Science Forum (SCF) - Science Chat & Forums for discussion and debate

Note to moderators: Slp in another thread brought up the subject of a formal “Falsify and Replace Darwinian Theory Demonstration” that has been discussed on a number of other websites. While I am willing to discuss this topic here with slp and anyone else interested, I will only do so if there are no objections from the moderators. The mathematical calculations and assumptions used in this falsification argument are available on an excel spreadsheet on my website.

The ‘demonstration’ presented is not, at least IMO, particularly complex or controversial. The demonstration is summarized as follows:

1. Define a predictive form of Darwinian theory based on a literal interpretation of the theory.
2. Demonstrate mathematically that certain known genetic changes can not be explained mathematically in a manner consistent with the explicit expression of Darwin.
3. Supporters of Darwin have the opportunity to a) provide an alternative explicit Darwinian theory and/or b) an explicit demonstration that the observed genetic change phenomena can be explained in a manner consistent with an explicit predictive form of Darwinian theory.
4. Discuss the known ‘non-Darwinian’ third force or process needed to explain the observed genetic change data.
5. Present an alternative testable predictive theory that can explain the observed genetic change processes.

This demonstration has been discussed on several sites and no one has yet been produced either a counter demonstration nor an alternative predictive formulation of Darwinian theory. All that has ever been presented to counter this demonstration has been subjective opinions that are variations on “We don’t recognize that form of analysis”. I very much doubt if slp has anything to add to what has been previously discussed, but if the moderators have no objection, I am willing to let him post his views.

LifeEngineer,

You are welcome to discuss any scientifically minded topic you wish

LifeEngineer wrote:Note to moderators: Slp in another thread brought up the subject of a formal “Falsify and Replace Darwinian Theory Demonstration” that has been discussed on a number of other websites.

Discussed and shown to be lacking, yes.

While I am willing to discuss this topic here with slp and anyone else interested, I will only do so if there are no objections from the moderators. The mathematical calculations and assumptions used in this falsification argument are available on an excel spreadsheet on my website.

I have the spreadsheet. Please provide source documentation for the values you used, for many of them are at odds with values I have seen in the legitimate scientific literature.

The ‘demonstration’ presented is not, at least IMO, particularly complex or controversial. The demonstration is summarized as follows:

1. Define a predictive form of Darwinian theory based on a literal interpretation of the theory.

Please note:
Thie 'prediction' is LifeEngineer's, and his only. None of the other actual biologists that have looked at this 'argument' agreed with it.

2. Demonstrate mathematically that certain known genetic changes can not be explained mathematically in a manner consistent with the explicit expression of Darwin.

Don't you mean attempt to demonstrate?

3. Supporters of Darwin have the opportunity to a) provide an alternative explicit Darwinian theory and/or b) an explicit demonstration that the observed genetic change phenomena can be explained in a manner consistent with an explicit predictive form of Darwinian theory.
4. Discuss the known ‘non-Darwinian’ third force or process needed to explain the observed genetic change data.

This is the funny part - this 'third force' is derived via declaring that natural forces cannot achieve the results. I.e., it is a logical fallacy. There is no actual support for this 'third force', rather, it is an unjustifiable conclusion premised on what LE has admitted is an over simplified version of ToE, and he has recently written that such oversimplifications are troublesome.

5. Present an alternative testable predictive theory that can explain the observed genetic change processes.

This is another funny part - this is unnecessary baggage stuck in the 'rules' to make LE's claims unfalsifiable. If you cannot formulate an alternative, then he claims that his claims stand. This despite the fact that it has been shown that his claims are based on erroneous assumptions, that his formulae do not adequately reflect the actual nature of evolution, etc. I.e., he wants his erroneous claims to stand no matter their error.

This demonstration has been discussed on several sites and no one has yet been produced either a counter demonstration nor an alternative predictive formulation of Darwinian theory. All that has ever been presented to counter this demonstration has been subjective opinions that are variations on “We don’t recognize that form of analysis”.

This is absolutely false. I can easily link to several discussions in which many factors of your 'analysis' hacve been demonstrated to be in error. You refusing to recognize error in your own work does not mean there is none.

I very much doubt if slp has anything to add to what has been previously discussed, but if the moderators have no objection, I am willing to let him post his views.

You are willing to let me? :roll:

Funny - I did not realize that you had a say in this.

