The Third Way?

Over at the “IDM collapse” thread I rather churlishly rejected CharlieM’s invitation to read an extensive piece by Stephen L. Talbott. Discovering he is a fan of Velikovsky did little to encourage me (that is, I fully realise, an argument from authority, but life is short and authors many. One needs a filter). What did catch my eye, however, is the fact that he is a contributor to Third Way of Evolution. This, on their front page, is what one might term their ‘manifesto’.

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

That puzzles me. We need a root-and-branch rethink because of the widely-accepted phenomena of endosymbiosis, HGT, transposons and epigenetics? I honestly don’t get it. These are refinements easily, and already, accommodated. Neo-Darwinists do not ‘ignore’ these phenomena, nor consider them unimportant. They may fall outside a strict framework of genetic gradualism by ‘micromutation’, but are hardly keeping anyone awake nights.

Perhaps, on reflection, I should punt them my musings on the Evolution of Sex. It is non-Darwinian in the sense they appear to mean, so it should be right up their street!

0

339 thoughts on “The Third Way?

  1. Joe Felsenstein: An allele is advantageous in a genotype if that genotype has higher fitness than the genotypes that existed without the allele. This is in theory to be judged by the expected fitness, which would be the fitness averaged over an infinite set of individuals.

    OMG. Here comes the bullshit mega truck.

    Joe Felsenstein: That means that we don’t know the fitness,

    But at least we get the nugget (because in every bullshit mega truck, a nugget is guaranteed! So everyone was shy to admit and to attempt so far (except that nut with his R0 nonsense). Well, thank you mega truck driver. You brought the nugget. Finally!

    Joe Felsenstein: Similarly, the weight of an object can be estimated by weighing it, and that’s not circular since it predicts what we would find using more observations on the same scale or a different scale. So weight is not a vacuous concept.

    Haha. Bullshit delivery truck driver thinks everyone on the road is delivering bullshit same as him.

    Joe Felsenstein: And an advantageous allele, which has higher fitness in all the genotypes in which it is likely to be found, will not necessarily rise in frequency to fixation if it is in a finite population in which it mght be lost due to genetic drift.

    Last I checked, “drift” is “the gradual departure from an intended course due to external influences (as a ship or plane) “. So what’s that force and where is it pushing? And one discussion was about e coli – hardly a “finite population” and a “beneficial” mutation that is quite common given it happened in Lenski’s lab – hardly a place for miracles of “evolution”. So you tell me why a “beneficial” mutation repeated ad infinitum can’t take hold in a basically infinite population. What kind of mega drift can opposed said benefactor force of nature?

    And if it doesn’t work in this great case, where else would “evolution” work? Why is it always hiding somewhere out of sight and out of time when the e coli is basically begging for a chance to “evolve” here and now?!?

    0

  2. DNA_Jock: Corneel is consistently precise in his use of language. He is re-iterating, for nonlin’s benefit, a point made by Entropy earlier.
    To understand Entropy or Corneel, one must be capable of conceptual thought. Not all humans are.

    So, math genius, I notice you’re trying to fix others before you fix yourself. Don’t you ever listen to the flight attendants? They’re a very wise bunch… Put On Your Own Mask First!

    And speaking about masks, I must insist: as a math genius, would you say a ‘conditional beneficial’ is not the same as ‘beneficial’? A simple Yes or No is needed. Then an explanation if ‘No’ (meaning ‘they are the same’). Thanks.

    Also, would you admit you can’t speak of B/D/N mutations if whatever outcome is context dependent?

    Let’s not forget: The bullshit story goes like this: everything was fine with dinosaurs and then “beneficial” mutation Y and now all dinosaurs turned into birds because, you see, birds are superior to dinos and ate their lunch. But that kind of NOVEL “beneficial” mutation is NOWHERE to be found. Haha. Because there never was any and never will be one. Very important: in the real, observable life that is. When will you address this, math genius?

    0

  3. Nonlin.org: Last I checked, “drift” is “the gradual departure from an intended course due to external influences (as a ship or plane) “. So what’s that force and where is it pushing? And one discussion was about e coli – hardly a “finite population” and a “beneficial” mutation that is quite common given it happened in Lenski’s lab – hardly a place for miracles of “evolution”. So you tell me why a “beneficial” mutation repeated ad infinitum can’t take hold in a basically infinite population. What kind of mega drift can opposed said benefactor force of nature?

