Well, what I said was that if an organism is fit, that means it has working function. And conversely, if a needed function is absent, the organism is not fit. How is this unclear? I think it’s obvious. And indeed, I can’t give you a formula showing a mathematical relationship between function and fitness, but lots of true statements are not quantifiable in this way.
I think you mean Art’s reply? Not Axe’s reply. And I’m glad to discuss any response you might have to Axe’s reply to Art, but I’m not getting any such response. Just more claims of victory…
No, I very much mean Axe’s reply. Why do you think I asked you if you thought that any of his replies to Art Hunt’s objections were defensible? Twice? And you still haven’t answered.
What’s unclear is why you would use terms like function and fitness, which have very well-established meanings in biology, when speaking about things that have nothing to do with the things that are in biology referred to as fitness and function, respectively. What you mean are clearly some binary attributes an organism can either have or not have, and apparently having one is the same – bar wording – as having the other. What it is specifically that fit/function-rich organisms have and needed-function-lacking/unfit ones do not is left up to the reader’s interpretation.
Again, biology isn’t about vibes. It may have fallen out of fashion in philosophy, but in science, the verifiability criterion of meaning is doing just fine. If you state a sentence the truth or falsity of which has no experimental implications, then in what sense has the utterance any utility in the scientific discussion at all?
Well, for one thing, Art Hunt refused to address them. Do you want me to reiterate what Axe said? I’m not sure what you want me to do. But what I want you to do is address Axe’s reply, especially if you say things like “the failure is obvious”. If the failure is obvious, please tell me why. That’s how you discuss points that have been made.
This needs clarification, I was only speaking about function and fitness, and how they are related.
I don’t claim either fitness or function is binary, though, clearly there can be levels of some function, and levels of fitness. But I do say they are related, and how they are related, this is not about vibes.
To which method are you referring?
Where did Art imply that Axe had used this standard method? Direct quote, please.
No, that is not what I am saying. What I (or, to be more precise @Art) is saying is that, in order to determine that a given protein has no enzymatic activity, one needs to directly assay for this. It is not adequate to merely see whether E. coli grows on medium impregnated with antibiotic, as this is unable to distinguish a protein with no activity from one with low, but still significant, activity.
Is your problem that you don’t understand this?
Or it that that you understand it well enough to realize it completely invalidates everything Axe has written on the subject and so, like him, your only option is to obfuscate and lie? (Well, there is the additional option of simply admitting the truth. But that never seems to be on the table for ID proponents.)
(BTW, that is only one problem with Axe’s paper. But this one, alone, is enough to invalidate it.)
2 Likes
That doesn’t make them any better!
I want you to tell me if you think any of Axe’s answers to Art Hunt’s objections;s objections are defensible and then defend them.
You should get that from Axe’s reply! Start with the first. Aside from Axe’s failure of comprehension is there any substance there?
I suspect he’s using a criterion a systematist might use in coding taxonomic characters, more or less a part of the body you can give its own name to, evolving, one hopes, independently of other parts, and recognizable as that part over multiple states. But that seems less restrictive than some of the other definitions he mentions. I haven’t read the whole review yet, and perhaps he provides a better explanation by example.
Not even so easy in certain cases. The first three are quite different in form from predecessors, but “single-hoofed” doesn’t seem as clear. Is “three-hoofed” an innovation? “Four-hoofed”? Is loss or reduction of a toe really a big enough deal?
1 Like
Plating assay.
The search function in Peaceful Science is kind of broken. I searched, and then used Google, and couldn’t find it, maybe you can find it.
I agree that Axe used a threshold for function, and he said he picked a threshold that actually favors the Darwinian explanation. So I think the question becomes, did Axe use the right threshold? Not whether he used the right procedure, clearly what he did was a test for function, and a valid one.
Glad to hear other objections! And again, I would hope that Joshua @swamidass would comment in this thread on the objections he has to Axe’s paper as well.
It is an indication that he made good points, actually.
