tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4151816412115487581..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The most popular Sandwalk post of 2016Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37482255077759355602017-01-07T07:45:39.728-05:002017-01-07T07:45:39.728-05:00"Instantly"?"Instantly"?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43249906055785471022017-01-07T00:07:20.686-05:002017-01-07T00:07:20.686-05:00Luresuite
its just saying human colours were from ...Luresuite<br />its just saying human colours were from a triggering mechanism, after the flood, upon migrating peoples who needed help to survive. the bodies needed to adapt.<br />whites had to be that way to grasp vitamins etc from the sun and blacks avoid to much sun etc etc.<br />yet this was not from selection and deaths of losers but happened instantly Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72338356473145042772017-01-06T10:46:22.270-05:002017-01-06T10:46:22.270-05:00I really can't understand the points you'r...I really can't understand the points you're trying to make, Robert. Obviously Creation Science is very exalted and difficult subject, beyond my humble level comprehension, and only penetrable to someone possessed of an intellect such as that of yourself. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7326982737942514232017-01-06T00:43:36.445-05:002017-01-06T00:43:36.445-05:00Your still saying mutations are aiming to get rid ...Your still saying mutations are aiming to get rid of eyes in cave creatures.<br />I know you just mean chance mutations but who says there is these mutations/ Its a guess. Its a need to explain the loss of eyes in cave creatures. <br />If such mutations happen in a few then why should the whole population be effected? Yet always its the norm they have lose use/or actual eyes. An atrophy.<br />i think it is a atrophy, like with flightless birds, and unrelated to mutations and selection.<br />I think its just disuse after all. <br />i think you need to show a selective advantage for a creature who has lost eyes etc by a mutation in order to change large populations.<br />You need selection to bring a result otherwise chance more likely would leave eyed creatures then deeeye them in caves.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2020769302013011892017-01-06T00:35:19.300-05:002017-01-06T00:35:19.300-05:00I don't think its easy. its never been shown e...I don't think its easy. its never been shown either by experiment.<br />It is so common, constant, probably quick that these marauding mutations are unlikely to be the origin. Indeed why should a mutation destroy a eye? Why would it, a mutation, be frustrated by the use of an eye.? Whether mutations or your variation it still is asking for a sniper to get rid of those eyes, colour etc.<br />I suspect something else.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65126010186613668322017-01-06T00:12:45.653-05:002017-01-06T00:12:45.653-05:00Lutesuite
A secondary point however we see greast ...Lutesuite<br />A secondary point however we see greast colour differences, based on the envirorments people migrated to, biblical boundaries of timelines, and so its a first and clear conclusion human colours suddenly developed in a exusting population without selection influence.<br />nobody watched. its in a gear and doesn't leave that gear unless a threshold is crossed to trigger change again. today there is no reason for triggering.<br />Just like human hair at puberty. its from a old triggering event and stays in gear despite being irrelevant now.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63578561509869325132017-01-05T23:53:39.261-05:002017-01-05T23:53:39.261-05:00photosynthesis,
“I mentioned evidence…”
Honestly...photosynthesis,<br /><br />“I mentioned evidence…”<br /><br />Honestly, I couldn’t find it. Perhaps we use different definitions. Here’s what you said:<br /><br />“As a mixture of random events combined with the nature of chemical and physical phenomena that resulted in metabolisms energized by chemical/sun energy, and the gathering of catalysts and information carrying molecules, perhaps some molecules that did both (catalysis and information carrying), and a plethora of events that, in the end, left a genome with a set of 25 genes that are much more co-dependent than they were at the beginning of this beautiful mess.”<br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70485083411396636662017-01-05T17:55:33.462-05:002017-01-05T17:55:33.462-05:00Robert,
