You keep saying that, but I discussed it. You quoted from Axe’s article and I responded to it, and I even quoted other parts from it myself and explained what’s wrong with it.
Can you stop directly lying? You can state that you don’t think my response succeeds, fine. I’ll just live with your disagreement. But stop saying I didn’t respond or that people have refused to even discussing it. That’s a lie. Or you have really really severe reading comprehension issues.
You brought up another paper, actually, I don’t see you explaining what’s wrong with what Axe said, other than pointing to a contradictory result by somebody else. And we discussed this other paper!
Um, no. It’s true. Where has anyone addressed any of Axe’s four responses to objections? Where? Pointing to another paper won’t do. Where have any of you all’s points gone unaddressed? You all are punting on this whole discussion, you are the ones who are not answering points.
I’m tired of these claims of victory, without support. It’s just wishful thinking. So, yeah…
You’re making an assertion about a relationship between two concepts.
I just wanted to confirm if this is based on data, or if it’s just an unsupported assertion. You’ve answered that.
Your error is to think that if A derived from B, then A cannot constitute an innovation. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise, not at all.
By the way, was Andrea Wagner out of touch when he tried to develop a theory of biological innovation ?
https://academic.oup.com/book/1874
Or was Douglas H Erwin on the wrong tracks when he wrote a paper called « Novelty and Innovation in the History of Life »
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00990-2
I didn’t claim one way or another whether it constituted an innovation. What I am asking is how one delineates between something derived versus something new.
Do you have a specific definition you’re working from? Or not?
By the way, was Andrea Wagner out of touch when he tried to develop a theory of biological innovation ?
Or was Douglas H Erwin on the wrong tracks when he wrote a paper called « Novelty and Innovation in the History of Life »
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00990-2
I have no idea, I have read neither of those papers. Are you referencing them because they define what constitutes novel biological systems?
I don’t refuse to discuss it. I pointed out that it fails and I asked you if feel that its answers to Art Hunt’s objections are defensible. You haven’t replied yet.
Both fitness and function are quantifiable things, though, not vague vibes. The only way they can be related without that relatedness being measurable is if by “related” regarding measurable quantities you mean something that involves no measurable correlation whatsoever. That may seem like an awkward use of words to some of the rest of us, so I suggest some clarification is in order as to just what exactly it is you do mean by terms like that.
Nice article. Thanks for finding it.
Relevant here is the section “Evolutionary Novelty”, in which Erwin presents several definitions of the term, his favorite being “the origin of a morphological novelty is the evolutionary process through which a novel character identity arises. In other words, an evolutionary novelty originates when part of the body acquires individuality and quasi-independence”. I’m not sure I understand that, but he does offer the example of feathers.
Exactly how does that address the fact that Axe failed to use a standard method of measuring enzyme activity and, instead, relied on one that could be guaranteed to produce wildly imprecise and inaccurate results?
I guess I should have been more precise, and specified by “respond” I mean something more than just spewing about a bunch of words that don’t actually pertain to or address the matter at hand. I know that is standard operating procedure among ID proponents. But it doesn’t fly here, or anywhere else that scientific rigor and intellectual integrity are valued.
And I will again point out the painfully obvious points that:
a) the article by Art I am referring to was written in 2018
b) the article you are claiming was in response to that was written in 2011
c) the year 2011 preceded the year 2018, and therefore
d) Axe’s article could not possibly have been written in response to Art’s article, and
e) Axe’s article did not address the points raised in Art’s article, anyway, including the fact Axe did not use direct assays to measure enzyme activity.
Which of these points can you possibly deny?
For once, you are absolutely correct.
Sure, right. And then you woke up and found it was all a dream.
It’s funny because I don’t understand his definition either, and I was planning to ask you to explain it to me!
Now, it seems that it is not easy to define precisely what an innovation is. Nevertheless, I think that in certain cases, it is quite straightforward to decide whether something constitutes an innovation. Feathers, insect wings, echolocation, single-hoofed condition are IMO cases in point.
He has no response to this. All he can do is the “but if that was really a problem surely peer review would have caught it” retort, to be aped brainlessly and without thought every time something he too obviously considers a problem is brought up. If he felt like he could deal with it he would try to refute it.
This is a contradiction. If it’s not easy to precisely define innovation, then how can it be straightforward to decide what is or isn’t an innovation?
It’s hard to read the photo, I did read your linked reply, and as I mentioned, you went off on another article that contradicted Axe’s conclusion. We then discussed the new article. But this is not a way of specifically addressing Axe’s points.
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. You can lead a horse to water…
I note no specifics here. This is typical here now, where unsupported claims of victory abound.
Well, sure, if you selectively quote the post to remove all the specifics. Let’s take them one point at a time.
a) 2011 CE
b) 2018 CE
But Art mentioned a standard method, implying Axe used that. He then said many factors could obscure causes, when using this method. I then mentioned that therefore, people should not use this method, but they do. Finally, I asked if he has any evidence that Axe did not take proper precautions in his work. There was no response.
Alas, there is no post or point mentioned in this comment, which was not responded to. Speaking of “a bunch of words that don’t actually pertain to or address the matter at hand.” Come on, people, where have you all made a point in this long thread, that got no response? That has happened to me here, actually, so I think my arguments are not being answered.
I responded to your points! You need to reply to what I said, that’s how to have a discussion.
So now you are saying his method was wrong, to use bacteria which had the enzyme, and needed the enzyme, to measure function. How is this a bad idea?
Now you are being silly, you need to respond to what I said to you in reply to this, before.
I had a discussion with Art, which he abandoned. I somehow keep needing to say that. And please, if Axe is wrong, tell us why. The ball is in your court, not mine, you all are the ones making a claim that needs defending.
I don’t need to add anything to Axe’s reply - the failure is obvious. And apparently you agree that it is indefensible,
