Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution

On Oct 8, 5:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 7, 5:35 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Oct 7, 7:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 7, 4:27 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 7, 5:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 5, 6:57 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:

Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1191627142.490752.264900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-
Milton/dp/0892
817321

David C. Read, reviewing Richard Milton's "Shattering The Myths Of
Darwinism" (1997), writes:

<snip inanity>

As Milton points out in Chapter 14, "Of Cabbages and Kings," no one
has ever observed a spontaneous inheritable genetic mutation that
resulted in a changed physical characteristic, aside from a small
group of well-known and usually fatal genetic defects. A ***beneficial***
spontaneous genetic mutation, though necessary to the Neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution, remains a hypothetical event.

This is pure poppy***. I myself am fortunate enough to embody two
physically obvious mutations: Both of my little fingers are bent at the
last two joints in the plane of the hand, so the tip is pointing towards
the ring finger at about 40 degrees. I inherited this from my mother,
who got it from her father. I don't know when the mutation originally
appeared, but it sure as hell is inheritable.

The point at issue, Jim, was ***beneficial*** mutation.

The word "beneficial" is an adjective that describes the *effect* of a
mutation in a particular environment. A mutation must be assigned the
adjectives "beneficial", "neutral", or "detrimental" empirically by
observing an effect. The standard used for determining the
"beneficialness", "neutralness", or "detrimentalness" of a particular
mutation in a particular environment is the mean effect that mutation
has on "relative reproductive success" (a measureable quantity)
compared to some other genotype in that environment. If the mutant
phenotype significantly increases relative reproductive success, it is
considered "beneficial" in that environment. It the mutant phenotype
significantly decreases relative reproductive success, it is
considered "detrimental" in that environment. It the mutant phenotype
has no significant effect on relative reproductive success, it is
considered to be "neutral" in that environment.

How to you determine the "beneficialness", "detrimentalness", or
"neutrality" of a mutant? And do you consider the possibility that a
mutant phenotype could be "beneficial" in one environment,
"detrimental" in another, or "neutral" in yet a different
environment? Curious minds want to know.

No objective person would consider your crooked fingers beneficial.

The second mutation is
novel in my family: the second and third toes of both feet are webbed
past the last joint.

Web feet are, unfortunately, not all that uncommon, especially in
Third World countries; and again, nobody would consider this deformity
beneficial.

I don't have any children, so I can't prove this
is inheritable, but it certainly has changed a physical characteristic.
Both of these mutations are, I suppose, neutral, though I have
discovered that the bent little fingers make holding a beverage can much
easier and more secure.

<sip rest of crap>

"Neutral"?

Very generous and subjective adjective to use in describing
deformities.

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Howard: are Jim's crooked fingers beneficial or no?

I have already answered that question.

How? You have asserted that it was not "beneficial". But the
mutation certainly did not prevent his immediate ancestors from having
reproductive success.

Reproductive success was not and is not the criteria in which a
mutation is considered non-beneficial, is it Howard?

As far as its evolutionary impact is concerned, relative reproductive
success (rather, measures of relative reproductive success) is the
ONLY criteria used in determining whether a variant phenotype is
"beneficial", "neutral", or "detrimental". A variation that caused
you to die young but allowed you to outreproduce organisms that lack
that variant (and there are such variants in nature) that lived longer
would be considered "beneficial" in biology.

I would hazard to guess that, *in the current
environment*, such a minor deviation from the norm is pretty much
selectively neutral (a difference without significance).

Common sense says crooked fingers are not beneficial or neutral, but
detrimental, undesireable and a deformity. Do you agree, Howard?

No. I told you that I did not agree and that I do not regard the
answer to be one that is determined by my opinion, but one that is
determined by empirical measurement on the criteria of reproductive
success in a particular environment. I also mentioned that the
particular environment may have an important effect on the adjective
that would be assigned to the variation. I'm sorry if this is too
subtle for you, but in English adjectives modify the nouns they are
attached to. And they certainly can be contingent upon various
factors. For example, an expensive meal at the Burger King where you
work (Do you want to supersize this?) is unlikely to be the same
amount as an expensive meal at a five star restaurant in Paris. So is
the meal at Burger King expensive or cheap? The fact is that it
depends upon other factors in addition to comparison to Chez le Boef,
like how much money you have at this moment.

That may not have been the case in some other environments, where
having such a deviation from the wild type might have been seen as a
sign that the person was the Devil's spawn and good religious people
might let "God sort it out" after burning the little Devil-child as a
witch. That, of course, would be "intelligent design", with the head
of the Inquisition as the "intelligent designer", and NOT "natural
selection".

