >> natural selection?
>
> > > > >Since natural selection is limited
>

> > > > By what?

>
> > > > >in the number of modifications that
> > > > >it can preserve at any one time,
>

> > > > What number is that? Show the math, please.
>
> > > Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> > > per generation, none is needed.
>

> > Where did you get THAT silly idea from ?
>
> Darwin.

Care to provide a cite for that ? I suspect you've 'misinterpreted'
something that is far beyond your willfully limited understanding.

> > Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
> > willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?
>
> The issue was number of modifications. One per generation. And yes the
> claim is that these modifications accumulate.

Again, twit : from what festering orifice did you pull the 'idea' that
evolution can only work 'one modification per generation' ?

For some modifications, that would be EXTREMELY FAST - much greater
than observed rates ! It can take many generations to fix even one
modification.

Good thing that, IN REALITY, there has been more than enough time for
many interesting and great modifications to happen - fins into hands,
hands into wings (THREE different ways !), wrist bones into a thumb,
etc.

> An individual becomes modified, then it breeds, eventually the entire
> population inherits the modification. Where in the scenario is room
> for multiple modifications?

An individual becomes modified when it INHERITS a novel mutation. If
this presents a relative advantage (or at least not overly lethal), it
spreads through the population - more and more critters INHERIT the
modification. It can take HUNDREDS of generations before a given
mutation fixes (ie, is present in nearly every member of the
population).

Multiple modifications enter the scenario by the FACT that evolution
happens to POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS.

For instance - if the weather starts getting colder, there are many
DIFFERENT modifications that can help : thicker fur, more body fat,
larger size, etc.

ALL MODIFICATIONS CAN SPREAD THROUGH THE POPULATION AT THE SAME TIME -
eventually, you may end up with critters with multiple modifications.

> Herein we see the dual claim of
> gradualism: slow rate and slight change (= Darwinian evolution).

Given the FACT that most mutations are slight alterations of what is
already present, and the FACT that it may take hundreds of generations
for a given mutation to fix,
you've actually came close to saying something RIGHT for a change !

[Prof Weird]

On Jun 28, 6:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
> > > > >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.
>
> > > > Why not? Detail the mechanism, and show why it doesn't work.
>
> > > > ---
> > > > raven1
> > > > aa # 1096
> > > > EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> > > > BAAWA Knight
>
> > > So 42 proteins suddenly appeared and were selected simultaneously? Is
> > > this your claim?
>
> > No - that is the claim of the IDiots and creotards when they argue
> > against evolution.
>
> > Usually via the Improbabilty 'Argument' : "The odds of these X
> > proteins arising all at once PURELY BY CHANCE is 1 in 10^gazookillions
> > against !! Therefore, GOD/DESIGNER DIDIT !!1!!1!!!!!!!11!!!!"
>
> The improbability argument and its conclusion is completely sound and
> justified.

Only if you are STUPID enough to 'think' that all 42 proteins had to
arise and assemble all at once PURELY by chance.

Given that no sane or rational person believes evolution works that
way, the improbability argument is thus worthless.

> > The reality-based community realized decades ago that complexity can
> > increase.  Quite easily.
>
> > And that functions of a system can change.  And that parts of a system
> > can be added, subtracted, or modified sequentially.  A part can be
> > added that, at first, merely helps but, over time, becomes
> > indispensable.
>
> > The system BECAME 'IC'.  Given the fact that there are many different
> > routes an IC system can evolve, finding an IC system does not show an
> > unknowable being somehow did something for some reason.
>
> > The reality-based community figures the flagellum built up over time;
> > the IDio-creotards 'think' it had to arise all at once in a single
> > 'POOF !!!' of God/'Designer' intervention.
>
> > According to Behe, the immune system is IC - the evolution crowd could
> > look high and low for a Darwinian way to make it, but there is none.
>
> > Examination of REALITY (and actual real world experiments) showed that
> > the immune system could evolve.
>
> > According to the IDiots, the flagellum is IC - examination of reality
> > (and actual LAB WORK) showed it could have evolved.
>
> > According to the IDiots, blood clotting is IC - examination of reality
> > (and actual OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY) show how it could have evolved.
>
> > Every single IC system the IDiots have presented has been shown to be
> > evolvable.
>
> There must be a degree of complexity that evolutionary processes
> cannot produce. If not said process not falsifiable. Do you agree?

Why, EXACTLY, 'must' there be a degree of complexity that evolutionary
processes cannot produce ?

There are ways to falsify evolutionary processes - complexity isn't
one of them.

How, EXACTLY, would someone DETERMINE that any given 'degree of
complexity' was something evolutionary processes cannot produce ?

That is the question IDiots need to answer - merely bleating 'IT BE
COMPLEX, THEREFORE GOD/DESIGNER DIDIT !!!!!!' is useless.

