Which confirms the fact that I am not a dreaded "anti-evolutionist", though to be clear I am a creationist, since I never suggested selection was random. I though it was clear I was speaking about the point mutations but sometimes clear just isn't enough.
Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all.
You can prove this statement? I am stuned.
The mutations occurred randomly, but only those that granted a benefit regarding the changing environment were selected. Therefore only a few of the thousands of mutations that were observed made the cut. And it was those same few in each execution of the experiment.
How many point mutations could have occurred? How many did occur? Did the same number happen in the same locii in both iterations? If you can't answer those two questions then you are pretending to know more than you do. Why?
At least you should read the initial post:
"One of our most surprising findings is that an estimated 20 million point mutations gave rise to just six populations that were capable of vying for dominance,"
Since your post #22 specifically referenced a quote that said 'The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions', and since those pathways are a result of selection, perhaps you were not quite as clear as you may have thought. Nevertheless I accept that it was an honest misunderstanding.
If I am understanding correctly now, this means you believe that somehow the statement you quoted said that the mutations themselves were not random. I would ask that you explain that conclusion.
>Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all.
You can prove this statement? I am stuned.
I assume you are implying that God directed the mutations, and are daring me to disprove supernatural intervention in the experiment. My only answer is to clarify that my claim that nothing directed the mutations was only meant to cover the parameters of the experiment, and doesn't address possibilities not in evidence.
How many point mutations could have occurred?
That number is not only indeterminable, but also irrelevant. If you think differently feel free to explain how the number of mutations that didn't occur affect the results of ones that did.
How many did occur?
According to the article, millions.
Did the same number happen in the same locii in both iterations?
I would highly doubt it, since the actual occurrence of the mutations was random both in location and in timing.
If you can't answer those two questions then you are pretending to know more than you do. Why?
So conversely, since I have answered your two - well, three but who's counting ;-) - questions, does that mean you are saying I am not pretending to know more than I do?
So, in other words, this experiment managed to 'capture' the Intelligent Designer in a bottle and made it do it's design work over and over again? Do you realize that in your post, you are implying that science tested God's creative ability in a test tube and controlled it? The other option is that is was the product of natural causes.
<< Did the same number happen in the same locii in both iterations? >>
And this, Latin students -- "locii" -- is what we call a plural of a plural -- a "superplural."
I often see computer geeks online using the non-word "virii" to refer to the plural form or "virus" -- but this is the first "locii" I have ever seen. I love it.
But now that I think of it -- this could be referring to multiple clones of the Vikings' trickster god.
Just teasing ya, jwalsh -- I am a Latin teacher and I get a kick out of these things, the same way computer geeks get a laugh out of my mangling of tech-talk.