A historic shakeup of Darwin to the core

[EastwoodDC (Dan Eastwood)]

@Believer1234

MUTATION: SCHMUTATION

AND you have lost your audience at word #2.

@jpm

I do wonder why so many critics get hung up on what Darwin said or thought. He did draw some good conclusions based on observations and the limited science of the era, but indeed was a man on his time and place, and his thoughts while perhaps the first published on the topic, are really not important in evolutionary science today except to historians and makers of strawmen.

Indeed! Darwin’s thesis can be boiled down to three words: Selection Happens Naturally.
This is correct, and groundbreaking in it’s time, but we know so much more now than we did in Darwain’s time.

@Believer1234

I challenge anybody here to actually buy the book and then debate it from the evolutionist perspective with hard facts if they really can.

And I in turn, challenge you to build a Jabberwocky out of flim-flam the scent of the color blue.

Which is nonsense, of course, and having recognized nonsense (from the cover, no less) there isn’t much sense in trying to have a serious discussion about it. A serious discussion might include some current topics, like Epigenetic Inheritance or maybe Symbiosis. We could even discuss the origin and development of bones, or another feature.
The point is, that debate must start with some sort of established fact, like “bones first appear in the fossil record 540-550 million years ago.” If that point is agreed, then we can discuss how bones are thought to have developed. If not, then we need to find some more basic point of agreement.

@Apistos

Nobody is lying.

I am.

@Believer1234

Fact Two (Probability): All scientists agree that the Law of Probability rules that mutation is impossible.

But there is a corollary stating that people making such claims are never able to actually write down the math required to show this, much less submit them to a journal for review.

@RichardG

@T_aquaticus

every human is born with about 70 mutations.

And how many of them are beneficial?
How many are detremental?
How many are insignificant.

Most are “neutral”, which isn’t necessarily the same as insignificant.

A few might be detrimental. Most failed pregnancies (upwards of 70%) are thought to be caused by harmful mutation or genetic incompatibilities. This is poorly studied, for obvious reasons.

Somewhat fewer will be beneficial, and it may be hard to define what “beneficial” even means until the effects can be observed for several generations.

There is a large body of work on Population Genetics that covers this sort of thing in great detail.

@RichardG

I wonder how many people look at the small print figures for adverts claiming a large percentage of support. The sample is usually between 75 and 150 people!. I am sure someone can tell me what percentage of the population that represents.

Not this time - the % of the population would depend on WHICH population and how it was sampled. You are right to question small samples, but the real question often come down to determining just how large a sample is needed to meaningfully answer the research question.

From what I have seen here, scienctists use the same sort of tactic to “prove” their theories! (And mock me!)

Statistics are a tool of science used to help sort out meaningful differences from random variation. There are mathematical laws involved (Law of Large Numbers again), and defined methods for making estimates of values, measuring the precision and accuracy of those estimate, and for drawing conclusions (Inference) with known error rates (hopefully small). None of this is designed to mock you or anyone else, of course, but it might be a serendipitous side effect.

@St.Roymond

But it will sell well!

TENS of copies, I am sure.

[Apistos]

@EastwoodDC

@Apistos

Nobody is lying.

I am.

I don’t believe you.

[EastwoodDC (Dan Eastwood)]

@RichardG

What right do you have to dictate how peope see things, be it Scripture or Sceince! You do not. You have no right to tell anyone how to read Scriture.

Science doesn’t need to be imposed on anyone, and there are generally penalties for ignoring it. Evolution is pretty easy for most people to ignore, as there are few short-term penalties for doing so. Other sorts of science, and especially Physics, may exact more immediate and forcefully corrections to those who ignore it.

@RichardG

There are a very large proportion of solitary or monogomous creatures for whom population genetics would not apply.

Byer’s Point Exceeded.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@EastwoodDC

Byer’s Point Exceeded.

I have used a source (standford) as a proof of my criticisms. I am sorry if that counts as a foul.

The problem with common sense is that it does not abide by scientific methodoloxy. The problem with methiododlogy is it give you blinkers.
If you do not want “truths” oibted out, stick to scientific forums. If you are going to tyr and impose science ont to Christianity, be prepared fr a f ight. I am not the one who started this fight, or shoving people’s faith under the carpet just to show off my knowledge and importance.

Richard

[Apistos]

(post deleted by author)

[Apistos]

@RichardG

@glipsnort

Just to be clear… Yesterday, you had no idea this field of biology existed.

You do not know that. You just assume, because it has never come up. And that is the whole point. The field of study had to exist, but there has been little or no indicaton that it was being taken seriously or has progressed. in the mean time the “popular” DNA comparisons and genetics goes on apace.

@glipsnort

All I can go by is what you write here. If you want me to understand your concerns better, you’ll have to say what they are.