> > More Raytardian posturing :

>
> > "Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work, will get what's coming to
> > them."
>
> > Somehow, I doubt they'd find being screamed at by a deranged f*ckwit
> > with a tenuous grasp on reality is much of a threat ..
>
> Prof Weird defends Tony and Behe, priceless.

I'm not defending those posturing twits, I'm merely pointing out that
your 'wrath' is an impotent threat at best.

You're kinda like a drunkard threatening to give the moon a black eye
if it doesn't stop shining so brightly at night and keeping you up ...

[Syamsu]

On Jun 30, 4:46 am, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:

> There are ways to falsify evolutionary processes - complexity isn't
> one of them.
>
> How, EXACTLY, would someone DETERMINE that any given 'degree of
> complexity' was something evolutionary processes cannot produce ?
>
> That is the question IDiots need to answer - merely bleating 'IT BE
> COMPLEX, THEREFORE GOD/DESIGNER DIDIT !!!!!!' is useless.

You are deluded by Darwinist rhetoric. Mathematically it does not work
to have the DNA changed in bits, and then come up with something
useful. Neither can you produce a movie by changing bits on a DVD
independently.

But mathematics shows you can produce organisms by deciding DNA as a
whole. And this decision is still "random", in the sense that in the
event the decision could have turned out an alternative way. There is
no scientific argument in favor of accidental assembly of DNA +
selection, over deciding DNA as a whole. Science points towards
intelligent design, it is mainly prejudice which points towards
initial accidental assembly.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 29, 10:57 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:39:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >...only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> >per generation
>
> "...can be..."? Care to explain why you think this is true,
> and not simply a matter of probability? Cites would be of
> help as you try to make your case.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

I simply conveyed Darwin's original conception of how evolution
occurs.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:45:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.t...@wanadoo.fr:

It's been quite a while since my high school biology class,
so I went to the Internet. The following link to a .pdf file
which answers your question in detail took me all of 2
minutes to locate:

www.flc.phila.k12.pa.us/kiefer/laps/PDF/LAP__8_Traits_of_Living_Things_090604.pdf

Enjoy!

(And remember that, as noted in an earlier thread, while no
test is guaranteed 100% accurate the listed traits taken as
a group will probably differentiate 99.99%+ of all samples
into the correct category.)

[Ray Martinez]

Genuine disagreement does not appear in Dana's replies; rather, he
felt a need to provide additional explanation and information.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 29, 5:42 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/12 5:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jun 28, 2:58 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >>> Actually, what I do say, quite often, is that since no God exists to
> >>> cause anything to exist Atheists MUST accept the concept of evolution
> >>> (species producing species) in order to explain the existence of
> >>> species and diversity.
>
> >> Why would it matter what choice atheists may, or may not have?   Science
> >> is not the province of atheists alone, and the opinions of atheists has
> >> little to do with science.
>
> >>     For that matter, atheists have other options than evolution to
> >> explain the presence of the diversity of life, but evolution remains the
> >> best scientific explanation for the evidence.
>
> As usual, Ray ignores the meat of the argument....
>

Atheists have no other option other than the concept of evolution.
Your traditional response says "Yes they do" then you offer an
"alternative" that supports my claim. IOW, your response is incredibly
stupid----that's why I ignore. So go ahead and prove me wrong.

>
>
> >>     "God" is not an explanation for the existence of species, or the
> >> diversity of life, even for those who believe there is such a being.
>
> > Severe delusion.
>
> How is this a "severe delusion"?   Saying "God" doesn't explain
> anything, it's just wishful thinking.
>

Your reply supports my observation. Your reply said God is not an
option for believers. Your inability to understand this simple point
can only be explained by severe delusion. In your thinking everyone
sides with Atheism, including Christians. In reality, Christians
explain reality as the work of God, Atheists do not.

>
>
> >> There has to be a mechanism by which species came about.
>
> > Materialism.
>
> Ray apparently lives in a "demon haunted" world, where natural laws and
> processes don't exist.
>

Dana does not deny.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?
>
> >>> Because I judge Behe not to be an Atheist.
>
> >> Which is an obvious double standard on your part.
>
> >>> He is actually worse than
> >>> an Atheist. In the book I am currently writing the big guys over at
> >>> the DI, along with the Dana Tweedy's, Ron Okimoto's and Tony Pagano's
> >>> of the world, receive the brunt of my wrath.
>
> >> Ohhhhh, I'm on the receiving end of Ray's 'wrath'.   Imagine how scared
> >> I am not.
>
> > Imagine that; a "Christian" who stands with Dawkins and not the Bible
> > not the least bit worried!
>
> Ray, you seem to have forgotten that you aren't God, and I don't have
> anything to fear from you.   What I don't accept is your personal
> interpretation of the Bible.  You are the one who "stands with Dawkins"
> in the belief that God and science can't co exist.
>

Imagine that; even God stands with Dawkins in Dana's world!

