Comments on: Can Ian Musgrave Really Read?

By: Farshad

Farshad — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:01:10 +0000

It seems Musgrave failed to follow few recent threads on this blog that we argued Natural Selection and its lack of power to drive the engine of evolution. No one is denying that NS is a part of NDE. We don’t need to exclude NS in order to win the game. We repeatedly addressed the issue of this myth called Natural Selection which is believed to have the creative power to turn bacteria into Charlize Theron.

Mugrave gives more examples for newer versions of Weasel program based on same faulty logic. It’s amazing to see how these programs flunk when a bit of IC is added to the simulation: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/lenskiresponse.htm

When two or more successive steps are not selectable the simulation fails to converge.

Sharon Stone is getting on in years but did you know she has an IQ of 154? Wow. Brains AND beauty. -ds

By: Raevmo

Raevmo — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:44:39 +0000

Mung, the question why a random beneficial feature would propagate is easy: if it leaves more offspring it will increase in frequency. Is that so hard to understand? What actually happened is a much more difficult question. If mutations are random, it’s very difficult (but not entirely impossible) to predict what will actually happen. Compare it to predicting the weather. Small, short-term changes are easy to predict, long-term big changes are not. Chaos theory.

By: Mung

Mung — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:29:51 +0000

No one would expect that all beneficial features appear at random and propogate throughout a population without selection.

The question is why anyone would expect that any beneficial feature appearing at random would propogate throughout a population. Then, there is the question of what acutally happened, not what is theoretically possible. Where are all the explanations of what actually happened?

By: GilDodgen

GilDodgen — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:27:31 +0000

I don’t know that I “linked to the random mutation site with approval.” I just linked to it and told folks to have fun using it to write a novel.

As I pointed out in that thread, the text mutation generator is just a fun demonstration that offers an intuitive grasp of the impracticality of using random changes to do anything useful or meaningful in an information-encoding system.

By: Tiax

Tiax — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:32:15 +0000

If we took the results from that random mutator that acts on words from the last thread as meaningful, wouldn't we have to conclude that RM+NS can't create -anything-, even micro-evolution in moth color or dog size?

No. If the mechanisms are already in place to vary cosmetics and scale then random change and natural selection can quickly adapt an organism, within the established bounds, to the optimum for its immediate environment. What it cannot do, or at least has not been demonstrated as able to do, is generate unique new features that go beyond cosmetics and scale such as novel new cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. -ds

By: Guts

Guts — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:57:58 +0000

Another example of a Musgrave boo boo

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:32:28 +0000

Chris grew up watching “The Simpsons” and obviously saw that three-eyed mutant fish in the intro one too many times when he was an impressionable toddler.

Mutation mutates. Selection selects. Tautologies are self-referential but in Chris’ arithmetic they’re not additive. Two tautologies added together are exponentially multiplicative so instead of 1t + 1t = 2t Chris’ math is 1t + 1t = 1utoe (universal theory of evolution).

By: Mats

Mats — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:25:08 +0000

Chris@2

There were a lot of mutations on Chernobyl and Hiroshima’s sites, but I doubt anything naturally selectable was created.

By: Mats

Mats — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:19:26 +0000

Any arguement that is posted against Darwinism is just “Creationist nonsence”.

Oh, and yes, they are still moths.

By: Chris Hyland

Chris Hyland — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:51:27 +0000

“since to me, natural selection is just an obvious uncreative static mechanism.”

Mutation creates, selection selects. Obviously this is a gross oversimplification of what actually happens, but the selection part is important. No one would expect that all beneficial features appear at random and propogate throughout a population without selection.