    So you know the word “drift” in other senses but never heard of genetic drift.

    And you point to “one discussion” where your opinion is that the population size is “hardly” finite.

    Anyone interested in these comments can go read an elementary text on population genetics. nonlin.org’s lack of interest in doing so is not an argument.

    1+
    Entropy
  4. nonlin,
    As you requested, I provided a link to a comment of YOURS where you failed to see the difference between P(A|B) and P(B|A).
    So I ask once more:

    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?

    You promised you would answer.
    I think you do not understand the notation.

    0

  5. DNA_Jock: I think you do not understand the notation.

    Oh, come on! Nonlin knows everything, except for, well, everything. 🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂

    0

  6. I think nonlin’s problem is somewhat deeper than misunderstanding ‘drift’. He asks, re drift,

    So what’s that force and where is it pushing?

    Similarly, he views “regression to the mean” as some sort of force, which apparently makes evolution impossible.
    The simplest explanation is that he does not understand sampling, and the Law of Large Numbers. If you tell nonlin that the mean value of a sample will move towards the mean value of the underlying population as your sample gets larger, he concludes that there must be a force driving the mean in that direction.
    Much of his confusion stems from this strange vitalism.

    2+
    EntropyRumraket
  7. Nonlin.org: Yes, I do need a link. Is a number both positive and negative?

    Yes, you do need a link. Negative 2 and Positive 2. So yes.

    1+
    Entropy
  8. DNA_Jock: If you tell nonlin that the mean value of a sample will move towards the mean value of the underlying population as your sample gets larger, he concludes that there must be a force driving the mean in that direction.

    Just call it entropy.

    1+
    Entropy
  9. It’s the same “force” that causes this: when a baseball player has a great batting average one season, you can win money betting with anyone who thinks that they are likely to do just as well the next season. Obviously a supernatural force which shows that evolution can’t happen.

    0

  10. Nonlin.org: Huh? Is your friend a mutant now? You’re a very, very confused little chameleon.

    For somebody basing his entire argument on an analogy, you are doing a remarkably poor job at understanding them.

    Nonlin.org: How can the old un-“evolved” e coli even dare to compete with the new mutant?

    Nonlin.org: Yes, but don’t forget the “millions and trillions of years”. Eventually they MUST encounter one another. And when they do, the mutant always wins per the old man’s myth. Am I missing something?

    Yes, you are missing the fact that after “millions and trillions of years” the designation “e coli” tells us nothing useful anymore about ecology and biochemical activities. What happens when an elephant encounters a grasshopper? Pretty much nothing. How can one dare compete with the other? They don’t. They derive from a shared ancestor living millions of years ago, but now both have adapted to completely different niches.

    I ask once again: What exactly do you think an “e coli” is? How is it classified? Where do you suppose it lives, when it isn’t cultured by curious microbiologists? If you start investigating those issues, you’ll see how incredibly naive your presupposition is that the evolved Lenski lab strains will outcompete 100% of all microbes that happen to be labeled Escherichia coli.

    1+
    Entropy
  11. Nonlin.org: OMG. Here comes the bullshit mega truck.

    BTW, I appreciate that you decided to preface your comments with useful disclaimers. Very good.

    2+
    MungEntropy
  12. Joe Felsenstein:
    It’s the same “force” that causes this: when a baseball player has a great batting average one season, you can win money betting with anyone who thinks that they are likely to do just as well the next season. Obviously a supernatural force which shows that evolution can’t happen.

    Is fitness something other than like sampling a batters performance and giving an average?

    Is fitness something other than like sampling a dog breeds life span and making an average?

    If not, let’s just call fitness “sampling average.” Then no need to argue about deleterious or beneficial or neutral. It just exists, sometimes more sometimes less.

    Or if there something more to a baseball batter’s batting average other than his batting average?

    See the circle yet Joe?

    0

  13. phoodoo: Is fitness something other than like sampling a batters performance and giving an average?

    Is fitness something other than like sampling a dog breeds life span and making an average?

    If not, let’s just call fitness “sampling average.”

    “Sampling average of reproductive success” is four words more than just fitness.