I didn't say that mutations are there...Robert,<br /><br />I didn't say that mutations are there in storage. I said that there's always variation within populations, and that such variation can be selected from. The variation is not "storage" is just happenstance. Do you get it now?<br /><br />Losing a trait that's no longer useful by genetic drift is very easy. If the trait is not needed, sooner or later a mutation will arise that destroys the trait. Nobody is trying to destroy it, it just happens because it is not selected against. Do you get it now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19408235153156535232017-01-05T15:18:54.693-05:002017-01-05T15:18:54.693-05:00Incredibly (or not), 11 months ago (Feb. 2016), Tx...Incredibly (or not), 11 months ago (Feb. 2016), Txpiper and the rest of us had this same argument about beneficial mutations in this same forum. I proved Tx wrong by citing experiments that measured rates of beneficial mutations, and gave Tx some links to read. He didn't, he's just back repeating the same false assertions.<br /><br />Here's part of a review that 11 months ago, I suggested Txpiper read, but he didn't.<br /><br /><i>Kassen and Bataillon (2006) [5] took a wild-type Pseudomonas flourescens bacterium, and exposed it to an antibiotic. They obtained over 600 antibiotic-resistant strains, with an estimated frequency of 2.4 x 10-9 beneficial mutations per cell division. That seems like a tiny number, yet it was adequate to drive the evolution of fitter bacteria. These antibiotic-resistant strains were much fitter in the new environment than the parent wild-type bacteria, which could not survive at all in the presence of the antibiotic. Interestingly, even in the absence of antibiotic, at least 2.7% of the mutants were superior to the wild-type. This is just one of the examples we have mentioned where mutant organisms can be superior to the parent in both the new environment and in the original environment.<br /><br />This Kassen and Bataillon study was not available when Sanford wrote Genetic Entropy. Neither were studies by Perfeito et al. [37] which found that 1 out of every 150 mutations were beneficial in small populations of E. coli, or by Joseph and Hall [38] who found 13% of the mutations in yeast were beneficial.</i><br /><br /><a href="https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/" rel="nofollow">"Letters to a Creationist" reviews literature on beneficial mutation rates</a><br /><br /><a href="https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-3-3/" rel="nofollow">Some more "Letters to a Creationist" on beneficial mutation rates</a>Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90342917702381999292017-01-05T15:18:23.535-05:002017-01-05T15:18:23.535-05:00Txpiper actually wrote: "Your perception of m...Txpiper actually wrote: <i>"Your perception of mutations is based on imaginary scenarios that support your theory, not evidence. Nobody ever discovered that natural selection acts on mutations."</i> <br /><br />Jesus tapdancing Christ, where do creos get universal negatives like that one. (And their belief that universal negs are so easily provable.) No, scientists have studied this extensively and have *observed* not assumed that NS acts on mutations. You don't know anything about experimentation so you just ASSUME that scientists assume such things. No, scientists <b>observed it in experiments that you have never heard of.</b><br /><br />Lenski's LTEE experiment has already been mentioned. So instead I'll give another. What do you think happens in MA experiments? Natural selection is turned off. So what accumulates? Mutations. Lots of them.<br /><br />And most of them are neutral or deleterious. About 3% are beneficial (at least in bacteria.) Recent <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/01/berlinski-and-denton-challenge-darwinism.html" rel="nofollow">experimental results have shown that we've been underestimating, not overestimating, the rates of beneficial mutations.</a><br /><br />These mutations pile up if NS is turned off. (Do you know how they do it?) When NS is turned back on, the beneficial mutations are amplified and the deleterious ones are mostly selected out.<br /><br />Now suppose creationists were right about pre-programmed "adaption", that is, front-loaded evolution based on invisible, esoteric information that creationists won't define and can't compute. <br /><br />If beneficial adaptions were "frontloaded" into bacteria, then, in MA experiments, <b>when NS is turned off, most if not all changes (call them "adaptations" if you like) would be beneficial.</b> That's not what we observe. When NS is off, most changes are neutral or deleterious. So <b>there is no front-loading, no pre-programmed adaptation.</b> When NS is turned back on, the beneficial mutations amplify and the deleterious are mostly selected out.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64353567043414054362017-01-05T14:49:04.987-05:002017-01-05T14:49:04.987-05:00Robert
