Cancer provides us a good example of both problems with NS I mentioned earlier in this thread. Namely, the selection of abnormal (more reproductively successful – fitter) cells, which have lost the ability to control their own reproduction – they have lost complexity and consequently become fitter. It also provides us evidence that NS leads ultimately to extinction through a blind (especially in foresight) approach to selection.

In a previous post I mentioned the consequences of a higher organism evolving the enzyme needed to efficiently digest cellulose and convert this into offspring – the long-term results would likely end up producing the extinction of all higher organisms including itself (for the short-term benefit of the species). NS, being unintelligent in its selection policy would blindly select this new trait because the selective value (the numbers of surviving offspring) would increase dramatically.

Thus, without constructive mutations, basic types of organisms are lost because NS evolves them (through their sub categories) to become increasingly specialized for a certain ecological niche at the expense of their overall generalization. With constructive mutations, NS evolves organisms to greater levels of fitness, producing imbalance and ultimately a total collapse of our ecosystem.

I still await a response from Bob [see post – 178 & 185]

As Dave says:

So the way I see it humanity is here to provide relocation services so that life doesn’t end when the earth does.

Nothing but teleology and design there.

I’m just going where the evidence leads. Life surviving by moving to more suitable locations when necessary is universal. The stage was perfectly set for the arrival of an industrial species and we seem to have an instinctive desire for building telescopes, spacecraft, and exploration. Seems a little too pat for an unplanned happenstance.

Directional mechanisms are inherent in DNA. The single celled egg that you once were contained a plan to diversify itself into scores of cell types, tissue types, and organs with nothing left to chance. That’s ontogenesis – a one-way, pre-planned, self-terminating process of diversification. I propose that phylogenesis was the same kind of process and it has terminated.

I still await a response from Bob [see post – 178 & 185]

That is true.

BUT

For those that claim proof of design requires good design and “good design” requires efficiency, survivability and (hee hee) simplicity — bacteria should be more than enough evidence for them of a designer.

And dittos for hoping Bob sticks it out.

I note in summary, that we should indeed appreciate Bob’s willingness to go through a few loops of the learning-spiral with us. Also, observing that his lock-in to a circle is evidence that perhaps the root problem is that NDT’s pop genetics models are circular, once their assumptions, dynamics and terms are questioned, and once they are put up against real world evidence from the fossil record and current life in ecosystems.

[Re 179]:

Bob, the main reason this argument keeps going in circles is because you refuse to provide a definition of what you think is the best predictor of fitness and hence allow us to weigh our notions on your terms.

Actually, it seems the argument is making spiral-progress at another level: that B seemingly is locked in circles when challenged on terms, assumptions and dynamics implies — or at least strongly suggests – that the NDT patterns of thought are . . . circular.

For, if there were simple, direct examples of functionally specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity in the Dembski and Behe senses incrementally emerging from the evidence of the fossil or current worlds, they would long since have been trumpeted and placed prominently all over the Internet. This, we do not see, but instead we hear of computer simulations [which are both intelligently designed and do not in fact generate complexity through RM + NS or the like; the smarts being front-loaded by the designers . . .] or else trivial things such as industrial melanism or Finch-beaks on drought-pluvial cycles. Then, a deeper look at the cases usually turns up more questions than answers, sometimes even outright manipulation and/or evident misrepresentation – cf. here, Wells’ Icons. (And note how the issues he raised were responded to – heavy on rhetoric, light on actual credible evidence and reasoned argument, joined to a quiet de-emphasis of the most notorious cases over time.)

And so, when someone from the Design view publishes on the matter at professional level, e.g. Meyer, we see further evidence that the case is not as advertised: the Editor of the Journal suffered slander and persecution amounting to unjustifiable and indefensible [but not recanted of] career-busting – and he is not even really a Design thinker!

This sounds more and more like an old Sci Fiction story on how “The Gostak distims the Doshes.” [The protagonist tries to figure out what each term means and only gets as far as finding that each is interpreted in terms of the others, in a circle. Of course it was originally meant as a parody on religion and religious wars, but instead it is telling with ever greater force against the NDT paradigm.]

Finally as to “bad design is not design . . .” or the like, well, design is design, and we are in no position to assess its “optimality” absent sufficient understanding of the objectives and constraints. E.g. a design that is optimal for one situation may be very brittle once the environment shifts, so some degree of “slack” and even tolerance for defects that come in through random noise may well be wise.

So, we are moving ever outward on the loops of the spiral . . .

Having said all that, I join with Sal in expressing appreciation that Bob has tried to engage the issue and has been willing to go through a few loops of the spiral with us.

GEM of TKI

Casey Luskin was soliciting input on that very question (pseudogenes) in his review of Sean Carroll’s Book.

The Evolutionary Gospel According to Sean B. Carroll

He would welcome commentary on his pseudogene calculation. I have been unable to reconcile the linear model Casey uses versus something like Jukes-Cantor or the formula you gave.

My inability to reconcile it tells me there is a subtlety in this part of evolutionary theory which was deep enough in the weeds I did not realize it till now.

I would welcome your input on Casey’s pseudogene calculation as it does have bearing on our discussion of Nei’s paper.

I express again my gratitude for your willingness to spend time here at UD defending the non-ID position.

Though we disagree, I value your input.

Thanks again!

Salvador