Question for readers: In a world where horizontal gene transfer is an important force, what becomes of Dawkins’s Selfish Gene?

Bob (and weave) O'Hara states that,,

additive genetic variance is not an easy concept to understand: it doesn’t mean (for example) that mutations have to be additive. Epistasis will also include an additive component: the additive effect of an allele is the average effect of changing that allele (i.e. averaged over the different genetic backgrounds it could appear in).

And then after Bob figures he has tossed enough word salad around, he adds this ad hominem dressing to his word salad for good measure.

I don’t feel inclined to change my views if I’m being lectured by someone who clearly doesn’t understand the topic.

Contrary to the self smugness that Bob flatters himself with, the 'concept' of 'additive genetic variance' is, comparatively speaking, an amazingly easy concept to grasp. "You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand it"

"You might think that a theory so profound would be laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton’s Mechanics or Einstein's Relativity. But such is not the case. Darwinism is the most accessible “scientific” theory ever proposed. It needs no math, no mastery of biology, no depth of understanding on any level. The dullest person can understand the basic story line: “Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong.” You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this. And the real beauty of it is that when you first glimpse this revelation with its “aha!” moment, you feel like an Einstein yourself. You feel superior, far superior, to those religious nuts who still believe in God. Without having paid any dues whatsoever, you breathe the same rarified air as the smartest people who have ever lived." – Laszlo Bencze

Although Bob has deluded himself into believing that he has proof for Darwinian evolution in the mathematical fantasy land of population genetics that he lives in, (which I remind Bob, and unbiased readers, the existence of mathematics itself falsifies the reductive materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution.)

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

And although Bob, as a Darwinian materialist, has no right to the immaterial realm of mathematics in the first place, none-the-less Fisher's mathematical theorem, which Bob is reliant on for his claims, and as referenced several times now, has been falsified by John Sanford and company when taking into account realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations.

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x

Bob, as usual for a Darwinist, refuses to accept this falsification of his theory. (Nor will he accept any other falsification of his theory) Thus, I went back to the empirical evidence itself. Since, in empirical science, the empirical evidence itself has final say, PERIOD! As Richard Feynman stated,

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Yet Bob also refused to listen to what the empirical evidence was saying for “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations being "less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.” I even threw in the empirical fact that the entire genome is now known to be, directly contrary to the Darwinian presupposition of 'selfish genes', a holisitc web of mutual interdependence. A holistic web in which extensive multiple overlapping coding in the genome (and protein interactions for that matter) is the overriding rule instead of the exception. Bob, living in his mathematical fantasy land, apparently claims to be wiser than the empirical evidence itself is and simply refuses to ever accept any empirical evidence that might falsify his theory. Simply put, Bob has severely deluded himself with his mathematical musings. Musings that have little, if any, connection to the real world. To give Bob a little lesson in how science actually operates in the real world, Karl Popper stated that “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

And as Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated, “it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”

Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659

Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution 'cannot be refuted by any possible observations' and is thus “outside empirical science.”

“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352

Moreover, it is not that Darwinism has not already been falsified time and time again. It is that Darwinists themselves simple refuse to ever accept any falsification of their theory. Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

Verse:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:

“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. In other words, the Darwinian Emperor, contrary to what the supposedly 'smart' people on the street may say, is completely naked, The Darwinian Emperor doesn't even have any underwear on to cover his nakedness! Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Moreover, following the restriction of methodological naturalism on science, that is to say, following the presumption that only natural, material, and/or physical causes are allowed to be given in order to explain any given effect in science, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. Again, It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of methodological naturalism has turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. One final note, Bob, in his put down of me, apparently, in his own mind, fancies himself to be a pretty smart fellow. Yet, the reality of the situation, as everyone can see by now, is far different than what Bob fancies. Anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution, by definition, can't be all that smart. It is simply a completely insane worldview.bornagain77

