Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity

On Oct 14, 2:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:56 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Oct 13, 7:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:55 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 12, 4:06 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.

Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
actually does not exist in nature?

Two part question.

microevolution

Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
unguided material causation.

Piss poor definition. It is obvious that you are merely making this
definition up out of your fevered imagination.

Your ignorance explains your belief.

I said what I did because the definition was piss poor.

Microevolution can be defined as evolution (specifically and testably
defined, in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies) within
a species.

"Continuous slight beneficial change produced by unguided material
causation."

Your rendering then creates a new question: what is the definition of
evolution?

I, in fact, did define evolution: "specifically and testably defined,
in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies." That
definition is quite testable. A significant change in mean allele
frequencies is the sort of quantitative test that science does
particularly well.

We have been through this very many times. There are several valid
definitions of "evolution." Your contention that the gene-centric
definition to be the only valid definition tells us that you are
ignorant.

I never said it was the only valid definition. It is, however, the
most appropriate one for describing "microevolution" which is
evolution within a species. One cannot use the definitions involving
speciation or common descent beyond the species boundary.

My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
*continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
confirms.

And a change in the frequency of different alleles in a population is
not "a *continuous* process of slight-slow change"? Would a dog giving
birth to a cat be what you would call "a *continuous* process of
slight-slow change"? Or would the change in finch beak shape in
response to a change in environmental resources be "a *continuous*
process of slight-slow change"? Or the change in the size and
coloration of male guppy tails? Or the change, under selective
pressure applied by humans, of the wolf into the teacup chihuahua?
All but the first (which has never happened) involve "a *continuous*
process of slight-slow change" by a *continuous* process of change in
allele frequencies in a population within a species.

I would say that evolution is an *inevitable* process of change that
is only slowed by the conservative nature of natural selection at some
loci. Given the reality of mutation, only conservative natural
selection can prevent evolution. And, even so, it can only do it
dynamically. That is, mutation occurs and selection selective and
detrimentally affects the reproductive success of individuals with
that mutation so that the frequency decreases or is eliminated.

Congratulations! You have just said what Paley said: selection
prevents evolutionary change. There is nothing new under the sun.

I have never said otherwise. But the same process, selection, that
*can* prevent evolutionary change under conditions of environmental
stasis (albeit a dynamic stasis) can lead to rapid *change* under
conditions of environmental change. And *change* will always occur in
the absence of selection. In fact, *most* evolution involves
selectively neutral or near-neutral change.

Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
*potential* to change.

Even Paley recognized variation within a species. Are you claiming
that Paley was wrong and that there is NO variation at all within a
species? If you have genetic variation, you have the potential to
change allele frequencies.

Non-sequitur. You should actually read what was said before typing
your reply.

I did. The existence of variation is evidence that species have the
*potential* to change. Your claim is that before 1859, science denied
that species have the *potential* to change. If that were the case,
then prior to 1859, scientists would have had to deny that organisms
vary (or only vary in a non-hereditary fashion).

Of course variability exists within species. No two organisms are
identical, even so called "identical twins" are not identical. Darwin,
by no means, showed species to have evolved.

We were talking about the definition of microevolution, not
speciation. Microevolution is evolution below the level of new
species formation. If you want to talk about speciation and how
impossible speciation is, then you have to use the term 'speciation'
and not 'microevolution'. Otherwise you will simply come off as
merely another in a very long line of ignorant creationists rather
than the soon-to-be author of the brilliant text that destroys
Darwinism.

He showed their
*potential* to change in a scientific context that accepted strict
immutability. Again, this is why evolution is an interpretation of
evidence. This is why evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.

It is when you are discussing microevolution.

Evolution is deduced to have happened after the alleged fact based on
several lines of evidence, which does not include the geological
fossil record. I will have no trouble in my paper showing many big
name evolutionary authorities plainly admitting the latter fact.

Quote-mining 'evolutionary authorities' yet again so that they appear
to be saying stuff that they really don't believe will not win you
converts. It will just put you further into the long and dishonorable
coterie of creationist liars-for-Jeebus quote-mine regurgitators [if
truth were food, they would all die bulemics]. If you want to be the
author of the first really good critique of Darwinism, I would suggest
that you rely on evidence rather than quotes (mined or not) from
authors who would think you are full of it.

There
is no pattern of evolutionary transitions in the fossil series.

This is irrelevant when it comes to microevolution, Ray.
Microevolution is evolution within a species. Besides, do you know
how much change in phenotype can occur in only a few hundred years
(think pooches) or even less (think finch beaks). Unless you have a
fossil record that can sample time with at least that frequency, you
will get a historical record that looks like the one we see for most
fossils (which are often separated by 10s of thousands if not millions
of years).

