DARWIN IS DEAD (Leave Him in the Grave)

I wonder how Keith is. I miss him, even though he spoke over my head so much of the time I felt like a moron much of the time.

I got the impression Keith was another uba liberal who took it personally when those to the right of him (very few are to the left of Keith) didn't fall in line with his message hook, line and sinker.

I ask him once why it was so important to him to discredit those who believed in God and he said it was his responsibility to show us our ignorance and correct the error of our ways.

He had a great deal of knowledge but overall, just couldn’t accept that there were other points of views besides his. I think he is the type of person that's only comfortable with like minded people.

And I miss him as well as I learned a great deal from him.

SheikBen wrote:I disagree with the idea that good professors don't teach. It's a nice platitude that instead you are to "guide in learning," but perhaps you have forgotten that 18-22 year olds have different interests than you have. You have content knowledge and they do not, and it's entirely likely that even a basic primer will have hard to understand language to the neophyte.

I've been teaching college courses for 25+ years, and I have a filing cabinet drawer full of student and peer evaluations of my teaching (and a half a dozen or so plaques and certificates on my office wall) that attest to the fact that my teaching philosophy works pretty well. Believe me, it ain't no platitude.

SheikBen wrote:I do appreciate you pointing me in the direction of mutation-selection balance, although in reading articles I find that my question is not answered. Since I do not have the means to study 1000 rabbits or what have you, I cannot through observation make any kind of conclusion as to what percentage of them have any kind of mutation, particularly if those mutations are "neutral." Obviously it's easy to spot the ones who die.

I'll restate an earlier question based on an argument from Keith Sceptic. Do you, or do you not, believe that many, many neutral mutations were part of evolution? If so, how common are these neutral mutations (and, again, having neither a microscope nor oodles of time, can you point me to any actual data?)

Again, read up on mutation-selection balance, and then try to relate that concept to the idea of allele neutrality. With a little luck, and a bit of work (= reading and THINKING) it should dawn on you how they are related.

Aaron wrote:I got the impression Keith was another uba liberal who took it personally when those to the right of him (very few are to the left of Keith) didn't fall in line with his message hook, line and sinker.

I ask him once why it was so important to him to discredit those who believed in God and he said it was his responsibility to show us our ignorance and correct the error of our ways.

He had a great deal of knowledge but overall, just couldn’t accept that there were other points of views besides his. I think he is the type of person that's only comfortable with like minded people.

And I miss him as well as I learned a great deal from him.

Well, that's a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one.

Compliment? Take it that way if you want but it certainly wasn’t meant that way.

Hell, I feel sorry for people like that. I can't imagine how insecure someone like that must be with their core beliefs that they feel the burden to convert anyone and everyone to their way of thinking.

Unlike Keith and those like him, I'm confident enough in my beliefs that I don't need the validation of others.

Keith never once gave me the impression he was insecure. I liked Keith and wish he were around. I'll betchya he's a Mensa guy.

Keith, insecure? About the only person I recall who came across as appearing more secure in what he said than Keith, was Henry Ford II.

I enjoyed him immensely. I naturally did not agree with him. He used to go to a creationist meeting in So Charleston and I really enjoyed him the couple of times that I was there.

bmd,

I want to get back to the math used. What I have been able to gather from looking into mutation-selection balance and allele neutrality (and I have enjoyed both topics and look forward to reading on them further) still does not give me any kind of "defense" for molecules to man evolution. I also read with interest that there is a debate among evolutionary biologists regarding the comparative roles of genetic drift and natural selection. Does Dawkins diminish the role of the former?

It seems to me with such a divergence of beliefs among your kind (if that divergence exists, and I'm only talking about the relative "importance" of natural selection vs. genetic drift), then I can see why you would not want to break down the "evolutionary math" into something quite simple, such as in a population of animals we regularly see as many as (x) mutations that have (y) probability of being kept should that animal reproduce, and therefore we have determined that it should only take (z) number of years for the process of molecules to man to occur, assuming of course that we can estimate how many steps it would take.