December 6, 2019

December

12

Dec

6

06

2019

08:04 AM

8

08

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ba77 - additive genetic variance is not an easy concept to understand: it doesn't mean (for example) that mutations have to be additive. Epistasis will also include an additive component: the additive effect of an allele is the average effect of changing that allele (i.e. averaged over the different genetic backgrounds it could appear in). As you might guess, I don't feel inclined to change my views if I'm being lectured by someone who clearly doesn't understand the topic.Bob O'H

December 6, 2019

December

12

Dec

6

06

2019

06:43 AM

6

06

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob O'Hara is Professor in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He jokes that,

"My career has been dedicated to discovering whether I am a biologist or a statistician - I intend to retire once I come to a definite answer." https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/bob.ohara

Thus, obviously Bob should have a fairly descent idea about what the mathematics behind Darwinian evolution actually entail. And in post 171 (Professor) Bob O'Hara's claims that,

"Fisher showed that the response to (directional) selection is determined by the additive genetic variance."

Yet, besides the fact that, (as was shown in post 174), "When the realistic rate of detrimental mutations are taken into account, then it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”, besides that little inconvenient 'correction' to Fisher's theorem that falsifies it, it is also now empirically shown, via Lenski's "Long Term Evolution Experiment" (LTEE), that Fisher's belief that beneficial mutations will be "additive" was also another false presupposition on Fisher's part (and thus, is also currently a false presupposition on Bob's part). Specifically, “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations shows that beneficial mutations are not "additive". As the following study found, "the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually."

Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-mutations-benefits.html

As Casey Luskin explained, The title of a summary piece in Science tells the whole story: “In Evolution, the Sum Is Less than Its Parts.”

New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011 Excerpt: The title of a summary piece in Science tells the whole story: “In Evolution, the Sum Is Less than Its Parts.” It notes that these studies encountered “antagonistic epistasis,” where negative effects arise from epistatic interactions: "Both studies found a predominance of antagonistic epistasis, which impeded the rate of ongoing adaptation relative to a null model of independent mutational effects." In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn’t run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html

That these findings falsify Darwinian expectations that beneficial mutations should be additive, these findings also reveal that Darwinists don't even have a coherent explanation why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations should even exist. On the other hand, Intelligent Design advocates readily understand why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations are as they are. As was mentioned previously in this thread, instead of the genome being dominated by 'genes for' something, as is presupposed in Darwinian thought,

Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated - June 29, 2015 Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect: "We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics." And the craze is not harmless, he warns. … https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/gene-previously-linked-to-obesity-is-unrelated/

,,, instead of the genome being dominated by 'genes for' something, as is presupposed in Darwinian thought, the 'genes' in a genome are instead now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation, wherein, "such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert."

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/

This 'holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation' places severe constraints on Darwinian evolution. As Dr. Sanford explained in his book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome", if we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 mutually interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, we would instead be encountering something much more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of the book ‘Genetic Entropy’ by Dr. Sanford.

S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S

That five-word palindrome translates as,

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

This ancient palindrome, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, if we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new (beneficial) meaning for a single reading read any one way, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center letter). Moreover, mutating any subsequent letter in the palindrome will obviously induce “antagonistic epistasis” towards the first mutated letter, wherein any benefit that the first mutated letter may have conferred will be compromised by any subsequent change, with the benefit being compromised even further as even more letters are changed in the palindrome. As John Sanford and company explained in the following paper, "As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero."

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

And the genome is indeed found to be severely poly-functional

38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589.

For one particularly crystal clear example of the staggering level of poly-functionality now being found in genomes, "there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins!"

Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8

Thus in conclusion, “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations falsifies Fisher's belief that beneficial mutations should be additive, and also reveals that Darwinists, (with their reductive materialistic framework), don't even have a coherent explanation why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations should even exist, Whereas on the other hand, Intelligent Design advocates readily do understand why “antagonistic epistasis” between beneficial mutations are as they are. Moreover, the staggering levels of overlapping poly-functional complexity now being found in genomes, renders the Darwinian belief in 'additive beneficial mutations' to be a patently absurd belief. And, on the other hand, renders the belief that the genome was Intelligently Designed to be glaringly obvious. If Bob O'Hara has an ounce of integrity in his responsibility as a professor, he should take all this falsifying evidence into account and adjust his teaching accordingly. Simply put, Darwinian evolution is empirically and mathematically shown to be false and Bob should, as a responsible educator, accept what the science is actually saying no matter how he may personally feel about it.

Psalm 26:11 But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity. Redeem me, and be gracious unto me. O come, O come, Emmanuel - (Piano/Cello) - The Piano Guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO7ySn-Swwc

bornagain77

December 6, 2019

December

12

Dec

6

06

2019

05:08 AM

5

05

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

. Has the battle on this thread run its course? Okay. Ed, just so you know -- as a matter of physical necessity, Darwinian "fitness" is specified by a system if symbols in a multi-referent code. The critical state of fitness (think von Neumann's "threshold of complexity") is called "semantic closure". It is a state that not only has very specific physical requirements, but also organizational requirements. It requires the simultaneous coordination of multiple microstates in order to occur, and is the vital condition that enables the system to persist over time. Without it, I would not be here to point it out to you, and you would not be here to ignore it and deny its nature.Upright BiPed

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

08:11 PM

8

08

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013 Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,: "We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,, As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,, http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/ Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy - Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013 Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.]. African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare! http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

Thus in conclusion, Bob (and weave) lives in a mathematical fantasy land that bears no resemblance to reality. In fact, Bob refuses to acknowledge any empirical evidence that might falsify his mathematical fantasies.bornagain77

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

06:41 AM

6

06

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob claims,

Fisher showed that the response to (directional) selection is determined by the additive genetic variance.

Yet, as was already shown in this thread, and Bob refuses to accept, Fisher has been falsified. When the realistic rate of detrimental mutations are taken into account, then it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/

As to the realistic rate of deleterious to beneficial mutations,

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 – video (Behe – Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014 http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-cant-survive-if-they-never-arrive/ Gloves Off -- Responding to David Levin on the Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis - Lee M. Spetner - Sept. 2016 Excerpt: I wrote in this book (as well in an earlier book) that there is no example of a random mutation that adds heritable information to the genome, and that statement still stands. The statement is important because evolution is about building up information (Spetner 1964, 1968, 1970). Some have offered what they think are counterexamples of my statement, but they are often not of random mutations at all, or they otherwise fail to be valid counterexamples. Levin finds the statement astonishing, and it may well astonish someone who believes evolutionary theory represents reality. But it happens to be true, and I am not surprised that it astonishes him because it deals a deathblow to evolutionary theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/gloves_off_--_r103168.html The Human Gene Mutation Database The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease. Deleterious Mutation total (as of Feb. 17 , 2018) – 220270 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

bornagain77

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

06:35 AM

6

06

35

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob @ 167- I just purchased that "whole book" you linked to.ET

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

04:42 AM

4

04

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob O'H- All you have done is to reinforce what Berlinski wrote- ie statistical regression.

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.- Berlinski

What you cannot do is show the model you linked to has any basis in reality. The fact remains that in a world of evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes that you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, let alone metazoans. And given that type of process all you have to "model" is contingent serendipity.ET

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

04:31 AM

4

04

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ba77 @ 169 -

But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,”

And the relevance of this to animal models is... Oh yes, it provides a strong justification for using them, because the precise genetic architecture doesn't have to be know for them to work. We can sidestep these problems because the animal model provides us a way to estimate the additive genetic variance, and Fisher showed that the response to (directional) selection is determined by the additive genetic variance.Bob O'H

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

04:15 AM

4

04

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

E. G. then falsely claims

As has been shown, their are numerous physical quantities, such as fitness, that are dimensionless and, therefore, not traceable to the SI.

That is a false claim. One, Fitness is NOT listed as a dimensionless constant on the wiki page that Bob linked to.

