Michael Lynch is giving a seminar next week on Friday, January 13, 2017 in the Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto. The title is: Mutation, Drift, and the Origin of Subcellular Features. The talk is at 3PM in the Earth Sciences Centre rm B142.
9 comments :
Here's hoping you do a precis of his seminar.
Oh! Definitely marking this in my calendar!
I'm just curious how many people in the audience will know anything about "drift" but you Larry. I'm even more curious how many of those that will be in the audience who have heard about "drift" are sceptical about it; more precisely what it can accomplish as a mechanism of evolution. I'm very curious as to why Lynch is an expert on "drift" all of the sudden. He's been growing bacteria in the lab for 25 years and his experimental results might, or might not, be viewed as any real evolutionary proof (depending on what one means by evolution) none of which, as far as I know, can be attributed to drift.
If you, Lynch and others think that "breaking a bicycle chain" constitutes an improved evolutionary change because nobody can pedal the bike anymore but can ride it downhill and then uphill for a bit instead, then I think you all will have a very, very hard time convincing the public that drift is a real evolutionary mechanism that can lead to real evolutionary improvements; most of all, to the evolution of new, not previously existing features of an organizm or new separate organisms.
I'm sorry but claiming that breaking functions leads eventually to macro-evolution won't fly. Not to those who are really searching for the truth. Those who who will take anything as long as it doesn't implicate anything beyond materialism can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
How exactly do you grow bacteria with Daphnia and Paramecium?
I think you need bacteria to feed the Paramecia, but I think Velhovsky is actually thinking of Rich Lenski.
I got $20 USD that says you are neither 'curious' nor 'even more curious'.
Hey Velhovsky,
I'm really curious when you will present data in support of ID.
So far, you have only managed the standard "evolution can't do this, thus goddidit" claim(s).
Will you step up to the plate and give us the evidence in favor of ID? Or will it be another helping of "evo can't do this, thus goddidit"???
I'm really curious if you, unlike every other creationist/ IDist I've asked this question, can actually deliver the goods. Because the result up until now has been... *crickets*.
Velikovsky: I'm sorry but claiming that breaking functions leads eventually to macro-evolution won't fly.
Uh, dur, that would be why nobody posited it. Scientists say 'hey we just observed this protein/gene evolve a NEW function' and creationists lie about it, either 'Oh it's function got broken durr hurr' or else they say 'Well clearly that great adaptation was pre-programmed and hidden inside some kind of pre-existing invisible information we won't define and can't compute.'
If you, Lynch and others think that "breaking a bicycle chain" constitutes an improved evolutionary change because nobody can pedal the bike anymore but can ride it downhill and then uphill for a bit instead
Who the hell writes this stuff. Anybody can refute the theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or what-all by SAYING it's the same as some pokeweed ANALOGY they just pulled out of their ass. Yah, and gravity's a lie because if it were true, the bowling ball would be so attracted to your hand that you couldn't throw it down the lane. 'Blah blah blah, I made up an analogy urr durr hurr.'
You can't refute actual evolutionary theory, you're only smart enough to refute shit you made up, like 'breaking functions leads eventually to macro-evolution'.
He's [Lenski] been growing bacteria in the lab for 25 years and his experimental results might, or might not, be viewed as any real evolutionary proof (depending on what one means by evolution) none of which, as far as I know, can be attributed to drift.
Read the flipping paper! There are a BUNCH of mutations involved. Some are beneficial and more or less guaranteed to happen, some are neutral and occurred by drift.
Answer this question. Here's a genetic sequence: CTGACGTTC. If I change the first C to a T, is that an "improvement" or not? How would you measure such a thing? What would you need to know to compute it?
Certainly not increase in fitness, because you know very g.d. well that we've observed constant increases in fitness (e.g. Lenski's and many other experiments.) Certainly not a new function, because we've seen plenty (e.g. nylonase, T-urf13, etc.) So then what?
I guess it depends on what one means by "broken". One could view the limbs of terrestrial vertebrates as "broken" fins, or the wings of birds and bats as "broken" legs. The mammalian auditory ossicles are just "broken" versions of the reptilian jawbone, and the bacterial flagellum is a "broken" Type III secretion system. Etc.
It's odd how pretty well everything we observe in biology is a "broken" version of something else, whereas new things arising from thin air with no predecessor are never observed. That's just the opposite of what we would see if creationism was true. I wonder how creationists explain this strange state of affairs.
Post a Comment