You should also look at animals under domes...Robert<br />You should also look at animals under domestication. They are protected from predators, and thereby they do not need any camouflage color. Darwin did not understand why these animals changed their coloration and size so readily. This was probably because he looked at variation and selection as positively responding to new needs. His variation was Lamarckian use/disuse, and he saw selection as survival of the fittest among these improved variants. If you stop thinking in the way Darwin did, and instead see changing as the normal and constancy as the effect of selection, then it is much easier to understand these matters.Misconceptions in evolution theorieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02221854011348738166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67314963385647532332017-01-05T13:18:40.555-05:002017-01-05T13:18:40.555-05:00Hi, Robert. When are you going to provide a citat...Hi, Robert. When are you going to provide a citation to the "careful research" that demonstrates that humans "suddenly change colour" when they move to a new environment? I'm really looking forward to hearing more about this astounding scientific discovery!Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14116462736642504452017-01-05T11:45:00.825-05:002017-01-05T11:45:00.825-05:00Simple answer. Creationists don’t think bacteria e...<i>Simple answer. Creationists don’t think bacteria evolved into anything else.</i><br /><br /><br />HAHAHAHAHA! I didn't know you were such a comedian. Then what were they "frontloaded" for?<br />judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88829712831662575292017-01-05T11:02:49.272-05:002017-01-05T11:02:49.272-05:00Robert
The problem is you think that selection or ...Robert<br />The problem is you think that selection or some other force shall make any changes. Selection is just deleting bad mutations. Thereby the existing is maintained quite unchanged. But if selection pressure is reduced, as in a cave, when there is no need for vision, then anything can happen, because without selection there is constantly changes happening. And most of them are of the kinds that would be deleterious for animals outside the cave. <br />Misconceptions in evolution theorieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02221854011348738166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15041864435941155302017-01-05T10:29:54.768-05:002017-01-05T10:29:54.768-05:00txpiper,
"You didn’t mention evidence at all...txpiper,<br /><br /><i>"You didn’t mention evidence at all. You just filled up a canyon with total nonsense"</i><br /><br />I mentioned evidence. Which this comment you just revealed is that you don't actually read the answers, you just skim through them, if at all. No wonder you would not understand any of it. You just don't pay attention (or maybe you only care and read if you can add a god-did-it in the middle). You should not be so quick to call anything nonsense if you haven't even read it.<br /><br /><i>"I don’t think mutations has anything to do with it."</i><br /><br />Whatever you want to call them, they're still waiting-just-in-case. Changing the names won't change the fact that you're defending what you mocked with additions that are even more mockable.<br /><br /><i>"My beliefs about DNA replication errors is that they screw things up,"</i><br /><br />Beliefs shouldn't have anything to do with it. I prefer checking things up. Imagine this: since each human is born with 100-200 mutations not in their parents, if you were right, we would already be extinct.<br /><br /><i>"because that is what the disease databases show. (By they way, your explanation about why nobody is tracking and recording beneficial mutations was embarrassing.)"</i><br /><br />That you refuse to follow the logic is what's embarrassing. But, please, show me the hospital records of people getting "treatment" for having beneficial mutations.<br /><br />What's pretty much stupid is to think that databases about harmful mutations also record, without any bias, neutral, semi-neutral, and beneficial mutations.<br /><br /><i>"Your perception of mutations is based on imaginary scenarios that support your theory, not evidence."</i><br /><br />Don't be silly. Mutation rates have been measured, and now, with DNA sequencing becoming so common, scientists have been reporting mutation rates, confirming previous estimates (like the one in humans). But, if you still doubt my words, all you have to do, actually, is look around. Not every person is identical. This means that a lot of mutations have harmless, even if visible, effects.<br /><br /><i>"Nobody ever discovered that natural selection acts on mutations. That is an idea that had to be wormed into the theory when the molecular level stuff came into view."</i><br /><br />Sure. But it has also been very well demonstrated. Whenever there's a selection sweep, we see what we expect. For example, lots of "carried-over" fixed mutations that came with the beneficial one. Studies in breeding crops show the very same, what's called a bottleneck effect. Your ignorance is no measure of scientific progress. Before claiming that kind of crap, you should get better informed. But we both know that you don't really care. Right?<br /><br /><i>"You’re ignoring that fact that fish, amphibians, mollusks, insects, spiders, millipedes and crustaceans, isolated in caves all over the world, lose the same traits, and acquire similar enhancements."