Evolution's Gaping Hole

[jillery]

The following is a link to yet another Douglas Axe video:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rb2WfBCm0>

****************************
@4:45
Let this soak in for a moment. Despite all the grand claims,
everything from the popular plea of Richard Dawkins in the Blind
Watchmaker, to the technical pitch of Graham Bell's Selection: The
Mechanism of Evolution, the very logic of natural selection assures
us that the power of invention resides elsewhere. And because
evolutionists have never agreed on what this elsewhere is, the gaping
hole that has always existed in the middle of evolutionary theory
is still there. So there you have it. The main thing that is
supposed to explain a theory of origins has to explain origins and it
doesn't.
****************************

Axe belabors an obvious point, that natural selection requires
something else to create the things from which natural selection
selects. What is so incredible is that he argues as if he's as
clueless what that something else is, as he claims evolutionists like
Dawkins and Bell are. But I know for a fact these and other
evolutionists are very familiar with mutations, which are exactly the
things which natural selection selects. Mutations are the grist of
the natural selection mill. Perhaps Axe's time at the Discovery
Institute has helped him to forget his high school biology lessons.

Axe claims the above video is from his online video course. A
molecular biologist should be embarrassed to argue such an obvious
strawman in public. This and his previous public embarrassment, where
he unintentionally refuted the basis of ID, should make him stick to
his day job.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Jonathan]

Self organization is responsible for creation, natural selection
merely fine-tunes what the internal process of self organization
has created.

The large evolutionary steps such as creation and
speciation are emergent.


Emergence Taxonomy

https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf







--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

[Glenn]

Say "grist" three times and see if your fairy shows up.

[jillery]

Apparently you haven't you embarrassed yourself enough this week.

[Glenn]

You say that with a red flushed face.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

Your clue fairy, that is.

> Apparently you haven't you embarrassed yourself enough this week.

At least Glenn didn't post an embarrassingly clueless post on this thread like your OP, to
which Glenn is replying. Your taunt about Axe's high school biology lessons shows
that your sophistication about mutations and natural selection haven't advanced
past your high school biology lessons.

Do I remember correctly that you graduated from high school in 1969?


Peter Nyikos


PS I assume Axe is referring to REAL inventions, like the wings of bats, rather
than piddling little mutations that even the species immutabilist Ray Martinez
had no trouble accepting.

[jillery]

As usual, you post asinine allusions without any substance. If you
disagree with what I wrote above, then specify your disagreement.
Otherwise you're just blowing hot air out of your puckered sphincter.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

You snipped what I wrote in order to make this obnoxious false claim
seem plausible to your ardent fans, especially Oxyaena and Burkhard,
didn't you?

> If you disagree with what I wrote above, then specify your disagreement.

Feigning amnesia about what you snipped? Here is the specified disagreement,
reposted:

___________________________repost____________________________

PS I assume Axe is referring to REAL invention, like the wings of bats, rather

than piddling little mutations that even the species immutabilist Ray Martinez
had no trouble accepting.

=====================end of repost from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hBwFybXBocU/m/5Z4G-ND_BwAJ

> Otherwise you're just blowing hot air out of your puckered sphincter.

I wouldn't dream of emulating you in that way. In fact, I now amplify the PS
that you so cravenly deleted.

I challenge you to cook up a scenario, using the kind of mutations you know about,
which will take a glider like a so-called flying squirrel or a so-called flying phalanger
[two kinds of gliders, not flyers] to a creature with wings like a bat, with each and
every step either favorable to natural selection or at least neutral.

Note, I wrote "like a bat," not "like a pterosaur". Four long digits for the wing,
only the pollex [1] free for climbing trees, getting along on the ground, manipulating
objects, etc.

[1] thumb, to people with as little interest in university level biology as yourself

> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> You're not entitled to your own facts.

To make it easy on you, I will accept any scenario that you dig up on the internet.
You may even appropriate it as one of your own facts, and I won't hold it against you.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Can you resist the temptation to emulate your sidekick Oxyaena, by NOT
snipping everything except my four-line virtual .sig, and NOT replacing the rest
with "[snip mindless bullshit]" ? Can you resist the temptation to emulate
the Ghost of Jillery Past by making smart alecky remarks about my
employers being embarrassed over the text that you were too craven to leave in?