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/12 4:23 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird<pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu>  wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> No - that is the claim of the IDiots and creotards when they argue
> >> against evolution.
>
> >> Usually via the Improbabilty 'Argument' : "The odds of these X
> >> proteins arising all at once PURELY BY CHANCE is 1 in 10^gazookillions
> >> against !! Therefore, GOD/DESIGNER DIDIT !!1!!1!!!!!!!11!!!!"
>
> > The improbability argument and its conclusion is completely sound and
> > justified.
>
> Actually, it's not.  Evolution doesn't operate purely by chance.
>

Since Intelligence is ruled out, yes it does. The anti-chance mantra
exists to deceive the Christian public. Atheists believe the wonders
of reality were produced by chance, accident and luck.

> snip
>
> >> According to the IDiots, blood clotting is IC - examination of reality
> >> (and actual OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY) show how it could have evolved.
>
> >> Every single IC system the IDiots have presented has been shown to be
> >> evolvable.
>
> > There must be a degree of complexity that evolutionary processes
> > cannot produce. If not said process not falsifiable. Do you agree?
>
> I suspect he would not agree, nor would anyone who knows how science
> works.   There's no reason why there would be a "degree of complexity"
> that evolution could not produce.   There are other ways of falsifying
> evolution.
>

In other words, I just hit on a major issue where evolution is NOT
falsifiable.

> snip
>
> >> "Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work, will get what's coming to
> >> them."
>
> >> Somehow, I doubt they'd find being screamed at by a deranged f*ckwit
> >> with a tenuous grasp on reality is much of a threat ..
>
> > Prof Weird defends Tony and Behe, priceless.
>
> He doesn't "defend" them.  He's pointing out that you are not a threat
> to anyone.
>
> DJT

He suddenly had to defend two Evolutionists against a real anti-
evolutionist. This is what happens when a real species immutabilist
enters the room. The phony anti-evolutionists are instantly exposed.

Ray (Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 29, 6:19 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/12 4:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird<pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu>  wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
> >>> per generation, none is needed.
>
> >> Where did you get THAT silly idea from ?
>
> > Darwin.
>
> Darwin never said that "only one modification can be spread into a
> breeding population per generation".    Where did you get that silly
> idea from?
>

You've said it yourself on many occasions in the past.

Now, below, you are changing your "story" to conform with more modern
versions.

>
>
> >> Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
> >> willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?
>
> > The issue was number of modifications. One per generation. And yes the
> > claim is that these modifications accumulate.
>
> No one ever claimed that only one "modification" per generation was
> possible.   That's entirely your own mistake.   Darwin knew, as does
> anyone familiar with populations, that there may be hundreds, if not
> thousands of "modifications" in each generation.

Challenged.

Show me where Darwin said what you have him knowing.

> Each individual in
> that population has at least several hundreds unique mutations, and a
> breeding population needs to be several thousands to maintain genetic
> diversity.
>

A total non-sequitur.

>
>
> > An individual becomes modified,
>
> No, and individual does not "become modified".  It's born with a set of
> mutations.  Acquired characteristics don't get passed on in the DNA.
>

More non-sequitur.

> > then it breeds,
>
> A individual's chance of breeding is directly influenced by the nature
> of it's mutation, and the environment it faces.   Not every individual
> in a population lives to breed.  There is a correlation with the chances
> of passing on a mutation and the utility of that mutation.   Harmful
> mutations don't normally allow the individual to breed.  Advantageous
> mutations allow a greater chance for breeding.  Neutral mutations, the
> most common, don't affect the chances of breeding.
>
> > eventually the entire
> > population inherits the modification.
>
> Not quite.  The modification will become statistically more common in
> the population.   With enough selectional pressure, a advantageous
> mutation may spread to the entire population.
>
> > Where in the scenario is room
> > for multiple modifications?
>
> In that there is more than just one individual breeding.  Each
> individual carries several hundred mutations.  Most of these mutations
> are neutral, and have no effect on chance of breeding.
>

Like I said: You are communicating current understandings, which is
not at issue in this particular context. Based on your past refusal to
admit nothing, don't expect another reply from me regarding this issue
and context.

> > Herein we see the dual claim of
> > gradualism: slow rate and slight change (= Darwinian evolution).
>
> Herein we see that Ray is woefully ignorant about statistics, change,
> and how evolution really works.
>
> snipping the rest
>
> DJT

Your reply supports my initial point in this response.

Ray

[TomS]

"On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:32:28 -0700, in article
<pnduu7drunac2sbc7...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."

We need not be so demanding of "design".

How about just one or two *examples* of things which are *not* designed?

Even *hypthetical* examples - things are not real or not possible would
be interesting.

The only unreal things that I can think of seem to be designed - centaurs,
time machines, "Penrose triangles" - not the products of merely natural
regularities.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Ray Martinez]

The issue was: how evolution occurs. Instead, you point out a total
number in any given population.

Why bother replying Dana? And I know for a fact that you and most evos
around here do not know the basic distinction between selection and
drift.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Then convey how evolution occurs?----the basic scenario?

