The Nature of Mutations II

quote:

---

I tend to think squirrels are evolving BECAUSE we see lots of dead one on the road. That we see lots of dead ones means that they are getting along alright in what we've made of the environment. It means they are maintaining a population. Since the city isn't the forest, that means they must be adapting-- hence, evolution.

---

There are lots and lots of squirrels in my neighborhood and I very rarely see any dead ones on the road.Of course, the streets around here are lined with lots of mature shade trees, and there are quite a few above-ground cables. I see squirrels crossing the road by way of these cables quite frequently.Anyway, I agree with John.

quote:

---

As to your squirrel example, if the number of squirrels getting hit by cars is not a strong enough selective pressure i.e. there has been no population crash as a result of cars, then they have nothing to adapt to...thus why should avoidance evolve if it does not confer a great enough benefit?

---

Wouldn't it be that cars have taken over as a "predator" for squirrels in human-populated areas because the humans have driven away all of the usual predators, like foxes, bobcats, etc.?

quote:

---

They would only be taking the place of predators if they were keeping the squirrel population in check or resulted in a particular genotype being favored over another. If every genotype in the squirrel population has an equal (and in fact probably pretty small) chance of becoming road pizza then there is no selective pressure that would lead to a change in allele frequency that could be correlated with cars.

---

Hmm. Well, I suppose that the squirrels that hang out closer to people's homes are more likely to get hit by cars, but they also have access to lots of easily-obtained food in the form of gardens (bastards) and bird feeders, compared to those which hang out in the wooded portions of the many parks in the area. Some crazy people around here feed them outright, too.At any rate, there are a crapload of squirrels and I see baby ones all the time in the spring, and in the winter I can see about 2 nests per tree all along most streets.

quote:

---

My old lab was working at looking at what happens to genomic imprinting with age

---

Don't know if that lab was a university one or not, but isn't doing aging research great WRT begging the government for money?All those aging baby boomers will support ANY research as long as it can be shown to possible benefit old people.

quote:

---

I am no expert on forum etiquette, but I do not know of another forum that would tolerate some of things that go on here.

---

That's true. At many Creationist-run forums, most of us evolutionists would be (and have been) banned simply for disagreeing and providing evidence to back up our claims.Remeber, salty, that we have forum guidelines about being non-responsive and simply re-stating your claim without evidence that can get you suspended or banned, too.And anyway, what Scott said to you is not much different than you might get during a thesis defense. My husband has to run a gauntlet at the talks he gives on his research.I thought you said you were a scientist, but you sure seem to have extremely thin skin.

quote:

---

another gem he revealed is that Borger did not think women should do science as according to him they don't have logical minds

---

He's a Christian Creationist AND a woman-hater.What a surprise.You know, I think it's likely that all those misogynists are compensating for inadequacies in certain, uh, physical areas...In my fantasy world, it really bugged him that I, an illogical, intellectually inferior woman, was able to completely take him to task when he tried to use a paper on equine limb evolution as support of his ideas. He had no idea what the paper was talking about and just mined a completely out of context quote from it.He never admitted anything, but came as close as I ever saw him come to conceding.I know it's probably only a fantasy, however.

quote:

---

I have never said that ayone who does not believe in a Creator is insane. What I have said is that anyone who denies Intelligent design is, in my humble view, insane.

---

So, how do I tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we:1) do not currently understand, or2) do not have the brain power to ever understand?

quote:

---

I see no evidence whatsover that a Creator is present now. That does not mean that there was not a Creator.

---

Very true. If you are able to help me with the question above, I'll be grateful.

quote:

---

That Creator created all of Nature and no one has the foggiest how that took place.

---

If you have no evidence that this Creator did anything, then wouldn't the more accurate statement be, "No one has the foggiest idea how anything took place?I mean, you are wanting to do science, right? I believe that, in science, one needs to propose evidence to support a theory, no?

quote:

---

The Darwinians somehow imagine that Nature, being that which has been created, has, once created, magically become endowed with the power to create.

---

Um, what?I don't think that Biologists or Geneticists, in their scientific work, think in terms of magic. Since they are scientists, they deal in evidence. Are you saying that hundreds of thousands of scientists who, over the last 150 years, do not believe as you do ALL have been deluded and you are the only one who knows the truth?

quote:

---

That is but one example of the kind of infantile reasoning that has plagued Darwinism from its inception.