    That’s the purpose of having words refer to concepts that take more words to describe. Ease of communication.

    phoodoo:
    Then no need to argue about deleterious or beneficial or neutral. It just exists, sometimes more sometimes less.

    Deleterious mutations are those that reduce the “sampling average of reproductive success” compared to non-carriers, beneficial mutations are those that increase it compared to non-carriers, and neutral ones are those that don’t change it.

    I agree we don’t have to argue about this, it’s just how it is.

    A sensible concept. No circularity.

    1+
    Entropy
  14. Rumraket: A sensible concept.

    Arrrgh, that’s where your problem is, mate.
    </auto mechanic>

    It’s not like we haven’t tried to explained the concept before. With baseball, even.

    0

  15. phoodoo: See the circle yet Joe?

    I’ll see it when you go out with your money and bet on baseball, using the principle that no team is intrinsically better than any other, that they all have an equal chance of winning. There are some gamblers out there quite ready to take your money if you place your bets that way.

    2+
    Rumraket
  16. Joe Felsenstein: So you know the word “drift” in other senses but never heard of genetic drift.

    Of course I heard of “genetic drift”, the very concept I am challenging… if you noticed.

    Joe Felsenstein: And you point to “one discussion” where your opinion is that the population size is “hardly” finite.

    Why would you make up stuff? The exact quote – under your nose – is “basically infinite population”. My opinion? And what is your opinion about the size of that population?

    Your words EXACTLY: “if it is in a finite population in which it mght be lost due to genetic drift”. So is the “beneficial” mutation not taking hold because the e coli population is “a finite population”?!?
    DNA_Jock,

    Yeah, right. Did you think you won one finally? Haha.

    Due to your complaint back then, I rephrase the text (back in 2018) to read:http://nonlin.org/intelligent-design/
    “How do we know something is not random? By rejecting the null hypothesis: “the order we see is just an artifact of randomness”. This method is well established and common in many fields of research (first decision block in diagram). If we search for extraterrestrial life, archeological artefacts, geologic events, organic traces, etc., we infer presence based on specific nonrandom patterns. Typical threshold (p-value) is 0.05 meaning “if the outcome were due to randomness (null), it would only be observed in 5% or less of trials”. To reject the “randomness” hypothesis, the actual threshold is not critical, as probabilities get extreme quickly. For instance, given a 10 coin toss set, the probability of that set matching a predetermined sequence (this could be the first set sampled) given a fair coin is 0.1%, well below the 5% threshold. A quick glance at biological systems show extreme precision repeated over and over again and indicating essentially zero probability of system-level randomness. Kidneys and all other organs are not random, reproduction is not random, cell structure is not random, behavior is not random, etc.”

    Of course, the intended meaning hasn’t changed one bit: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-detection/comment-page-1/#comment-235682

    Now, if you think this is fundamentally wrong, I would like to see your argument. If not, I will not debate an earlier version that you intentionally misread to suit yourself.

    0

  17. Nonlin.org: Of course I heard of “genetic drift”, the very concept I am challenging…

    Oh my goodness, man the barricades!

    2+
    RumraketEntropy
  18. So, according to phoodoo, is a batter good because he bats at a high rate? or does he bat at a high rate because he’s a good batter? Oh, the circularity. I guess baseball is a hoax then (it’s boring as hell, that’s for sure 😂)

    1+
    Rumraket
  19. DNA_Jock: I think nonlin’s problem is somewhat deeper than misunderstanding ‘drift’. He asks, re drift,

    So what’s that force and where is it pushing?

    Haha. Yes, that’s the “evolutionary” interpretation that I am in fact challenging. “Genetic drift” must be: either a force – and if so it demands an explanation – or a random error – in which case it doesn’t do anything. So which one is it? Haha.

    DNA_Jock: Similarly, he views “regression to the mean” as some sort of force, which apparently makes evolution impossible.
    The simplest explanation is that he does not understand sampling, and the Law of Large Numbers. If you tell nonlin that the mean value of a sample will move towards the mean value of the underlying population as your sample gets larger, he concludes that there must be a force driving the mean in that direction.

    Really? Is this the limit of your understanding? Pathetic. Regression to the mean has NOTHING to do with ‘the Law of Large Numbers’. It operates just the same in small populations as in large ones.