</i><br /><br />I'm not ignoring anything. I'm telling you that such thing doesn't mean they lost or gained traits by the very same mechanisms as that single species of fish.<br /><br /><i>"This does not occur accidentally. There is nothing random about it."</i><br /><br />You cannot possibly know that. You're just assuming out of desperation for god-did-it. Sorry, but imaginary friends remain imaginary regardless of how hard something might be for you to understand.<br /><br /><i>"Mutation rates are irrelevant."</i><br /><br />This claim shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yet, you're saying so and your lack of understanding don't make it so.<br /><br /><i>[me:] “So, what's so hard to understand about those lizards that you think they adapted too quickly?"</i><br /><i>[tx:] "Before I answer that, to what mechanisms do you attribute the adaptations?"</i><br /><br />To natural selection, what did you expect? Did you even try and read my complete answer? Oh, sorry, of course you didn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79867017901280570262017-01-05T02:09:20.142-05:002017-01-05T02:09:20.142-05:00I asked Txpiper to do a simple calculation to get ...I asked Txpiper to do a simple calculation to get a lower limit on the standing genetic variation in the human race today. You don't know how and can't even guess at a ballpark figure. I asked you what experiment(s) led scientists in the 1940's to conclude that it was standing genetic variation, not "frontloading" of invisible information, that facilitated the development of antibiotic resistance. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about, or why scientists concluded what they did.<br /><br />Instead you give me <i>"I’m supposing that you believe that these pools of potentially helpful mutations, and the protein triggers that can activate mutant alleles, are the result of natural selection acting on random DNA replication errors"</i>. Jesus no. At least not most of the time. I brought up the 1940's experiments which proved the opposite, at least in that case. I suppose in some other situation there could be standing genetic variation which had been previously selected some generations back, but in the cases I've been discussing the mutation rate is high enough that we can get at least a ballpark figure from random mutation alone.<br /><br /><br /><br />As for <i>"the protein triggers that can activate mutant alleles"</i>, I don't even know what you mean or where you got that from, and I don't think you know, either. At this point you're just throwing together words and hoping there's a 50-50 chance they'll mean something. "Protein triggers"? This is not translatable into molecular biology.<br /><br />You sound like the people who read Perry Marshall's Evolution 2.0 crap on Facebook.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77921818720693935522017-01-05T01:00:20.888-05:002017-01-05T01:00:20.888-05:00photo. i barely know what a poe is but i'm not...photo. i barely know what a poe is but i'm not. <br />Saying mutations are always in storage in creatures and so just waiting to be selected on is too easy to explain things confidently.<br />los of features in cave creatures is so common that its a law of biology. nobody escapes. its like its demanding they lose eyes/colour etc etc. I understand they gain greater use of other senses.<br />The atrophy in eyes is not giving a advantage to be selected on. its like another mechanism is driving the senses functions.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75765064744623877422017-01-05T00:54:28.942-05:002017-01-05T00:54:28.942-05:00Jarle
Losing eyes in caves and saying selection ju...Jarle<br />Losing eyes in caves and saying selection just FAILED to maintain them is a unlikely thing as i see it.<br />First, all of them lose their eyes. Your idea would mean its chancy only if eyes atrophied. Some species could keep their eyes. however all cave creatures lose ability and even the eye itself.<br />I don't think mutations are constantly trying to destroy features in creatures.<br />They don't in mankind or matter to our populations. nor even in cave populations.<br />I think the loss of features in cave creatures is a clue to biological change.<br />There is something else going on.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8970068386747358002017-01-04T23:25:42.397-05:002017-01-04T23:25:42.397-05:00photosynthesis,