Of course it isn't listed, it's not a constant.Bob O'H

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

03:53 AM

3

03

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob's claim to ET,

you (ET) asked if the methods used in animal breeding had been used in wild populations. I linked to a wiki about precisely that. How does that not help?

The page that Bob linked to,

Welcome to WAMWiki the wild animal models wiki https://www.wildanimalmodels.org/tiki-index.php

Note the disclaimer at the bottom of Bob's page

Disclaimer We hope the information here is useful. We are doing our best but certainly don't guarantee there are no errors at all. Code provided is intended to serve as a starting point for fitting animal models. It should not be seen as a one stop solution to cover all scenarios.

LOL :) "It should not be seen as a one stop solution to cover all scenarios" ,,,.translation, Bob is a used car salesman that is trying to sell a junker, :) You just can't make this stuff up. Atheistic arguments are literally a comedy of errors! :) But seriously, there are a very few examples that Bob can point to, but those examples are rare exceptions and are not the rule. As the paper I listed at post 56 stated, "Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,"

Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

The irresolvable dilemma this presents to population genetics is as such:

The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard - 2011 Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf

Thus, despite Bob's claims to the contrary, population genetics is at a severe impasse. Bottom line, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

bornagain77

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

03:44 AM

3

03

44

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Ed. G. lifts a quote out of context in one post and then ignores the subsequent argument in another post that I actually made against atheistic materialism. To repeat the actual argument against YOUR atheistic materialism,

you misunderstand my argument. My argument is that atheistic materialism, YOUR PHILOSOPHY, demands that EVERYTHING be reducible to purely material explanation. Fitness, a central concept in Darwinian evolution, is a immaterial mathematical construct that is NOT reducible to purely material explanation, hence my asking you guys what physical and/or material si units fitness is measured in. You, misunderstanding my argument, want me to also give the material/physical si units to measure the abstract mathematical and engineering concepts of CSI and IC with. Yet Intelligent Design does not insanely claim that everything is reducible to purely material explanation. That is YOUR claim. It is not hypocrisy in the least for me to ask you to prove that a central concept in Darwinian thinking, i.e. fitness, is in fact reducible to purely materialistic explanation when in fact that is EXACTLY what your materialistic philosophy claims can be done. The fact that you cannot do it, and yet demand of me that I reduce the abstract concepts of CSI and IC to material explanations, (when I in fact am the one claiming that abstract concepts cannot be reduced to purely material explanations) just proves the point that you do even understand what your very own philosophy actually entails. Like I said, “Graduate kindergarten, in regards to understanding what your own philosophy entails, then get back to me.”

E. G. then falsely claims

As has been shown, their are numerous physical quantities, such as fitness, that are dimensionless and, therefore, not traceable to the SI.

That is a false claim. One, Fitness is NOT listed as a dimensionless constant on the wiki page that Bob linked to.

dimensionless constants, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dimensionless_quantities

Moreover, from the numerous links I provided, show that the precise mathematical definition of Fitness is not even agreed upon. Thus, besides failing to have any precise way to physically measure it (which should be possible if atheistic materialism were actually true), 'fitness' also fails as a rigid abstract mathematical construct too. Moreover, as was pointed out to Bob, it is insane for a reductive materialist to appeal to dimensionless constants to try to support atheistic materialism,

Bob, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that HIS materialistic philosophy necessarily entails that the immaterial realm of mathematics does not really exists, links to, of all things, dimensionless quantities in mathematics. For example pi, and the square root of negative 1, are listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity#Pure_numbers You simply cannot make this stuff up. So tell us Bob, explain to us exactly, in materialistic terms mind you, How fast does pi go? Is pi closer to Virginian or Utah? Does pi have a negative or positive charge? etc.. etc.. For crying out loud Bob, it is hard (even impossible) for me to believe that you are this dense. Pi, like the rest of the dimensionless constants on the site you listed, is a completely immaterial concept that belongs squarely in the Platonic realm of mathematics, not in YOUR material realm of Darwinian materialism: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-for-readers-in-a-world-where-horizontal-gene-transfer-is-an-important-force-what-becomes-of-dawkinss-selfish-gene/#comment-689039

