Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 106

Thread: Nice defense of Evolution

  1. #21
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,407
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Source: Douglas Axe

    Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    I.e. tested for selection, correct?
    No, not even close.

    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I find that their material holds up pretty well when I take it for a spin...
    Given that you don't seem to understand any biology, how can you tell?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  2. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #22
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,258
    Amen (Given)
    432
    Amen (Received)
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    No, not even close.
    Well, how so? Function being what is selectable...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  4. #23
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,407
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, how so? Function being what is selectable...
    They didn't, as you say, test for section. There was no selection in the experiment at all. They simply tested for function, and found (to no one's surprise) that introducing a bunch of mutations inhibited function. Had they selected for function, then they almost certainly would have found combinations of mutations that were consistent with function. But they didn't so the results are completely irrelevant to any discussion of selection.

    And you haven't answered my question. Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand biology and make frequent errors (like the one just here), why do you think you're able to determine whether someone's providing you accurate information about biology?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  5. Amen Roy, Seeker amen'd this post.
  6. #24
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,371
    Amen (Given)
    1575
    Amen (Received)
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, how so? Function being what is selectable...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Function is not defined as 'being what is selectable.'
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  7. #25
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,258
    Amen (Given)
    432
    Amen (Received)
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    They didn't, as you say, test for section. There was no selection in the experiment at all. They simply tested for function, and found (to no one's surprise) that introducing a bunch of mutations inhibited function. Had they selected for function, then they almost certainly would have found combinations of mutations that were consistent with function. But they didn't so the results are completely irrelevant to any discussion of selection.
    Well, the discussion in Axe's paper is about the frequency of viable proteins in protein space. And my point is that function is what evolution selects for, which should be rather indisputable. So measuring function would be measuring selectability. Now are you saying they didn't check the right combinations of mutations?

    Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand biology and make frequent errors (like the one just here), why do you think you're able to determine whether someone's providing you accurate information about biology?
    I think I understand biology well enough to discuss it, and Discovery Institute's points have held up pretty well here.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  8. #26
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,407
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, the discussion in Axe's paper is about the frequency of viable proteins in protein space. And my point is that function is what evolution selects for, which should be rather indisputable. So measuring function would be measuring selectability. Now are you saying they didn't check the right combinations of mutations?
    I'm saying two things:
    Testing for function is not testing for selection.
    Axe's experiment only tested for function after making multiple point mutations, something that would normally happen so rarely as to be irrelevant to evolution.

    Therefore, the experiment tells us nothing relevant to evolutionary selection. It's also completely unlike the experiment to test evolutionary pathways that this whole discussion started out with, which involves testing intermediate mutations, rather than making a bunch of changes at once.

    The fact that you brought up something that's irrelevant to the experiments i described indicates that you neither understand evolution nor this particular approach to studying it. Which brings us to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I think I understand biology well enough to discuss it, and Discovery Institute's points have held up pretty well here.
    I've just presented evidence that, in fact, you don't. I have done the same in multiple other threads now. Why do you persist in your belief despite extensive contrary evidence?


    (Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology. But those points are neither here nor there for this discussion.)
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  9. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  10. #27
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,758
    Amen (Given)
    1143
    Amen (Received)
    19800
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I'm saying two things:
    Testing for function is not testing for selection.
    Axe's experiment only tested for function after making multiple point mutations, something that would normally happen so rarely as to be irrelevant to evolution.

    Therefore, the experiment tells us nothing relevant to evolutionary selection. It's also completely unlike the experiment to test evolutionary pathways that this whole discussion started out with, which involves testing intermediate mutations, rather than making a bunch of changes at once.

    The fact that you brought up something that's irrelevant to the experiments i described indicates that you neither understand evolution nor this particular approach to studying it. Which brings us to this:


    I've just presented evidence that, in fact, you don't. I have done the same in multiple other threads now. Why do you persist in your belief despite extensive contrary evidence?


    (Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology. But those points are neither here nor there for this discussion.)
    Just like the guys who send in whole rock samples that include xenoliths to be dated and select labs with outdated equipment to do so.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  11. #28
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,371
    Amen (Given)
    1575
    Amen (Received)
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    (Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology. But those points are neither here nor there for this discussion.)
    This is the problem of dishonestly misusing probability and statistics to justify a religious agenda that i pointed out in every thread, with references. Also I pointed out that the scientists (?) of Discovery Institute simply cut and paste the same unethical probability methods from publication to publication.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  12. #29
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,258
    Amen (Given)
    432
    Amen (Received)
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Testing for function is not testing for selection.
    Well, it's close enough, if you started with function, which presumably was selected.

    Axe's experiment only tested for function after making multiple point mutations, something that would normally happen so rarely as to be irrelevant to evolution.
    Multiple point mutations are rare?! I must be misunderstanding you, because a number of genes have multiple point mutations.

    It's also completely unlike the experiment to test evolutionary pathways that this whole discussion started out with, which involves testing intermediate mutations, rather than making a bunch of changes at once.
    I think it's relevant, since Axe showed that protein space is sparsely populated, making a random walk to another viable protein/enzyme improbable. Selection doesn't save the day, since it is unlikely that there is a selectable path to every new protein.

    Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology.
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    This is the problem of dishonestly misusing probability and statistics to justify a religious agenda...
    Which is why his research was published in a peer-reviewed journal while he was at Cambridge?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Last edited by lee_merrill; 11-01-2019 at 09:10 PM.
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  13. #30
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,371
    Amen (Given)
    1575
    Amen (Received)
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, it's close enough, if you started with function, which presumably was selected.


    Multiple point mutations are rare?! I must be misunderstanding you, because a number of genes have multiple point mutations.


    I think it's relevant, since Axe showed that protein space is sparsely populated, making a random walk to another viable protein/enzyme improbable. Selection doesn't save the day, since it is unlikely that there is a selectable path to every new protein.




    Which is why his research was published in a peer-reviewed journal while he was at Cambridge?


    Blessings,
    Lee
    Please cite the relevant research involving attacking evolution published at Cambridge in Cambridge peer reviewed journals.

    His publications attacking evolution have been published in Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute associated journals and marginal academic journals. The Biologic Institute is created by Axe himself.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-02-2019 at 07:36 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •