Evolution News

Suzan Mazur’s Paradigm Shifters is now available from Amazon

Spread the love

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' Here:

Major scientists from a dozen countries present evidence that a paradigm shift is underway or has already taken place, replacing neo-Darwinism (the standard model of evolution based on natural selection following the accumulation of random genetic mutations) with a vastly richer evolutionary synthesis than previously thought possible. About The Author Suzan Mazur is the author of two previous books, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry and The Origin of Life Circus: A How To Make Life Extravaganza. Her reports have appeared in the Financial Times, The Economist, Forbes, Newsday, Philadelphia Inquirer, Archaeology, Astrobiology, Connoisseur, Omni, Huffington Post, Progressive Review, CounterPunch, Scoop Media and other publications, as well as on PBS, CBC and MBC. She has been a guest on Charlie Rose, McLaughlin and various Fox Television News programs.

Also from Barnes & Noble, Ingram Books, Baker and Taylor et al.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG No reviews as yet. Be the first of your friends to beat the trolls to it.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

76 Replies to “Suzan Mazur’s Paradigm Shifters is now available from Amazon

  1. 1
    Larry Moran says:

    I agree with Denyse that neoDarwinism is a “model of evolution based on natural selection following the accumulation of random genetic mutations.” However, it is not the current “standard model” that Denyse claims.

    We’ve been telling her for several decades that neo-Darwinism, as she and her fellow ID proponents define it, was abandoned in the early 1970s when everyone adopted Neutral Theory—the idea that many mutations are neutral—and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.

    That “paradigm shift” has never been recognized by ID proponents. Even today, after 45 years, most of them (you) don’t understand modern population genetics and evolutionary theory. Most of them (you) don’t known about neutral alleles and random genetic drift.

    Neither does Suzan Mazur and neither do most of the people she writes about in her latest book. Like ID proponents, they completely missed the last paradigm shift and they are still trying to challenge the old strawman version of evolutionary theory from the 1960s.

    It’s ironic that Denyse O’Leary would listen to Suzan Mazur while ignoring all those experts who have tired to educate her since she first discovered intelligent design and started to attack the old “Darwinism” and “neo_Darwinism” models.

  2. 2
    Vy says:

    So the “distinguished one” is still around.

  3. 3
    Andre says:

    Well Prof Moran we are in good company because you don’t have anything to show how random genetic drift and neutral theory can build a single protein from scratch. Do you have the results? Are the figures in? Show it and we will shut up.

    Secondly you don’t really understand our position if you did you would not make such absolutely stupid remarks unless of course you’re panicking about something.

    Lastly I find it very funny that everybody is wrong except of course Prof Moran.

  4. 4
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry Moran, you have been told many times that the reason both Darwin and IDists ignore drift is because it has not been a posited mechanism to explain the appearance of design. Population genetics doesn’t explain the physiological and morphological differences observed between alleged sister populations, like chimps and humans.

    As for understanding “evolutionary theory”, seeing there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution it is a safe bet that any one person’s “understanding” could be as good as the next. Most of the evolution taught in schools seems to be nothing more than bald assertions “Natural selection is the only mechanism known to produce adaptations. Here are some adaptations and as such evidence for natural selection”- Futuyma doesn’t acknowledge that drift has any creative power.

    So, Larry, random genetic drift is ignored for good reason-> it isn’t any different than sheer dumb luck. And we care about scientific explanations.

    And guess what, Larry? This isn’t your blog so my response refuting your diatribe will stay for all to see.

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    We’ve been telling her for several decades that neo-Darwinism, as she and her fellow ID proponents define it, was abandoned in the early 1970s when everyone adopted Neutral Theory—the idea that many mutations are neutral—and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.

    The Selfish Gene (1976)

    Les avatars du gène : théorie néodarwinienne de l’évolution (1997). Gene Avatars (2002)

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Sampling theory just doesn’t sound as sexy as evolutionary theory.

  7. 7
    Andre says:

    I think this paper blows Prof Moran’s Neutral Theory out of the water….

    http://journals.plos.org/plosb.....io.1002112

    Natural selection constrains neutral evolutuon according to this research.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    I think this paper blows Prof Moran’s Neutral Theory out of the water…

    That’s not something that’s immediately obvious. They just say it doesn’t scale as expected, not that it’s false.

  9. 9
    Upright BiPed says:

    (you) don’t known about neutral alleles and random genetic drift. Neither does Suzan Mazur and neither do most of the people she writes about in her latest book.

    Founder Institute of Evolution (Haifa), Eviatar Nevo
    Computational Biologist, Eugene Koonin
    Virologist, Ricardo Flores
    Cellular Biologist, Stuart Newman
    Systems Biologist, Denis Noble
    Geneticist, Corradi Spadafora
    Molecular Biologist, František Baluška
    Neurobiologist, Jonathan Delafield-Butt
    Microbiologist, James Shapiro
    Virologist, Luis Perez Villarreal
    Biophysicist, Carl Woese

    😐

  10. 10
    Andre says:

    Don’t scale as suspected. So is there a 1 in a million chance that neutral theory can make a comeback and scale? Come on give all those people from 1970 some hope Mung!!!!