    Also, what is “the expected distribution” as per ‘the Law of Large Numbers’? “The law of large numbers states that as the number of trials or observations increases, the actual or observed probability approaches the theoretical or expected probability.”
    If a distribution is “expected”, then no “divergence of character” can happen, right? Right? QED then? Haha.

    Mung: Yes, you do need a link. Negative 2 and Positive 2. So yes.

    Go back to elementary school. Next time, can you double check your “math” before making a fool of yourself?

    Joe Felsenstein: It’s the same “force” that causes this: when a baseball player has a great batting average one season, you can win money betting with anyone who thinks that they are likely to do just as well the next season. Obviously a supernatural force which shows that evolution can’t happen.

    Yes, very smart. That is a force – regression to the mean – that we don’t fully understand and that for some weird reason your buddies here chose to reject. Haha. Also, what the fuck is “supernatural”? Isn’t this yet another one of those made up concepts like…you name it? Also, what the fuck is “natural” anyway? The bullshit never ends. Haha.

    0

  20. Corneel: Yes, you are missing the fact that after “millions and trillions of years” the designation “e coli” tells us nothing useful anymore about ecology and biochemical activities. What happens when an elephant encounters a grasshopper?

    Are you saying one e coli strain is to another e coli strain as an elephant is to a grasshopper? This is nuts. But sadly, expected just about now in the discussion.

    Corneel: They derive from a shared ancestor living millions of years ago, but now both have adapted to completely different niches.

    That crazy story again. Now be so kind and describe your “niche”, if you can that is. And send that together with your long past due “fitness”. Anyone else’s “niche”? I thought so.

    Corneel: If you start investigating those issues, you’ll see how incredibly naive your presupposition is that the evolved Lenski lab strains will outcompete 100% of all microbes that happen to be labeled Escherichia coli.

    They would at least outcompete one/a few strain/s. And if not, how is “evolution” ever happening if not even in e coli?!? I asked before so maybe youses are still thinking. Will your children reply when they turn your age? Your grandchildren?

    Bottom line, this “beneficial” mutation Lenski noticed must have happened many times before yet it never took hold even in one particular strain. Why?!?

    And let’s do an experiment: take e coli from an animal, “evolve” it for cit plus (yes, Lenski’s “miracle” is repeatable) and then inject this wonderful “evolved” e coli back into the same gut it came from. Allow it a bit of time and collect e coli yet again from said gut to notice this “beneficial” mutation got lost. Why?!? Because “evolution” is just bull crap, that’s why. Side note: NO, I have not done this experiment, but would be willing to bet on it. Like another famous gambler here, because that’s how we do “evo-science”.

    Rumraket: Deleterious mutations are those that reduce the “sampling average of reproductive success” compared to non-carriers, beneficial mutations are those that increase it compared to non-carriers, and neutral ones are those that don’t change it.

    How is that different than “stuff just happens”? I thought “fitness” was supposed to mean something. Something that wasn’t just “statistical stuff” happening.

    0

  21. Alan Fox: Try and marshal your thoughts and say something challenging.

    If not challenging enough for you, then you wouldn’t have a problem answering the questions asked rather than vacuous commenting on style. Yes?

    0

  22. Nonlin.org: Are you saying one e coli strain is to another e coli strain as an elephant is to a grasshopper?

    It’s all about sex. E. coli doesn’t do sex.

    0

  23. Nonlin.org: If not challenging enough for you, then you wouldn’t have a problem answering the questions asked rather than vacuous commenting on style. Yes?

    Yes, see above!

    0

  24. Nonlin.org: Of course, the intended meaning hasn’t changed one bit:

    A key point.
    You switched from talking about P(A|B) to talking about P(B|A), whilst still drawing conclusions about P(A|B), and you claim this is just an alteration in “grammar” — you claim your “intended meaning hasn’t changed one bit”.
    This demonstrates that you are guilty of assuming P(A|B) = P(B|A).
    Since you seem deeply unwilling to answer this question:

    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?

    Hey, here’s an easier (and obviously on-point) question for you:

    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) = P(B|A)?

    You do not understand basic probability.