Bizarre comment explained by the fact that you are an Atheist.

Not at all bizarre. In fact, people with deformities (or diseases
like leprosy), were often regarded by primitive religious zealots as
cursed by God. Not just in Christianity, of course. The reference to
"letting God sort it out" refers, AIR to a quote of the head of the
Spanish Inquisition when asked about the fact that he was likely
killing "innocents".

As I said, whether this mutation is "beneficial", "detrimental", or
"neutral" is not a matter for your _a priori_ preference for
"normality" (Hitler's eugenicists, the "intelligent designers" that
they were, also had a preference for what they regarded as "normal" or
"beneficial" as well).

Since Hitler was not the subject you are attempting to slander your
enemy (Creationism-ID) by false association. Hitler was an
evolutionist, a white supremacist, a Haeckelist, empowered by Darwin's
theory and its direct product: eugenics, invented by Darwin's cousin
and of course, promoted by the chief architect of the genetical
theory, Professor of Eugenics Ronald Fisher. Darwin's son, Leonard,
told a London conference gathered on eugenics that his Father would
have approved of their agenda and goals ("Commonweal" magazine, cover
story, March 9, 2007).

So would G.B.S. Shaw, who supported extermination of the unfit.
Hitler was certainly a racist (although Jews are not, technically, a
race). But just like the racists of the Klu Klux Klan, Hitler
appealed more to *religious* sentiments and reasoning rather than to
evolution in his justifications for what he was doing. After all, the
slogan was Kuche, Kinder, Kirche. The worst racists I ever knew were
all religious Christians and justified racism on Biblical grounds
(story of Ham). I certainly do not wish to absolve science of its
irresponsibility wrt eugenics, but that was supported much more by
genetics than evolution. Eugenics has its roots firmly in
*artificial* selection and animal husbandry. And *artificial*
selection is selection by *intelligent [sic] design*, not by the dumb
stupid environment.

Modern evolution was born in Darwin's racist mind after he rejected
God as Creator: he then "noticed" that Fuegians and apes in the London
zoo looked similar (Edward Larson, "Evolution" 2004:66).

This is an inadequate reference. I seriously doubt that you are
*honestly* reporting this given what I know about the author and his
books.

Darwin became
convinced that the Jews had conspired to fool the world with a special
creation origin. Hitler took it a step further and thought they were
conspiring to rule the world and he, since we are just modified apes
and God does not exist, selected his enemies for extinction.

How do you like a taste of your own association medicine done
correctly?

I was doing it correctly. All eugenics is is "intelligently [sic]
designed" evolution, aka artificial selection. The only difference
from "intelligent design", in which a magical something does something
from time to time to poof into existence desired changes in organisms,
and "eugenics" is that the "intelligent [sic] designers" in the latter
are known and knowable.

Differential reproductive success is an
empirical determination that can only be made after the fact in a
particular environment. I told you the metric used (and which
direction is considered "beneficial"): relative reproductive success
in a specified environment with statistically more reproductive
success being defined as 'beneficial'. You ignored that in favor of
your personal taste for what you regard as "normality". That is, you
substituted YOUR judgement for nature's, like the other "intelligent
designer's" of humanity.

How can "nature's judgement" be better that mine if the former has no
mind and ability to judge?

It is better precisely because nature has no mind, and thus is
unburdened by the bigotry and prejudices of all the "intelligent
designers" who have tried to put their own bigotry and prejudice into
action by "artificial" selection according to their "intelligent [sic,
and often sick] designs". You know, bigots who think people with bent
fingers have a defect rather than a variation.

Of course, like I said, evolutionists provide the "intelligence" for
nature via sock puppet proxy, which is exactly what you have done:
personified and spoken for nature.

I don't determine what mutations are lethal in a particular
environment. Nature does. I only describe that reality instead of
fantasy. I don't determine whether the bent finger is "detrimental",
"neutral", or "beneficial". I can just describe differential
reproductive success based on observation of what happens. Again, how
do you determine whether a variant phenotype is "detrimental",
"neutral", or "beneficial"? And what role do you think local
conditions can play in that determination?

But, yes, I have indeed "personified" nature when I speak of its
'judgement'. That is merely a literary device and not to be taken
literally. Same thing for the use of active voice in many cases. I
know that creationists have some trouble with anything other than the
most brain-dead sort of literalism. That is why we have an idiot in
another thread who thinks it is brilliant that, because he can only
think of selection being done by anything but an intelligent agent,
that therefore natural selection cannot happen.

Ray


.