Morning placemarker.
Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
But science has been able to succeed inside its box. Otherwise it'll get bogged down in orthodoxy and won't be able to support our technological society (science tends to get bound up in orthodoxy periodically in spite of its box).
With ID, you're postulating a Designer to use as a filter on the observable data. Saying "evolution is wrong" is not evidence for a Designer.
So then who is Shapiro talking about when he jumps on Darwinians in "The Third Way"? But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
More to the point, "stochastic" has nothing to do with slow.
I think you've been on these threads long enough to know the answer to that question. They usually drop out after a rude comment or two.
Biologists are not the monolithic body that they are assumed to be. They agree on very little. If you put a bunch of them in room, they're almost as bad as Physicists.
This is one of the sillier things you've asserted. Genes don't fade away, and a single mutation that a sexually reproducing creature has will appear in half his offspring. If the mutation trait is dominant, and beneficial, it will almost certainly maintain itself and take over the population in short order. If the mutation trait is recessive, it will be entirely hidden in the second generation, and will rarely appear in subsequent generations, and its growth or elimination is more a matter of chance, but it will not rapidly disappear.
To take an example that works just like the former mutation case, if a person with a single gene for brown eyes (dominant trait) moves to where everyone has blue eyes, half of his offspring will have the gene for brown eyes, and of those, half of theirs. (The absolute numbers don't decrease though, because the number of descendants also doubles in each generation)
And being dominant, the gene will express itself visibly (brown eyes). Now, if brown eyes are a neutral trait, the gene is as likely to increase in count as to decrease, but since the number of people with it is not much larger than zero, with random drift it is more likely to disappear at some point.
But if brown eyes are beneficial, or for whatever reason the people with brown eyes produce more offspring and so on than people with blue eyes, then eventually the whole country will have brown eyes.
New mutuations, if they are neutral, are no more or less susceptible to disappearing than brown eye genes in this case, if they are neutral.
First, ID does not say evolution is wrong, it says that the ‘natural’ mechanisms alone in the processes do not make sense. Some IDers’ go further but so do some Darwinists towards the naturalism spectrum (Princeton University was a Christian College?).
It comes down to basic philosophy (at least for me).
I do not see any new science as a threat to me but can Darwinism say the same. It is general philosophy as far as the “Theory of common descent” goes…
You need to take this up with the folks at Talk-Origins. You know the Darwinian bible folks.
From their Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Neutral allelesMost neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear. The average time (in generations) until loss of a neutral allele is 2(Ne/N) ln(2N) where N is the effective population size (the number of individuals contributing to the next generation's gene pool) and N is the total population size. Only a small percentage of alleles fix. ...
Deleterious allelesDeleterious mutants are selected against but remain at low frequency in the gene pool. In diploids, a deleterious recessive mutant may increase in frequency due to drift. Selection cannot see it when it is masked by a dominant allele. Many disease causing alleles remain at low frequency for this reason. ...
Beneficial allelesMost new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones. Wright calculated that the probability of fixation of a beneficial allele is 2s. (This assumes a large population size, a small fitness benefit, and that heterozygotes have an intermediate fitness. A benefit of 2s yields an overall rate of evolution: k=4Nvs where v is the mutation rate to beneficial alleles) An allele that conferred a one percent increase in fitness only has a two percent chance of fixing. The probability of fixation of beneficial type of mutant is boosted by recurrent mutation. The beneficial mutant may be lost several times, but eventually it will arise and stick in a population. (Recall that even deleterious mutants recur in a population.) |
2) Your article does not indicate that DNA evidence refutes evolution. It does indicate a couple of researchers have found flaws in another researcher's work. That is science, as if you'd know. The creos haven't done any actual research because they know what they'll find.
Blonde hair and blues eyes are both fairly recent mutations. I think you'd find some argument over whether this decreases the owner's chances of passing on his or her genes.
Methinks you have a twisted (go figure) idea of what a mutation actually is.
Penny ante science...do you ever play with a full deck---no wild cards/straight poker!
How can you find morphing animal bones when it never happened!
In other words, further evidence that HERVs evolved from older retroviruses.
Nope, you have a reading comprehension problem. They were able to separate the new from the old by comparing the whole bunch to those that were found in other species. That's how "The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling" came about. As noted for this happen all of a sudden, all of them working together, is unexplainable by evolution.
To call a deadly disease a 'new function' proving evolution is ludicrous. Guess if you kill everyone you improve the species. Sickle cell, if it were in the whole population would kill 25% of everyone born. Also, while evolutionists call this a great benefit, somehow those who do not carry the sickle cell gene manage to survive malaria also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.