    0

  25. Alan Fox: It’s all about sex. E. coli doesn’t do sex.

    True that the biological concept of ‘species’ doesn’t work in E. coli, since they don’t do fusion and meiosis, but coli do conjugate on occasion.
    All sorts of HGT is possible, if rare.

    2+
    RumraketEntropy
  26. DNA_Jock: True that the biological concept of ‘species’ doesn’t work in E. coli, since they don’t do fusion and meiosis, but coli do conjugate on occasion.
    All sorts of HGT is possible, if rare.

    Lol. I’ve had enough….

    0

  27. DNA_Jock:
    Hey, here’s an easier (and obviously on-point) question for you:

    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) = P(B|A)?

    You do not understand basic probability.

    Man, it’s been a while since I did this stuff. But just puzzling it out, I’d say there are two circumstances: Either A and B are equally probable, or A and B are entirely independent.

    0

  28. Flint,
    Close.
    Equiprobable was the answer I was looking for.
    “Independent” doesn’t do it, unless they are also equiprobable, but you made me realize that there’s another way of getting there…
    “mutually ———“.
    But can nonlin even follow the conversation?

    1+
    Entropy
  29. Isn’t P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) always true?
    because

    P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = (P(A∩B) ÷ P(B)) ÷ (P(B∩A) ÷ P(A))

    and since P(A∩B) = P(B∩A)

    P(A) ÷ P(B)

    EDIT: unless P(A∩B) = 0, because that would lead to a 0÷0 indetermination
    So my guess is the answer would be, if A and B are mutually exclusive
    Damn, I’m rusty

    0

  30. Nonlin.org: Are you saying one e coli strain is to another e coli strain as an elephant is to a grasshopper?

    Up to 80% of the genome can vary between different isolates of E. coli, so yes, the genomic variation among E. coli strains is on par with that observed in animals.

    BTW, I can’t help but note that you failed to answer my question a second time. What is an “e coli” in your view? What groups microbes with this label?

    Nonlin.org: This is nuts. But sadly, expected just about now in the discussion.

    Less empty bluster, more facts and argumentation, please.

    Nonlin.org: They would at least outcompete one/a few strain/s.

    Backpedaling alert! Remember that you claimed evolutionary theory predicted its spread to 100% of the “e coli” . Given the tremendous diversity within this bacterial species that is completely unrealistic.

    Please note: Massive spreads of genomes with beneficial mutations in microbial populations are in fact known to occur, a phenomenon known as episodic selection.

    Nonlin.org: inject this wonderful “evolved” e coli back into the same gut it came from

    Ah, wonderful. You googled some ecological background of Escherichia coli. Keep reading, Nonlin.

    Nonlin.org: Allow it a bit of time and collect e coli yet again from said gut to notice this “beneficial” mutation got lost. Why?!?

    Beats me. It can’t be fitness differences, because those do not exist, right? Regression to the mean perhaps?

    Or perhaps it is only adaptive in the particular experimental setting in which it managed to spread. I predict that, given the opportunity, it will spread to all other laboratories using Davis minimal broth.

    1+
    Entropy
  31. Rumraket: Sampling average of reproductive success

    Great, fitness is determined by a sampling average of reproductive success.

    So if we want to know if beneficial mutations really exist and if they really alter the landscape of the population, let’s just ask the question, do beneficial mutations improve the sampling average of reproductive success?

    Gee, guess what, it turns out they do! Amazing, the theory really is true. Do players with higher batting averages have higher success rates batting. Good question. Guess what it turns out the do!! The best hitters hit the best. Whoa!

    Pure genius thought at work. Not circularity at all. Joe’s illusion remains safe.

    (One could of course ask the question, do the strongest hitters hit best? Then place a bet. One way to insure that they do is to define strongest as those that hit best, by taking your average of batting success and calling them strongest. The card trick works great on evolutionists)

    0

  32. phoodoo: Do players with higher batting averages have higher success rates batting. Good question. Guess what it turns out the do!! The best hitters hit the best. Whoa!

    Presumably, then, you are very rich as you can use this ‘insight’ to predict the winning teams and then bet on the result?

    If not, why not?

    0

  33. phoodoo: The card trick works great on evolutionists)

    It’s a shame you won’t formalize this insight into a form where it can influence the next generation of scientists. Why not publish? I’m sure the DI would help.