[jillery]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:02:09 -0700 (PDT), "nyik...@gmail.com"

Since you asked in your usual "did you stop beating your wife" style,
my response is "no".

You're welcome.

>
>> If you disagree with what I wrote above, then specify your disagreement.
>
>Feigning amnesia about what you snipped? Here is the specified disagreement,
>reposted:
>
>___________________________repost____________________________
>
>PS I assume Axe is referring to REAL invention, like the wings of bats, rather
>than piddling little mutations that even the species immutabilist Ray Martinez
>had no trouble accepting.

Your comment above has utterly no relevance to your previous
objection, and so is appropriately and reasonably ignored, as is
anything else you post in this thread until you either substantiate
your explicit asinine allusions or explicitly retract them. Not sure
how even you *still* don't understand this.

--

[Burkhard]

Well, since I'm mentioned.. Why do you need to "assume" anything about
Axe? Jillery gave their interpretation, if you disagree, you don't need
to rely on divination, you can just follow the link provided. That seems
to be basic research and reasoning skills. When criticizing, or
defending, a book or article the rational way to do it is to actually
read what the author said, rather then baseless speculation of what you
think he should have said, no?

>
>> Otherwise you're just blowing hot air out of your puckered sphincter.
>
> I wouldn't dream of emulating you in that way. In fact, I now amplify the PS
> that you so cravenly deleted.
>
> I challenge you to cook up a scenario, using the kind of mutations you know about,
> which will take a glider like a so-called flying squirrel or a so-called flying phalanger
> [two kinds of gliders, not flyers] to a creature with wings like a bat, with each and
> every step either favorable to natural selection or at least neutral.
>
> Note, I wrote "like a bat," not "like a pterosaur". Four long digits for the wing,
> only the pollex [1] free for climbing trees, getting along on the ground, manipulating
> objects, etc.
>
> [1] thumb, to people with as little interest in university level biology as yourself
>

And I challenge you to give an account of Wellington' victory at
Waterloo that takes a "deployment of troops to eventual victory"
scenario that accounts for the trajectory of every bullet fired. Would
be about as meaningful

[Glenn]

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:00:56 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> The following is a link to yet another Douglas Axe video:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rb2WfBCm0>
>
> ****************************
> @4:45
> Let this soak in for a moment. Despite all the grand claims,
> everything from the popular plea of Richard Dawkins in the Blind
> Watchmaker, to the technical pitch of Graham Bell's Selection: The
> Mechanism of Evolution, the very logic of natural selection assures
> us that the power of invention resides elsewhere. And because
> evolutionists have never agreed on what this elsewhere is, the gaping
> hole that has always existed in the middle of evolutionary theory
> is still there. So there you have it. The main thing that is
> supposed to explain a theory of origins has to explain origins and it
> doesn't.
> ****************************
>
> Axe belabors an obvious point, that natural selection requires
> something else to create the things from which natural selection
> selects. What is so incredible is that he argues as if he's as
> clueless what that something else is, as he claims evolutionists like
> Dawkins and Bell are.

Axe actually argues "as if he is clueless" about mutations? And he claims evolutionists are clueless as to the existence of mutations?

Those claims are so absurd as to be insane.

The video focuses on what does the "inventing".

>But I know for a fact these and other
> evolutionists are very familiar with mutations, which are exactly the
> things which natural selection selects. Mutations are the grist of
> the natural selection mill. Perhaps Axe's time at the Discovery
> Institute has helped him to forget his high school biology lessons.

The very suggestion that Axe is not talking about genetics is so absurd as to be insane.
This is clear from the very first part of the video.

>
> Axe claims the above video is from his online video course. A
> molecular biologist should be embarrassed to argue such an obvious
> strawman in public. This and his previous public embarrassment, where
> he unintentionally refuted the basis of ID, should make him stick to
> his day job.
>

You should stick to yours, and to literature like "Jack and Jill went up the hill".