Waiting....

> > > Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
> > > willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?
>
> > The issue was number of modifications. One per generation. And yes the
> > claim is that these modifications accumulate.
>
> Again, twit : from what festering orifice did you pull the 'idea' that
> evolution can only work 'one modification per generation' ?
>
> For some modifications, that would be EXTREMELY FAST - much greater
> than observed rates !  It can take many generations to fix even one
> modification.
>
> Good thing that, IN REALITY, there has been more than enough time for
> many interesting and great modifications to happen - fins into hands,
> hands into wings (THREE different ways !), wrist bones into a thumb,
> etc.
>
> > An individual becomes modified, then it breeds, eventually the entire
> > population inherits the modification. Where in the scenario is room
> > for multiple modifications?
>
> An individual becomes modified when it INHERITS a novel mutation.  If
> this presents a relative advantage (or at least not overly lethal), it
> spreads through the population - more and more critters INHERIT the
> modification.  It can take HUNDREDS of generations before a given
> mutation fixes (ie, is present in nearly every member of the
> population).
>

So its even more slow than I said.

> Multiple modifications enter the scenario by the FACT that evolution
> happens to POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS.
>

Regarding populations I never said otherwise. You need to actually
read what I said. Have you ever taken a class on developing your
listening skills?

> For instance - if the weather starts getting colder, there are many
> DIFFERENT modifications that can help : thicker fur, more body fat,
> larger size, etc.
>
> ALL MODIFICATIONS CAN SPREAD THROUGH THE POPULATION AT THE SAME TIME -
> eventually, you may end up with critters with multiple modifications.
>
> > Herein we see the dual claim of
> > gradualism: slow rate and slight change (= Darwinian evolution).
>
> Given the FACT that most mutations are slight alterations of what is
> already present, and the FACT that it may take hundreds of generations
> for a given mutation to fix,
> you've actually came close to saying something RIGHT for a change !

What I said above (in which you agree) and what you have said in this
overall reply contradict.

Ray

[Prof Weird]

As am I for your cite that SHOWS Darwin claimed that only one
modification can spread per generation.

Evolution occurs when a modification spreads through a population -
ie, the standard 'change in allele frequency over time' you've
probably been told thousands of times before.

This can take quite some time - in fact, Darwin WOULD HAVE KNOWN
THAT !

He bred pigeons, and talked to other pigeon breeders. They informed
him that they could breed for a particular trait, but it would take a
few years to get even one.

That means it would require several generations to get what they
wanted.

If it was 'one modification per generation', they could produce any
variety pretty much at will in much less time.

So why, EXACTLY, would Darwin claim that 'only one modification per
generation can spread', given the FACT that even he would've known it
occurs much slower than that ?

Did you read something on a creotard website that claimed to be from
Darwin, and accepted it without thought or question - like the
ridiculous regurgitations of that charlatan you worship, Dr Gene
Scott ?

> > > > Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
> > > > willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?
>
> > > The issue was number of modifications. One per generation. And yes the
> > > claim is that these modifications accumulate.
>
> > Again, twit : from what festering orifice did you pull the 'idea' that
> > evolution can only work 'one modification per generation' ?
>
> > For some modifications, that would be EXTREMELY FAST - much greater
> > than observed rates !  It can take many generations to fix even one
> > modification.
>
> > Good thing that, IN REALITY, there has been more than enough time for
> > many interesting and great modifications to happen - fins into hands,
> > hands into wings (THREE different ways !), wrist bones into a thumb,
> > etc.
>
> > > An individual becomes modified, then it breeds, eventually the entire
> > > population inherits the modification. Where in the scenario is room
> > > for multiple modifications?
>
> > An individual becomes modified when it INHERITS a novel mutation.  If
> > this presents a relative advantage (or at least not overly lethal), it
> > spreads through the population - more and more critters INHERIT the
> > modification.  It can take HUNDREDS of generations before a given
> > mutation fixes (ie, is present in nearly every member of the
> > population).
>
> So its even more slow than I said.

And there has been more than enough time for all observed
modifications to spread. You still lose.

There has been enough time to modify fins into hands, and hands into
wings - THREE DIFFERENT WAYS (the pterosaurs, bats, and birds have
wings which are modified hands, but the changes are different in each
lineage).

Enough time to modify a single cell into everything on the planet -
unless you've got evidence to the contrary ?

You know, like EVIDENCE that a Magical Sky Pixie exists, and actually
DID anything you assert He/She/It/They did ?

> > Multiple modifications enter the scenario by the FACT that evolution
> > happens to POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS.
>
> Regarding populations I never said otherwise. You need to actually
> read what I said. Have you ever taken a class on developing your
> listening skills ?

'Interesting' dodge there Ray ! When shown you're wrong, puff
yourself up and act pompous. Have you been taking lessons from
Krackpot Kleinman ?