It ain't rocket science. Only willfully ignorant atheistic trolls could be so dense as to not see the fatal flaw in atheistic materialism.bornagain77

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

02:40 AM

2

02

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET @ 155 - you asked if the methods used in animal breeding had been used in wild populations. I linked to a wiki about precisely that. How does that not help? The second link is to a model because that's what you were asking about. You should also look at the references to see examples of using the animal model on real populations. @156 - there's a whole book on it (it's a bit old but still it's there). And there's the paper I linked to (plus the references therein).Bob O'H

December 5, 2019

December

12

Dec

5

05

2019

12:47 AM

12

12

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Acartia Eddie, infant:

And my point is that if this is the case for fitness, it also applies to CSI and IC (and the explanatory filter).

That is called the cowardly to quoque fallacy, Acartia. There isn't any rigorous mathematics behind biological fitness. You lose, twice.ET

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

07:42 PM

7

07

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77

My criticism still applies, you cannot define fitness in a mathematically concise way so as to be useful If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of ‘fitness’ with reference to SI units.

And my point is that if this is the case for fitness, it also applies to CSI and IC (and the explanatory filter). As has been shown, their are numerous physical quantities, such as fitness, that are dimensionless and, therefore, not traceable to the SI. You can either acknowledge that such dimensionless quantities have merit or acknowledge that ID measures are without merit. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.Ed George

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

07:23 PM

7

07

23

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

a little more context for you:

And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science. Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].” Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience. The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness In fact there is currently up to a 5 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 5 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

Like I said context is everything. Moreover, I, (once my argument was more fully developed), made it explicitly clear to you what my actual argument against YOUR PHILOSOPHY of atheistic materialism actually is. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-for-readers-in-a-world-where-horizontal-gene-transfer-is-an-important-force-what-becomes-of-dawkinss-selfish-gene/#comment-689051 That you ignore that fully developed argument, that I went to pains to make especially clear for you, shows that you are intellectually dishonest in forthrightly addressing the, IMHO, irresolvable weaknesses in your own philosophy. It shows, in actuality, a pathetic lack of integrity on your part!bornagain77

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

07:00 PM

7

07

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Wow, more infantile tu quoque. Why do evos think their infantile responses are meaningful discourse?ET

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

07:00 PM

7

07

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

And I note that you left off the rest of my post at 51 where I develop the argument more fully: Context is everything My criticism still applies, you cannot define fitness in a mathematically concise way so as to be useful If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of ‘fitness’ with reference to SI units. I won’t be holding my breath: Darwinian evolution simply has no realistic mathematical model to test against:

“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ And the primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution to test against is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon: Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.” The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf So again Bob (and weave) O’Hara, If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of fitness with reference to SI units. On top of all that, (as it that was not bad enough), Darwinian evolution and the world of mathematics are completely incompatible with each other. The main reason why Darwinian Evolution and Mathematics are completely incompatible with each other is that Darwinian evolution is based on a Naturalistic and/or Materialistic worldview in which it is held that “only matter is real, that the world is just physical and that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,” And where Darwinian evolution is based on a materialistic view of reality which denies that anything beyond nature exists, on the other hand, Mathematics exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time realm, a realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world. Platonic mathematical world – image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/i.....ysical.gif Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/ Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html In fact since mathematics itself is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation then that necessary entails that the mind of man must also be fundamentally immaterial. i.e. Our ability with Mathematics is proof in and of itself that man must possess a eternal soul: “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”

bornagain77

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

06:55 PM

6

06

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sev

Do any of these references discuss measuring fitness in SI units? If not, they can’t be scientific according to you.

