Bill's math class

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

This means Behe & Snoke are modeling a situation where they are demanding a particular set of mutations to evolve to create a new function, with no alternative mutations being able to create a similarly complex function, and that this occurs in one of two copies of a gene where vastly more likely deleterious mutations that render any subsequent mutations invalid, are not purged by selection.

This is a straw man argument.

There is substitutability in the assumptions. What you have always failed to recognize is that substitutability is little help when dealing with mutating through a sequence. What you have also failed to recognize is when dealing with populations variation to those populations is restricted by the time it takes for fixation to occur.

Lynch’s assumption of equal substitutability is not correct and from your first statement I think you agree with this.

If we want to get a better idea on how close Behe’s assumption is to reality we have a lot more studies available then those cited in an 18 year old paper.

@Faizal_Ali

Maybe the bigger question is how this paper passed peer-review. That it did gives the lie to the ID claim that the scientific elite are conspiring to keep their research out of the literature.

The bigger question is how after 18 years is there no paper that shows gene duplication and divergence is a viable mechanism based on population genetic mathematics? There is also no paper that shows how any mechanism explains life’s diversity based on population genetics mathematics.

At some point without an ideological axe to grind someone might question if the universal common descent king has no clothes and stop the generation of papers that assume it is true