If populations evolve, then there is no problem with multiple
modifications entering the scenario at one time.

Again, simpleton : if three modifications occur in a population, then
can ALL spread at the same time. Thus refuting your simple arsed
'only one modification/generation at a time'.

And many 'modifications' in living things are polygenic - the result
of interactions of many genes at once. So if six genes regulate
height, and selection for increased height occurs, then MULTIPLE genes
are fixing at once.

> > For instance - if the weather starts getting colder, there are many
> > DIFFERENT modifications that can help : thicker fur, more body fat,
> > larger size, etc.
>
> > ALL MODIFICATIONS CAN SPREAD THROUGH THE POPULATION AT THE SAME TIME -
> > eventually, you may end up with critters with multiple modifications.
>
> > > Herein we see the dual claim of
> > > gradualism: slow rate and slight change (= Darwinian evolution).
>
> > Given the FACT that most mutations are slight alterations of what is
> > already present, and the FACT that it may take hundreds of generations
> > for a given mutation to fix,
> > you've actually came close to saying something RIGHT for a change !
>
> What I said above (in which you agree) and what you have said in this
> overall reply contradict.

Only if you're a demented f*ckwit that 'thinks' bellicose idiocy is
relevant, and can't tell the difference between what people actually
say vs what the strawmen in your thick skull say.

You flatulently assert that the flagellum is IC; examination of
reality shows it is not - there are ways to evolve it.

You drool that 'improbability arguments are valid and sound' - they
are not, since they are based on the stupid idea that ALL parts of a
system must arise and fall together all at once purely by chance.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Here is a genuine disagreement then.

Your statement upthread that ". . . only one modification can be spread into a breeding population, per generation . . ." is completely incorrect.

Mutations occur **in parallel** at large numbers of genetic loci in an organism's genome. If any of the mutations are neutral wrt to phenotypic fitness, they may rise or fall in frequency, become fixed in the population or disappear by the process of genetic drift. This happens **in parallel** for all neutral mutations in the population.

If the current set of mutations present in an individual increases its overall phenotypic fitness compared to the rest of the population, natural selection will ensure that its specific set of mutations increases in frequency - even if **some** of the mutations are deleterious. Conversely, natural selection will select against an individual whose overall fitness is reduced by the set of mutations it carries - even if some of them are beneficial. This process works **in parallel** for all mutations in the individual's genome.

Your idea that natural selection somehow picks one mutation to work on in each generation is bizarre. What do you think happens to the other mutations in the meantime? Is their expression in the individual's body somehow turned off? Do they twiddle their thumbs and stare out the window?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 30 juin, 19:32, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> It's been quite a while since my high school biology class,
> so I went to the Internet. The following link to a .pdf file
> which answers your question in detail took me all of 2
> minutes to locate:
>

> www.flc.phila.k12.pa.us/kiefer/laps/PDF/LAP__8_Traits_of_Living_Thing...
>
> Enjoy!

Sorry but the link doesn't work.
Can't you give at least one example from yourself?
I can help you:
- you choose a definition of life to have a cutoff between nonliving
and living things,
- then, you propose a test in the search for the first signs of such
living things on early earth.

> (And remember that, as noted in an earlier thread, while no
> test is guaranteed 100% accurate the listed traits taken as
> a group will probably differentiate 99.99%+ of all samples
> into the correct category.)
>
> >> no such test has been presented which will differentiate
> >> even *most* design from non-design.
>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."

>                           - McNameless- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 30, 10:32 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:45:22 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr:

> www.flc.phila.k12.pa.us/kiefer/laps/PDF/LAP__8_Traits_of_Living_Thing...

>
> Enjoy!
>
> (And remember that, as noted in an earlier thread, while no
> test is guaranteed 100% accurate the listed traits taken as
> a group will probably differentiate 99.99%+ of all samples
> into the correct category.)
>
> >> no such test has been presented which will differentiate
> >> even *most* design from non-design.
>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

Bob: I'd like to see you engage marc.tess. I think I can help. Here is
a definition of "life" that might help: "the ability to relate to
one's environment." (Note the quote marks, said definition not created
by me, but by someone else.)

Ray

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 30 juin, 22:12, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
< Bob: I'd like to see you engage marc.tess. I think I can help. Here
is
> a definition of "life" that might help: "the ability to relate to
> one's environment." (Note the quote marks, said definition not created
> by me, but by someone else.)
>
> Ray

Ok for this definition. Then, which test do you propose when searching
for the first signs of living things on early earth?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 30 juin, 19:32, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> It's been quite a while since my high school biology class,
> so I went to the Internet. The following link to a .pdf file
> which answers your question in detail took me all of 2
> minutes to locate:
>

> www.flc.phila.k12.pa.us/kiefer/laps/PDF/LAP__8_Traits_of_Living_Thing...

>
> Enjoy!
>
> (And remember that, as noted in an earlier thread, while no
> test is guaranteed 100% accurate the listed traits taken as
> a group will probably differentiate 99.99%+ of all samples
> into the correct category.)

Finally I found the 8 following proposed traits for a living thing:
1. reproduces
2. made of cells
3. grows and develops
4. has a life span
5. uses or needs energy
6. responds and adjusts to changes
7. Adaptation
8. evolves over time
Then a test should be found to be able to look for the first signs of
such a living thing.
Actually most of the traits are not precise enough to predict specific
signs
4. has a life span,
5. uses or needs energy,
6. responds and adjusts to changes,
7. adaptation
One trait is impossible:
8. evolves over time: one thing cannot evolve! (probably the author
means that the population is able to evolve).
Finally it is impossible to find specific signs with such a definition
as it is not accurate enough.
Sorry, but you have to find a better definition.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/30/12 11:32 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 29, 5:42 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 5:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jun 28, 2:58 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Actually, what I do say, quite often, is that since no God exists to
>>>>> cause anything to exist Atheists MUST accept the concept of evolution
>>>>> (species producing species) in order to explain the existence of
>>>>> species and diversity.
>>
>>>> Why would it matter what choice atheists may, or may not have? Science
>>>> is not the province of atheists alone, and the opinions of atheists has
>>>> little to do with science.
>>
>>>> For that matter, atheists have other options than evolution to
>>>> explain the presence of the diversity of life, but evolution remains the
>>>> best scientific explanation for the evidence.
>>
>> As usual, Ray ignores the meat of the argument....
>>
>
> Atheists have no other option other than the concept of evolution.

Whatever atheists do, or don't do is irrelevant. The theory of

evolution is the best scientific explanation for the evidence.

> Your traditional response says "Yes they do" then you offer an
> "alternative" that supports my claim.

Ray, any "alternative" to evolution would have to be scientific as well.
Your mistake is in assuming that there are only two choices, ie,
evolution and creation.

> IOW, your response is incredibly
> stupid----that's why I ignore. So go ahead and prove me wrong.

The point I make, and have been making is that evolution is the best
scientific explanation for the evidence. There are other possible
explanations, but none of them have the same evidentiary support.

The fact remains that species change over time, and your position
that species change does not happen is sheer lunacy. Whatever
explanation offered has to take in this fact, that species are not fixed.


Whatever "choices" an atheist has, it's not relevant to the facts
that support evolution.

Atheists support evolution because it's good science, not because your
mistaken assumption that it excludes God.

>
>>
>>
>>>> "God" is not an explanation for the existence of species, or the
>>>> diversity of life, even for those who believe there is such a being.
>>
>>> Severe delusion.
>>
>> How is this a "severe delusion"? Saying "God" doesn't explain
>> anything, it's just wishful thinking.
>>
>
> Your reply supports my observation.

No, my reply asks you to show where my point is a "delusion". This is
something you've failed to do in the past, and fail to do now.

> Your reply said God is not an
> option for believers.

Ah, so your claim is based on a misrepresentation of my statement. I
didn't say that "God is not an option", I said that "God" is not an
explanation. Do you see the difference?

There's no reason why God can't use natural processes as a means of
creation, but just saying "Goddidit" without offering any mechanism by
which God did things, is not an explanation for a physical phenomena.
It's a lack of explanation.

> Your inability to understand this simple point
> can only be explained by severe delusion.

Actually, it's better explained by your inability to comprehend my
point. I didn't say that God can't be involved. I am saying that if
God is involved, he had to use some physical mechanism to carry out his
wishes. That's why saying "Goddidit" is not an explanation.

> In your thinking everyone
> sides with Atheism, including Christians.

Wrong again, Ray, and this really shows you don't understand my
"thinking" or the thinking of any rational being. I don't assume
everyone "sides with atheism". Christians, if they are rational, accept
that physical laws and processes exist, and believe by faith that God
expresses himself through those laws and processes.

Atheists, of course, don't believe God exists, and only accept that
the physical exists.

> In reality, Christians
> explain reality as the work of God, Atheists do not.

Ray, if you had any acquaintance with reality, you'd see your many
errors. Christians believe that God exists, but they also understand
that the physical world exists, and operates by natural laws and
processes. It's not all a matter of God's whim.

>
>>
>>
>>>> There has to be a mechanism by which species came about.
>>
>>> Materialism.
>>
>> Ray apparently lives in a "demon haunted" world, where natural laws and
>> processes don't exist.
>>
>
> Dana does not deny.