  11. 11
    Larry Moran says:

    Andre says,

    Secondly you don’t really understand our position if you did you would not make such absolutely stupid remarks unless of course you’re panicking about something.

    I may not understand YOUR position because it’s so confused but I’ve been debating ID proponents for over twenty years and I have a pretty good understanding of the position of many of them.

    They don’t all agree with each other so it’s impossible to say that I “understand” the position of every one of you.

    I’m making two points about modern evolutionary theory.

    First, ID proponents keep referring to “Darwinism” as if it represents the position of evolutionary biologists. This demonstrates that they don’t understand their position. That must be important to most of you since you often accuse me of not understanding your position.

    Second, you simply can’t even begin to understand many of the explanations of evolution unless you understand Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. I’m not saying that you have to agree with those explanations but if you are going to fight evolutionary biology it seems like a good idea to understand what you are attacking, no?

    You can’t understand the evolutionary explanation for why you can construct phylogenetic trees, for example, unless you understand random genetic drift. Read Michael Denton’s latest book—he will explain it to you.

    You can’t understand the arguments about the prevalence of junk DNA unless you understand modern evolutionary theory and population genetics. You just look like fools when you argue against junk DNA without understanding modern evolutionary theory. Again, I’m not saying that you have to agree with those arguments but if you are going to claim that they are wrong you should understand them, no?

  12. 12
    Larry Moran says:

    Dear Upright BiPed,

    I assume you’re familiar with the positions of all those scientists otherwise you wouldn’t have posted their names, right? You would look pretty foolish if you were just using an argument from pseudo-ubased on the word of Suzan Mazur.

    Eugene Koonin and the late Carl Woese were familiar with Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. Which of the others, in your informed opinion, discusses Neutral Theory or random genetic drift in a manner that convinces you that they know what they are talking about? Can you post links and references?

    Have you heard any of them talk? Have you been following their work for the past few years? Have you read any of their papers?

  13. 13
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry Moran:

    First, ID proponents keep referring to “Darwinism” as if it represents the position of evolutionary biologists.

    It refers to anyone who accepts that natural selection and drift are enough to account for life’s diversity.

    Second, you simply can’t even begin to understand many of the explanations of evolution unless you understand Neutral Theory and random genetic drift.

    We have already been over that.

    Tell us Larry, does the theory tell us what predictions are borne from natural selection and drift? Does the neutral theory tell us how many generations it takes to evolve a human from a knuckle-walker?

    If modern evolutionary theory cannot explain DNA what, exactly, does it have to say about it and how can we verify what you say about the theory?

  14. 14
    News says:

    Suzan Mazur and I wish to severally offer our thanks to Dr. Moran for the great job he is doing as part of her book’s promotion team.

  15. 15
    Upright BiPed says:

    Larry,

    You made a statement that cannot be defended. The gentlemen (and lady) that Mazur interviews in her last book certainly understand evolution and neutrtal theory.

  16. 16
    Virgil Cain says:

    Upright Biped- Unless you can get each and every one on that list to prove to larry, personally, that they understand evolution and the neutral theory, it is a given that they do not. 😉

  17. 17
    Vy says:

    You just look like fools when you argue against junk DNA without understanding modern evolutionary theory.

    Says the meatbag that believes blindly selective randomness formed his brain for no reason whatsoever. Coming from you, Larry Meatbag, it’s a compliment.

  18. 18
  19. 19
    News says:

    Vy at 17, please keep in mind that Suzan Mazur’s publicity team only wishes that they could pay Larry Moran more than they now do. We ought to be grateful to him for keeping the noise going – lack of publicity can be the ruin of a good book.

  20. 20
    Virgil Cain says:

    Hi Mung- Larry took his swings at Provine’s book- WIlliam Provine doesn’t like random genetic drift

  21. 21
    Mung says:

    The Darwinian revolution has been a resounding success in biology since its inception. The problem with great scientific revolutions is that they frequently become unmovable dogma. For a while the dogma maybe useful to clarify some points, but soon an ‘establishment’ form, the individual scientists find it impossible to break ranks, for their careers and financial livelihood are put at great risk. This is opposite to Galileo’s legacy, and yet it is an accurate statement on the human condition.

    Today it is an unfortunate fact that Neo-Darwinian ideas have evolved into almost a religion in certain quarters, particularly among population geneticists. The New Lamarckian soma-germline-gene-feedback loops (Steele, 1979 especially) and the extra-nucleic L system inheritance are passionately resisted. Some embryologists and population geneticists are still wedded to the neutral theory of molecular evolution of Kimura (1983).

    pdf

  22. 22
    Mung says:

    Short of positing celestial design, the only way to explain optimisation is via the workings of selection. If so, the code of life must have evolved.

    Lane, Nick (2009-06-19). Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution (Kindle Locations 815-816). Norton. Kindle Edition.

    Impeccable logic!

  23. 23
    Virgil Cain says:

    I just started reading that book by Lane. He does make several leaps of faith- just don’t look behind the curtain! Get the Krebs cycle going through the influx of environmental energy and the evolution of ATP synthase is a given I tell ya!

  24. 24
    Mung says:

    Careful, folks over at TSZ might confuse you with “Frankie.”