We can
establish this fact using secular scientists alone, employed by big
corporations, who do not care about the Creation-Evolution debate.

Really? Can you tell me where they have published this refutation of
evolutionary expectations? But, again, to repeat, we were talking
about microevolution, which is not a level of evolutionary change in
which the fossil record has any relevance. But allele frequencies in a
population and changes in that certainly does.

Accumulation of *these* changes, as the story
goes, results in speciation.

Not all evolutionary changes result in speciation, Ray. Speciation
has its own set of requirements that differs from those of
microevolution; the latter is evolutionary change within a species.

At what point is there sufficient phenotypic difference to call
something, after 10,000 years of change, a new species compared to the
starting point? Bifurcating speciation can occur in the absence of
selection, but merely by the accumulation of enough change over time.

My comment was made in the context of outlining the claims of
evolution. You are quibbling over nothing.

No. We were talking about the definition of *micro*evolution, not
*all* evolutionary processes. Specifically, we were talking about
whether or not *micro*evolution happens. If you want to ask if
*speciation* happens, we have to analyse that. You apparently seem to
think that all these terms: microevolution, natural selection, common
ancestry, and random mutation mean the same thing. That is because
your test of them is the same appeal to personal ignorance and
asserted 'design' by an invisible and undetectable 'designer'.

These changes must be beneficial.

Not really. Selectively neutral changes also occur, just more
slowly. The only mechanism that prevents *change* is conservative
natural selection. When selection produces *change* it is natural
selection, just not conserving selection.

The
acceptance of nature as reflecting adaptation, and the goal to explain
this phenomena, supports change to be beneficial (or "good" as Darwin
called it, 1859:84).

Specifically, in biology, a change is called "good" or "better" or
"beneficial" when it results in greater relative reproductive success
than the alternative. If you think that changes that cause disease,
early death, or failure to reproduce are "good", "better", or
"beneficial", you are certainly free to make that argument.

We were talking about the Creation-Evolution debate and the origin of
species; specifically the claims of evolution.

So I take it you have no problem with relative differential
reproductive success being used as a quantitative measure of "good" or
"better" or "beneficial"? Nor that if one trait is more "beneficial"
by that measure, that the frequency of that trait will increase in the
population?

No. We were talking about the definitions of microevolution, random
mutation, natural selection and common descent. You decided to
respond only to the first of these, but obviously do not understand
why the prefix *micro* is present, since you are ranting about things
that are not the provenance of microevolution. If you want to test
microevolution, the fossil record is irrelevant, speciation is
irrelevant. But if you cannot even tell the difference between
microevolution, random mutation, natural selection, and common
descent, and somehow think the same unsupported assertion can falsify
all of them, I have magnus doubts that your opus magnus will be
magnus.

Since adaptation is
universally accepted phenomena, said changes *were* beneficial or
"good" as Darwin described them.

Except we are specifically talking about 'adaptations' that are a
consequence of genetic differences. The only way that that type of
'adaptation' can increase is by a change in the genetic composition of
the population via (or leading to) differential reproductive success.
We are not talking about the non-genetic 'adaptations' that can occur
in individuals in a population.

This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
(aka, natural selection).

Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.

Yes it is. At base, all evolutionary changes are ultimately due to
changes in allele (not gene) frequencies.

You have evaded:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4

No I didn't. You failed to notice that there *was* genetic change; it
was just not reflected in visible phenotypes (at least those that can
be seen in fossils).

The same cannot be falsified.

You mean changes in allele frequencies could have been false, but
aren't. It could have been that mutations do not occur. It could
have been that the environment is indiscriminate wrt phenotypes it
would support. It could have been that phenotypes were not the result
of genotypes (and some aren't, which is why evolution only involves
the phenotypes are affected, to some degree, by hereditary factors).
Something that could have been false, but isn't, is exactly what
science requires of its hypotheses and theories.

Change at the genetic level is not evolution produced by unguided
material causation. It is designed change accomplished by a mechanism
built by Divine power and intelligence----just like IC systems.

So, are you claiming that mutation does not occur or that all
mutations are due to divine intervention? Mutations that occur
naturally cannot produce any useful change? What? Do you have
evidence for some magical poofer that I have not seen? BTW, "change
at the genetic level" is indeed not "evolution". It is "mutation".
The two terms are not identical.

Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence..

That doesn't mean that evolution is not, at base, a change in allele
frequencies. And, since microevolution is defined as evolution within
a species, we need not concern ourselves with speciation processes and
events in discussing microevolution.