What I deny is that Christians have to give up an understanding of the
physical to maintain a belief that the spiritual exists. Ray
apparently assumes that only the spiritual exists, and apparently
everything we see is just a mirage.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Why doesn't the same argument apply against Behe?
>>
>>>>> Because I judge Behe not to be an Atheist.
>>
>>>> Which is an obvious double standard on your part.
>>
>>>>> He is actually worse than
>>>>> an Atheist. In the book I am currently writing the big guys over at
>>>>> the DI, along with the Dana Tweedy's, Ron Okimoto's and Tony Pagano's
>>>>> of the world, receive the brunt of my wrath.
>>
>>>> Ohhhhh, I'm on the receiving end of Ray's 'wrath'. Imagine how scared
>>>> I am not.
>>
>>> Imagine that; a "Christian" who stands with Dawkins and not the Bible
>>> not the least bit worried!
>>
>> Ray, you seem to have forgotten that you aren't God, and I don't have
>> anything to fear from you. What I don't accept is your personal
>> interpretation of the Bible. You are the one who "stands with Dawkins"
>> in the belief that God and science can't co exist.
>>
>
> Imagine that; even God stands with Dawkins in Dana's world!

God, it would seem, accepts that the physical world exists, and if that
is what Ray means by "standing with Dawkins", then apparently God does
that.

Ray once again forgets he's not God, nor is his personal interpretation
of the Bible the same as God. You believe, like Richard Dawkins, that
belief in God is a matter of scientific evidence. Christians tend to
believe that God's existence is a matter of faith. You, and Dawkins
both lack the faith to believe in God, no matter what science says.

>
>>
>>
>>> Exactly what I intend to explain.
>>
>> Intentions are all very well, but without any connection to reality,
>> your "explanations" fall flat.

Once again, Ray ignores the point.

snip

>>>> The answer is above. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for
>>>> the evidence.
>>
>>> If you're an Atheist, yes.
>>
>> One doesn't have to be an atheist to accept that evolution is the best
>> scientific explanation for the evidence. That's the whole point you
>> have been ignoring.

And Ray ignores this point as well. What cowardice.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> Whatever atheists accept is entirely irrelevant to that
>>>> fact. There are many other possible ideas to explain the diversity of
>>>> life that does not invoke a supernatural being, but only evolution has
>>>> scientific evidence that supports the idea.
>>
>>>>> Tony Pagano and Michael Behe, in this work,
>>>>> will get what's coming to them.
>>
>>>> I'm sure that Tony, and Dr. Behe are just as terrified of Ray's "wrath"
>>>> as I am. Imagine, the sheer weight of Ray's "logic" and "scientific
>>>> acumen" being directed against one! It would be like being savagely
>>>> attacked by a dead field mouse.
>>
>> Again, it appears Ray has mistaken himself for God.

Apparently Ray still can't tell the difference between himself and God.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/30/12 2:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

> Bob: I'd like to see you engage marc.tess. I think I can help. Here is
> a definition of "life" that might help: "the ability to relate to
> one's environment."

That definition leaves out the vast majority of living things.

> (Note the quote marks, said definition not created
> by me, but by someone else.)

this tends to indicate you have mis-remembered the quote.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

I said I was only trying to help Bob out. If you want the origin of
life see Genesis 1.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, my post pointed out several areas where you were wrong, and have a
incomplete understanding of the points. I do disagree with your claim,
because you left out major points as they related to process of evolution.

Evolution is not simply breeding, and individuals do not "become
modified" in their lifetime. The differential reproductive success of
variants in a population is a major point in the theory of evolution.
You seem to totally misunderstand this point.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

Why don't you convey the basic claim as to how species evolution
occurs?

I don't see how the version conveyed above conforms to the dual claim
of gradualism: slow rate, slight change. Again, we are talking about
any given population.

And be advised: I understand natural selection to be NONSENSE. You
evos use the concept in so many different ways, performing so many
different functions, if said thing did exist it would have to be the
product of Intelligence. The main problem in this thread is that I
don't belong to your club. I have not been initiated. Thank God.

Ray

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

I said "ok for this definition" but actuallly I don't understand what
it means: what does mean exactly "to relate to one's environment"?
What are your arguments to assert that "that definition leaves out the
vast majority of living things",

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

Sorry, I thought the nature of your proposal was scientific.

[Ray Martinez]

For your information: If I recall correctly said definition was
offered by Henry Drummond, and it was offered in the context of a
person in a coma or vegetable state? But I could be wrong. I thought
you evos would like it based on the fact that the concept of
"environment" is included in the definition.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 30, 2:34 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip Dana's evasions and non-sequiturs....]

>
> Evolution is not simply breeding, and individuals do not "become
> modified" in their lifetime.   The differential reproductive success of
> variants in a population is a major point in the theory of evolution.
> You seem to totally misunderstand this point.
>
> DJT

We understand "The differential reproductive success of variants in a
population" to convey total NONSENSE. The fact that you think it makes
sense means you do not understand natural selection.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/30/12 11:53 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 29, 6:19 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 4:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird<pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Since only one modification can be spread into a breeding population,
>>>>> per generation, none is needed.
>>
>>>> Where did you get THAT silly idea from ?
>>
>>> Darwin.
>>
>> Darwin never said that "only one modification can be spread into a
>> breeding population per generation". Where did you get that silly
>> idea from?
>>
>
> You've said it yourself on many occasions in the past.