    I’ve had the book for some time, on Kindle, but hadn’t read it. BruceS mentioned it a few times so I thought I’d at least read through Chapter 2. But Lane, like petrushka, never says what a code is.

  25. 25
    Robert Byers says:

    Evolution is a flop. In modern times they had ro come up with new ideas to make it plausible especially as better investigation took place relative to before.
    The core idea of evolution is still taught to the public as selection on mutations over time equals complexity and diversity.
    In small circles they stress random or drift or whatnot.
    Yet evolutionism is still old man darwin and they celebrate him as the inventor.
    Thats why these new groups, not creationists, keep poping up.
    It just doesn’t make sense.
    recently i watched much of the yale lessons on evolution, by a Prof Stern i think, and its laughable to hear what they teach and as evidence.
    This is all ending quicker then one thought.
    More intelligent people thinking carefully about this stuff will end it soon enough.

  26. 26
    Virgil Cain says:

    Careful, folks over at TSZ might confuse you with “Frankie.”

    The folks over at TSZ are just confused. I got mine on Kindle after Larry Moran mentioned it the other day.

    TSZ are very much the minority with respect to codes and the genetic code. They need to make their case and have failed, as usual. Of course the only way they will ever admit they are wrong is to have the designer sit down and explain it all to them, as if they would be able to understand.

    It’s like trying to explain the ideal gas law, the many flaws in the Wells report and the fact there isn’t any evidence for any advantage gained to Goodell.

  27. 27
    Mapou says:

    Moran:

    We’ve been telling her for several decades that neo-Darwinism, as she and her fellow ID proponents define it, was abandoned in the early 1970s when everyone adopted Neutral Theory—the idea that many mutations are neutral—and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.

    How does this solve the biggest problem of all stochastic search mechanisms: the dreaded combinatorial explosion? The CE brings them all down to their knees.

    everyone adopted Neutral Theory—the idea that many mutations are neutral—and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.

    Only a very small subset of mutations are neutral. The others are immediately repaired, otherwise everything would die. Most genes are conserved for tens of millions of years, precisely because they are not allowed to mutate (not very random, I might add). Worse, how can the system know which genes should be mutable and which ones should be fixed? And how did it evolve this crucial life-death ability? How did it survive for millions of years without it?

    And let us not forget the dreaded combinatorial explosion that rains hard on every Darwinist parade including this pathetically lame neutral theory.

  28. 28
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    Second, you simply can’t even begin to understand many of the explanations of evolution unless you understand Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. I’m not saying that you have to agree with those explanations but if you are going to fight evolutionary biology it seems like a good idea to understand what you are attacking, no?

    Let us start right from the beginning here perhaps after this we might understand each other better. If you would like us to understand neutral evolution and random genetic drift why don’t you demonstrate it to us? An actual demonstration would go a very long way in understanding what you’re saying.

    Now I know there are many people in this world that find a good explanation or story enough, but I’m not one of those people, I want you to show me with testable, repeatable and verifiable results. Can you do that Prof Moran?

    Let me ask you Prof Moran how does one model something random? I would love to see how on God’s green earth anyone can model random!

    Bless you.

  29. 29
    Larry Moran says:

    Andre asks,

    Let us start right from the beginning here perhaps after this we might understand each other better. If you would like us to understand neutral evolution and random genetic drift why don’t you demonstrate it to us?

    Are you agreeing with me? Are you admitting that you have been attacking evolution for years without understanding the basics of evolutionary theory?

    How many others are admitting to this ignorance? How many of you have such a poor understanding of Neutral Theory and random genetic drift that you need to have it explained to you in very simple terms in the comments section of an ID blog?

    You probably won’t believe anything I say so maybe it would be better if Vincent Torley explained it to you. Or maybe you could convince Michael Denton or Michael Behe to stop by and give you the information you need.

    Denyse O’Leary and Barry Arrington won’t be able to help you.

    Or maybe (gasp!), you could read a book.

  30. 30
    Larry Moran says:

    Mung says,

    The “Random Genetic Drift” Fallacy

    I’m impressed that you read William Provine’s book.

    Which of his arguments did you find the most convincing?

  31. 31
    Larry Moran says:

    Mapou says,

    Only a very small subset of mutations are neutral. The others are immediately repaired, otherwise everything would die.

    This is very wrong. Could one of the ID proponents please explain to Mapou why he is wrong? I don’t think he’ll believe anything I say.

    This is an excellent opportunity for some of you to show the world that you really understand evolution and you are embarrassed by ID proponents who spout such nonsense on an ID blog.

    Waiting ….

  32. 32
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    You still seem to be stuck on some misinformation. We have read about it we have heard you talk about it but due to the fact that I’m a show me person why don’t you do an actual demonstration? One we can test and verify?

    How about it Prof Moran?

  33. 33
    Larry Moran says:

    Denyse O’Leary says,

    Suzan Mazur and I wish to severally offer our thanks to Dr. Moran for the great job he is doing as part of her book’s promotion team.

    You’re very welcome. I’ll probably blog about it on Sandwalk as well.

    I’m sure that the publicity she gets from a few of my comments on an ID blog will make all the difference.

  34. 34
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry is too dim to understand that by relying on drift to solve evolutionary problems he is relying on sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t science.