Stephanie wrote:Keith never once gave me the impression he was insecure. I liked Keith and wish he were around. I'll betchya he's a Mensa guy.

Now that was funny as hell, Stephanie.

Mensa is the largest, oldest, and best known high-IQ society in the world. It is a non-profit organization open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardized, supervised intelligence test. Mensa is formally composed of national groups and the umbrella organization Mensa International.

But TerryRC would probably agree with you because he probably thinks himself as a Mensa kinda guy also.

AS Oscar Levant said, there's a fine line between genius and insanity.

To see how close to insane you are, try this IQ test. It takes less then 15 minutes and is pretty interesting.

Throughout history, many of our greats have suffered from one form or another of mental illness.

And many of our not so greats, too. But who cares about them?

SheikBen wrote:
I want to get back to the math used. What I have been able to gather from looking into mutation-selection balance and allele neutrality still does not give me any kind of "defense" for molecules to man evolution. I also read with interest that there is a debate among evolutionary biologists regarding the comparative roles of genetic drift and natural selection. Does Dawkins diminish the role of the former?

It seems to me with such a divergence of beliefs among your kind (if that divergence exists, and I'm only talking about the relative "importance" of natural selection vs. genetic drift), .....

And Michael, just what do you hope to prove by "getting back to the math used"?

Geeeze, you can get back to the math used for calculating "the odds" of winning Saturday night's Power Ball drawing ..... but I don't believe your result is good for anything except for talking about said "odds" themselves.

And Mike, it is really unbecoming of an average intelligent person to state "such a divergence of beliefs among your kind (evolutionists)" ...... when there is suredly a 100 times said "such a divergence of beliefs among your own kind (Bible believing creationists)".

SheikBen wrote:..... then I can see why you would not want to break down the "evolutionary math" into something quite simple, such as in a population of animals we regularly see as many as (x) mutations that have (y) probability of being kept should that animal reproduce, and therefore we have determined that it should only take (z) number of years for the process of molecules to man to occur, assuming of course that we can estimate how many steps it would take.

Mike, you haven't DETERMINED anything by that exercise. Again, you will only have calculated "the odds" of it occuring based on a pre-conceived idea of how it could have happened.

It is not unreasonable to think and/or consider that "cross-species DNA transfer" was a common occurance 50 to 300 million years ago when most all forms of DNA were much less complex, ...... aka: lacking all the mutations that have occurred since that time. Cross-species DNA transfer is still common in bacteria and one newly discovered animal can do it.

Thus, any "cross-species DNA transfer" would NEGATE any estimated or calculated "time frame" it would take for a particular species to evolve the same or similar DNA via the mutation process. To wit:

Since the discovery of the gene for green fluorescent protein (GFP), derived from jellyfish, this protein that emits a green glow has initiated a revolution in molecular biosciences. With this tool, it is now possible to visualize nearly any protein of interest in any cell or tissue of any species.

Mike, injecting that jellyfish gene into another animal or plant .... just effected in one fell swoop ..... a multi-million year act of normal gene mutations.

And Mike, 100 years ago a wooden spoked wheel would most likely work on both a wagon and an automobile. But today, no way in hell are all the different types of wheels interchangeable on wagons, automobiles, trucks, etc.



.

Aaron wrote:AS Oscar Levant said, there's a fine line between genius and insanity.

To see how close to insane you are, try this IQ test. It takes less then 15 minutes and is pretty interesting.

Aaron, interesting, but I would call it an "IQ Speed Test" .... and old farts such as myself learned long ago not to make "rushed decisions". But I "rushed it" anyway but still got a 92. I had over 2 1/2 minutes left at the end of the test.



.

OMG

This test is mean. It told me to make up my damn mind, and that I'm "bank teller material".

LOL

Stephanie wrote:OMG

This test is mean. It told me to make up my damn mind, and that I'm "bank teller material".

LOL

Me too, Steph. But since patriarchy is the biblical model, I'll be the head teller, and you will be subserviant to me. (I take my coffee with cream, and just a dash of Splenda).