---

What a hypocrite you are! First you bemoan how awfully rude we are here on this forum and then you throw around disparaging remarks like this.

quote:

---

There is now and there never was a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Darwinism is a fairy tale.

---

So, you can predict with perfect accuracy where the heritable mutations will occur and what mutatations will occur in an organism?

quote:

---

if you had read any of my papers, you would realize that I am of the opinion that macroevolution is finished, joining Robert Broom and Julian Huxley in that conclusion.

---

Quit with the name dropping. I don't care who you say agrees with you. I've never heard of those people anyway.Why won't such an expert as yourself simply answer a simple question to help enlighten an admitted non-expert such as myself?How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't currently understand or don't have the intelligence to ever understand?

quote:

---

I am no hypocrite as I believe everything I have published.

---

Salty, you are a hypocrite because you complain endlessly about how insulting we are here, and then you call our line of thinking "infantile".

quote:

---

It is you who hurls insults. I've only criticized a myth. I will continue to do so with or without the approval of others.

---

Answer the above question, please.

quote:

---

I do not understand Intelligent Design but that it exists is beyond any doubt.

---

OK, tell me what systems in nature are Intelligently Designed and then explain to me know that they could not have arisen naturally.You must also address the possibility that a purely natural system could simply be beyond human understanding, as our capacity to understand is not boundless.

quote:

---

I feel the same way and for the same reasons about gravitation.

---

...except that we can observe the effects of gravity through experiment. Can you show me some evidence for Intelligent Design?

quote:

---

It is the height of arrogance to insist that we understand all of nature.

---

I agree. That's why science doesn't do that.To the contrary, science is well aware of the great deal that it does not understand.It is the Creationists who arrogantly declare that they have all the answers and that there is no need to investigate further. The Bible says something and inquiry ends there. Talk about thinking they know it all!

quote:

---

In that sense I agree entirely with Einstein. I cannot answer metaphysical questions but I can maintain that my convictions about preformed developmental and evolutionary information remain completely compatible with the facts as revealed by both paleontology and developmental biology.

---

Well, I could hold the conviction that the world was created 15 minutes ago, with all of our memories inact and a fake history of life buried in the geologic column, and this conviction would also be consistent with paleontology and developmental biology, couldn't I?Please explain how to tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we do not understand or cannot understand.

quote:

---

S, if you never heard of the people I cite, there is absolutely no reason to respond to you.

---

Gosh, and here I thought you wanted MORE people to believe you.Strange that you would seem to convey this desire, yet refuse to answer my reasonable questions.How do we tell the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one which we don't understand currently or that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?I mean, surely you don't think this is unreasonable to ask. It is a natural question, no?

quote:

---

You can lead a person to the literature but you cannot make him read.

---

Perhaps. Just for fun, though, maybe you could answer my simple, straightforward question as stated above.I am aware that I am not worthy of an answer, but I do seek one, nonetheless.

quote:

---

I am not a hypocrite as I believe every solitary word that I have published.

---

You ARE a hypocrite.I have explaind this to you already.I will do so again presently.You complain about being insulted at EvC forum.You then proceed to use insulting language at EvC forum.This makes you hypocritical.

quote:

---

Where have you commited yourself in hard copy?

---

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't an expert?I look to people like you, who are experts, to explain things to me.So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and one that we do not currently understand or one that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?

quote:

---

Dear S and others who are inclined to call another one a hypocrite. There are no experts in evolution. Scott imagines himself to be one but he is not. I have insulted no one, only Darwinism which is a monumental joke. If you want to believe in a myth, that is your choice. Evcforum continues to be THE forum which thrives on insult and deprecation of any challenge to the atheist darwinian foolishness. You could never get away with some of the language I see here at Brainstorms or Terry's Creation versus Evolution or Both forum. If you want to find out where my papers are published I am sure Scott Page will tell you all about why they are of no consequence I have another coming out in September. Don't ask me any questions as Scott and others here already have all they answers. In a nutshell - mutation and natural selection.

---

OK, fine, salty.I hereby declare that it is my belief that salty has never once used any disparaging or insulting words against anyone here at EvC forum.I am terribly sorry to have misrepresented you and beg for your forgiveness.Now, will you please explain to me how to tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't currently understand or do not have the intelligence to understand?This is the fifth time I have asked you this, I believe.You DO claim that Intelligent Design has happened, so surely this must be a trivial thing for you to illustrate, no?