:roll:

Do you two need a hug? :)

mabus wrote:Do you two need a hug? :)

No - perhaps a moderator that does not allow all manner of false claims to be made with abandon. The other forums where LE spreads his claims have all either been run by him or anti-Darwinists who frequently intervene on his behalf (though it was refreshing to see a moderator on the ARN board finally warn LE to stop making false claims at one point).

It's important in a debate to always leave the door open for the possibility that everything we know may be wrong. That can only happen when you allow people to present arguments you disagree with. So as far as i personally am concerned, he's free to make whatever claims he wants here. If the claims are false you can feel free to attack their validity through reasoned debate and discussion. I don't see any merit in the idea of censoring thoughts or beliefs on a scientific debate forum.

Quote: This is the funny part - this 'third force' is derived via declaring that natural forces cannot achieve the results.

Just to set the record straight, the finding of the demonstration are that the observed data can not be explained by the two forces RM and NS included in the literal Darwinian theory. The major part of the third force needed to explain the observed result is a well known natural force that was clearly identified in the discussion. This third force or process is the error correction processes or mechanisms that are a recognized part of genetic change proceses.

The problem for modern biologists, is formulating a predictive theory of evolution/genetic change that incorporates error correction mechanisms. Error correction mechanism while perfectly natural, include features that traditional biology is unwilling to see included in a predictive theory.

mabus wrote:It's important in a debate to always leave the door open for the possibility that everything we know may be wrong. That can only happen when you allow people to present arguments you disagree with. So as far as i personally am concerned, he's free to make whatever claims he wants here. If the claims are false you can feel free to attack their validity through reasoned debate and discussion. I don't see any merit in the idea of censoring thoughts or beliefs on a scientific debate forum.

Not even demonstrably false ones? :shock:

That is, even after a claim is shown to be false, you would have no problem with it being reiterated time and again?

LifeEngineer wrote:Quote: This is the funny part - this 'third force' is derived via declaring that natural forces cannot achieve the results.

Just to set the record straight, the finding of the demonstration are that the observed data can not be explained by the two forces RM and NS included in the literal Darwinian theory.

False.

The major part of the third force needed to explain the observed result is a well known natural force that was clearly identified in the discussion. This third force or process is the error correction processes or mechanisms that are a recognized part of genetic change proceses.

Natural occurring processes.

The problem for modern biologists, is formulating a predictive theory of evolution/genetic change that incorporates error correction mechanisms.

Um, what if it is not a predictive theory? Why must all science conform to the idiosyncratic views of some internet engineer in order to be considered valid?

Error correction mechanism while perfectly natural, include features that traditional biology is unwilling to see included in a predictive theory.

What features are these?

The claim which you are saying has been shown to be false, was, allegedly shown to be false on another forum. It's not as if he's flooding our forums with the same discredited claim over and over again. So far he's made the claim once, and invited people to challenge it. To this point that is perfectly acceptable. If it was discredited here, and he reposted it over, and over and over, then yes, you'd be correct that that would indeed be improper. But it has not come to that yet i don't think.

It is mildly interesting to note that people like slp who imply that they are qualified experts on the subject, appear unable to provide concrete data and evidence to counter a relatively straight forward mathematical model. An excel worksheet is even provided to let them play with numbers and data until they find data and a predictive theory that will fit their beliefs.

Back in the old days when biologists were careful about what kind of claims they made, the explanation for the offered falsification demonstration would have been "We currently do not have enough knowledge to formulate testable predictive theories of evolution".

For people that followed the old fashioned scientific standards, the 'interesting' part of this demonstration is not the falsification, but the fact that I have been able to fit the data to a new typoe of testable predictive theory that appears capable of passing testing.

LifeEngineer wrote:It is mildly interesting to note that people like slp who imply that they are qualified experts on the subject, appear unable to provide concrete data and evidence to counter a relatively straight forward mathematical model.

Ummm...

Had you considered that I have not attempted to do so? Had you considered that YOU have provided no concrete data that I or anyone else can verify? You toss out some numbers, but provide no docuemmntation for them and as I mentioned, many of the values you employed seem to be pulled from thin air. Until/unless you can provide source documentation for the values you use, I consider your entire enterpriose fraudulent.

An excel worksheet is even provided to let them play with numbers and data until they find data and a predictive theory that will fit their beliefs.

