No, he’s demonstrated that you know ‘nothing’.
You don’t know how conservation of genetic sequences is linked to natural selection, and seem to be confusing conservation of genetic sequences with the Conservation movement’s attempts to prevent species going extinct.
Pointing out things that you don’t know is neither abusive nor insulting.
He did no such thing, and has not answered despite you attempts to bolster him up and support him. (or at least knock me down)
Because it doesn’t
I repeat.
So you are quote mining the bits you want to criticise.
You cannot demonstrate a connection that does not exist. it is in your mind (as a scientist).
Answer it instead of mocking it. Counter it with science instead of assertions. Demonstrate that you must be right instead of claiming it.
You can’t, because it is one view against the other. I do not claim I am right, only that you do not have to be right.
(Not so subtle difference!)
Richard
My point is that this:
… is wrong, because James Tour’s criticisms mostly concern origin-of-life research, not evolution.
Is he?
I haven’t watched the video yet, so I don’t know what Tour’s contribution covers.
Have you watched them? Can you confirm that Tour’s contribution is about evolution, not origin-of-life, as I would expect?
What people say doesn’t validate anything.
There certainly are. I’m one of them. But that doesn’t mean that evolution is a weak theory, it only means that there are other mechanisms besides natural selection that are involved in evolution. Sexual selection is one. Genetic drift is another.
Then you should have provided more than an empty assertion.
If only one sequence in part of a genome produces a viable organism, i.e. any offspring which have a mutation to that sequence fail to survive long enough to produce offspring, such that only offspring without mutations reproduce, then that is survival of the fittest, and that is natural selection, because that is what those terms mean.
Organisms with that genetic sequence are ‘physically viable’; they survive, while organisms with different sequences do not survive. Natural selection.
Organisms with that genetic sequence are ‘physically viable’; they produce more offspring than organisms with different sequences (who don’t produce any). They are fitter. Survival of the fittest.
If there is only one sequence for a section of genome that will produce a ‘physically viable’ organism, then any organism with a mutation to that sequence will be unviable and will succumb to natural selection, so that sequence will be conserved through generations.
This is the connection between natural selection and genetic sequence conservation that you claim does not exist.
This is literally the definition of natural selection. It is the root of evolutionary theory. The basest of the bases of evolution.
You are getting it wrong.
As usual you ignore what was written previously
You denied it, but that means nothing. Natural selection works on whether a creature is competitive in the environment or against other creatures, that is ecology.
But you d not know which genomes do what! So you cannot claim anything.
And you know that to be the case because? You cannot measure what is not there! So you cannot claim that other creatures who did did or did not have the mutation!
And you still do not know what the mutation represents!
Again, you do not know this because you cannot see the structure of the creatures that do not survive!
And you cannot prove that any one mutation is beneficial (Because you still do not know what they represent in the real world)
You do not know that! You do not know what the sequences means!
You still do not know that! You do not know what the sequence represents. How can you know wheter it is beneficial or not! And how can you know that the unsuccessful one did or did not have a sequence if there is no record of what they had!
No it is fiction. You are assuming that you know what the sequences mean in terms of survival. Tat is not what you are measuring. You are measuring comparisons!
You are adding to the data. You are not using the data.
I am disagreeing with you, but you cannot prove that you are right. You do not have the data to do so. All you have is a bunch of comparisons!
Richard
I’ve restored and highlighted the context that shows how ridiculous Richard’s response is:
Yup, Richard is complaining that I don’t have sequence data or knowledge of what genetic sequences do or know whether something is beneficial in his own hypothetical case, where he says that any mutation would lead to non-viability. The hypothetical case which of course he didn’t include.
I’m not going to do anything with this nonsense other than laugh at it.
Pseudo-Richard:
What if elepants had yellow feet?
Me:
Then they could hide upside down in giant bowls of custard.
Pseudo-Richard:
You do not know that! You can’t show that elphants have yellow feet!! You cannot prove that even one ginat bowl of custard exist??? You don’t know what they represent in the real world!!! You are adding to the data!!!
Life is to short for any more.
Nope
I gave one hypothetical example, not a definitive one, to illustrate a principle.
