# Progress after the Royal Society conference?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [December 22, 2025, 5:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569 "2025-12-22T17:32:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 290

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2026, 3:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/290 "2026-02-01T03:49:15Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Stadles explicitly says he attempted to find the highest quality papers in the literature that tested the limits of what evolution could accomplish.

Yes, I agree.

> [@Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/67):
>
> > [@Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/67):
> >
> > Well, I was addressing Roy’s complaint that he expected Stadler’s referenced studies to be about knockout experiments, also apparently also claiming that Stadler’s view (or the experimenters’ view?) is that only those two knocked-out mutations could be considered to restore functionality, those two mutations were specifically sought, in the experiment.
> 
> And, with that, you thought Roy was saying “In any fitness advance, just any two mutations anywhere in the genome will do”?

I was saying that Roy’s complaint does not describe Statler’s (or my) view. Any mutation, or combination of mutations, would be of interest. And I don’t insist that Roy’s view is that any two mutations would work and restore functionality, I’ll withdraw that statement, I would say nobody thinks that.

> [@Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/67):
>
> > [@Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/67):
> >
> > And please explain to me how “outright lying”, for instance, is what I am doing
> 
> I find it implausible that someone could possibly be stupid and ignorant enough to write the sort of things you do here and actually believe it. But, sure, maybe I am wrong about that.

But lying implies not only being wrong, but also malicious intent! I think sincerely I’m right, actually! And I assure that that I don’t harbor ill will, or have a malicious motive. Neither do Behe, or Tour, or Axe, etc. They get attacked tested a lot, and still seek to respond graciously, though they are not perfect. But I think the people who do involve themselves in malicious attacks are those who oppose them, they do have a lot of ill will. That’s pretty cleaner.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569)._