Winston Ewert develops his dependency graph model further

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Roy

Saying it’s arguably much higher is an opinion, not an argument. An actual argument that it’s much lower is that individual P. falciparum organisms frequently never encounter chloroquine so have no selection pressure to handle it whatsoever, whereas mature insectivorous bats always need echolocation or they starve.

Your argument doesn’t hold at all because you are confounding the selection pressure on extant bats having an echolocation system (ES) not to loose it with the selection pressure that applied in the past on a population of bats or some bat ancestors devoided of ES to eventually gain one. The two things are radically different.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Roy

Why are you (and Behe) using a number that based on your own input data is three orders of magnitude out?

We are not. See my answer to @RonSewell at 155.

Yes you are. Here, for example:

@Giltil

Consider the 3 following points pertaining to P falciparum

1. the per-parasite occurrence of CQR is an extremely rare event (about 1 in 10^20)

And here:

We know that for P falciparum, the per-parasite occurrence of de novo resistance is 1 in 10^20.

And in your post 155:

** The best estimate of the per-parasite occurrence of de novo resistance is Nicholas White’s value of 1 in 1020.

You just denied using an incorrect number by pointing to a post that used an incorrect number.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Roy

Saying it’s arguably much higher is an opinion, not an argument. An actual argument that it’s much lower is that individual P. falciparum organisms frequently never encounter chloroquine so have no selection pressure to handle it whatsoever, whereas mature insectivorous bats always need echolocation or they starve.

Your argument doesn’t hold at all because you are confounding the selection pressure on extant bats having an echolocation system (ES) not to loose it with the selection pressure that applied in the past on a population of bats or some bat ancestors devoided of ES to eventually gain one. The two things are radically different.

Selection pressure can’t apply to things that don’t exist yet. You are confused.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Your argument doesn’t hold at all because you are confounding the selection pressure on extant bats having an echolocation system (ES) not to loose it with the selection pressure that applied in the past on a population of bats or some bat ancestors devoided of ES to eventually gain one. The two things are radically different.

I’m pretty sure the ancestors of bats used hearing to track insects at night (like many small species of rodents do), even if they didn’t specifically use echolocation to navigate in darkness.

[John_Harshman]

@Rumraket

I’m pretty sure the ancestors of bats used hearing to track insects at night (like many small species of rodents do), even if they didn’t specifically use echolocation to navigate in darkness.

And shrews use echolocation.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Roy

Selection pressure can’t apply to things that don’t exist yet. You are confused.

Ok, it seems that you have a point. But how then a population of bats or of bat precursors without an ES eventually developed an ES?

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

Ok, it seems that you have a point. But how then a population of bats or of bat precursors without an ES eventually developed an ES?

Any animal with hearing and a means of producing sound has the potential to develop an ES. It’s inherent in directional hearing. Humans can learn to echolocate to a significant degree, and some blind people do exactly that. It can be useful in avoiding bumping into things in the dark as well as in prey capture, even in crude form. And so gradual evolution is quite feasible.