“I don't care about a prevail...photosynthesis,<br /><br />“I don't care about a prevailing opinion. I care about evidence.”<br /><br />You do? Don’t you recall your sketch about how an early organism would acquire 25 genes? You didn’t mention evidence at all. You just filled up a canyon with total nonsense. <br />-<br />“You're still defending what you first mocked…you cannot prove that those mutations are deliberate, and nobody has proven that the mutations were there waiting just in case.”<br /><br />I don’t think mutations has anything to do with it. My beliefs about DNA replication errors is that they screw things up, because that is what the disease databases show. (By they way, your explanation about why nobody is tracking and recording beneficial mutations was embarrassing.) Your perception of mutations is based on imaginary scenarios that support your theory, not evidence. Nobody ever discovered that natural selection acts on mutations. That is an idea that had to be wormed into the theory when the molecular level stuff came into view. The religious dogma had taken hold long before anybody knew anything about the central dogma. <br />-<br />“…that was but one kind of loss. They still have to calculate the rate of mutation per generation, from there calculate if that's possible, not just claim it.”<br /><br />You’re ignoring that fact that fish, amphibians, mollusks, insects, spiders, millipedes and crustaceans, isolated in caves all over the world, lose the same traits, and acquire similar enhancements. This does not occur accidentally. There is nothing random about it. Mutation rates are irrelevant. <br />-<br />“So, what's so hard to understand about those lizards that you think they adapted too quickly?”<br /><br />Before I answer that, to what mechanisms do you attribute the adaptations?<br /><br />===<br /><br />judmarc,<br /><br />“If bacteria had to have frontloaded genomes so they could evolve into all the other life forms including us, and there is no junk DNA, why do we have more genes than bacteria?”<br /><br />Simple answer. Creationists don’t think bacteria evolved into anything else.<br /><br />===<br /><br />Diogenes,<br /><br />“Since Txpiper doesn't believe in "standing genetic variation” “<br /><br />Oh, I never said I don’t believe that there is such a thing. The animals we’ve been discussing give me every reason to accept that there is. But the article I linked to describes standing genetic variation as<br /><br /><i>“an evolutionary concept…which argues that pools of genetic mutations—some potentially helpful—exist in a given population but are normally kept silent.”</i><br /><br />You seem convinced that it is more than just an arguable concept. And I’m supposing that you believe that these pools of potentially helpful mutations, and the protein triggers that can activate mutant alleles, are the result of natural selection acting on random DNA replication errors. So, why would alternate genes that blind the host be selected for?txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88456572560793153902017-01-04T17:57:21.346-05:002017-01-04T17:57:21.346-05:00And I've got another question for Txpiper on t...And I've got another question for Txpiper on the topic of "standing genetic variation" which he puts in scare quotes, like scientists haven't observed it.<br /><br />Here's the question. How much standing genetic variation do you think there is in Homo sapiens? I'm asking you to compute a simple measure (actually an underestimate) of genetic variation.<br /><br />Let's see how much you know, OK TxPiper? And if you can't do the very simple math (my kid could do it) you can ask that IDiot Perry Marshall to do it.<br /><br />It's a simple math question. Consider the AVERAGE base pair in the human genome (of which there are 3.2 billion). Excluding lethal variations (which should not exist), in the entire human race, population 7 billion, how many INDEPENDENT mutations, new to the individual carrying it, do you think there are at the average base pair in the genome? Again, excluding lethals, which will be rare anyway, and excluding mutations inherited from one's parents or grandparents. <br /><br />For example, if a particular base pair in the human genome is typically, say, C, how many independent, de novo appearances of T, G, or A (new to the individual, not inherited from parents) should there in the whole human race alive today?<br /><br />Here's a hint. Start with an experimental rate of mutation *per base pair* and *per generation* for humans. Multiply by the human population, 7 billion. Another hint: don't use the mutation rate per cellular multiplication, because humans undergo many cellular divisions before they make babies. Use the rate per human generation.<br /><br />And to make the math simple (my kid could do it): For simplicity, assume all mutations are equally probable (e.g C mutating to T, G, or A will all have 33% probability.) Exclude mutations inherited from one's parents or grandparents. Only consider de novo mutations new to that individual, appearing in one generation. Thus, the result will be an underestimate. And ignore lethals.<br /><br />Since Txpiper doesn't believe in "standing genetic variation", let's see him compute a measure of how much we'd normally expect there to be. Just in humans. Forget bacteria.