BA77

Seversky, thanks for demonstrating for all to see that you have no clue what the argument actually is that I actually made against YOUR PHILOSOPHY of atheistic materialism.

Sorry, but you are demonstrating the fine art of goalpost shifting. Let me remind you of your original argument.

My criticism still applies, you cannot define fitness in a mathematically concise way so as to be useful If you disagree, then please show us the exact mathematical definition of ‘fitness’ with reference to SI units.

There is nothing here about an argument made against the philosophy of materialistic atheism. That is just where you took the argument when you were incapable of identifying the SI units that ID mathematical constructs were traceable to.Ed George

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

06:25 PM

6

06

25

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

^^^^^ Seversky, thanks for demonstrating for all to see that you have no clue what the argument actually is that I actually made against YOUR PHILOSOPHY of atheistic materialism. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-for-readers-in-a-world-where-horizontal-gene-transfer-is-an-important-force-what-becomes-of-dawkinss-selfish-gene/#comment-689051bornagain77

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

05:28 PM

5

05

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bornagain77 @ 157

An Open Letter to Teachers teaching Natural Selection – 2012-03-07 Excerpt: Let’s look at the concept of “fitness” first. Fitness plays a central role in the concept of natural selection. There are at least two ways that scientists and philosophers view fitness. The propensity view of fitness argues that fitness is a probabilistic propensity while a statistical view sees fitness as a subjective probability. The propensity view sees fitness as a causal factor while the statistical view “deprives fitness of any causal or explanatory power”. https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fitness/#FitSubPro It is an ongoing discussion and here are a few articles discussing the role of fitness in evolutionary biology. Two ways of thinking about natural selection http://web.missouri.edu/~ariew.....itness.pdf Selection and Causation (argues against a causal view) http://joelvelasco.net/teachin.....sation.pdf Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment? http://members.logical.net/~ma.....ulment.pdf Fitness (Stanford Encyclopaedia) http://www.science.uva.nl/~seo.....#FitSubPro Matthen and Ariew’s Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death have been Greatly Exaggerated (argues for a causal propensity view) http://www.duke.edu/~alexrose/MAcomment.pdf What fitness can’t be (argues against a causal view) http://web.missouri.edu/~ariew.....s_aint.pdf https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/An-Open-Letter-to-Teachers-teaching-Natural-Selection-20120307

Do any of these references discuss measuring fitness in SI units? If not, they can't be scientific according to you.Seversky

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

05:08 PM

5

05

08

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Thank you, sir. Awesome!ET

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

09:31 AM

9

09

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET:

An Open Letter to Teachers teaching Natural Selection - 2012-03-07 Excerpt: Let’s look at the concept of “fitness” first. Fitness plays a central role in the concept of natural selection. There are at least two ways that scientists and philosophers view fitness. The propensity view of fitness argues that fitness is a probabilistic propensity while a statistical view sees fitness as a subjective probability. The propensity view sees fitness as a causal factor while the statistical view "deprives fitness of any causal or explanatory power". https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fitness/#FitSubPro It is an ongoing discussion and here are a few articles discussing the role of fitness in evolutionary biology. Two ways of thinking about natural selection http://web.missouri.edu/~ariewa/Two_Ways_of_fitness.pdf Selection and Causation (argues against a causal view) http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/matthen%20and%20ariew%2009%20-%20selection%20and%20causation.pdf Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment? http://members.logical.net/~marshall/AbramsAnnulment.pdf Fitness (Stanford Encyclopaedia) http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/fitness/#FitSubPro Matthen and Ariew’s Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death have been Greatly Exaggerated (argues for a causal propensity view) http://www.duke.edu/~alexrose/MAcomment.pdf What fitness can't be (argues against a causal view) http://web.missouri.edu/~ariewa/what_fitness_aint.pdf https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/An-Open-Letter-to-Teachers-teaching-Natural-Selection-20120307

To wit:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all. - Berlinski

bornagain77

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

09:12 AM

9

09

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Are there any peer-reviewed papers on how to measure biological fitness?ET

