Very transparent. Bill, do you really think you’re fooling anyone with this evasiveness?
He’s fooling himself, which is all that matters to him.
3 Likes
Should say the amount of total sequence space is orders of magnitude larger than the amount of functional sequence space.
Natural selection only has a chance when some beneficial new function occurs. Since this type event is rare given the empirical evidence like the Lenski experiment why do you bring this up?
It’s an argument of how Behe’s method supports the multiple origin model based on the gene Venn diagrams. This contradictory data of genes not following the inheritance pattern is not going away and looks like the rule and not the exception as we compare different species.
I was attempting a little humor. I did not take your post as serious.
You should be careful of the extreme no evidence claims.
Yes, that’s part of your fundamental misunderstanding, but not the only part. Natural selection not only promotes favorable mutations, it eliminates deleterious ones.
It’s word salad bingo again. I can fill in a lot of squares on my card out of that one.
Yes, that’s one way to avoid answering. As I said, it’s transparent to everyone here. You especially avoid noticing the implications of your model. That’s probably wise.
1 Like
Natural selection is not relevant because favorable mutations are rare. Its most effective feature is to eliminate deleterious mutations. This feature does not favor the single origin model as it slows down changes in the population.
Behe’s method of detecting design is effective with the various gene Venn diagram patterns posted.
I did not take your question as a serious challenge to the multi origin claim.
I see you have forgotten your original point, which was the inevitable decay of function. Does that mean you have abandoned it? Sealioning is another of your distraction techniques.
You reply to a comment on word salad with more word salad? Another fine distraction technique.
Of course you didn’t. You can’t afford to. Your house of cards wouldn’t survive the slightest breeze.
1 Like
Natural selection also operates on existing variation in a population, and what is beneficial can change with environmental factors.
2 Likes
Yes random mutation will decay function. Purifying or natural selection may slow it down but will not move the sequence toward new function. This is why your claim of genes being added is beyond the scope of evolutionary mechanisms.
The multiple origin model is not requiring such a change since the origin of the various species has the observed gene patterns intact.
Your poofing comment is invoking methodological naturalism which is why the single origin model is considered despite its inability to account for the variation in gene arrangement.
You say nothing relevant, nothing to respond to anything I say. What point, then, in further responding to you?
Rather it is you who should be careful of your completely unsubstantiated claims and inferences that:
-
deer genetics are “very different” from each other.
-
for deer, “the different chromosome counts and the different gene patterns are an indication they do not all share a common ancestor.”
-
we cannot “reconcile the common ancestry of deer based on population genetics for chromosome variation and gene family variation”.
Three months, endless unsubstantiated assertions, red herrings, distractions, citation of unsupportive papers, sealioning, and of course your obligatory ritualistic and masochistic invocation of Behe’s discredited work, and it would appear that you have convinced nobody of anything … other than that you have no idea what you’re talking about. 
1 Like
You’ve swallowed a Big Lie promulgated by Behe and other IDcreationists.
If you bothered to look at the actual evidence, you’d see that existing variation is approximately a million-fold greater than new variation.
To put this in mathematical terms catering to your level of mathematical practice, a million is a really big number. How can you ignore it?
1 Like
Hi John
Can you explain what you mean by “existing variation is approximately a million-fold greater than new variation”?
Yes, but it seems perfectly clear to me. Can you explain why you don’t understand it?
Hint: it’s related to why I keep bringing up existing variation in human MYH7, which you still underestimate. Why so little curiosity?
I don’t understand it because the statement is vague. What is “existing variation”? What is “new variation”?
Bill, I’m a geneticist. My statement is in clear English. You should try using it when you write.
Different alleles at a locus in a population, aka polymorphism.
New mutations creating new alleles. Nobody is “waiting” for them. Selection and drift don’t distinguish between them.
Behe wants you to think that the former category doesn’t exist–it meshes with the falsehood that evolution happens to individuals. You have swallowed that falsehood and regurgitated it on cue.
Why would he test a model and write a paper in 2005 about changes to bacterial populations? He understands the basics of population genetics.
existing
already or previously in place, before being replaced, altered, or added to:
variation
a different or distinct form or version of something
An recent and interesting example of how an existing gene variant can present with a change in selection due to a change in environment is human leukocyte antigen (HLA).
Gene mutation may explain why some don’t get sick from COVID-19
The mutation – HLA-B*15:01 – is quite common, carried by about 10% of the study’s population. It doesn’t prevent the virus from infecting cells but, rather, prevents people from developing any symptoms. That includes a runny nose or even a barely noticeable sore throat.
UCSF researchers found that 20% of people in the study who remained asymptomatic after infection carried at least one copy of the HLA-B*15:01 variant, compared to 9% of those who reported symptoms. Those who carried two copies of the variant were far more likely – more than eight times – to avoid feeling sick.
Reference:
A common allele of HLA is associated with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection
2 Likes
The former category being existing variation.
I didn’t say that Behe promoted that falsehood. Plenty of others do, though, @rtmcdge being the most recent.
Did he acknowledge existing variation, or were all of the changes started by new mutations in his model? On what evidentiary basis are you claiming that Behe tested it? I’m pretty sure that you just bore false witness there.
I see no evidence that Behe does, since he pretends that no changes happen without new mutations.
More importantly, I see no evidence that you are in a position to judge anyone else’s understanding, given your inability/refusal to do basic math.
1 Like
My understanding is that in Behe’s model, all the changes are considered strongly deleterious until the last change is in place. So they would be unlikely to get to any appreciable frequency in the population.
Which is an unwarranted assumption and not really an answer to my question.
IOW, that false assumption allows him to falsely assume that they must be all new variants. That’s false assumption underlies most of Behe’s (and Bill’s) blather about “waiting.”