  35. 35
    Larry Moran says:

    Andre says,

    You still seem to be stuck on some misinformation. We have read about it we have heard you talk about it but due to the fact that I’m a show me person why don’t you do an actual demonstration? One we can test and verify?

    I’ll make you a deal.

    I’m also a “show me” person so I’ll be happy to point you to books and articles that provide evidence for neutral mutations and for random genetic drift.

    As part of the deal, you will do an actual demonstration of an intelligent designer making a bacterial flagellum.

    Is that a deal?

  36. 36
    Andre says:

    Virgil Cain

    How do we model sheer dumb luck? Can it be tested? Can it be repeated? Verified? Dr Moran do you know how to model dumb luck?

  37. 37
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    I am an engineer but my skill levels in building a living flagellum is not quite there yet so I have to apologise for my incompetence at such a high level of design.

    I’ve read the books Prof Moran I’m begging for a practical here.

  38. 38
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry Moran:

    I’m also a “show me” person so I’ll be happy to point you to books and articles that provide evidence for neutral mutations and for random genetic drift.

    Doing what? What do the articles say those mechanisms can do?

    As part of the deal, you will do an actual demonstration of an intelligent designer making a bacterial flagellum.

    So if Venter or someone else goes into a lab and designs a bacterial flagellum, you will accept ID? Really?

    You do realize that if you could show that drift and NS can produce a bacterial flagellum ID would be in deep trouble- so why haven’t you done so?

    I can provide examples of genetic engineering by intelligent design.

  39. 39
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    But we can talk about the Architecture of the flagellum and that will naturally lead to reverse enigeering. Do you want to learn something about reverse engineering?

    http://www.npd-solutions.com/reoverview.html

  40. 40
    Virgil Cain says:

    And Larry, why is it that you don’t have to learn about what ID actually says and why is it OK for you to argue from ignorance?

    Here is another good article for you to ignore: Irreducible Complexity And Darwinian Pathways- Mike Gene Responds to Thornhill & Ussery

  41. 41
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    Ever heard of biomimicry? Reverse engineering of biological systems. ..

    http://biomimicry.net/

    If you can reverse engineer it you can say with confidence it was engineered in the first place.

    Now if you can show us how mindless processes can engineer things like a flagella then the floor is yours and I am open to your practical solution using these mindless processes to prove your point.

  42. 42
    Mapou says:

    Moran:

    Mapou says,

    Only a very small subset of mutations are neutral. The others are immediately repaired, otherwise everything would die.

    This is very wrong. Could one of the ID proponents please explain to Mapou why he is wrong? I don’t think he’ll believe anything I say.

    In other words, you’re lying again. You remind me of Zachriel.

  43. 43
    Mung says:

    Larry Moran:

    This is very wrong. Could one of the ID proponents please explain to Mapou why he is wrong? I don’t think he’ll believe anything I say.

    This is an excellent opportunity for some of you to show the world that you really understand evolution and you are embarrassed by ID proponents who spout such nonsense on an ID blog.

    Waiting ….

    We already tried. We were ignored. And yes, now it’s embarrassing, because he continues to repeat it.

    It was first pointed out here.

  44. 44
    Mapou says:

    You are wrong, Mung. You fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    Edit: If Moran was telling the truth, no gene would be conserved. And yet, most genes are conserved for millions of years across different species.

  45. 45
    Mung says:

    Larry Moran:

    Or maybe (gasp!), you could read a book.

    What do you think of Masatoshi Nei’s Mutation-Driven Evolution? Does he know about neutral theory and genetic drift?

  46. 46
    Florabama says:

    Larry Moran: “You can’t understand the arguments about the prevalence of junk DNA…”

    Hmmmn! I was under the assumption that Encode et al put this canard to rest or at least on life support. Are you going against the scientific consensus, Professor Moran? I love independent thinkers, but as those of us who see things differently know all too well, disagreeing with the consensus is not allowed. You, yourself have said as much, Professor, have you not? And if DNA is not mostly junk, as the scientific consensus seems to indicate, would that be evidence for ID or against it? In responding, pointing to folks like yourself who disagree with the consensus doesn’t help you unless of course minority dissent is accepted in science. Is dissent acceptable to you, Professor, and what should the larger populace think of someone who ignores science to make a point? What do you call someone who ignores science?

  47. 47
    Larry Moran says:

    Florabama asks,

    Hmmmn! I was under the assumption that Encode et al put this canard to rest or at least on life support. Are you going against the scientific consensus,

    I’m quite sure the scientific consensus among knowledgeable experts is that most of our genome is junk. Most of the ENCODE leaders admitted as much in a PNAS paper published 18 months after their original papers appeared in September 2012.

    But even if the current consensus favored function that wouldn’t effect the point I was making which was that you need to understand modern evolutionary theory if you care about the issue. Most ID proponents care a great deal about the issue.

  48. 48
    Larry Moran says:

    @Mung

    I’m inclined to accept mutationism but I stll haven’t made up my mind. If you want to understand mutationism it would be better to read Arlin Stoltzfus’ posts on my blog. Nei’s book is far too complicated for the average IDiot ID proponent.

  49. 49
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran now accepts that there is no junk but we still don’t understand ?