The *main claim* of Darwinism is that species change into a different
species over vast amounts of time by unguided material causation.

Yes. But that is not what we are discussing. We were defining
microevolution. And selection is guided by the local environment.

They
are not produced by special creation. Darwin wrote the "Origin" to say
that special creation "is erroneous" (1859:6).

If evolution is correct, creation by direct magical poofing is
erroneous.

A change in gene
frequencies does not support the *main claim.*

Again, we were defining *microevolution*. If you want to discuss the
mechanisms of and evidence supporting *speciation*, we are not
discussing *microevolution*. If you want to discuss *common descent*
and the evidence that supports it, we are not discussing
*microevolution*. If you want to discuss *random mutation* and the
evidence that supports it, we are not discussing *microevolution*. If
you want to discuss *natural selection* and the evidence that supports
it, we are not discussing *microevolution*. You are suffering a huge
case of muddled thinking where you cannot even distinguish that these
terms are not the same thing.

What "supports" this
claim is interpretation of evidence seen in macro-reality, like
Linnaean hierarchal classification. Darwinists say the hierarchy
connectedness is real. Creationists know that it is an illusion or
delusion.

Well, they *assert* that it is an illusion or delusion. They have
nothing but boringly repeated assertion as evidence. But I am just
trying to get you to focus on the specific terms you mention, not some
muddled 'whatever'.

Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
causation).

Vertical, Ray, vertical. It is hard to argue with someone who does
not know if he is standing up or lying down. Vertical transmission of
genetic information is transmission from one generation to the next to
the next to the next. Horizontal transmission of genetic information
is transmission of genetic information from one species to another in
the the same generation.

I was not talking about genetics.

Evolution is all about genetics. Evolution *requires* genetic
change. The reason we can generate the formation of a tree or bush of
life (or a Linneaean nested hierarchy if you are looking at current
morphology) is precisely because almost (but not quite) all genetics
(at least since the last ur-organism) is vertical rather than
horizontal.

I was talking about the main
difference between Creationism and Darwinism. The former says
causation forces in nature are vertical or Divine. The latter says
causation forces in nature are horizontal-material-natural, not Divine
or supernatural.

I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone but you just now saying that Divine
intervention is "vertical" and natural causation is "horizontal". In
what way is divine intervention "vertical"? Can you post a citation
that is not yourself where this useage is presented? To be blunt, I
think you are lying or confused. Neither bodes well for your (always)
future masterwork.

Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
macro-reality:

Microevolution, Ray, is evolution within a species.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4....

Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.

The above link and its data falsifies your contention.

The described change in the genome *is* evolution. It is
phenotypically, and probably selectively, neutral evolutionary
change. But the genome of the species has changed and the species has
evolved.

The penguins in the study in the link falsify your opinion.

No. The genome has changed. Visible phenotypes have not. Again, the
nature of the genetic system is such that the only mechanism that can
prevent change is *when* "natural selection" prevents change rather
than causes it. In the absence of selective direction, drift will
invariably lead to change.

There does not have to be a large *phenotypic* change for
evolution to have occurred. In fact, changes like those described in
the "best birds" above are what you would expect if evolution were
primarily a function of time and only secondarily one of phenotypic
change.

You look
at a species over time and observe if there is time-directed change in
1) the frequency of different alleles that have no selective benefit
or 2) the frequency of different alleles that have changed because of
an environmental change.  Frequencies of alleles in a population are
quite measurable (in small populations) or estimateable (in large
ones).  Moreover, one can set up experimental situations where one
either varies the environment or doesn't and follow whether or not
allele frequency changes occur as predicted.

Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
and not unguided material causation.

The *appearance* of design is not sufficient to distinguish that
something was manufactured by an outside agency.  Neither is, by
itself, organized complexity.

Design logically indicates that it was produced by a Designer.

Only if the object that appears to be designed was in fact
manufactured by an outside agent.  For living things, you lack the
evidence that they are manufactured by an outside agent.  In fact, it
is clear that living things imperfectly self-reproduce.  There are
many objects that have the *appearance* of design that we know, as a
fact, are not designed and manufactured by outside agency but instead
are a consequence of natural processes.  E.g., snowflakes.

So does
OC. If similarity logically indicates evolution to have occurred then
you are accepting the same logic used to conclude that design =
Designer. Rejection of the latter is then based solely on the
restrictions of your Materialism-Naturalism philosophy. But the
evidence plainly supports the existence of a Designer.

What evidence of manufacture by an outside agency do you have for
living things?  Other than your repeated assertions, that is.

Appearance-observation of design.

*Apparent* appearance-observation of design is not proof or even
evidence of *actual* design.

