Methinks it is sort-of like two weasels

[John_Harshman]

@lee_merrill

I only find it difficult to believe that existing variation is available at every step in the increasing of an orb,

I’ve wondered for some time, but could you explain why you’re talking about orbs here?

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

You really have no idea how multi-locus, quantitative characters work. You need to stop digging.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

But it would seem unreasonable to expect existing variation to exist throughout the increasing of an orb!

Not if you understand any biology. I can’t think of the size of anything in biology that would be controlled only by a single gene.

There could be multiple genes, I only find it difficult to believe that existing variation is available at every step in the increasing of an orb,

But you actively choose to be ignorant of the most basic biology and genetics, Lee.

I can’t think of any size, from that of the whole organism to the smallest intracellular organelle (most are orbs and I’ve changed some experimentally), that isn’t an emergent property influenced by many genes.

You are taking predictions by your ID hypothesis and treating them as facts instead of testing them against reality.

Skepticism fueled by aggressive ignorance is not convincing.

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

I don’t see why, but I’m just a geneticist. Explain it to me from an engineering perspective, but refrain from presenting your assumptions as facts, as that constitutes bearing false witness.

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

That makes zero sense genetically. Quantitative traits have never been observed to evolve instantly; there’s a lot of math that supports that.

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

So are you saying that you were denying the existence of something that you knew for a fact exists?

No, I’m saying the flagellum probably did not come about through evolution.

Nice try at deflection. You were denying that such an explanation exists, remember? Your opinion of its validity is irrelevant to that point.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

That response conclusively settles that you have absolutely no idea how developmental biology works. Most traits are highly polygenic, and most genes are also pleiotropic.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

That response conclusively settles that you have absolutely no idea how developmental biology works.

Which also falsifies the vague ID hypothesis that Lee is beginning with; even if he refuses to state it, he is using it to predict how developmental biology (and cell biology, and biochemistry, and population genetics) must work.

Most scientists start with evidence.

[lee_merrill]

@John_Harshman

@lee_merrill

I only find it difficult to believe that existing variation is available at every step in the increasing of an orb,

I’ve wondered for some time, but could you explain why you’re talking about orbs here?

I’m still talking about evolution of the eye.

@John_Harshman

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

You really have no idea how multi-locus, quantitative characters work.

But existing variation could include multi-locus characters…

[lee_merrill]

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

That makes zero sense genetically. Quantitative traits have never been observed to evolve instantly; there’s a lot of math that supports that.

That’s kind of my point.

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

I’m saying the flagellum probably did not come about through evolution.

Nice try at deflection. You were denying that such an explanation exists, remember?

I have seen the explanations, and am not satisfied with them. But Matzke’s explanation is being discussed in another thread.

[lee_merrill]

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

That response conclusively settles that you have absolutely no idea how developmental biology works. Most traits are highly polygenic, and most genes are also pleiotropic.

Well, as I said, existing variation could be polygenic, etc.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@lee_merrill

@John_Harshman

@lee_merrill

I only find it difficult to believe that existing variation is available at every step in the increasing of an orb,

I’ve wondered for some time, but could you explain why you’re talking about orbs here?

I’m still talking about evolution of the eye.

How many different eye “designs” are there in biology? Why would you use the singular article?

@lee_merrill

@John_Harshman

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

You really have no idea how multi-locus, quantitative characters work.

But existing variation could include multi-locus characters…

It definitely does, and you definitely have no idea how they work.

The validity of any skepticism about how something could evolve is dependent on understanding how it works in real time. You have no such understanding; the assumptions you are making are actually predictions of your design hypothesis. Their falsehood falsifies your design hypothesis.

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

That makes zero sense genetically. Quantitative traits have never been observed to evolve instantly; there’s a lot of math that supports that.

That’s kind of my point.

No, it isn’t.

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

I’m saying the flagellum probably did not come about through evolution.

Nice try at deflection. You were denying that such an explanation exists, remember?

I have seen the explanations, and am not satisfied with them.

Again, you denied that any existed. Your satisfaction with them is irrelevant to whether they exist or not.

@lee_merrill

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.

That response conclusively settles that you have absolutely no idea how developmental biology works. Most traits are highly polygenic, and most genes are also pleiotropic.

Well, as I said, existing variation could be polygenic, etc.

Yes, but you don’t incorporate that into any coherent understanding of how they work evolutionarily.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@lee_merrill

@Rumraket

That response conclusively settles that you have absolutely no idea how developmental biology works. Most traits are highly polygenic, and most genes are also pleiotropic.

Well, as I said, existing variation could be polygenic, etc.

Then it is just all the more mysterious why you don’t seem to understand that morphological evolution of a structure like the eye could result from a large amount of existing variation of quantitative characters.

[John_Harshman]

@lee_merrill

I’m still talking about evolution of the eye.

So why use the term “orb”? It seems highly idiosyncratic.

@lee_merrill

But existing variation could include multi-locus characters…

Again, you have no idea, and it seems to have been useless to try to explain it to you. One problem is that you seem to think you already understand it, and a second problem is that you pay no attention to the explanations.