Behe's Ratchet

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

Heh. Another day, another case of Silly Billy Cole claiming evolution is just random change and ignoring the feedback provided by selection. Some people are just incapable of learning.

Are you aware of neutral theory?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@gbrooks9

Wouldn’t you agree, Bill?

I don’t agree George.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Are you aware of neutral theory?

Yes. Why aren’t you aware of the feedback provided by selection after the hundreds of times people have explained it to you?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

Yes. Why aren’t you aware of the feedback provided by selection after the hundreds of times people have explained it to you?

It’s not relevant here as how do you reconcile the differences given the genetic clock and north of 30 million fixed mutations. Most must be neutral or we can’t reconcile the differences.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Splicing code differences are very unlikely to be produced from random change given all the problems splicing errors cause.

All that means is most mutations in “splicing code” would be selected against, epsecially if they are lethal. Can you cite specific differences in “splicing code” and detail why natural processes could not produce those differences?

@colewd

Why would we expect random change to the genome to produce an increase in conceptual ability or the ability to produce complex language.

Because those mutations would be selected for in the right environment.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

It’s not relevant here as how do you reconcile the differences given the genetic clock and north of 30 million fixed mutations. Most must be neutral or we can’t reconcile the differences.

From what I have read, only ~10% of the human genome shows evidence of purifying selection. The other 90% is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. Most mutations would be neutral, so this isn’t a problem.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

It’s not relevant here as how do you reconcile the differences given the genetic clock and north of 30 million fixed mutations. Most must be neutral or we can’t reconcile the differences.

I was pointing out your blunder of opining evolution works only by random change. It’s the same blunder you’ve made 3-4 times a week since you started posting years ago. There’s really no excuse for it Bill.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

I was pointing out your blunder of opining evolution works only by random change. It’s the same blunder you’ve made 3-4 times a week since you started posting years ago. There’s really no excuse for it Bill.

You are the only one making the selection mantra. Selection does not support every mutation and when we talk about chimps and man sharing a common ancestor we are talking about mostly neutral mutations.

Random genetic change is a large part of evolutionary theory. It takes lots of time for mutations to get fixed in a population by selection.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Selection does not support every mutation and when we talk about chimps and man sharing a common ancestor we are talking about mostly neutral mutations.

Do you agree that selection would remove deleterious mutations and amplify beneficial mutations?

@colewd

Random genetic change is a large part of evolutionary theory. It takes lots of time for mutations to get fixed in a population by selection.

I can fix mutations in just a few generations in bacterial populations.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

You are the only one making the selection mantra.

That’s because you’re the anti-science preacher who keeps omitting selection in your dumb ID-Creationist claims.

@colewd

Selection does not support every mutation and when we talk about chimps and man sharing a common ancestor we are talking about mostly neutral mutations.

So? It doesn’t have to support every mutation but it does support some and is a critical component in evolution. What is your excuse for leaving it out in your silly claims?

@colewd

Random genetic change is a large part of evolutionary theory. It takes lots of time for mutations to get fixed in a population by selection.

But it’s not the only part Bill. That you keep omitting selection either through ignorance or duplicity doesn’t reflect well on you at all.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

All that means is most mutations in “splicing code” would be selected against, epsecially if they are lethal. Can you cite specific differences in “splicing code” and detail why natural processes could not produce those differences?

The similarity is 50% according to a couple of papers by Mit and university of Toronto. This is very problematic to the hypothesis. How would random genetic change find these mutations through a Sea of deleterious mutations.

Let’s change could not produce to unlikely to produce or you would have to concede that there is no viable hypothesis of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor as asking your opponent to prove a negative is a concession that you don’t really have an argument.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

So? It doesn’t have to support every mutation but it does support some and is a critical component in evolution. What is your excuse for leaving it out in your silly claims?

Read T’s post above. Most mutations in this transition are neutral.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The similarity is 50% according to a couple of papers by Mit and university of Toronto.

I have a feeling that you are confusing transcription with DNA sequence.

@colewd

This is very problematic to the hypothesis. How would random genetic change find these mutations through a Sea of deleterious mutations.

It would find the neutral and beneficial mutations the same way it would find the deleterious mutations. The difference is the deleterious mutations would be selected against, neutral mutations would fix at a rate consistent with chance, and beneficial mutations would be selected for.

@colewd

Let’s change could not produce to unlikely to produce or you would have to concede that there is no viable hypothesis of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor as asking your opponent to prove a negative is a concession that you don’t really have an argument.

It would be really helpful if you could cite a specific genetic difference and explain why that difference could not come about through known natural mechanisms.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Read T’s post above. Most mutations in this transition are neutral.

Someone get Bill a dictionary. He thinks most = all.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Read T’s post above. Most mutations in this transition are neutral.

Around 90% of mutations happen in non-functional DNA because around 90% of the human and ape genomes are non-functional. How is this a problem?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

I have a feeling that you are confusing transcription with DNA sequence.

No. I am talking about Alternative Splicing differences.

@T_aquaticus

It would be really helpful if you could cite a specific genetic difference and explain why that difference could not come about through known natural mechanisms.

Is all you have to your theory that it is logically possible?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

No. I am talking about Alternative Splicing differences.

I assumed as much. That is a transcriptional process.

I am aware that there are different alternative splicing events between human and chimp genes, but in nearly all cases we see the canonical transcripts in both species (i.e. the functional transcript). Where are you going with this?

@colewd

Is all you have to your theory that it is logically possible?

You are claiming that there are genetic differences between genera that could not have evolved. All I am asking for is specific examples using the chimp and human genomes.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Is all you have to your theory that it is logically possible?

That and 150+ years of consilient positive evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines.

What do you have Bill besides your copious ignorance-based personal incredulity?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

You are claiming that there are genetic differences between genera that could not have evolved.

I did not make this claim. I said it creates a problem with your claim that it did evolve.

@T_aquaticus

I am aware that there are different alternative splicing events between human and chimp genes, but in nearly all cases we see the canonical transcripts in both species (i.e. the functional transcript). Where are you going with this?

The different splice schemes create a challenge for neutral mutations explaining how these dramatic differences in protein expression came about.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

The different splice schemes create a challenge for neutral mutations explaining how these dramatic differences in protein expression came about.

HAH! Bill goes right back to ignoring the effects of selection. Like clockwork.