[jillery]

On Sun, 2 May 2021 10:51:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <glenn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:00:56 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> The following is a link to yet another Douglas Axe video:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rb2WfBCm0>
>>
>> ****************************
>> @4:45
>> Let this soak in for a moment. Despite all the grand claims,
>> everything from the popular plea of Richard Dawkins in the Blind
>> Watchmaker, to the technical pitch of Graham Bell's Selection: The
>> Mechanism of Evolution, the very logic of natural selection assures
>> us that the power of invention resides elsewhere. And because
>> evolutionists have never agreed on what this elsewhere is, the gaping
>> hole that has always existed in the middle of evolutionary theory
>> is still there. So there you have it. The main thing that is
>> supposed to explain a theory of origins has to explain origins and it
>> doesn't.
>> ****************************
>>
>> Axe belabors an obvious point, that natural selection requires
>> something else to create the things from which natural selection
>> selects. What is so incredible is that he argues as if he's as
>> clueless what that something else is, as he claims evolutionists like
>> Dawkins and Bell are.
>
>Axe actually argues "as if he is clueless" about mutations? And he claims evolutionists are clueless as to the existence of mutations?
>
>Those claims are so absurd as to be insane.

Yes, those claims are absurd. Which I why I pointed them out.

>The video focuses on what does the "inventing".

Really? So what *is* what the video says does the "inventing"? You
don't say.

>>But I know for a fact these and other
>> evolutionists are very familiar with mutations, which are exactly the
>> things which natural selection selects. Mutations are the grist of
>> the natural selection mill. Perhaps Axe's time at the Discovery
>> Institute has helped him to forget his high school biology lessons.
>
>The very suggestion that Axe is not talking about genetics is so absurd as to be insane.
>This is clear from the very first part of the video.

Really? So what *is* what Axe is talking about? You don't say.

>> Axe claims the above video is from his online video course. A
>> molecular biologist should be embarrassed to argue such an obvious
>> strawman in public. This and his previous public embarrassment, where
>> he unintentionally refuted the basis of ID, should make him stick to
>> his day job.
>>
>You should stick to yours, and to literature like "Jack and Jill went up the hill".

Your usual "LOL" would have been better.

[Glenn]

They are *your* claims. You're lying again. Axe doesn't make such arguments in the video.

> >The video focuses on what does the "inventing".
> Really? So what *is* what the video says does the "inventing"? You
> don't say.

Yes, I do say. Genetics. But you're lying again. I didn't claim the video "says", I sid the video "focuses on".

> >>But I know for a fact these and other
> >> evolutionists are very familiar with mutations, which are exactly the
> >> things which natural selection selects. Mutations are the grist of
> >> the natural selection mill. Perhaps Axe's time at the Discovery
> >> Institute has helped him to forget his high school biology lessons.
> >
> >The very suggestion that Axe is not talking about genetics is so absurd as to be insane.
> >This is clear from the very first part of the video.
> Really? So what *is* what Axe is talking about? You don't say.

Genetics. That is real clear from my claim above. You're lying again.

> >> Axe claims the above video is from his online video course. A
> >> molecular biologist should be embarrassed to argue such an obvious
> >> strawman in public. This and his previous public embarrassment, where
> >> he unintentionally refuted the basis of ID, should make him stick to
> >> his day job.
> >>
> >You should stick to yours, and to literature like "Jack and Jill went up the hill".
> Your usual "LOL" would have been better.
> --

That would have been appropriate. Axe is a professor of molecular biology. You're a silly atheist blogger.
The video is part of a learning course, aimed at laymen. He isn't arguing strawmen, you are.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 May 2021 11:43:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <glenn...@gmail.com>

You didn't specify your "these", so I made the most reasonable
inference. Prove my claims are absurd and/or insane.

>You're lying again. Axe doesn't make such arguments in the video.

You're lying that I'm lying, liar.

And you didn't specify your "such arguments".

And Axe did make the argument I say he did.

>> >The video focuses on what does the "inventing".
>> Really? So what *is* what the video says does the "inventing"? You
>> don't say.
>
>Yes, I do say. Genetics.

You do now, but you didn't before.

>But you're lying again. I didn't claim the video "says", I sid the video "focuses on".

You're lying that I'm lying, liar.

And I didn't say either of what you say above.

>> >>But I know for a fact these and other
>> >> evolutionists are very familiar with mutations, which are exactly the
>> >> things which natural selection selects. Mutations are the grist of
>> >> the natural selection mill. Perhaps Axe's time at the Discovery
>> >> Institute has helped him to forget his high school biology lessons.
>> >
>> >The very suggestion that Axe is not talking about genetics is so absurd as to be insane.
>> >This is clear from the very first part of the video.
>> Really? So what *is* what Axe is talking about? You don't say.


>Genetics. That is real clear from my claim above. You're lying again.