    He is making progress.

  50. 50
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry Moran:

    I’m quite sure the scientific consensus among knowledgeable experts is that most of our genome is junk.

    And we are quite sure that assessment is based on ignorance rather than knowledge.

    Nei’s book is far too complicated for the average ID proponent.

    And clearly pro-ID literature is much to complicated for evoTARDs evolutionists.

  51. 51
    groovamos says:

    Moran:

    and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.

    I’m inclined to accept mutationism but I stll haven’t made up my mind.

    Is this to be taught in the public schools? Where everything is currently said to be well established, understood, settled, and characterized with zero controversy? And not needing defense by name calling? BTW, according to NCSE it is very important for those students to understand Evolution.

    Also is there a definition of ‘random’ everyone agrees upon? One that addresses (presumably excluding) any possibility of correlation mechanisms among ‘random’ events? (“Events” as I use it meaning some kind of granularity, as in molecular collisions in gases or genetic mutation.)

  52. 52
    Larry Moran says:

    Virgil Cain says,

    And we are quite sure that assessment is based on ignorance rather than knowledge.

    Who is “we” and what evidence do you have that my view is based on ignorance of the field rather than knowledge?

  53. 53
    Larry Moran says:

    Andre says,

    Prof Moran now accepts that there is no junk but we still don’t understand?

    One part of that statement is true. It’s the part that says, “we still don’t understand.”

    I’m trying very hard not to insult ID proponents by referring to them as IDiots but you’re making that very difficult.

    Vigil Cain and Mapou are also doing their very best to prove that “IDiot” is an appropriate description.

  54. 54
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry Moran:

    Who is “we” and what evidence do you have that my view is based on ignorance of the field rather than knowledge?

    We refers to everyone in the world who isn’t biased towards evolutionism. If you want to beat us up I will gladly be first in line. 😛

    And your ignorance is in the fact that you don’t know what makes an organism what it is. Your ignorance is in the fact that you think drift and natural selection produced the diversity of life. You don’t even know how to model such a thing. You don’t even know how to test the claim for junk DNA. Your criteria for junk DNA is nothing more than “I don’t see any use for it, so it must be junk.”

    That’s sad, not science.

  55. 55
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    Call me what you like, we both know you can’t model random, can you model random Prof Moran?

  56. 56
    Larry Moran says:

    Here’s what I said #47 ….

    I’m quite sure the scientific consensus among knowledgeable experts is that most of our genome is junk.

    Here’s what Virgil Cain said (#50) in response …

    And we are quite sure that assessment is based on ignorance rather than knowledge.

    So I asked him why he assumes that my assessment of the scientific consensus on junk DNA is based on ignorance rather than knowledge. It seemed like a perfectly simple question.
    Virgil Cain replied,

    And your ignorance is in the fact that you don’t know what makes an organism what it is. etc.

    That answer doesn’t seem to have anything to do with whether I accurately described the scientific consensus on junk DNA. Maybe he meant to insult the assessment that knowledgeable evolutionary biologists support the concept of junk DNA?

    Either way, the response makes no sense. Even if knowledgeable scientists didn’t know what makes an organism what it is, they could still evaluate the evidence for and against junk DNA, no?

    Apparently not, for this is what Virgil Cain thinks of the knowledgeable experts.

    You don’t even know how to test the claim for junk DNA. Your criteria for junk DNA is nothing more than “I don’t see any use for it, so it must be junk.”

    What about: Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate?

    Are you still wondering why I call you IDiots?

  57. 57
    Larry Moran says:

    Andre asks,

    Call me what you like, we both know you can’t model random, can you model random Prof Moran?

    Population biologists predicted a long time ago that for neutral alleles segregating in a population of size “N” the probability of fixation by random genetic drift in a diploid species is 1/2N.

    If you know the mutation rate, μ, then the probability of fixation of any neutral allele in a population by random genetic drift is equal to the mutation rate (P = μ per generation).

    Both of these models of stochastic random processes have been repeatedly confirmed.

    Does that count?

  58. 58
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry Moran:

    What about: Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate?

    What about them? They all appear to be based on personal and subjective criteria.

    And you wonder why we call you a moron.

    Genetic Load
    Every newborn human baby has about 100 mutations not found in either parent. If most of our genome contained functional sequence information, then this would be an intolerable genetic load. Only a small percentage of our genome can contain important sequence information suggesting strongly that most of our genome is junk.

    As i have told you already that could be part of the plan. And all it means is that the those sections are not sequence specific.

    C-Value Paradox
    A comparison of genomes from closely related species shows that genome size can vary by a factor of ten or more. The only reasonable explanation is that most of the DNA in the larger genomes is junk.

    Could be easily due to the design of those organisms- older computers have more hardware than newer computers.

    Modern Evolutionary Theory
    Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of population genetics. The modern understanding of evolution is perfectly consistent with the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in a genome.

    The alleged “modern evolutionary theory” exists in the aether. It says whatever anyone wants it to say as long as it sounds reasonable.

    Pseudogenes and broken genes are junk
    More than half of our genomes consists of pseudogenes, including broken transposons and bits and pieces of transposons. A few may have secondarily acquired a function but, to a first approximation, broken genes are junk.