Additional empirical evidence
includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
absence of descendants.

But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.

Counterfactual interpretation. Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
described "literal signal." It exists. To interpret said phenomena as
evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).

How can the pattern of fossil species, which appear and disappear in a
time-ordered fashion in the different geologic layers, get interpreted
as a *single* event of special creation?  Multiple creations,
possibly.  But a *single* creation event?  No way.

This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
the same scientific evidence.

Not those that accept the Bible's claim of a single creation event.

Neither the Bible or Creationism accept a single species creation
event.

Really? The Bible, in Genesis, talks about a single week-long event
in which *all* creation (not just the immutable species) occurs.
Where does it talk about any degree of creation and subsequent
exitinction of species at quite different times?

Only YEC Fundamentalists accept this error riddled view. 19th
century Creationism accepted on-going real time special creation to
account for new species.

So, *if* your designer is manufacturing new species right now, where
is the evidence that such a designer is even present?

New species owe their existence in nature to
direct creation. This is why mutability is not necessary. Besides,
mutability is impossible. Animals and nature do not have magical
powers.

Are you saying that mutation does not occur? That genomes are
incapable of undergoing sequence change? Do you have any evidence for
that wild claim? Why do you think that mutation (a permanent change in
a genome sequence) is a "magical power"?

Geological layers can be identified by the different suite of fossils
they contain (a fact that oil companies take full advantage of).  By
the very definition of "species" via the morphological definition one
must use with fossils, any fossil found that is identified as "species
x" must, of necessity, be very similar to other fossils called
"species x".  In fact, the changes that *do* occur in fossils that
have an extensive record causes paleontologists to either be "lumpers"
or "splitters" wrt whether a new fossil find is a different species
from an earlier similar fossil or a different species.

common ancestry

D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).

Uh, Ray.  You seem to be confusing "vertical" and "horizontal".
"Horizontal" is used for cases of transfer that are not due to the
vertical branching process that produces the bush.  Mitochondria
(horizontal transfer of a bacterial genome) and cross-species plasmid
transfer are examples of horizontal transfer.  If you are going to
present this argument as part of your "magnus opus" against evolution,
I would suggest you correct this before you put it into print.

Your comments plainly indicate that you did not understand what I said
or you lost track of the context.

I contrasted the main difference between Creationism (= vertical-
Divine casuation, God-did-it) and Darwinism (= horizontal-unguided
material causation, Evolution-did-it).

That is not how "horizontal" and "vertical" are used.  You are simply
making up terms.

Ridiculous.

Yes. Using those terms the way you are certainly is ridiculous.

Said terms have many legitimate meanings depending on context. You
simply cannot admit that you were not paying attention to the context
in which they were being used.

I have NEVER EVER seen those terms used to describe the difference
between divine and natural mechanisms. Feel free to point me to a
source other than yourself.

In fact most of your replies lost track of the fact that I was
answering your questions. You evaded most of my answers and embarked
upon a non-sequitur agenda.

No. *I* am the one trying to stick to the point: the definition of
microevolution, common descent, random mutation, and natural
selection. *You* are the one who conflates all those terms into a
meaningless mush. Microevolution is not *all* evolution. Common
descent is not *all* evolution. Random mutation is not *all*
evolution. Natural selection is not *all* evolution. Focus on the
terms and what *they* mean, golden drop of sun. Don't ramble all over
the map with fossils and speciation (when microevolution doesn't
involve those) or claim that the same unsupported mantra ("It looks
like design to me.") is evidence against all of them.

F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.

Isn't this the same meaningless drivel you claimed provided evidence
against microevolution?  You still haven't provided a mechanism for
distinguishing between the hypothesized natural processes that can
produce the "appearance of design & organized complexity" and those
that *were* produced by some outside intelligent agent.

random mutation

D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.

I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes
in the sequence of the genetic material" occurs at random wrt the need
for that mutation.  Randomness, in this case, can be determined as a
rate of mutational sequence change that is unaffected by the need for
that mutation.  The rate can be changed by the presence or absence of
'mutagens', but cannot be changed by the 'need' for that mutation.

There is no such thing as *random* mutation. Results reflect
purpose----adaptation. Species were created to fit their environments.
Since very many different species occupy the same environment the same
is evidence of the work of one Mastermind.

You are confused and/or ignorant of literally mountains of research,
done by Nobel winners and beginning college students alike that 1)
mutation occurs and 2) occurs at random wrt need. Perhaps you are
confusing the combination of mutation (which is random) and selection
(which is not) for mutation alone. That's the kindest interpretation.