You're lying that I'm lying, liar.

You are almost never clear, except when you're lying.

>> >> Axe claims the above video is from his online video course. A
>> >> molecular biologist should be embarrassed to argue such an obvious
>> >> strawman in public. This and his previous public embarrassment, where
>> >> he unintentionally refuted the basis of ID, should make him stick to
>> >> his day job.
>> >>
>> >You should stick to yours, and to literature like "Jack and Jill went up the hill".
>> Your usual "LOL" would have been better.
>> --
>That would have been appropriate. Axe is a professor of molecular biology. You're a silly atheist blogger.
>The video is part of a learning course, aimed at laymen. He isn't arguing strawmen, you are.

What Axe talks about in the cited video has almost nothing to do with
molecular biology specifically, or biology generally.

[Glenn]

You just did. They are *your* claims, not Axe's. Your most reasonable inference is delusional.

> >You're lying again. Axe doesn't make such arguments in the video.
> You're lying that I'm lying, liar.
>
> And you didn't specify your "such arguments".
>
> And Axe did make the argument I say he did.

No he did not. You don't notice that you fail to do what you claim others do not, to support your claims.
Your claims are supported by empty rhetoric, mine with facts.

> >> >The video focuses on what does the "inventing".
> >> Really? So what *is* what the video says does the "inventing"? You
> >> don't say.
> >
> >Yes, I do say. Genetics.
> You do now, but you didn't before.

Another lie. I have used the word "mutations".
> >But you're lying again. I didn't claim the video "says", I said the video "focuses on".

> You're lying that I'm lying, liar.

My statement stands as a fact, and I do say.

>
> And I didn't say either of what you say above.

Are you alcoholic?

> >> >>But I know for a fact these and other
> >> >> evolutionists are very familiar with mutations, which are exactly the
> >> >> things which natural selection selects. Mutations are the grist of
> >> >> the natural selection mill. Perhaps Axe's time at the Discovery
> >> >> Institute has helped him to forget his high school biology lessons.
> >> >
> >> >The very suggestion that Axe is not talking about genetics is so absurd as to be insane.
> >> >This is clear from the very first part of the video.
> >> Really? So what *is* what Axe is talking about? You don't say.
>
>
> >Genetics. That is real clear from my claim above. You're lying again.
> You're lying that I'm lying, liar.

Again, your claims are so absurd as to be insane.

>
> You are almost never clear, except when you're lying.

You haven't identified a single lie of mine, ever.

> >> >> Axe claims the above video is from his online video course. A
> >> >> molecular biologist should be embarrassed to argue such an obvious
> >> >> strawman in public. This and his previous public embarrassment, where
> >> >> he unintentionally refuted the basis of ID, should make him stick to
> >> >> his day job.
> >> >>
> >> >You should stick to yours, and to literature like "Jack and Jill went up the hill".
> >> Your usual "LOL" would have been better.
> >> --
> >That would have been appropriate. Axe is a professor of molecular biology. You're a silly atheist blogger.
> >The video is part of a learning course, aimed at laymen. He isn't arguing strawmen, you are.
> What Axe talks about in the cited video has almost nothing to do with
> molecular biology specifically, or biology generally.
> --

Repeatedly making such foolish claims is more support of your insanity. You unintentionally refute the possibility that you are not insane.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 May 2021 16:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <glenn...@gmail.com>

So anything I claim is delusional because I claim it? That's a very
convenient concept of proof you made up for yourself. There's nothing
I need to say after that.

<snip your remaining willfully stupid comments>

[Glenn]

And there's another strawman and lie combo.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

I continue to be swamped with work related to my faculty position, so
this reply is over 5 days late, and is probably the only Usenet post I'll make today.

Because, unlike Jillery, I am familiar with the way mainstream creationists express themselves,
and Axe was aiming the video at them.

> Jillery gave their interpretation, if you disagree, you don't need
> to rely on divination, you can just follow the link provided.

I did. The second half minute -- from 30 seconds to 1 minute into the video --seems
to have gone completely over jillery's head.

> That seems
> to be basic research and reasoning skills. When criticizing, or
> defending, a book or article the rational way to do it is to actually
> read what the author said, rather then baseless speculation of what you
> think he should have said, no?

This is really funny, and makes me wonder whether you bothered to look
at the video, or whether the crucial portion went over your head.

