If selection is the winnower of diversity it cannot logically be the generator of diversity, period.

Here’s what I wrote, with the part you omitted in bold:

It’s simple. Mutation generates diversity. Selection winnows it. As long as the generated diversity exceeds the winnowed diversity, net diversity increases.

The tub overflows even though water is draining through the leak. Why? Because the firehose is adding water faster than the leak is removing it.

Net diversity increases even though selection winnows it. Why? Because mutation creates more diversity than selection eliminates.

Lenski claims to have “evolved” a citrate ability in e-coli, yet when scrutinized it is found his work reflects the principle of Genetic Entropy:

These following articles refute Lenski’s supposed “evolution” of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli:

Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli – Michael Behe
Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we’ve seen evolution do, then there’s no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/.....96N278Z93O

Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

Lenski’s Citrate E-Coli – Disproof of “Convergent” Evolution – Hugh Ross – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....evolution/

Upon closer inspection, it seems Lenski’s “cuddled” E. coli are actually headed for “genetic meltdown” instead of evolving into something better.

New Work by Richard Lenski:
Excerpt: Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator.” That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....enski.html

In fact, trying to narrow down an actual hard number for the “truly” beneficial mutation rate is what Dr. Behe did in this following book:

“The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evo.....0743296206

A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135:

“Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite.”

That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. double that is 10^40. Thus since there have been less that 10^40 cells on the earth, Behe conservatively sets “The Edge” at 2 protein-protein binding sites.

Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe – Oct. 2009
Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....est_s.html

Pelagius:

As long as the generated diversity exceeds the winnowed diversity,

If selection is the winnower of diversity it cannot logically be the generator of diversity, period.

We have blind cave fish and we have seeing cave fish. The origin of the eye is not explained by selection but by what ever mutated or created the eye in the first place. Selection can only act on features that exists, not those that don’t.

One might argue, the eye was formed because one lineage split off into it’s own ecological niche and then specialized into that niche. Maybe so, or maybe not, but for sure splitting off ensures the different lines don’t compete, and thus one could argue evolution worked because competition between the lineages was prevented! Origin of species by means of non-competition of lineages! Not too far from Pagelism!

Selection can only be asserted when there is a reduction of diversity such as supposedly with Kettlewell butterflies or Darwin’s finches (and even then there are some questions). When there is diversification, there is the presumed absence of selection, since new phenotypes are not being selected against.

But even though lack of diversity is a necessary condition to establish selection, it is not a sufficient one to establish selection. Genetic drift and population bottle necks can cause homogenetity in the population which may at first glance cause one to mistakenly presume the action of selection. Thus it is possible the eye evolved via mutation in the absence of selection. There is plenty of observed molecular evolution without selection. Observing selection is the exception, not the rule, as Pagel is discovering.

Thanks for clearing it all up and Thanks for settling the matter once and for all,,, Yet just to humor others who may have a doubt to your wisdom in the matter, could you please cite an example or two of material processes generating functional information:

bornagain,

See this.

But your response shows that you’re missing the point of scordova’s comment. He presumes that life descended from a single species, and then attempts to show that this presumption leads to a logical contradiction:

If we presume that all life descended from a single species and diversified, how can we logically argue that diversification happens through a process of removing diversification!

I already explained why this argument fails, but let me try again, this time by analogy.

Imagine you’re filling a tub from a firehose. The tub has a tiny leak. Will it ever overflow?

By scordova’s logic, the answer is no. After all, how could a leaky tub ever overflow? It’s leaking!

If I were considering having a doctor operate on me and found out that he only successfully treated 6% of his patients, I’d quickly get a second (and third) opinion.

If I were considering buying a large household appliance—say a refrigerator—and was told that it only kept food cold 6% of the time, I wouldn’t buy it.

I’d be happy to get a 6% return on my money right now.

If I knew that I only had a 6% chance of winning the lottery, I wouldn’t waste my money by playing.

I’d play if the payout was always $97 for every dollar wagered +/- a $3 margin of error.

If I were considering buying a large household appliance—say a refrigerator—and was told that it only kept food cold 6% of the time, I wouldn’t buy it.

If I knew that I only had a 6% chance of winning the lottery, I wouldn’t waste my money by playing.

Analogies aside, I will humbly admit to not being good with numbers. I will also admit to squeaking by with a C+ in my college introduction to statistics class.

If Pagel’s estimation is correct, it means that evolutionary biology is built on a shifting pile of sand. You cannot claim to have overwhelming evidence of natural selection and mutation giving rise to the variety of life today on one hand and, on the other hand, have knowledge that these mechanisms work—if they truly do work—only 6% of the time.

David Kellogg makes a good point when he states that the world is more disordered than previously thought. This is true, given the second law of thermodynamics. Most religions from Buddhism to Christianity acknowledge that the world isn’t quite right, that suffering exists, and that problems plague believers and unbelievers alike.

If we are to follow Linus Pauling’s lead and allow science to search for truth, then we must be able to rid ourselves of hypotheses and theories that do not fit the evidence at hand. I submit that Darwinian evolution is one such theory.

Is he saying there has been an exponential decay in the number of speciation events or things related to speciation events? It may be too early to argue that inference, but that would be a compelling issue.

Um, no. The exponential implies a Poisson process: there is a constant rate of speciation. This suggests that the drivers of speciation are random (with respect to the populations’ states). One could actually come up with selective models that would fit this distribution: speciation would be caused by appearance of hopeful monsters, and these are rare.

For me a better explanation is that populations are split by external events over a short space of time. Once separated, they can diverge due to selection. This would be perfectly consistent with Pagel’s results, and still give a role for selection.

The bottom line for me is that Pagel’s analysis says rather less about selection and speciation than he hopes.

“It’s simple. Mutation generates diversity.” Selection winnows it.”

Thanks for clearing it all up and Thanks for settling the matter once and for all,,, Yet just to humor others who may have a doubt to your wisdom in the matter, could you please cite an example or two of material processes generating functional information:

The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Werner Gitt, “In the Beginning was Information”, 1997, p. 106. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology) His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.

The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....ane_craig/

As former president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre P. Grasse has stated:

“What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”

Random Mutations Destroy Information – Perry Marshall – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/....._marshall/

Mutation Studies, Videos, And Quotes
http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....ZnM5M21mZg

If we presume that all life descended from a single species and diversified, how can we logically argue that diversification happens through a process of removing diversification!

It’s simple. Mutation generates diversity. Selection winnows it. As long as the generated diversity exceeds the winnowed diversity, net diversity increases.

That is even less than 6% – so maybe not quite fair to Darwinists. We could revise.

But, if we are talking about fairness, I am not claiming any public money whatever for not celebrating that old Brit toff who thought black people were closer to gorillas than white people.

There are some things you just have to get mad about, and say “Enough of this!”

The average caterpillar could refute Darwin.