This is a simple mathematically determinable genetic test.  And, with
the possible exception of a very few sites where mutation has been
'domesticated' and 'localized', experimental tests (starting with the
Luria/Delbruck experiments in the 1940s) have demonstrated that
mutation is random in the sense described.

Phenomena is *called* random because evolutionists want to send a
message that Mind is absent. But your *explanation* defines "random"
to not hold its understood definition. This is an ordinary bait-and-
switch.

I am using standard methods for determining that two variables (mutant
or not mutant is one variable; needed or not needed the other)are
independent variables. It is no different than determining randomness
in throwing two dice (die A and die B as one variable; face pips as
the other). If you don't believe that randomness exists, I will be
happy to play a 1000 games and let you pray that you get snake eyes
all the time rather than only 1/36th of the time at a dollar a
throw.

The test for the randomness of mutation wrt need is very simple with
bacteria. Grow a large number colonies (each colony is grown from a
single genetically identical bacteria and the starting culture is also
grown from a single genetically identical bacteria) on a plate where
both new mutants and the original strain can grow. Replica plate to a
plate where only the mutant can grow. Compare that to the number of
mutants when you plate the same number of bacteria directly on the two
types of plates. If mutation occurs more frequently when needed, the
number of mutant colonies to non-mutant will be higher when you plate
the bacteria directly on the plate where only the mutant can grow. It
isn't.

F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).

But all the experiments and scientific literature says that mutational
change of genome sequence is random wrt need.  [There may be some rare
exceptions, like the a to alpha yeast mating type switch.]

Only evolutionists say it is random.

Obviously that must include everyone that has the simplest
understanding of statistics. We are not using some special kind of
math in biology. Standard statistics are what we use. I think you
must be confusing the result of *both* random mutation and
*selection*.

The results, that is, design,
organized complexity and adaptation evidence a mechanism reflecting
Intelligent causation. Again, this is why both Creationism and
Darwinism are interpretations of the same scientific evidence.

natural selection

D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
of evolutionary change.

Notice that word "selection"?  It means that, *when* natural selection
is the cause of change (or conservation; one should never forget that
most natural selection is for conservation of sequence and function
and not for change) in allele frequencies, the change is "guided".  It
is "guided" by features of the local environment and not by an outside
intelligent agent, but it is still guided.

Okay, so?

The local environment is not a supenatural divinity.

But no such mechanism exists. NS is a short list of truisms
euphemistically called a "mechanism."

Do you have *any* evidence that natural selection, as described, does
not exist? Every time a student lays a millions of bacteria on a
plate with streptomycin, he or she is observing natural selection of
random mutations.

Natural selection can be defined as the relative differential
reproductive success of different *phenotypes* in a local
environment.  [Natural selection that has evolutionary implications
requires that the *phenotype* have a hereditary or *genotypic*
component that affects the phenotype.] This definition is
experimentally testable.

F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
complexity, Paley 1802). Watches (= species) correspond directly to
the power of an invisible Watchmaker. Based on these condensed facts,
Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
much less refuted him. Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
causation existing in nature.

How does this *test* whether or not "natural selection" occurs?  Paley
clearly thought that "natural selection" occurred.  

Preventing evolutionary change. You have agreed in principle, above.

Michael Behe
thinks that "natural selection" occurs.  All you are doing is
presenting an analogy and asserting that a watch is directly the same
in its mode of manufacture as a worm is.  Even simple observation
should disabuse you of the idea that worms are produced in worm
factories or in Swiss jeweleries by an

...

read more »

You do not understand Paley's analogy. Read Dawkins 1986, he does.

I understand Darwin's analogy (what happens in nature to biological
organisms in the absence of man is analogous to what man has done in
agriculture for his own purposes). Both have modified species by
selection among variants. That analogy is much more apt than an
analogy of living organisms to dead watches that must be manufactured.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was ... A number of wild plant species appear to be due to autopolyploidy from ... turns out to be perfectly suited for evolution. ... clearly demonstrated that reversion, just like forward mutation, *when ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Timmy, your comments please
    ... Darwin never suggested that natural selection was ... The simple basis of his ideas on evolution can even be ... darker hue - and all species have variations - were more likely to ... used to explain the central proposition of Darwinism, ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a ... happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence. ... I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... So where is the testable falsifiable hypothesis for how evolution ... so why hasn't our species been extinguished by random ... they depends on the environment plus all the other erstwhile mutation. ... You speak of "miscopying" as the source of variation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM Nomination: Re: Can Steven J produce the testable details concerning emergence of
    ... unknown in this species). ... reports of how random mutation coupled with natural selection have ... of mutations that Behe finds problematical. ... In evolution, "novel" features (as ...
    (talk.origins)