> >> Otherwise you're just blowing hot air out of your puckered sphincter.
> >
> > I wouldn't dream of emulating you in that way. In fact, I now amplify the PS
> > that you so cravenly deleted.
> >
> > I challenge you to cook up a scenario, using the kind of mutations you know about,
> > which will take a glider like a so-called flying squirrel or a so-called flying phalanger
> > [two kinds of gliders, not flyers] to a creature with wings like a bat, with each and
> > every step either favorable to natural selection or at least neutral.
> >
> > Note, I wrote "like a bat," not "like a pterosaur". Four long digits for the wing,
> > only the pollex [1] free for climbing trees, getting along on the ground, manipulating
> > objects, etc.
> >
> > [1] thumb, to people with as little interest in university level biology as yourself

One could hardly imagine a challenge that has *less* commonality with mine
than the one you've cooked up below. But you are excused, because you
have not shown the slightest knowledge of paleontology.

> And I challenge you to give an account of Wellington' victory at
> Waterloo that takes a "deployment of troops to eventual victory"
> scenario that accounts for the trajectory of every bullet fired. Would
> be about as meaningful

We have NO known fossils of any gliding mammals, let alone flying ones, before the
first bat fossils, which had wings almost exactly like modern bats. It's as though
historians knew that armies of Britain and Prussia were arrayed against
Napoleon before the battle, and then knew that Napoleon had become a captive of the
British after the battle, but no records or artifacts were known of the Battle
of Waterloo itself, and they had to figure out what MIGHT have happened during the
battle just on the basis of what is known of battles in general.

Wait, it's even worse: there are no known examples of any mammals, fossil or living,
with elongated fingers for gliding or flying through the air, EXCEPT for bats.
[Of course, the flippers of seals and whales have elongated finger bones, but
those are for a different purpose.] It's as though Waterloo were the only battle in human history
where the ruler of a country was captured in the immediate aftermath of a victory.


I could go on to tell you about the anatomical aspects of my challenge, but the
relevance of pterosaurs to what I wrote immediately after mentioning them seems
to have gone over your head, so I wil close here and see whether anyone will
take up the cudgels for you.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 14:04:12 -0700 (PDT), "nyik...@gmail.com"
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:


<snip for focus>

>Because, unlike Jillery, I am familiar with the way mainstream creationists express themselves,
>and Axe was aiming the video at them.

Putting aside for the moment that "mainstream creationists" is
analogous to "mainstream flat-earthers", ie an oxymoron, not only do
you have utterly no basis for your assertion about jillery, it is
factually incorrect. Jillery was raised by a Creationist mother in a
Creationist Church and still has many Creationist relatives and
acquaintances. Of course none of that makes any difference to you.

>> Jillery gave their interpretation, if you disagree, you don't need
>> to rely on divination, you can just follow the link provided.
>
>I did. The second half minute -- from 30 seconds to 1 minute into the video --seems
>to have gone completely over jillery's head.

Feel free to back up your baseless opinion with something other than
your baseless opinion. Of course you won't, any more than any of the
other T.O. trolls who regularly posts baseless opinions and outright
lies about jillery.

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:00:18 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Based on the posts of the critics of the above, and of me personally,
my understanding is none of their comments are based on an
understanding of what Axe actually said. In fact, one critic admitted
he didn't even listen to the cited lecture.

So for the willfully stupid, a review: Axe uses a definition of
natural selection that excludes *any* mechanism of genetic variations
from which natural selection can select; no mutation, no
recombination, no genetic drift. And by that definition, Axe is
correct when he says natural selection can't account for the creation
of biological inventions, of the origin of new innovations, of the
"arrival of the fittest". If every descendant was a perfect clone of
its antecedent, natural selection and evolution itself would be
literally impossible.

Even though Axe excludes genetic variations from natural selection,
they still happen in real life. Every new generation is slightly
different from the old generation, and natural selection selects from
those differences, and those selections are preserved genetically and
passed on to future generations.

Even though nobody in Darwin's time knew *how* new biological
inventions appeared and get passed on to future generations, they knew
that they were, as a matter of empirical observation. So Axe's
premise, that natural selection can't explain origins and novelties,
is a stupid strawman. Even using Axe's distinctive definition, even if
nobody had a clue how biological inventions appear, natural selection
still selects from them anyway, and evolution proceeds apace.