All that text and just one highlight…
And still no refute of the fact that he / science has no idea what these sequences mean.
Cynically he could be comparing recipes for tomato soup
practically he could be comparing the sequences for a specific bone structure, placenta, or brain cell
This void is the main criticism for the modern thrust in genetics to prove or confirm any of ToE be it Natural Selection or their view of Common Ancestry.
Allow me to laugh with you, or at you perhaps.
We need a little laughter now and then, but it is meant to be fun not insulting or cruel.
Richard
I have given a reason. If natural selection was active in the past then we would predict deleterious mutations in functional exons would be selected against. However, the vast majority of intron sequence has no sequence specific function so there should be very, very few deleterious mutations in introns. Therefore, we would expect much higher sequence conservation in exons than in introns if natural selection were acting on genomes in the past.
That’s the testable, scientific hypothesis. That’s how you use the scientific method.
So what does the data show. EXACTLY WHAT THE HYPOTHESIS PREDICTS!!!
You claim there are “other interpretations”, but we all know you don’t know of any other interpretations, will never present an alternate interpretation, and don’t care if the data is exactly what we would expect to see if natural selection acted on genomes in the past. You have already stated that you reject natural selection for religious reasons.
Natural selection has predictable impacts on genetics. You have not contradicted this claim.
Natural selection is not ecology any more than erosion is topography. That doesn’t even make sense.
If that was true you would already know the predictable impact natural selection would have on genetics.
Natural selection does have bearing on which mutations are passed on to future generations. Natural selection will select against deleterious mutations, including those in functional exons. Organisms with deleterious mutations will have a lower chance of having offspring. This will eliminate these mutations over time resulting in sequence conservation in functional exons. The same does not happen in the vast majority of intron sequence because it lacks sequence specific function.
Yes, there is.
No, I’m not saying that. I am saying that the deleterious mutations are removed because carriers of the deleterious mutation have a lower chance of having offspring. Every functional sequence I am aware of has the potential for deleterious mutations.
Yes.
I was responding to your suggestion that “Oerhaos no other mutation is physically vialbe.”
Go back and check.
You are still complaining that I don’t know what your hypothetical non-mutable sequence does.
This is the truly bizarre conversation:
Richard: “Oerhaos no other mutation is physically vialbe.”
Me: “[Then] any offspring which have a mutation to that sequence fail to survive long enough to produce offspring, such that only offspring without mutations reproduce,”
Richard: “And you know that to be the case because?”
I know that to be the case because you said it was the case when you said "no other mutation is ‘physically vialbe’!
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe ‘vialbe’ wasn’t a typo for ‘viable’. Maybe it was a typo for ‘tomato’.
How can you test what you cannot see, or witness or measure? (as in what actually happened)
How many more times! You see what you want to see. Self-fulfilling predictions mean nothing at all.
This is not about me. This is about you and your fellow scientists.
Edit
I am not the one dictating what things must mean here
Of course, but you can’t tell what they are (yet?)
I would laugh (here) but it makes me no better than someone else on this forum
You are even more stubborn than I am, and that is saying something.
I know what you are saying. You have repeated too much already. That does not make you correct.
Now that I can agree with.
I have never seen someone so convinced of his own superiority that he deliberately can’t even understand a conversation or when he is perverting it.
This ends now.
(I am thinking this last post might get edited for me)
Goodbye
Richard
The same way a forensic scientist can test whether the suspect was at the scene of crime using evidence at the scene of the crime. Do you expect a forensic scientist to witness a suspect leaving their fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene?
We can also observe natural selection in living populations. It does exactly what I describe. Natural selection selects against negative mutations and selects for advantageous mutations. We observe that natural selection results in sequence conservation in living populations. This is one of the methods that scientists use to find functional sequence in living human populations.
And that is a Flat Earth level of denial. You have just shown that you can not honestly judge the evidence.
Yes, you are.
“How can you test what you cannot see, or witness or measure? (as in what actually happened)”
You are saying that we have to travel back in time and watch the mutations happen, which is absolutely ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as requiring a forensic scientist to witness the suspect leave fingerprints at a crime scene.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.