    Perhaps they just look like broken genes and they have a function you are ignorant of

    Most of the genome is not conserved
    Most of the DNA sequences in large genomes is not conserved. These sequences diverge at a rate consistent with fixation of neutral alleles by random genetic drift. This strongly suggests that it does not have a function although one can’t rule out some unknown function that doesn’t depend on sequence.

    Conservation of genes is an evolutionism thing.

  59. 59
    Larry Moran says:

    Virgil Cain says,

    What about them? They all appear to be based on personal and subjective criteria.

    And you wonder why we call you a moron.

    I’m trying to find out if Virgil Cain and his fellow IDiots actually understand the ideas they so vehemently oppose.

    Not looking good so far.

  60. 60
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry, I understand that we do not have complete knowledge of living organisms. I understand that non-sequence specific DNA sequences could be used for something other than coding or templates. I know that complex designed systems have redundant networks along with parts for possible future requirements.

    And I know subjective criteria when I see it.

    But I do agree- NS and drift could explain the presence of junk DNA, but only if they are the sole mechanism responsible for life’s diversity. IOW junk DNA makes sense from a blind watchmaker framework, unfortunately the blind watchmaker framework can’t explain the organisms with this alleged junk DNA.

    So all I am doing is urging caution when it comes to claims about junk DNA- all claims- because we just don’t have enough information.

  61. 61
    NickMatzke_UD says:

    60
    Virgil CainOctober 31, 2015 at 2:11 pm
    Larry, I understand that we do not have complete knowledge of living organisms. I understand that non-sequence specific DNA sequences could be used for something other than coding or templates. I know that complex designed systems have redundant networks along with parts for possible future requirements.

    And I know subjective criteria when I see it.

    But I do agree- NS and drift could explain the presence of junk DNA, but only if they are the sole mechanism responsible for life’s diversity. IOW junk DNA makes sense from a blind watchmaker framework, unfortunately the blind watchmaker framework can’t explain the organisms with this alleged junk DNA.

    So all I am doing is urging caution when it comes to claims about junk DNA- all claims- because we just don’t have enough information.

    Do you understand how much genome size can vary between very similar organisms (species in the same genus), or even within a species? Because that’s the key thing you seem to not get.

    Go on, tell us, what amount of within-genus variation has been observed in genome size?

  62. 62
    Virgil Cain says:

    NickMatzke:

    Do you understand how much genome size can vary between very similar organisms (species in the same genus), or even within a species?

    I understand data compression and how overlapping genes and alternative splicing are mechanisms of such compression. Take two similar organisms, one designed with overlapping genes and alternative splicing and the other with only the basic code, one gene, one protein. Do you think one genome will be larger than the other? Which one? Why?

    Go on, tell us, what amount of within-genus variation has been observed in genome size?

    Well I have read that voles have been evolving faster than most vertebrates but in the past two million years they all still look alike:

    The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.

    Among the vole’s other bizarre genetic traits:

    •In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.
    •In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.
    •In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.

    A final “counterintuitive oddity” is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody’s former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.

    “All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable,” DeWoody said.
    In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.

    Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.

    And I doubt natural selection and drift can even explain that.

  63. 63
    Virgil Cain says:

    And just so that I am clear-

    If our genomes were built on the backs of natural selection and drift, then yes I would absolutely agree with the predominance of junk DNA being the norm and the reasoning valid

    However given Intelligent Design we would expect a predominance of function, even something mundane. For example, given that DNA is wound in coils, non-coding DNA could be a spacer such that the required genes are lined up on the accessible outside of the coil.

    And then there is just physical information storage, like a RAM of sorts.

  64. 64
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    So what you are saying here is that mutations are not random? Welcome to the club most of us have been saying so along. I think you’re almost an IDiot.

  65. 65
    Mung says:

    Nick M: Go on, tell us, what amount of within-genus variation has been observed in genome size?

    Lots. That’s more than just a little. But that’s just observation and record-keeping. Important to science, but not explanatory.

  66. 66
    Larry Moran says:

    Virgil Cain says,

    But I do agree- NS and drift could explain the presence of junk DNA, but only if they are the sole mechanism responsible for life’s diversity. IOW junk DNA makes sense from a blind watchmaker framework, unfortunately the blind watchmaker framework can’t explain the organisms with this alleged junk DNA.

    Having extra DNA is almost certainly detrimental to an organisms as Taylor says. It takes up extra energy to replicate that DNA.

    You were asked to describe how knowledgeable evolutionary biologists explain this seeming anomaly.

    It seems pretty clear to me that you can’t answer the question. Instead you mumble something about junk DNA making sense from a blind watchmaker framework. Richard Dawkins is the most famous advocate of the blind watchmaker and he is very skeptical about junk DNA because it conflicts with his view of evolutionary biology.

    Blind watchmaker is synonymous with strict Darwinism and people who belong in that camp are most likely to be strong opponents of junk DNA.

    But you don’t understand any of that, do you?

    Virgil Cain also says,

    If our genomes were built on the backs of natural selection and drift, then yes I would absolutely agree with the predominance of junk DNA being the norm and the reasoning valid.

    So you agree with me that the ENCODE Consortium was probably wrong and the majority of knowledgeable evolutionary biologists agree that most of our genome is junk, right?

