He gave an answer that makes perfect sense. I have yet to see a coherent counter argument on this thread that shows equivalence between erosion and complex adaptions.
1 Like
Analogies show equivalence only in a strictly limited set of features. In this case, the analogy was intended to illustrate the Texas sharpshooter fallacy that you and @Giltil constantly appeal to without knowing it, as featured in your āwaiting timeā problem.
1 Like
The process of erosion does not contain populations where waiting time to fixation is an issue even if you ignore the problem of finding real new biological function.
The reason Iām not interested in engaging further is that you are either incapable of understanding the simplest explanations or just choose to ignore them.
You do not appear to be invested in this argument as it requires a reasonable analogy between change in matter and change in biological populations that does not exist.
So itās analogous to evolution, where waiting time to fixation hasnāt been shown to be a problem.
3 Likes
How have you concluded that it is not a problem? By assuming all mutations are are function seeking and neutral?
How have you concluded that it is a problem? If your answer is Beheās paper, the response would be all of the responses to Beheās extremely bad paper.
3 Likes
Behe and Lynch both wrote a paper on the waiting time problem based on bacterial evolution. They made different assumptions. The assumption that Lynch made that mutations that generate amino acid substitutions are neutral does not follow from the evidence especially if we consider vertebrates.
Until there is a model that shows how new complex function can get fixed in vertibrate populations in realistic evolutionary time scales the waiting time problem remains a problem.
The answer here may be a new evolutionary mechanism yet to be discovered.
No, thatās not how that works. Something cannot āremainā a problem, when itās never been established that there could be one in the first place.
There is a mismatch between the theoretically expected timescale of some process and the experimentally confirmed one? Very well. Which one? What is the experimental evidence that informed the theoretical prediction to begin with, and why is it representative even for the case of the alleged mismatch?
You cannot just declare a problem to be there by default. Assuming nothing, I do not find a problem. So, what do I need to assume before I get to second your conclusion, and how do those assumptions match up with the data? Letās see the actual problem, not pat oneself on the back without doing anything to earn it.
3 Likes
You have never shown it is a problem. Until you produce some actual calculations, there is no problem to come to conclusions about.
1 Like
So in other words you base it on a blinding ignorance of biochemistry and an openly dishonest rejection of the countless times people have explained it to you.
If you are capable of shame, you should feel it for your actions here.
2 Likes
What is the solution to the long time for fixation to both the Lynch and Behe models for bacteria with enormous populations and fast generation times. The models maxed out at 6 mutations.
Now extrapolate this to changes involving hundreds of genes, slower generation times and smaller populations. Are you claiming the problem gets easier in the multicellular world?
Do you really think this type of argument style is persuasive?
You are not an honest person, and therefore not open to persuasion. The only thing to do is underline your dishonesty.
3 Likes
Thatās the Texas sharpshooter fallacy yet again.
4 Likes
Itās a model with underestimates and over estimates like all models. There is almost no window here if you tweak the model that vertebrate evolution with smaller populations and slower reproductive times works.
From Beheās paper
more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.
Itās talking about multiple specific mutations to achieve specific adaptations. Thatās the Texas sharpshooter fallacy on at least two levels, which, as @Rumraket points out, even Behe & Snoke have admitted. Thatās not a tweak; thatās a fundamental flaw.
No solution is needed, because you have never shown it is a problem. Until you produce some actual calculations,[1] there is no problem that needs a solution.
Correct calculations. The type you canāt do. ā©ļø
3 Likes
Then there is no model that supports the claim that there is enough time for the genetic changes to occur by reproduction and natural mechanisms. There is waiting time to adaption. is there enough time for the genetic changes to occur?
The waiting problem exists until it is solved.
They have only stated the assumptions in the model which is something more specific than using a TSS label. The question is the model accurate enough to show a problem? The inaccuracy you point out is only based on evolutionary assumptions not empirically demonstrated mechanisms.
Behe models very few changes in populations that are very large. It shows that vertebrate evolution by gene duplication and random change is highly implausible.