Good luck with that!

But TerryRC would probably agree with you because he probably thinks himself as a Mensa kinda guy also.

Sam. You hater.

You have to invoke and insult me even when I haven't been around for awhile?

Get a life, dude!

For your info, I took the Mensa test and passed. I never joined because most Mensa members I have met are pompous asses.

Carry on.

Welcome back, Terry. I'd been wondering what happened to you.

Welcome back, Terry. I'd been wondering what happened to you.

Computerless for awhile.

My bonnie wife got me Fallout 3 for x-mas, only my old Dell wouldn't run it.

In the process of putting in a souped up video card, I gave the old machine a touch of the vapors.

Long story short... I got my new Dell yesterday (w/ Vista, yuck) and Fallout 3 is totally choice.

I'm going to turn the old Dell into a Linux machine.

Welcome back and enjoy the new pc and playing with Linux. My husband loves linux but, sadly that too, is over my head.

TerryRC wrote:But TerryRC would probably agree with you because he probably thinks himself as a Mensa kinda guy also.

Sam. You hater.

You have to invoke and insult me even when I haven't been around for awhile?

Get a life, dude!

For your info, I took the Mensa test and passed. I never joined because most Mensa members I have met are pompous asses.

Carry on.

Your contributions to these Forums do not substantiate your claim.

.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:OMG

This test is mean. It told me to make up my damn mind, and that I'm "bank teller material".

LOL

Me too, Steph. But since patriarchy is the biblical model, I'll be the head teller, and you will be subserviant to me. (I take my coffee with cream, and just a dash of Splenda).

Remember Nabal.

I always thought that Mensa was just a geek dating service.

SheikBen wrote:
I want to get back to the math used. What I have been able to gather from looking into mutation-selection balance and allele neutrality (and I have enjoyed both topics and look forward to reading on them further) still does not give me any kind of "defense" for molecules to man evolution.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier. There is no huge math equation or proof that covers your "molecules to man" question. Evolution is a series of incremental steps. Each of these steps can be treated as mathematical relationship. However, it is not necessary to do so. Darwin had no math in The Origin --- none, zero, nada damn bit, the big null set... --- and his arguments (and those of Wallace) seem to have more than sufficed for about 150 years.

On the other hand, if you take a good hard look at mutation-selection balance you will (or at least should) realize that: A) the concept of gene neutrality isn't quite as Kimura originally hypothesized (to put it mildly); II) population heterozygosity is not the problem (or paradox, if you prefer) it was originally thought to be; and 3) due to point II, the rate of evolutionary change due to selection is, in large part, decoupled from mutation rate.

SheikBen wrote:I also read with interest that there is a debate among evolutionary biologists regarding the comparative roles of genetic drift and natural selection. Does Dawkins diminish the role of the former?

I'm not sure of Dawkins' views, but the debate between those who are strict selectionists and those who believe that drift plays an important role in evolution continues to rage, in one form or another, within evolutionary biology. However, there are very few researchers around who believe that drift alone can account for all the diversity, and disparity (either in magnitude, or pattern), that we see today.

SheikBen wrote:It seems to me with such a divergence of beliefs among your kind (if that divergence exists, and I'm only talking about the relative "importance" of natural selection vs. genetic drift), then I can see why you would not want to break down the "evolutionary math" into something quite simple, such as in a population of animals we regularly see as many as (x) mutations that have (y) probability of being kept should that animal reproduce, and therefore we have determined that it should only take (z) number of years for the process of molecules to man to occur, assuming of course that we can estimate how many steps it would take.

Again, what you are asking for here is some sort of huge overall mathematical treatment. It doesn't exist. An analogy would be for geologists to come up with a single math proof starting with the an archean earth, and demonstrating how a big alluvial boulder was smack-dab in the way of the shrubs my wife had me plant last weekend.

Yo, Sheik!!

Still working on M-S balance? I only spend about 1/2 a lecture on the topic in my Evolution course. What's taking so long?