[Glenn]

That's another lie. Maybe you should consider your attempt to speak to what you consider the "willfully stupid".

The closest thing to Axe *defining* natural selection in the video:

03:45
"in evolutionary theory there's a book that came out by swiss evolutionary biologist andreas wagner in 2014. the title of the book is a rival of the fittest solving evolution's greatest puzzle and in that book he says natural selection can preserve innovations but it cannot create them it's the same problem the problem of the arrival of the fittest now in my book undeniable i refer to this problem as the gaping hole in evolutionary theory"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rb2WfBCm0

This isn't from Wagner's 2014 book, but you might enjoy:

"selection and drift both involve chance"

https://www.ieu.uzh.ch/wagner/papers/Wagner_Philosophy_of_Science_2012.pdf

[jillery]

You lie that's another lie, liar.

>Maybe you should consider your attempt to speak to what you consider the "willfully stupid".

Maybe you should understand what you're talking about before you call
other people liars.

>The closest thing to Axe *defining* natural selection in the video:
>
>03:45
>"in evolutionary theory there's a book that came out by swiss evolutionary biologist andreas wagner in 2014. the title of the book is a rival of the fittest solving evolution's greatest puzzle and in that book he says natural selection can preserve innovations but it cannot create them it's the same problem the problem of the arrival of the fittest now in my book undeniable i refer to this problem as the gaping hole in evolutionary theory"

The title of the book is "Arrival of the Fittest", not "a rival of the
fittest". Axe mentions the book to illustrate his point, that natural
selection doesn't explain the origins of biological innovations.

Since you again insist Axe doesn't mean what I say above, feel free to
explain in your own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't
create biological innovations.

[Glenn]

Axe does not define natural selection in the video, and does not exclude what you claim from a definition of natural selection.

> >Maybe you should consider your attempt to speak to what you consider the "willfully stupid".
> Maybe you should understand what you're talking about before you call
> other people liars.

Good advice. Pity you are unable to take it.

> >The closest thing to Axe *defining* natural selection in the video:
> >
> >03:45
> >"in evolutionary theory there's a book that came out by swiss evolutionary biologist andreas wagner in 2014. the title of the book is a rival of the fittest solving evolution's greatest puzzle and in that book he says natural selection can preserve innovations but it cannot create them it's the same problem the problem of the arrival of the fittest now in my book undeniable i refer to this problem as the gaping hole in evolutionary theory"
> The title of the book is "Arrival of the Fittest", not "a rival of the
> fittest".

Nope. The title is "Arrival of the Fittest: Solving Evolution's Greatest Puzzle".

>Axe mentions the book to illustrate his point, that natural
> selection doesn't explain the origins of biological innovations.

Perhaps, but the words do not support your claim of what Axe "claims" or "says" or "means".

>
> Since you again insist Axe doesn't mean what I say above, feel free to
> explain in your own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't
> create biological innovations.

I feel free to identify that as another deception, another lie. I do not insist that Axe doesn't mean what you say he does in this thread, I insist that Axe doesn't say what you claim he says.

As to you silly play on words in your red herring above, "selection" by definition does not "create".
You've been told that many times. Harshman tried to illuminate your twisted mind about speciation. Evolution is regarded as including random mutation with natural selection. Trying to convince yourself that Axe doesn't believe in mutation or speciation may work on you, but not on *anyone* else.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 May 2021 15:41:20 -0700 (PDT), Glenn

I didn't say he defined natural selection. I said he's using that
definition. There's a difference. Learn to comprehend written
English.

> and does not exclude what you claim from a definition of natural selection.

Since you again insist Axe doesn't mean what I say above, feel free to
explain in your own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't

create biological innovations. Barring that, your comments are just
more of you spamming mindless noise.

<snip remaining mindless noise>

[Glenn]

I didn't say you said he defined natural selection.
Take your own advice. You said he "used" a definition that excludes all forms of genetic change.
You're an idiot to make such a claim.

> > and does not exclude what you claim from a definition of natural selection.
> Since you again insist Axe doesn't mean what I say above, feel free to
> explain in your own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't
> create biological innovations. Barring that, your comments are just
> more of you spamming mindless noise.

That's nonsense. I'm not Axe, and he isn't here to tell you that everyone sees you as an idiot.