Now there’s the thimg. I would have said that my concerns were written a over my posts, but there you go.

@glipsnort

I’m not going to write an outline of population genetics in a PM.

Nor do I want a lesson in population genetics. There are a very large proportion of solitary or monogomous creatures for whom population genetics would not apply. I am getting a little bored with genetics. As I said above, that is the thrust of modern day evolutionary science and it ignores so much macro biology and physiology to be decptive.

Until, or unless science can say for certain how DNA functions in terms of the final result then all this comparison and genetic progression is of limited use.

Is there a genetic Code? Does a sequence produce a specific result? How does DNA produce a limb, or a heart, or a nervous system. IOW how does mirocellular study relate to the macro constructions. For all you know you could be comparing creatures that have bones, or an eye, or blood cells. If DNA works at that level then the similarities have nothing to do with heredity as such.
Does DNA hold instructions for autonomic functions such as heart, or lungs, kidneys, liver., walking, flying , eating, digesting. Most of those are not taught as such. At best they are refined or demonstrated but the actual usage is
more than that. How does trained autonomic functions work such as reading and playing music, driving, riding a horse. They cannot be DNA unless we are actually formng new codes somehow. People casually talk about tool usage, but where did that skill come from? Is it only being taught and learned? or is their an innate ability (DNA code?) Some people are more musical than others.

The focus is on comparisons and mapping, The other investigations may exist but they are not being considered, or incoroporated into the publicised theory. Ecology seems to defy the rules of evolution.

I am not a genetecist, but I know physiology and ecology and what I see is a lack of understanding of such things. Proverbially, people are so busiiy looking at the leaves they fail to see the roots let alone the other trees and the forest.

Richard

What does GPT 5 say?

[Apistos]

@Roy

@RichardG

@glipsnort

I’m not going to write an outline of population genetics in a PM.

Nor do I want a lesson in population genetics. There are a very large proportion of solitary or monogomous creatures for whom population genetics would not apply.

The judgement of Paris strikes again.

Might one ask how that applies here? Driven by another’s increasingly turbulent stream of consciousness?

@EastwoodDC

@RichardG

What right do you have to dictate how peope see things, be it Scripture or Sceince! You do not. You have no right to tell anyone how to read Scriture.

Science doesn’t need to be imposed on anyone, and there are generally penalties for ignoring it. Evolution is pretty easy for most people to ignore, as there are few short-term penalties for doing so. Other sorts of science, and especially Physics, may exact more immediate and forcefully corrections to those who ignore it.

@RichardG

There are a very large proportion of solitary or monogomous creatures for whom population genetics would not apply.

Byer’s Point Exceeded.

As above?

[Roy]

@RichardG

@EastwoodDC

@RichardG

There are a very large proportion of solitary or monogomous creatures for whom population genetics would not apply.

Byer’s Point Exceeded.

I have used a source (standford) as a proof of my criticisms.

Prediction: you will refuse to even attempt to provide anything from “standford” (Sanford? Stanford?) that even hints that population genetics doesn’t apply to solitary or monogamous creatures.

@RichardG

I am sorry if that counts as a foul.

[Roy]

@Apistos

@Roy

@RichardG

@glipsnort

I’m not going to write an outline of population genetics in a PM.

Nor do I want a lesson in population genetics. There are a very large proportion of solitary or monogomous creatures for whom population genetics would not apply.

The judgement of Paris strikes again.

Might one ask how that applies here? Driven by another’s increasingly turbulent stream of consciousness?

It’s a reference to a detective story where an impersonation was exposed as a result of some-one not knowing that they didn’t know that “The judgement of Paris” wasn’t about the city. It’s a classical example of some-one being oblivious to how obvious their lack of knowledge is to others.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

You judge my knowledge by your own, and your understanding of it. You do not attempt to understand anyone who is not using your understanding and view. You cannot see why I say what I do so you dismiss and ridicule it.

What you do not see is how non scientists and observers see. And you might not be so pleased with yourself if you did.

I was brought up with the mantra

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

It isn’t always true but your words are water off a ducks back. If you want my respect you will have to earn it, and the first step is to get off your high horse.

Richard

[Roy]

@Roy

@RichardG

@EastwoodDC

@RichardG

There are a very large proportion of solitary or monogomous creatures for whom population genetics would not apply.

Byer’s Point Exceeded.

I have used a source (standford) as a proof of my criticisms.

Prediction: you will refuse to even attempt to provide anything from “standford” (Sanford? Stanford?) that even hints that population genetics doesn’t apply to solitary or monogamous creatures.

Prediction corroborated.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Some of us have to work

Richard

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@RichardG

Some of us have to work

For some of us, population genetics is our work.