You mean like you did?
I read the T.O. thread wherein you had to alter the equations 3 times to get the reults you wanted. Isn't that an odd thing? Having to revamp the 'perfect' mathematical equations 3 times despite claiming that the falsification laready took place?

Back in the old days when biologists were careful about what kind of claims they made, the explanation for the offered falsification demonstration would have been "We currently do not have enough knowledge to formulate testable predictive theories of evolution".

Back in th eold days, internet pseudoexperts did not declare that all fields of scienc emust acquiesce to their particular idiosyncratic notions of what constitutes good science.

For people that followed the old fashioned scientific standards, the 'interesting' part of this demonstration is not the falsification, but the fact that I have been able to fit the data to a new typoe of testable predictive theory that appears capable of passing testing.

According to you.

And only you.

In an effort to steer this conversation into something more productive, let me ask you a direct question. Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution is somehow incorrect? If so, Why?

As to your challenges;

1. Define a predictive form of Darwinian theory based on a literal interpretation of the theory.

This isn't nessecary to do, as Darwinian theory already does it. Darwinian theory already predicts that animal species will adapt to their enviroments and that genetic mutations will propogate throughout a species when it is advantageous. This has been demonstrated time and time again to the point where even creationists accept this as true.

2. Demonstrate mathematically that certain known genetic changes can not be explained mathematically in a manner consistent with the explicit expression of Darwin.

Mathematics isn't relevant to Darwinian evolution theory. This would be like asking us to write a song about cooking a meatloaf to prove that the meatloaf tastes good. In any case what you're asking for here is highly specialised and i find it very unlikely that you will find many people who can converse with you on these terms. {nor do i see what it would prove regardless}

3. Supporters of Darwin have the opportunity to a) provide an alternative explicit Darwinian theory and/or b) an explicit demonstration that the observed genetic change phenomena can be explained in a manner consistent with an explicit predictive form of Darwinian theory.

A) why would we provide an alternative to what has already been proved to be true?
B) can you repeat this in english?

4. Discuss the known ‘non-Darwinian’ third force or process needed to explain the observed genetic change data.

No idea what third force you are refering to, nor which data you are referencing. Please elaborate.

5. Present an alternative testable predictive theory that can explain the observed genetic change processes.

No alternative testable predictive theory is needed where we already have a viable, proven well tested theory already in place.

A couple of major blunders that render the 'falsification' of Darwinism a fraudulent claim:


1. V14 NUMBER OF LIKELY MUTATIONS INPUT 1500

Your justification for this number is:

DEFINITION- The average number of likely or common mutations per gene based on the assumption that various common types of common mutations will occur at random. It would, for example, be expected that point mutations are likely in any base pair.
OBSERVED VALUE- Use estimate of 1500 based on assumption that average gene has 1500 base pairs and one common or likely point mutation per base pair.

This is silly, frankly. You are assuming:
-all loci are equally likely to mutate
-all loci will mutate
-all such mutations should be observed

If the mutation is lethal, it will not be seen. Lethal mutations are not acted upon by natural selection any more than a bystander being shot by a stray bullet is an act of natural selection.

Mutation rates are averages of mutations throughout the entire genome, genic and nongenic. In your later calculation:

V15 EXPECTED MUTATIONS PER EGG V15=V11*V12*V13*V14

You are multiplying:

raw mutation rate (V11)
years per (human) generation (V12)
number of genes (V13)
number of "likely mutations" (V14)

Therefore, the relevance of your input values of V13 and V14 are suspect, to say the least.

This calculation is fraudulent. If you take the the mutation rate - which is expressed in mutations per site per year, multiply it by 20 you get the rate of mutations per site in the entire genome for a 20 year period. In order to assess the number of mutations per zygote, you need only multiply that number (0.000000044) by the number of sites, which in the diploid human genome is ~6.2 billion, for a total of ~273. If we assume that these are spread equally throughout the genome (they are not, but it makes the calculations easier), then, since the genic portion of the genome occupies about 2% of that 6.2 billion, then you should multiply 273 by 2%, producing ~6. Since the number of genes factor is superfluous, I will not use it. Consider this a replacement.