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

08:43 AM

8

08

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The first link doesn't help you, Bob. The second pertains to a model- yet it is said that all models are wrong, but some are useful. They used their model on a gryphon. Yeah, that is very telling...ET

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

08:15 AM

8

08

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET - the Dennett link works for me. For the other two, my apologies. The first is to this, and the second to this.Bob O'H

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

08:09 AM

8

08

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob, your links don't work, just like evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Watch the program- PBS "Evolution", Bob.ET

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

08:00 AM

8

08

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Yo-Yo Ma, Alison Krauss - The Wexford Carol (Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxDZjg_Igoc

ET per post 44:

Fitness itself, although it figures centrally in the equations of population genetics, has no universally agreed upon measure so as to tell us exactly how fitness is to be numerically quantified into a rigorous, i.e. mathematically useful, measure: Where is the purposelessness of evolution? – 23 March 2012, Excerpt: The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness. The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue). John O. Reiss notes also make the following interesting remark: “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.” Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is in the first place. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place.,,, https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Where-is-the-purposelessness-of-evolution-20120322 Moreover, the more precise one tries to be with defining fitness, the more ‘fitness’ evaporates into thin air as a supposed useful tool for Darwinists to use as in a rigorous mathematical manner: Is Darwinism Collapsing? Fitness Is Unmeasurable – Sept. 2017 Excerpt: Key concepts like fitness and survival of the fittest are coming under attack, say evolutionists who suggest the theory needs “critical improvements.”,, “Variability in Fitness Effects Can Preclude Selection of the Fittest.” The very title suggests that core concepts underlying neo-Darwinism (fitness and selection) are in trouble.,,, “Evolutionary biologists often predict the outcome of natural selection on an allele by measuring its effects on lifetime survival and reproduction of individual carriers. However, alleles affecting traits like sex, evolvability, and cooperation can cause fitness effects that depend heavily on differences in the environmental, social, and genetic context of individuals carrying the allele. This variability makes it difficult to summarize the evolutionary fate of an allele solely on the basis of its effects on any one individual. Attempts to average over this variability can sometimes salvage the concept of fitness. In other cases, evolutionary outcomes can be predicted only by considering the entire genealogy of an allele, thus limiting the utility of individual fitness altogether.” ,,, you see a “see-saw between advantage and disadvantage” as individuals (vertical axis) vary over time (horizontal axis). Look at the blue line labeled “mean fitness”. The average fitness of the population goes up, down, up, down. The orange line “Fitness variance” is a constant: i.e., there is no net fitness gain. Darwin would have a fit over “fitness” that goes nowhere! https://crev.info/2017/09/darwinism-collapsing-fitness-unmeasurable/ In fact, when the realistic rate of detrimental mutations are taken into account, then it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase” The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease.

bornagain77

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

07:55 AM

7

07

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET - start here, and in particular this paper. Can you be more specific about Dennett? The only thing I can find is this, where he says something a bit different:

Q: What do you think is the most widely misunderstood aspect of natural selection? A: I think the mistake that many people make about natural selection is thinking that since it's inexorable without exception, that it leaves no room for randomness, for chaos to come in and upset the directions that it's taken so far. In fact, the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. It feeds on accident and contingency, and exploits that in ways that couldn't be predicted. It's still an inexorable process. It's still always gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms there are and the environment in which they're being selected. But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process.

Is this what you were referring to? (editted to remove typos)Bob O'H

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

06:33 AM

6

06

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob, there is no way we are going to take your word for it. Pease provide the valid references. With artificial selection we know which are going to be allowed to breed, duh. That is the whole purpose. Berlinski understands the theory better than you do, Bob. I dare you to challenge him. That would be very entertaining. As for Dennett, look up "PBS Evolution and search there. Or read his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". If you think Dennett is wrong then demonstrate it. It should be easy.ET

December 4, 2019

December

12

Dec

4

04

2019

06:10 AM

6

06

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link