    Please tell your friends in the ID movement.

  67. 67
    Mung says:

    Virgil does not have any friends in the ID movement.

    😉

  68. 68
    Virgil Cain says:

    Larry,

    I said natural selection and drift and yes drift is part of the blind watchmaker processes- it is blind and mindless too. Darwin talked about drift in “On the Origins of Species…” so it is part of Darwinism. Your semantic games are just a distraction from the fact that you don’t have an argument.

    Having extra DNA is almost certainly detrimental to an organisms as Taylor says. It takes up extra energy to replicate that DNA.

    It absorbs errors so it is also helpful. And when energy is an issue replication just slows down to save energy. With the highly efficient ATP synthase and the cycles that feed it, you get change back with your free lunch. But you know that.

    You were asked to describe how knowledgeable evolutionary biologists explain this seeming anomaly.

    You have me confused with someone else. You asked me:

    So I asked him why he assumes that my assessment of the scientific consensus on junk DNA is based on ignorance rather than knowledge.

    It is based on ignorance because the consensus has DNA and living organisms arising via purely physicochemical processes. And that concept isn’t based on knowledge.

    So you agree with me that the ENCODE Consortium was probably wrong and the majority of knowledgeable evolutionary biologists agree that most of our genome is junk, right?

    Umm our genomes were not built on the backs of NS and drift, ENCODE is mostly right and you and yours are using the wrong paradigm.

    Please tell your friends in the ID movement.

    OK listen up- “trick or treat”- Larry and his mob of evolutionary biologists say that ENCODE is wrong and most of the human genome is junk DNA.

    Anything else, Larry?

  69. 69
    Virgil Cain says:

    Hopefully Nick and Larry didn’t run away…

  70. 70
    Florabama says:

    Professor Moran, I thank you for coming over here and revealing the vacuousness of your argument and personal character — both — in just a few posts. To do both so quickly says a lot. You are efficient if not very thoughtful nor creative (Donald Trump is much better at insults and he’s not very good).

    This is a fascinating time to be alive. Each and every pillar of “Darwinism” (no doubt the most influential ideology in the last 150 years) has been knocked out from under it leaving it and you Professor, hanging, in der luft, and arguing with the scientific consensus on things like junk DNA and the inability of random mechanisms to create super complex biological systems while you and your colleagues scramble to find alternatives to the long dead Darwinistic mechanisms which were nothing but just so stories all along.

    What’s so fascinating to me is that it has been science itself that has left your position so bankrupt. No one even argues that Neo-Darwinism is still a viable position any longer.

    From the front page of The Third Way of Evolution:

    “The commonly accepted alternative [to ID] is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation.”

    I know, I know. Before you say it. You have all the answers, NOW. Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. We got it. But, the point is that your own colleagues say that “Darwinism” (their word not mine) “ignored contemporary evidence” and made “naturalistic assumptions” hence you must move on down the road and find new alternatives now that the “contemporary molecular evidence,” is available Better get moving before Mazur writes ANOTHER book. (Y’all sure don’t like her very much but she’s neither a creationist nor an ID proponent — just the messenger that keeps telling us about the fractured state of evolutionary thinking). Oh well!

    Anyway, wasn’t that what your ID critics said all along? That you IGNORED evidence to the contrary? Well, I’m sure ignoring evidence is just a thing of the past, right? But here you sit, arguing with Encode, and in the meantime the DarwiNazi Mafia enforces a strict ban on disseminating anything other than the long dead, old Darwinism to high school students least the thinkers among them begin to question the narrative. Can’t have questions, can we? Can’t reveal the cracks in the dam.

    Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for them, we now live in the information age. The dam has broken and try as you might to enforce party allegiance, the information is there for the taking and each and every time you enforce censorship, you encourage thinkers to look behind the curtain.”Just what are they hiding?” A bit of catch 22 for you, isn’t it?

    This is why you have lost. Science has nibbled away at your position until there’s nothing left and you have been forced to “evolve.” You are left just exactly where you were before — appealing to Neutral Theory and random genetic drift — instead of natural selection and random mutations — without ever demonstrating how any of these processes can build super complex machines. In loving memory of the late Yogi Berra, this is “deja vu all over again.” Meanwhile in the lab, beyond the power of just so stories, Summers et al is beginning to define the edge of evolution, and not to put too fine a point on it, it just ain’t all that.

    Science continues to march forward leaving you and your bankrupt ideology behind. That must be very scary for you seeing that you have devoted your life to a failed idea. My sympathies. Meanwhile each and every day, science reinforces what everyone with an ounce of common sense knew already — a designer is required to create complex machines, biological or otherwise. And you are left, like a chihuahua barking at the heals of the postman, arguing with the science that you claim to revere.

    “I’m quite sure the scientific consensus among knowledgeable experts is that most of our genome is junk. Most of the ENCODE leaders admitted as much in a PNAS paper published 18 months after their original papers appeared in September 2012.”

    As we say in the South (about someone who is patently pathetic),

    “Well bless your little heart.”

    The “consensus among knowledgable experts?” Well lets see, Professor. Who would those experts be? Would they by chance be the ones who agree with you? Not very good at logic are you?