2. AVERAGE NO OF KNOWN ALLELES PER GENE INPUT 25


You provide no documentation or citations for this value, therefore it seems to be pulled from thin air. Legitimate science frowns on making up numbers. I searched in several places, and the most common value I found was 5 (in mice). Human alleles per gene are hardly known, so placing a number as a 'known' is misleading. My audit thus far indicates intentional deception as no source documentation is provided and the actual available numbers are quite different. It is true that for example MHC loci can have dozens or hundreds of variants, it is also true that that locus is an extreme exception, and considering their allelic diversity when trying to divine the entire genome's allelic diveristy is unwarranted. Here, there is a repository of identified human alleles. It is in its infancy. While the number of alleles for any gene can be large when looking at the entire human population, it is unreasonable to consider such a total since the entire human population is not a breeding population. Within breeding populations, the numbers are very low.

As the actual number of 'known' alleles per gene is therefore unknown, the remainder of the 'argument' is moot, but I will address a couple more aspects.

3. V22 RATIO OF ACTUAL TO EXPECTED ALLELES V22=V21/V14

You calculate this ratio by dividing "the known number of alleles..." (which is not known) by V14 which is "number of likely mutations."

That is, you consider any gene with a mutation to be an allele. Unfortunately, an allele is only an allele if its product differs from the wild type. Also, variant forms of noncoding but regulatory DNA are sometimes called alleles as well.

Therefore, the number of 'likely mutations' is an intentionally misleading value to use when you are considering "expected" alleles.


4. V26 TOTAL FORCE OF SELCTION FOR NON-OBSEVED ALLELES 100%

This assumes that:

- all alleles occur at a frequency sufficient to be observed
- all non-visible alleles were selected against

What is the justification for those two assumptions?

5. V27 TOTAL FORCE OF SELECTION FOR OBSERVED ALLELE INPUT 10%

Justification for this? Documentation?

6. This is a good one -

V29 ANTICIPATORY SELECTION PORTION OF TOTAL SELECTION INPUT 0% 95%

The 0% is for "Test Darwinian Theories" - I am not even sure what 'theories' you are referring to.

The 95% is for "Test Biological Intelligence Replacement"

Up to this point, all the inputs were the same.

All of a sudden, here we have a completely new value, for which there is no: documentation, justification, explanation, etc.

Where did this value come from? There is no information on this at all in your spread sheet.
You do offer this odd 'explanation' on the accompanying word file:

2.3.14 VARIABLE V29- Anticipatory selection portion of total selection- Theory based

DEFINITION: Anticipator selection portion is that portion of the force of selection that selects out or eliminates alleles based on anticipation of the impact of the allele rather than on explicit expression of a phenotype.

Huh?

Where in the world did this come from?

Did you just make it up?


5. And the coup de grace:

V41 HIGH END ESTIMATE OF ACTUAL MORTALITY FROM MUTATION INPUT 0.1 0.1
V42 THEORY VALUE FALSE IF V32
Wow.

So, here is my replacement:

I submit that the V29 for Darwinian theories is actually 95% and for 'Biological intelligence' is 0%.

Therefore Darwinian theories are true, and Biological intelligence false.

As you provide no documentation supportive of your input values, I do not have to either. Therefore, I win. According to your rules.

But I see no reason to play by such lopsided and rigged rules.

Instead, I will reject the entire input line V29 as superfluous and unsupported empirically or theoretically. It is intentionally misleading and inserted for the sole purpose of rigging the outcome of the 'argument.'

I need not replace the argument in toto as it is clearly erroneous, biased, premised on false and unsupported assumptions, relies on unjustifiable data inputs and conjecture and is therefore no argument at all.

It is not even worthy of serious consideration.

Mabus,
Quote: Mathematics isn't relevant to Darwinian evolution theory.

I happen to agree with you on this one. Mathematics is, however, relevant to the generally recognized form of hard science.

Quote LE:1. Define a predictive form of Darwinian theory based on a literal interpretation of the theory.

Quote M: This isn't nessecary to do, as Darwinian theory already does it.
No alternative testable predictive theory is needed where we already have a viable, proven well tested theory already in place.

You appear to be arguing for a blind faith acceptance of a theory that does not need to be presented in a testable form. I often wonder what portion of biologists are actually comfortable with such an approach.

Quote LE:1. Define a predictive form of Darwinian theory based on a literal interpretation of the theory.

Quote M: This isn't nessecary to do, as Darwinian theory already does it.
No alternative testable predictive theory is needed where we already have a viable, proven well tested theory already in place.