You explain in Axe's words where he excludes "any mechanism of genetic variations from which natural selection can select". You can't. You're a liar and a deceiver.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 May 2021 17:14:14 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I didn't say you said he defined natural selection.

And I didn't say you said... You never learn, but you don't let that
stop you from trolling your spam.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 9:05:57 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2021 17:14:14 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I didn't say you said he defined natural selection.
> And I didn't say you said... You never learn, but you don't let that
> stop you from trolling your spam.
> --

And I didn't say you said... You never learn, but don't let that stop you from lying.

Repost:

Me: Axe does not define natural selection in the video
You: I didn't say he defined natural selection.

Sane people will see that I didn't imply or claim you said he defined natural selection, and that you started this "I didn't say that" childish game.
But "using" a definition means he defines natural selection. Provide the quote where he does.
Actually, instead of snipping and ignoring or misdirecting direct challenges to your claims, respond to this that you snipped:

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 May 2021 22:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Glenn

<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 9:05:57 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2021 17:14:14 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
>> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I didn't say you said he defined natural selection.
>> And I didn't say you said... You never learn, but you don't let that
>> stop you from trolling your spam.
>> --
>And I didn't say you said... You never learn, but don't let that stop you from lying.

And I didn't say you didn't say... you never learn, but you don't let
that stop you from continuing your stupid word games.

>Repost:
>
>Me: Axe does not define natural selection in the video
>You: I didn't say he defined natural selection.
>
>Sane people will see that I didn't imply or claim you said he defined natural selection, and that you started this "I didn't say that" childish game.

Sane people will see that if you don't mean to say that I said Axe
defined natural selection, then your "Me:" comment is utterly
irrelevant to anything I said. And if you did mean it, then your
denial is a really stupid lie. You continue to play your stupid word
games you started.

>But "using" a definition means he defines natural selection. Provide the quote where he does.

Don't be so stupid. You just now used every word in your post without
defining any of them. One of your many Bad Habits (c) is to assert
words mean what they don't, just as you do with "using" above.

>Actually, instead of snipping and ignoring or misdirecting direct challenges to your claims, respond to this that you snipped:
>
>You explain in Axe's words where he excludes "any mechanism of genetic variations from which natural selection can select". You can't. You're a liar and a deceiver.

One more time for the willfully stupid: Axe asserts natural selection
has no "power of invention". Do you deny that? If so, then you have
no idea what you're talking about.

If not, then Axe's assertion is true if and only if there is no
mechanism of genetic variation from which natural selection can
select. Not sure how even you *still* don't understand this.

Now your turn, and to restore your unmarked snip: Since you again

insist Axe doesn't mean what I say above, feel free to explain in your
own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't
create biological innovations.

> You can't. You're a liar and a deceiver.

I have done so multiple times in multiple topics, and did so once
again above. But you don't even try to back up your lies. Instead,
you post even more stupid lies, as you do above. Yet you keep on
trolling your willfully stupid troll. Is that so others will get
upset with your stupid troll and blame me for it?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

It's worth noting that Andreas Wagner, whom I've met, but I wouldn't
say I know him (though I know at least one of his collaborators) is not
by any stretch of the imagination a cdesign proponentsist, and is no
fool.

>
> The title of the book is "Arrival of the Fittest", not "a rival of the
> fittest". Axe mentions the book to illustrate his point, that natural

> selection doesn't explain the origins of biological innovations. It's

>
> Since you again insist Axe doesn't mean what I say above, feel free to
> explain in your own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't
> create biological innovations.


--

Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[Glenn]

From this one could only note your claim of blowing your own horn and implying that Wagner is not
a fool like Axe. Fools can fool. And you are, by not responding to what Axe actually claimed. But it does
provide a response:

"The unreflective now know how the squid took wing and began to fly."
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/11/arrival_of_the/

[jillery]

I had not before heard of Wagner or this book before Axe mentioned it.
Based on online reviews, and Wiki's article on Wagner, my impression
is Wagner's "arrival" refers to science's relatively recent
understanding of how natural selection actually fills the "gaping
hole" Axe claims evolutionary theory doesn't explain.

It turns out that the local public library has a copy, which I have
reserved. When I finish it, I will post if Axe fairly represented the
book.

[Glenn]

Actually, eh. You should learn what "impression" means.