    0

  34. phoodoo: So if we want to know if beneficial mutations really exist

    Where do they come from? Your intelligent designer? Does your intelligent designer use PSI to cause the mutations?

    0

  35. phoodoo,
    At this point it’s plenty obvious you know there’s no circularity in the definition of fitness. Otherwise you wouldn’t be pulling this stupid shit

    phoodoo: (One could of course ask the question, do the strongest hitters hit best? Then place a bet. One way to insure that they do is to define strongest as those that hit best, by taking your average of batting success and calling them strongest. The card trick works great on evolutionists)

    If the original concept (batting prowess) was circular, there would be no need for you to introduce a new concept (strength) and torture it’s meaning to advance a new, circular argument that no one but you is making..

    Confess. You know full well that batting prowess is a thing and it’s measurable by sampling, just like biological fitness. You also know that strength is correlated but is not the same thing as batting prowess and no one in their right mind would say they are, and no one is doing anything remotely similar wrt fitness either.

    Just be honest with yourself and admit you were wrong.

    2+
    RumraketEntropy
  36. dazz,

    To these poor people it’s circular when you check to see if they fit the characteristics that define the category. They’re unaware that they’re declaring that empiricism is circular.

    “The strongest should be the ones who can lift the most weight! OK, let’s check these individuals. Oh, John was able to lift the most weight! He’s the strongest! Wait a fucking minute! That’s circular reasoning!!”

    I suspect they truly don’t understand the difference between circular arguments and finding the cases that fit a definition.

    1+

  37. Entropy: They’re unaware that they’re declaring that empiricism is circular.

    It is quite bizarre. Instead of admitting that fitness is a real thing, they rather sink the entire scientific enterprise!

    “How did you decide men were taller then women? Oh, you measured height? Hohoho. So you found the people with the largest height were the tallest? Amazing!”

    1+
    Entropy
  38. Corneel: “How did you decide men were taller then women? Oh, you measured height? Hohoho. So you found the people with the largest height were the tallest? Amazing!”

    And when you point out that it is a testable assertion, as you can measure more men and women, they just ignore that and repeat the assertion that the whole thing is circular. Ad nauseam.

    2+
    Entropy
  39. “The strongest should be the ones who can lift the most weight! OK, let’s check these individuals. Oh, John was able to lift the most weight! He’s the strongest! Wait a fucking minute! That’s circular reasoning!!”

    John? Not Pete? It was Pete when we last checked….

    0

  40. DNA_Jock:
    But can nonlin even follow the conversation?

    Maybe if we tried to get Nonlin to understand but one of her/his mistakes? Just one? For example, we could quote Nonlin’s assertion that Darwin taught about ecologically/environmentally-independent, absolutely beneficial mutations and just insist on point 1: Darwin never taught about mutations. After Nonlin accepted that one, if ever, we could go for any other errors in Nonlin’s statement(s).

    But I doubt that it’s possible to have an actual conversation with Nonlin.

    0

  41. Alan Fox: Therefore mutations stay within cohorts.

    So bacteria doesn’t “evolve”. Got it. The “evolution” story gets better and better every day.

    DNA_Jock: You switched from talking about P(A|B) to talking about P(B|A), whilst still drawing conclusions about P(A|B), and you claim this is just an alteration in “grammar” — you claim your “intended meaning hasn’t changed one bit”.

    Is rejecting this null controversial in your opinion: “the order we see in biology is just an artifact of randomness”? Because this is the intended meaning and it hasn’t changed. But maybe you dispute that null rejection in which case it would be very interesting to hear why.

    DNA_Jock: True that the biological concept of ‘species’ doesn’t work in E. coli, since they don’t do fusion and meiosis, but coli do conjugate on occasion.

    Makes perfect sense. Or more precisely, the concept of “species” doesn’t work period. As nothing else in “evolution” ever works. Haha.

    Did I mention this thing gets better and better? Within a few days we got these admissions:
    1. “beneficial” mutations are in fact not “beneficial” as they are contingent.
    2. concept of “species” doesn’t work.
    3. e coli doesn’t “evolve”.
    4. there is no “fitness” (thank you bullshit truck driver for this monster nugget cleanly perched on top of your steaming pile).

    Haha!

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.