You appear to be arguing for a blind faith acceptance of a theory that does not need to be presented in a testable form. I often wonder what portion of biologists are actually comfortable with such an approach.

I certainly would never suggest blind faith acceptance of anything, however, when a theory is as well accepted, and well proven and as universally adopted as the bedrock of modern understanding of so many different fields of study, one can be reasonable comfortable assuming that the theory has some validity to it, until someone comes along and pokes holes in it.

In approaching this debate you've asked proponents of evolution to support the theory, as if somehow it's validity was still in question. I couldn't possibly disagree with that premise more.

Mabus,
Quote: In approaching this debate you've asked proponents of evolution to support the theory, as if somehow it's validity was still in question. I couldn't possibly disagree with that premise more.

Back in the old days, evolution was said to involve two issues- 1) Did evolution occur? and 2) If evolution occurred, what were the processes or mechanisms responsible.

Again back in the old days, philosophy of science determines that there was no way to tell the difference between 1) the world was created magically in its current form last Wednesday or 2) the universe is billions of years old. These philosophers thus concluded that while the evidence appears to be consistent with the assumption that the world has existed and changed overtime, there is no scientific method of determining the truth of evolution the fact.

Again back in the old days, scientists recognized that Darwin provided an intriguing logical desription or descriptive theory of the possible processes that might be responsible for evolutionary change. But they also recognized, and were always careful to note, that they did net actually have sufficient knowledge to produce a real hard science predictive theory that could provide a rigorous scientific explanation for the process that causes or produces evolutionary change. As recently as a couple of years ago, Stephen Gould wrote a very long and interesting book that addressed not 'Darwin's theory of evolution' but the possibility of someday developing a predictive hard science theory of evolution.

Somewhere between the good old days and today, large numbers of biologists and science groupies began making the claim that "Darwinian theories are some of the best and most completely tested theories in science". I have yet to run into a biologist who is willing to actually produce either a formal hard science Darwinian theory, but I have encountered lots of people like yourself who know that the theory exists and has been tested exhaustively.

My test of Darwinian theory, is simply an effort to see if someone could actually produce a hard science predictive Darwinian theory that could pass even elementary testing. So far no one has produced the claim. So far the only ones who have even attempted to challenge the falsification argument are people like slp who don't appear to have a very good grasp of either math or science.

It is amazing how rapidly slp’s claimed expertise evaporates when he is forced to actually address issues. The following are just a few examples of his lack of understanding of science and math.

Quote with respect to mutation assumption: This is silly, frankly. You are assuming:
-all loci are equally likely to mutate
-all loci will mutate
-all such mutations should be observed

If you are to produce a predictive theory of genetic change involving mutation then you must provide a description, or at least a reasonable approximation of the frequency and distribution of mutations that will occur. The assumption that point mutations will occur with similar frequencies at all locations is a good starting point assumption. Rather than propose an alternative mutation assumption, slp simply rejects one assumption and refuses to propose an alternative. Without such an assumption he has no theory.

Quote: If the mutation is lethal, it will not be seen. Lethal mutations are not acted upon by natural selection any more than a bystander being shot by a stray bullet is an act of natural selection.

This again shows a lack of understanding of Darwinian concepts. If a mutation is lethal it will kill the organism and this will be observed as a death (a form of natural selection). The whole point of this demonstration is that we know from observed results that lots of lethal and non-beneficial mutations are routinely and effectively removed from genome without any evidence of natural selection occurring.

Quote: 4. V26 TOTAL FORCE OF SELCTION FOR NON-OBSEVED ALLELES 100%

This assumes that: - all alleles occur at a frequency sufficient to be observed
- all non-visible alleles were selected against

What is the justification for those two assumptions?

This is a basic mathematical concept used in many fields of science and explained numerous times in the discussions, but slp still does not under stand it. If you start with a mixture that does not contain the element x, you have a process that adds x to the mixture, and the ending mixture contains no evidence of x, then there must by some process that is removing 100% of x from the mixture.

I could go on, but clearly slp does not have the technical knowledge to make the discussion worth pursuing.

LE;

These philosophers thus concluded that while the evidence appears to be consistent with the assumption that the world has existed and changed overtime, there is no scientific method of determining the truth of evolution the fact.

I definately disagree with this. Every scientisit i've ever spoken to, in areas which deal with evolution professionally have always told me that evolution is a fact, and that the theory of evolution is the theory which explains how evolution {the fact} occurs. This completely contradicts your claim.

