Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, April 18, 2015

What Prevents Macroevolution- Another Look

-
What prevents macroevolution? This says it best
Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102 (bold added)

IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes  that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.

Major adaptive changes would be legs in place of fins- gradual or rapid. Lungs in place of gills. Bones, nervous systems, muscles- MAJOR changes. Wolves to dogs is very minor and a loss at that- ie no help. The differing sizes of dogs are also of no help.

Major changes mean different body plans requiring different body parts.

The point? In a childish attempt to show that evolution can produce adaptive changes and McDonald even said so, a zealous evoTARD posted MCDONALD – THE GREAT DARWINIAN PARADOX.

The imbecile posts the following:
 From the perspective of the neo-Darwinian geneticist, these challenges have been more irritating than devastating.  Effective counter arguments have been presented showing that strict gradualism is not an inherent characteristic of modern synthetic theory. Moreover, it has been pointed out that what a paleontologist considers a rapid rate of adaptive change may, in fact, be viewed as a quite comfortable pace by neo-Darwinian geneticists.  This the neo-Darwinian view of evolution, whereby adaptive genotypes are drawn from the store of genetic variation that segregates within species, is not necessarily incompatible with the evidence of rapid adaptive change. [my emphasis]
This paragraph pretty much dismantles the entire line of argumentation used by Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt.  I wonder if he even knows about?  The evidence suggests that Meyer has never read this article.  If he has, then he is lying about it.

Dumbass just proved he doesn't have a clue as to what Meyer if referring to. He thinks that just cuz minor adaptions can happen that means major adaptions can happen. Yet that doesn't follow from the evidence as there aren't any minor adaptions that we can extrapolate into the major transformations that are required.

What recent research has shown is that the further back in development you tweak regulation the better the chance you are to get a complete failure . Only subtle tweaks like those of epigenetics, are tolerated. Fruit flies with legs for antennae is not a good sign. Shubin has not been able to cox fish to produce Tiktaalik-like features.

Earth to evolutionists- "The Island of Dr. Moreau" is not a science documentary. And we are not the sum of our genome.

7 Comments:

  • At 1:58 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You're addressing a year-and-a-half old blog post about a how some ID proponents quote-mined a (now) over 30-year old paper?

    Did you actually read Smilodon's complete post? You seem so hell-bent to defend the Discovery Institute fellows that you failed to address the points that Smilodon makes.

    Have you read all of the original paper? You can answer that question easily. Without ducking and dodging.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What quote-mine?

    I read Kevin's post, he choked, just as I said- he didn't make any points. And yes I also read the paper.

    Do you have a point? Or are you also admitting tat you are an ignorant asshole?

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Once again Jerad fails to address the OP. Typical but still pathetic.

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What quote-mine?

    As Smilodon points out, the quote from McDonald's paper is misinterpreted and taken out of context. As Smilodon proves with quotes from the original paper and his own interpretation.

    I read Kevin's post, he choked, just as I said- he didn't make any points. And yes I also read the paper.

    I don't know who Kevin is. But the author did point out some egregious mis-interpretations.

    If you read the original paper and you think it supports your view then can you point to another quote or result which supports that interpretation?

    Do you have a point? Or are you also admitting tat you are an ignorant asshole?

    You've spent years and years shitting on other people's work and research and comments. I am merely trying to see if you can back up your claims. See if you can come up with the goods which you claim others cannot do. And, guess what? You've got no publications of your own to back up your interpretations. You've got no specific technical criticisms to wage.

    You're cannon fodder for the Discovery Institute. They'll disown in as soon as you start drawing negative attention to them. Just like when Dr Dembski chose not to testify at the Dover Trial. Couldn't risk him being made to look foolish. That would have undercut the whole thing. I admire Dr Behe, we went anyway. Dr Dembski bailed.

    Once again Jerad fails to address the OP. Typical but still pathetic.

    Let's see if your adopted interpretation of McDonald's paper holds up shall we?

     
  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, Jerad, Smilodon didn't show anything but his misunderstanding, as I pointed out in the OP.

    BTW Smilodon = Kevin, a known poseur and equivocator.

    Also all research since the paper supports the quote. Go figure.

     
  • At 2:11 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No, Jerad, Smilodon didn't show anything but his misunderstanding, as I pointed out in the OP.

    Point out some specific science point he got wrong so I can see what you mean.

    Also all research since the paper supports the quote. Go figure.

    Can you link to a specific research paper?

     
  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Point out some specific science point he got wrong so I can see what you mean.

    I did in the OP. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass.

    Can you link to a specific research paper?

    We all know that you can't point to any research paper that shows my OP to be incorrect.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home