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32955750881155609202017-01-04T17:46:40.592-05:002017-01-04T17:46:40.592-05:00So let me make my question to Txpiper more specifi...So let me make my question to Txpiper more specific. Back in the 30's an 40's, a lot of microbiologists believed in your dummy idea of "programmed evolution", specifically, that antibiotic resistance appeared quickly in bacteria because they were "programmed" to get antibiotic resistance. They ASSUMED that your "frontloading" shit was true. Your "frontloading", which Perry Marshall stupidly calls "Evolution 2.0" like it's new, was the OLD idea of the 1930's, it was assumed, and when they tested it, they proved it wrong. They showed the mutations were present in standing genetic variation.<br /><br />Now I'm asking Txpiper: do you know what experiments I'm talking about? Which experiments of the 1940's (there're more than one) showed specifically that development of antibiotic resistance was NOT due to "frontloading", but due to random mutations already present in standing genetic variation?<br /><br />How many experiments can Txpiper (or that IDiot Perry Marshall) name that showed this? You IDiots just ASSUME that scientists ASSUMED there was standing genetic variation. You're accusing the world's smartest people (some got Nobels) of not TESTING it. You don't know that, you just assume.<br /><br />So name the $%^&ing experiments that showed it. Don't try to change the subject-- until you answer straight up, I'll be on you like a Republican on a lobbyist.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71561400312625442472017-01-04T17:45:35.082-05:002017-01-04T17:45:35.082-05:00TxPiper puts "standing genetic variation"...TxPiper puts "standing genetic variation" in scare quotes so he apparently thinks this is hypothetical, not observed. Which is kind of funny. Tx's other points have been demolished by others, but I'll go after this one.<br /><br /><i>"The problem for you, is that “standing genetic variation”* means having functional, unexpressed contingency genes that can be activated by environmental stress."</i><br /><br />Of course not. You don't seem to know what it means, and you're getting it confused with ideas of "frontloading" from IDiots like Perry Marshall of Evolution 2.0 infamy.<br /><br />But I have to ask you: what experimental evidence made scientists think adaptations were due to standing genetic variation? Because you seem to believe this is a hypothetical and not an observed.<br /><br />So I ask Txpiper a simple question: how did the fact (not mere hypothesis) of standing genetic variation win out over the older idea of "programmed evolution" or "frontloading" which nowadays is sold by IDiots like Perry Marshall as if they're new? What EXPERIMENTS led scientists to conclude that mutations were RANDOM, not programmed, and that standing variation usually preceded the appearance of adaptations?<br /><br />Because Txpiper, like IDiot Perry Marshall, seems to believe scientists never did the tests. They all seem to know nothing about any tests. They all seem to think this stuff is presumed or assumed and no scientists would ever test it.<br /><br />Seriously, these ideas have been kicked around for 80 years by people vastly smarter than Tx or Perry Marshall, and these guys just ASSUME that the world's smartest people would never TEST it.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15436626116121114292017-01-04T17:04:33.988-05:002017-01-04T17:04:33.988-05:00Robert,
Since I am quite convinced that you'r...Robert,<br /><br />Since I am quite convinced that you're a Poe, I never know if I should answer your stuff.<br /><br />Anyway, Evolution is not about mutations happening "suddenly," let alone as if responding to some environmental change.<br /><br />Because mutations happen constantly, any species' population is bound to contain genetic variation. Therefore, that natural selection might have something to select from, already there, is not a surprise to anybody, except, perhaps, people who do not understand these concepts all too well, such as yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74788430222442184402017-01-04T14:12:04.486-05:002017-01-04T14:12:04.486-05:00Simple question, tx:
If bacteria had to have fron...Simple question, tx:<br /><br />If bacteria had to have frontloaded genomes so they could evolve into all the other life forms including us, and there is no junk DNA, why do we have more genes than bacteria?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22625030235491963642017-01-04T12:28:04.467-05:002017-01-04T12:28:04.467-05:00Robert and lutesuite,
There is no need for any spe...Robert and lutesuite,<br />There is no need for any special mechanism or any resident mutation to trigger loss of a function. New mutations are constantly threatening to destroy any feature. Once selection is not actively maintaining it, it will soon be degraded. These processes are probably much faster than creation processes. That is quite natural. Just think of how much easier it is to destroy something than to build something. <br />Misconceptions in evolution theorieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02221854011348738166noreply@blogger.com