Somewhere between the good old days and today, large numbers of biologists and science groupies began making the claim that "Darwinian theories are some of the best and most completely tested theories in science". I have yet to run into a biologist who is willing to actually produce either a formal hard science Darwinian theory, but I have encountered lots of people like yourself who know that the theory exists and has been tested exhaustively.

You keep reiterating the term "hard science". What is the difference between "hard science" and "soft science".

My test of Darwinian theory, is simply an effort to see if someone could actually produce a hard science predictive Darwinian theory that could pass even elementary testing. So far no one has produced the claim. So far the only ones who have even attempted to challenge the falsification argument are people like slp who don't appear to have a very good grasp of either math or science.

Mathematics has nothing to do with this topic. As to why you have not gotten much a response. Perhaps others are, like myself, confused by your use of the term "Hard Science Predictive Darwinian theory".

In a sense, you are challenging proponents of evolution to "prove" it {even though it is already universally accepted in the scientific community and therefore no longer needs to be proved}, but you address your challenge in such a way as to minimize the number of people who will respond to it, then turn around and pronounce... "See? nobody had a response!!"

Try making your challenge again, in common english, on terms people other than yourself can understand, and you may get a much larger response i would think.

LE;

Regarding your recent posts directed at {or about} SLP.

I've noted a distinct derrogatory, or condesending tone in the posts. I would ask that you refrain from commenting on WHO you are debating, and rather, stick to the subject of the debate.

I don't suppose you have noted the tone of his posts.

Quote: I definately disagree with this. Every scientisit i've ever spoken to, in areas which deal with evolution professionally have always told me that evolution is a fact, and that the theory of evolution is the theory which explains how evolution {the fact} occurs. This completely contradicts your claim.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of the Goodman paradox or the grue bleen paradox.

Both are philosophical ideas, which really do not apply to a debate on evolution. I'd be thrilled to discuss philosophy with you but i would be very uneasy about mixing philosophy and evolution, for obvious reasons.

I will comment on a couple of things. First, although I am still trying to figure out myself just what "hard science principles" means to LE, some of it sounds very much like the positivism of people like Hempel. You won't find many willing to take up that challange today because I am not sure many who have thought this kind of stuff through would still say this is possible in any science. The ideal of the "scientific method" works fine as a dogmatic definition of science if all you want to do is go about your research. It serves as a nice neat idiom to let you move on. The problem is that when you really try to figure out what science is, either historically or in practise, "hard science principles" (if they are what I think they are) just don't work. They are a myth or an ideal that can never be achieved. Rhetorically, if you were a chemist and made a prediction about what will happen in a test tube, there are two possible outcomes: 1) things happened exactly as you expected/predicted they would. Fine, but you really haven't learned anything new. You just confirmed your expectations. Was not, then the experiment a waste of time and resources because you, in fact, had predicted that very result?

But the neat things in science are when something new and unexpected are observed. Now what do you do? Following "hard science principles" you should go back and tinker with the components and premises because obviously you made a mistake somewhere along the line. You didn't fully predict the outcome. Of course, in reality, this failure of prediction is exactly what drives new discoveries. We realise our premises, etc. were inadequate and we have in fact falsified our predictions. Now the puzzle is to solve the problem of why our predictions failed, whether we were working on faulty assumptions, etc. In fact, deduction only has a place in pure math, etc. Whenever we find we need to go out and make observations of the world and confront the possibility our current premises are in fact wrong, we are doing induction and the results give us more information that we had previously. Then we try to find out just how reliable and explainable this new information is. If we set up questions and predict explanations that cannot fail (i.e. cannot be falsified) then we are not even allowing for the possibility that something new might be learned.

LifeEngineer wrote:It is amazing how rapidly slp’s claimed expertise evaporates when he is forced to actually address issues.

First, I have not claimed expertise. It is true that unlike you, I do have extensive education training and experience in molecular biology, physical anthropology, anatomy and cell biology, but I have never claimed expertise. Pinting out the lack of expertise in others ijn not a claim of my own expertise.

The following are just a few examples of his lack of understanding of science and math.

This will most amusing, I am sure.