I've never said that, on any occasion. Where do you get this silly idea?

>
> Now, below, you are changing your "story" to conform with more modern
> versions.

Ray, I have never claimed that only one modification can be spread into
a breeding population per generation. Where do you get the idea that
I ever did?

>
>>
>>
>>>> Since reality-based evolution is CUMULATIVE, what (besides your
>>>> willful stupidity) prevents modifications from adding up over time ?
>>
>>> The issue was number of modifications. One per generation. And yes the
>>> claim is that these modifications accumulate.
>>
>> No one ever claimed that only one "modification" per generation was
>> possible. That's entirely your own mistake. Darwin knew, as does
>> anyone familiar with populations, that there may be hundreds, if not
>> thousands of "modifications" in each generation.
>
> Challenged.

Why would your 'challenge' mean anything, as you have ignored all the
challenges I've met before?

>
> Show me where Darwin said what you have him knowing.

In Origin of Species, Chapter 1 Darwin writes:

"It seems clear that organic beings must be exposed during several
generations to new conditions to cause any *great amount of variation*;
and that, when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally
continues varying for many generations. No case is on record of a
variable organism ceasing to vary under cultivation. Our oldest
cultivated plants, such as wheat, still yield new varieties: our oldest,
domesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or
modification." [emphasis added]

He later (Chapter II, variation under nature) says:

"The main slight differences which appear in the offspring from the same
parents, or which it may be presumed have thus arisen, from being
observed in the individuals of the same species inhabiting the same
confined locality, may be called individual differences. No one supposes
that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the same actual
mould. These individual differences are of the highest importance for
us, for they are often inherited, as must be familiar to every one; and
they thus afford materials for natural selection to act on and
accumulate, in the same manner as man accumulates in any given direction
individual differences in his domesticated productions."

>
>> Each individual in
>> that population has at least several hundreds unique mutations, and a
>> breeding population needs to be several thousands to maintain genetic
>> diversity.
>>
>
> A total non-sequitur.

Ray, this is not a "non sequitur" and you really need to stop using
terms you don't understand. What I said goes to the heart of your
claim, because of your claim is that only one "modification" per
generation can enter a population. My point above is that each
individual has hundreds of mutations, and each breeding population has
thousands of individuals. That means there are hundreds of thousands of
"modifications" entering a population every generation.

>
>>
>>
>>> An individual becomes modified,
>>
>> No, and individual does not "become modified". It's born with a set of
>> mutations. Acquired characteristics don't get passed on in the DNA.
>>
>
> More non-sequitur.

Again, you are trying to avoid the important point here. Individuals
don't change the inheritable genetic material in their lifetime. This
is important.

>
>>> then it breeds,
>>
>> A individual's chance of breeding is directly influenced by the nature
>> of it's mutation, and the environment it faces. Not every individual
>> in a population lives to breed. There is a correlation with the chances
>> of passing on a mutation and the utility of that mutation. Harmful
>> mutations don't normally allow the individual to breed. Advantageous
>> mutations allow a greater chance for breeding. Neutral mutations, the
>> most common, don't affect the chances of breeding.
>>

This too is very important. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

>>> eventually the entire
>>> population inherits the modification.
>>
>> Not quite. The modification will become statistically more common in
>> the population. With enough selectional pressure, a advantageous
>> mutation may spread to the entire population.
>>
>>> Where in the scenario is room
>>> for multiple modifications?
>>
>> In that there is more than just one individual breeding. Each
>> individual carries several hundred mutations. Most of these mutations
>> are neutral, and have no effect on chance of breeding.
>>
>
> Like I said: You are communicating current understandings,

to counteract your personal misunderstandings.

> which is
> not at issue in this particular context.

What is "at issue" is your refusal to understand where you are making
your mistakes. There is a great deal of room for multiple
modifications in each individual, much less the entire population.
Your claim that only one modification per generation can enter a
population is absurdly wrong.

> Based on your past refusal to
> admit nothing, don't expect another reply from me regarding this issue
> and context.

Ray, I often admit when I am wrong. I do not admit to a mistake when
you have made the mistake, and you can't see it was you that is wrong.
As for expecting a reply, I will keep pointing out your errors, and
whether or not you reply is irrelevant.

>
>>> Herein we see the dual claim of
>>> gradualism: slow rate and slight change (= Darwinian evolution).
>>
>> Herein we see that Ray is woefully ignorant about statistics, change,
>> and how evolution really works.
>>
>> snipping the rest
>>
>> DJT
>
> Your reply supports my initial point in this response.

Only if you are totally blind to the points I've been making.

DJT

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Do you know what differential reproductive success means?

The concept is very sensible and easy to understand.

[Ray Martinez]

Explaining reality to have "created" itself = the religion of Atheism
known more commonly as Naturalism, Materialism, Darwinism and/or
Scientism.

Ray