Are you new here? Explore this site. I have answered these questions already in as much detail as I care to. And you can look up papers. Google Scholar works well.
I’m new here, but not to your work. I’ve probably read most of the articles you’ve published on BIO-Complexity, for example. None of them address the issues you mention, nor have any of the many of your articles I have read on Evolution News or similiar ID sites. Are you saying you only “publish” this research on places like this web forum? That’s now scientists usually work, is it?
I have read up on how complicated adaptations such arose thru evolution. However, unless I am mistaken, you favour a different explanation. And, as I said, I have read quite a bit of material from you and your ID colleagues. However, I have never run across an explanation of the non-evolultionary mechanisms by which you believe such adaptations arise, even at the most basic and simple level. Is “try Google scholar” really the most specific advice you have to offer when I ask where I can find such an explanation? Forgive me if I say that is not very helpful.
Your request came out of the blue and rather preemptively.The only explanation I had for such behavior was that you were new to the forum and/or ignorant of all I had written here…
You say you have read quite a bit of material on ID. I have no idea what material or how technical. You say complicated adaptations. What complicated adaptations? There are a range. I don’t have time to write a book. I can’t give a specific answer if you don’t ask a specific question. And if you are looking for a specific mechanism for how “God did it” you won’t get one.
ID doesn’t offer a physical mechanism by which the Designer manipulated matter. ID doesn’t offer any sort of timeline for when the Design or manufacturing was done. ID doesn’t offer a location(s) for where the manufacture took place. ID doesn’t offer any positive evidence to support the Design claim. ID doesn’t offer any testable hypotheses. ID doesn’t offer any way for its claims to be falsified. All that FAIL yet its proponents insist we call it “ID Theory”.
ID is a religiously based political movement, not a scientific one. ID as presented now doesn’t offer much of anything except a reason for religious people to think science supports their religion. Those sad people who need science to validate their religious beliefs have some awfully weak religious beliefs.
Here is a segment that I lifted from Hayashi 2006. While randomizing about 30% of the protein which infected its target was able to get some activity after 20 trials Hayashi estimated 10^77 trials to find the wild type. This is very similar to your discussion.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000096
The question remains regarding how large a population is required to reach the fitness of the wild-type phage. The relative fitness of the wild-type phage, or rather the native D2 domain, is almost equivalent to the global peak of the fitness landscape. By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 1070 with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness. Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination. Recombination among neutral or surviving entities may suppress negative mutations and thus escape from mutation-selection-drift balance.
Would one of the many excellent evolutionary scientists engage @Faizal_Ali here. He is new here and we should not treat him like a professor would an undergraduate. @Art @NLENTS can you jump in here. Thanks
This is the specific passage I was referring to:
I’m not asking you to write a book. Just some specific reference to the findings you have made in this “active area of research”. I don’t understand why that is not a reasonable request. Usually, scientists won’t stop talking about their research, even if you want them to!
@Agauger research is super classifed, high proprietary, double secret probationary. It is so secret, that she doesn’t even tell herself about it.
Thanks for the request, but I have a reasonable understanding of the evolutionary explanations for such adaptive traits in biology that give the appearance of having been “designed.” I am, however, admittedly quite ignorant of the recent finding by ID scientists, in what we have been reassured by one of the leading figures in that field is an “active areas of research.” Since I am not aware of a single scrap of such research, it must be a result of my ignorance. I suppose it is possible that evolutionary scientists might be aware of this research. But wouldn’t it be better coming from someone in the field of ID? That how it would seem to me, anyway.
At least one of her hypotheses on population genetics, surprisingly enough to me, ended up panning out: Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?.
The Theological Hypothesis of Adam in Science?
Perhaps you misunderstood. When I said it was an active area of research, I meant it was an active area of research in the scientific community as a whole. We are not engaged in this research. But we are interested in it.
I’ll never change. Lighten up, it is all in good fun.
Remember you get paid for doing this, I don’t.
@Patrick May you be forever however old that picture is then. I would hate to be 65 forever .
The picture is just a year old before turning 60. Remember 60 is the new 40. Good godless living is the secret to a long, happy, purposeful life.
Ah, my misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying.
13 posts were split to a new topic: The Theological Hypothesis of Adam
Oh good. That means my 22 yr old, born when I was 43 is 2 years old. That will surprise her patients
No doesn’t work that way. Although I have seen mother/daughters at the gym (40/20 and even 60/40) that looked like sisters. Having a child at 43. Weren’t you concerned?