Well, first I was being told that Axe had not responded to Art Hunt. I then pointed out a response, and now you insist that I defend what he said, before you will respond to his points?
But you were the one who stated “the failure is obvious”, why did you say that? Did you have no reason for this conclusion?
So you’re clueless. Thanks for confirming.
I’ve given the relevant link to you three times in just the past few posts.
You are now reaching the “Dog ate my homework” level of denial. Good job.
Hm. Maybe we are making progress here. Let’s see…
As a result of the non-standard method Axe used, his “threshold for function” was elevated, such that many variants that have significant activity would be falsely measured as having zero activity.
Do you understand why this poses a problem for Axe’s claim that his experiment shows that variants with activity are exceedingly rare?
1 Like
Then your reason to avoid my challenge regarding immunoglobulins is moot. You claimed they were different, remember?
Why didn’t Axe use the term “fitness” if you are correct?
Because the definition you gave was false.
Why should I? Anyone can look it up in seconds. It does show that you don’t bother looking up the most basic terms.
I already did–function. In your evasion, you falsely claimed that Axe was looking at fitness. When I pointed out your falsehood, you claimed, “Fitness implies function, and function implies fitness.”
You know it applies. Why are you showing so much contempt for the Ninth Commandment?
Why? It flies for all of the better papers in the field, including the one for which you lack the faith to make a prediction.
It could be, but Axe didn’t employ it. It’s not really about measurement, but about function.
That makes zero sense, as you discount all positions that disagree with yours, regardless of expertise.
Of course you don’t, just as you have no idea whether Axe’s paper is a good one. It is relevant because Axe’s extrapolation is ludicrous. On some level you understand that.
No, it is not a contradiction, for we can intuitively recognize that something belong to a given ensemble without having a rigorous, undisputed definition of said ensemble. For example, no one would dispute that a dog belongs to the ensemble of living creatures even if rigorously defining what life is has historically proven remarkably difficult, with no universally accepted definition emerging despite centuries of philosophical and scientific effort.
A “response” that was made seven years before the post by @Art that was being specified. Which means it was not a response.
Do you really not understand how years work? That, in the Common Era, the bigger numbers come later?
1 Like
Except he didn’t. If that’s your best argument you have a problem.
That’s an obvious diversion.
I was doing that. And you evade it. Can we agree then that the section dealing with the first objection offers no substantial rebuttal to Art Hunt’s point? If not, then why are you evading the question?
1 Like
Axe said he picked a threshold that actually favors the Darwinian explanation. The question is if that is true? I have directly explained to you that it is not true. That explanation is to be found here:
The post was linked earlier. It shouldn’t be necessary to keep linking it to you, since the very post I screenshotted here is a direct reply to one of your posts.
Can you take your blinders off please?
1 Like
Intuition is fine for making decisions based on prior experience and accumulated knowledge. But intuition is also highly subjective and not that useful for cases that fall outside of past experience and prior knowledge.
I agree that trying to come up with a definition for biological novelty is not easy. But I disagree that we can simply rely on intuition instead to easily categorize biologically novel structures. Invariably we will be doing so based on individual subjectivity and not on any agreed upon definition.
Do you have evidence for this claim? Especially in view of the fact that Axe chose a threshold that was favorable to Darwinism, thus implying he deliberately erred on the side of a low threshold.
No, especially in view of what I said above, Axe’s threshold choice was intentionally low.
I claimed fitness and function are related. And I gave my reason for saying I have no idea on your challenge, it’s that I have no idea.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter. Good grief, can you really not deduce this?
Well, how so? Glad to learn.
Well, I think my statement is still correct, one is related to the other.
But no one is going to publish a paper with no conclusion. “It flies for all of the better papers in the field”? Surely not.
How is it then that people here also claim Axe’s measurements were inaccurate? And certainly you have to measure something, to test for function.
No, instead I try and make specific objections when I disagree, I don’t just discount peoples’ claims. Unless they offer no evidence.
That’s the claim. Now let’s continue to examine the evidence.