Replies

loss of genetic diversity is always bad for a species: -me-

Another non-scientific principle: so long as the pressure that caused the specialization prominently exists, the species designed for it will thrive better than the generalist.

Your statement may be true, but it shows the seeds of its own destruction. According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization - just as I am saying because change is inevitable and will occur eventually.

Let me note also that you continue to fail to address the problem of how one can get from a bacteria with some 600 genes and some million DNA base pairs to a man with some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion DNA base pairs by destroying genetic information through 'natural selection'.

Despite reading over your hundreds of repetive blue posts over the last year or so, I still can't figure out if you are a) truly stupid, b) an unstoppable liar, or c) Behe's lover. Perhaps some other posters can help me out...

Anyway, for what it's worth, you do understand what you're doing, right? I mean, you've been doing it so prolifically, I think you may have lost sight of your aim. In your lone quest to turn 150 years of evolutionary science upside down, all you constantly do is pick out a few anomalies and harp on them OVER and OVER. The platypus, the flagella, "irreducible complexity," etc. Even though these 3 current darlings of Behe and the ID movement have been explained to you numerous times, they are the ID flavor of the month, so we'll continue to hammer away at your thick skull. Remember just a few years ago it was dust on the moon, 2nd Law of Thermo, and the best one: "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Interesting, is it not, that the Fundy Creationist movement has EVOLVED, in a way, to become a bit more stealth, a bit more organized, and at the more conniving reaches of it, not so completely stupid anymore (see the monkey argument).

By continuously zooming in on these things which you consider problems with evolution, can we assume you accept all the other tenets of the theory? It would seem that way to me. Geeze, imagine if I went through the bible page by page and picked out historical or logical or scientific errors, anomalies, and contradictions. You think 1000+ post crevo threads are long!

And so it goes with Gore3K... He's almost outdone himself with this one: "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"

I won't even waste my time with the myriad scientific and logical ridiculousness of that sentence... it's simply too insulting to my mind to do so.

You cannot axiomatically say that changing conditions are good or bad for a species. It will depend on the inherent adaptational capacity of the DNA mechanism, and the future course of events. If your specialization happens to be a good match for upcoming environmental changes, and these changes become permanent, you win the genetic jackpot. Otherwise, not. I fail to see where the "seeds of its own destruction" are buried in this argument.

Let me note also that you continue to fail to address the problem of how one can get from a bacteria with some 600 genes and some million DNA base pairs to a man with some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion DNA base pairs by destroying genetic information through 'natural selection'.

I'm tired of cycling on this point. You have not demonstrated that "information" is a useful measure of DNA base pairs. All the information in the world isn't worth snot to an earthworm, yet the earthworm is highly likely to outlive us complex humans.

It is no more nor less surprising that prokariotes can evolve into multicellular eukariotes, than it is that solitary ants can evolve into social ants. The jump from long continuous chains in prokariotes to a bundle of independent chromosomes which seem to be interchangable between cloroplasts, mitocondria, and germ cell carriers in eukariotes is equally unsurprising. Cooperatings cellular communities have harder problems to solve, of course they have a bigger pile of DNA. And none of these critterettes gives a hang about information theory. They have more things to do so they have more DNA. Whose surprised?