    How do we know Encode was wrong?
    Knowledgable experts agree!
    Who are those knowledgable experts?
    They’re the one’s who agree with me.

    Got it!

    No professor. Encode knocked out ANOTHER of your icons. No matter what the current number, more DNA is functional than you believed, and its important to note that you “BELIEVED” it was non-functional based not on the science but on your ideology — as an article of faith — and your faith has now taken ANOTHER big hit from science while ID proponents just yawned and said, “hey, that’s what we expected.”

    I also note that as has been shown on this very site, Encode is just the beginning. New functionality continues to be shown for what was once thought junk and as already stated — even if the “junk” is simply a spacer — it is still functional. Calling it “junk” is just expressing an article of faith. Thinking people dismiss you and your bankrupt religion and are open to the evidence that has always pointed to design.

    From the moment Pasteur put the nail in the coffin of spontaneous generation to Crick recognizing that,

    “…the odds of a simply polypeptide chain putting itself together by chance are greater than all the individual atoms in the universe…” (Life Itself)

    Naturalism was D.O.A. The tide has been rising on you ever since and it continues to get worse (if you can get worse than D.O.A. Crick was at 10^80 but Meyer puts the number at 10^1000 plus) and yet you irrationally hang on to your faith — against all odds. Hey, it’s good to be a man of faith.

    If things keep going like they’re going, it won’t be long before “Darwinism” (in quotes to encompass all the latest iterations and avoid semantic distractions) will take its rightful place next to alchemy in the hall of failed ideas. What a wonderful time to be alive, indeed.

  71. 71
    Larry Moran says:

    Andre says,

    So what you are saying here is that mutations are not random? Welcome to the club most of us have been saying so along. I think you’re almost an IDiot.

    The probability of DNA damage or replication errors is not the same for each of the four base pairs (A/T, T/A, C/G, and G/C). That’s been known for many decades. The probability of effective repair also differs so the net result is that certain mutations occur more frequently than others. The differences aren’t great but they have been worked out in several species.

    The probabilities are also affected by adjacent base pairs. That’s also been known for a long time. I started teaching this stuff in university courses in 1976.

    Insertions and deletions occur much less frequently than substitutions so they can be effectively ignored in most population genetics models of evolution. Same with recombination errors leading to chromosomal rearrangements.

    These types of mutations (insertions, deletions, rearrangements) are often associated with repetitive sequences in the genome so they are much more likely to occur at some sites than others. This non-randomeness of indels and rearrangements has been included in the textbooks and taught in courses for at least three decades.

    All of this has been explored and confirmed in many experiments. But as far as I know, none of these experiments has ever detected mutation fairies that guide mutations to specific sites. There’s no evidence of such guided events. All known mutations fall within the probabilities of naturalistic events even though they are not “random” by the definition you are using.

    That doesn’t stop people from believing in fairies.

  72. 72
    Virgil Cain says:

    Yeah, larry, and there aren’t any fairies in your computer but the outputs are still guided. Directed evolution can be modeled. How do we model unguided evolution?

  73. 73
    Andre says:

    Prof Moran

    So it’s random but not really? What else are you willing to do in your mind to deny that there is purpose and guidance when it comes to the operation of living systems?

    Have you exhausted all research to find out why only certain sites are open to these? While others are a no go zone? How did unguided processes create these guided processes to prevent unguided processes from happening?

    You have to focus on how random, purposeless, nothing managed to miraculously work together to achieve a living system.

  74. 74
    Steve says:

    Andre,

    What i think Prof. Moran misunderstands is that randomness in the genome is a designed object. It is the randomness of the variation that meshes with the randomness of the environment that allows the continued survival of organisms.

    Design deniers want to portray the seeming randomness of variation and selection as evidence of non-design.

    What we should be doing is emphasizing not how designed objects are ‘guided’ but how the designed object works to overcome barriers and how un-designed objects could never break those barriers.

    For example, design deniers never talk about excess reproduction. Yet it is excess reproduction that is the driver, not random variation filtered by selection. The latter two are simply components of the designed system that starts with excess reproduction.

    Why don’t design deniers talk about excess reproduction? Because excess reproduction precedes any definition of evolution design deniers talk about. Also, excess reproduction is the key driver that overcomes the barrier of unpredictable environmental conditions.

    So we should be emphatic about showing how random variation and selection are simply components in a larger designed object that starts wit excess reproduction.

    We should also be studying and analyzing how the different rates of excess reproduction of each type of organism is determined by their place in life’s heirarchy and how they contribute to the balance in the biosphere.

    I think we should be able to show that excess reproduction is not itself happen-stance and a product of chance but clearly is designed to create balance in the biosphere.

    IMHO, focusing on excess reproduction as the main component in the designed object that includes random variation and selection will undercut any argument design deniers make.

  75. 75
    Zachriel says:

    Steve: design deniers never talk about excess reproduction

    Darwin, Origin of Species 1859: Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.

  76. 76
    Mung says:

    We’ve been telling her for several decades that neo-Darwinism, as she and her fellow ID proponents define it, was abandoned in the early 1970s when everyone adopted Neutral Theory—the idea that many mutations are neutral—and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.

    Post-Darwinism?

Leave a Reply