Quote with respect to mutation assumption: This is silly, frankly. You are assuming:
-all loci are equally likely to mutate
-all loci will mutate
-all such mutations should be observed

If you are to produce a predictive theory of genetic change involving mutation then you must provide a description, or at least a reasonable approximation of the frequency and distribution of mutations that will occur.

And your dreamed up number does not do this. You merely took the base pair number for an average gene and declared that all base paiors should mutate and Darwinian theories dictate that all should therefore be present.

The assumption that point mutations will occur with similar frequencies at all locations is a good starting point assumption.

Actually, no, it is not. Unless you are setting up a null hypothesis?

Rather than propose an alternative mutation assumption, slp simply rejects one assumption and refuses to propose an alternative. Without such an assumption he has no theory.

As I stated, UI was not out to propose an alternative. I am not playing by your silly rigged rules. I am pointing out the flaws, errors, and wholly unscientific method employed in your sophistic game.

Quote: If the mutation is lethal, it will not be seen. Lethal mutations are not acted upon by natural selection any more than a bystander being shot by a stray bullet is an act of natural selection.

This again shows a lack of understanding of Darwinian concepts. If a mutation is lethal it will kill the organism and this will be observed as a death (a form of natural selection).

You do not understand Darwinian evolution or natural selection. Natural selection is the act by which adaptive traits are slected for or negative traits are selected against. In the case of natural selection, the trait is deemed adaptive or not relative to its environment. A lethal mutation has nothing to do with the environment. Thus, postzygotic but prenatal death has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection. Anyone competent and with a basic understanding of general biology can see this.


More later, though I think the reader can see that LE is unable to address the substantive errors and mistakes in his 'falsification' and is instead content to do what he usually tries to do - argue from his self-proclaimed uber-authority.

I think it pretty sad, however, as his is a documented phenomenon.

The rigged rule you are objecting to is the rule that for a theory to be tested it must be explicitly defined. If you are willing to recognize such an elementary rule, there is clearly no basis for discussion.

Slp;

I think the reader can see that LE is unable to address the substantive errors and mistakes in his 'falsification' and is instead content to do what he usually tries to do - argue from his self-proclaimed uber-authority.

I think it pretty sad, however, as his is a documented phenomenon.

Stick to the issues. Refrain from commenting on WHO you are debating please.

LifeEngineer wrote:The rigged rule you are objecting to is the rule that for a theory to be tested it must be explicitly defined. If you are willing to recognize such an elementary rule, there is clearly no basis for discussion.

The rigged rule I was referring to is the rule that an alternative must be supplied.

That is foolish to require an alternative when simply pointing out an error is all that is necessary.

The reader will also note that yet again, no source documentation is forthcoming from the Darfwin falsifier.

mabus wrote:Slp;

I think the reader can see that LE is unable to address the substantive errors and mistakes in his 'falsification' and is instead content to do what he usually tries to do - argue from his self-proclaimed uber-authority.

I think it pretty sad, however, as his is a documented phenomenon.

Stick to the issues. Refrain from commenting on WHO you are debating please.

I did try that, and I was accused of lacking the technical knowledge necessary. It is a standard ploy engaged in by this individual. I can easily document this.

LifeEngineer wrote: The whole point of this demonstration is that we know from observed results that lots of lethal and non-beneficial mutations are routinely and effectively removed from genome without any evidence of natural selection occurring.

You are assuming that all such mutations occurred in the first place. This is an unwarranted assumption.
If you are assuming that such things are removed without selection, then how do you know they even existed?

Quote: 4. V26 TOTAL FORCE OF SELCTION FOR NON-OBSEVED ALLELES 100%

This assumes that: - all alleles occur at a frequency sufficient to be observed
- all non-visible alleles were selected against

What is the justification for those two assumptions?

This is a basic mathematical concept used in many fields of science and explained numerous times in the discussions, but slp still does not under stand it.

Then please, oh master of all science, inform me.

If you start with a mixture that does not contain the element x, you have a process that adds x to the mixture, and the ending mixture contains no evidence of x, then there must by some process that is removing 100% of x from the mixture.

This is a basic biological concept that, despite having it explined many times, LE still ignores.
You are ASSUMING that ALL "likely" mutations WILL occur. And you do not seem to understand that an allele is not just the result of a mutation - an allele is only an allele if the encoded amino acid sequience is changed.

I could go on, but clearly slp does not have the technical knowledge to make the discussion worth pursuing.

Projection noted.