>
> It turns out that the local public library has a copy, which I have
> reserved. When I finish it, I will post if Axe fairly represented the
> book.
> --

Idiot. You would never admit that. Axe did not "represent the book" except to take one quote from it, and to say it expresses the same "problem" Axe considers evolutionary theory to have:

"Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them"

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/314334/arrival-of-the-fittest-by-andreas-wagner/

Now that Wagner actually fills the 'gaping hole', will you now acknowledge that *natural selection can not create innovations*?

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 May 2021 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 10:10:57 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2021 17:15:36 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

[...]

>> >It's worth noting that Andreas Wagner, whom I've met, but I wouldn't
>> >say I know him (though I know at least one of his collaborators) is not
>> >by any stretch of the imagination a cdesign proponentsist, and is no
>> >fool.
>> I had not before heard of Wagner or this book before Axe mentioned it.
>> Based on online reviews, and Wiki's article on Wagner, my impression
>> is Wagner's "arrival" refers to science's relatively recent
>> understanding of how natural selection actually fills the "gaping
>> hole" Axe claims evolutionary theory doesn't explain.
>
>Actually, eh. You should learn what "impression" means.

Feel free to cite any authoritative source which shows that I used
that word incorrectly.

>> It turns out that the local public library has a copy, which I have
>> reserved. When I finish it, I will post if Axe fairly represented the
>> book.
>> --
>Idiot. You would never admit that.

Only willfully stupid idiots and liars pretend they can read minds.

And you *still* haven't explained in your

own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't

create biological innovations. Why is that?

[jillery]

acknowledge there is no 'gaping hole' problem and Axe's claims are
false?

More to Axe's actual point, now that Wagner shows the 'gaping hole'
was a lack of knowledge and not a lack of innovating processes, will
you now acknowledge there is not now and never has been a time when
natural selection didn't have innovations from which to select?

From the OP, and in multiple posts thereafter, I explicitly stated
that natural selection as Axe uses the term can not create
innovations.

And you have multiple times in multiple posts said my statements are
deceptions and lies.

So if what you ask me to acknowledge above was your actual point from
the beginning, then you have been ranting and spamming in violent
agreement.

[Glenn]

So you're working a little harder to misdirect and deceive now that you're stuck in a hole you can't force yourself out of. I've ripped your head off and pissed down the gaping hole many times, and you appear too stupid to realize when you're beat. You must have a serious mental problem.

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 May 2021 16:23:46 -0700 (PDT), Glenn

<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 1:50:57 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2021 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
>> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Now that Wagner actually fills the 'gaping hole', will you now acknowledge that *natural selection can not create innovations*?
>>
>>
>> Now that Wagner actually fills the 'gaping hole', will you now
>> acknowledge there is no 'gaping hole' problem and Axe's claims are
>> false?

No reply. I charitably interpret that as a "no".

>> More to Axe's actual point, now that Wagner shows the 'gaping hole'
>> was a lack of knowledge and not a lack of innovating processes, will
>> you now acknowledge there is not now and never has been a time when
>> natural selection didn't have innovations from which to select?

No reply. I charitably interpret that as a "no".

>> From the OP, and in multiple posts thereafter, I explicitly stated
>> that natural selection as Axe uses the term can not create
>> innovations.
>>
>> And you have multiple times in multiple posts said my statements are
>> deceptions and lies.
>>
>> So if what you ask me to acknowledge above was your actual point from
>> the beginning, then you have been ranting and spamming in violent
>> agreement.
>> --
>So you're working a little harder to misdirect and deceive now that you're stuck in a hole you can't force yourself out of. I've ripped your head off and pissed down the gaping hole many times, and you appear too stupid to realize when you're beat. You must have a serious mental problem.

Yeah, yeah, you're invincible and you're going to bite my legs off.
You could be in movies.

>Now that Wagner actually fills the 'gaping hole', will you now acknowledge that *natural selection can not create innovations*?

BTW I got a copy of Wagner's book. The title is meant as I described.
Even your own cite shows that Axe's so-called "gaping hole" was
nothing more than an historical lack of knowledge. The innovative
processes Wagner describes have always been there.

And Axe quotemined what Wagner wrote. Wagner wasn't agreeing with
Axe. Wagner wasn't saying there is a "gaping hole". Wagner was only
quoting Hugo de Vries, just as Axe did.

And you *still* haven't explained in your

own words how Axe explains why natural selection can't

create biological innovations. I charitably interpret that's because
you're too busy bleeding on me.