Progress after the Royal Society conference?

[Faizal_Ali]

@lee_merrill

Stadler points out that the changes actually enable an already-present function, through epigenetics, as you say.

So he "points out"something that was made explicitly clear in the original paper. Well, wow, what an amazing thing for him to do. Why should anyone care? Does one single example of a functional change that did not require mutations mean that there are no functional changes that have required mutations? Obviously not. So what, then is his point? The question is unanswered.

@lee_merrill

So what they found was that over-expression of one gene provided the ability to metabolize propylene glycol, and the over-expression of another gene provided the ability to metabolize ethylene glycol. So this is over-expression of existing genes, not a counter-example of a limit of about two mutations.

Assuming that interpretation is correct (which I am not), again: So what? Exactly how does that show that adaptations requiring more than two mutations do not occur? There seems to be an important part of the argument missing here. ???

@lee_merrill

Well, fine, but in any fitness advance, just any two mutations anywhere in the genome is not going to do.

And who ever said otherwise? Are these more of those imaginary people that Tour keeps saying tell him things?

@sfmatheson

What matters to me is this: “discourse” with Lee will inevitably involve outright lying, high-volume bullshit, nearly instantaneous conceptual amnesia, and journeys into actual insanity. That this meandered into a casual and inexcusable slander is not just unsurprising but utterly predictable.

Oh, of course. Believe me, I have no expectation of any intelligent discussion coming from him. But, strangely enough, intelligent discussion can still result. For instance, I have found that this prolonged discussion has actually helped me clarify, for myself, my positions on the free will debate. So, not a total loss