The book Darwin Devolves

[Roy]

Well, one duplication (or a few) in all of a plant's evolutionary history would indeed seem to be a rare event.

You claimed whole genome duplications "were few in plants", but cited a source that said there were so many of them they existed in every flowering plant's genome.

What you think is irrelevant.

[TheLurch]

Behe does examine a wide spectrum of animals, showing gene loss, but a more general search would be helpful. You might consider sending Michael Behe an email, he does respond to some emails.

You've only showed that Behe looks for instances gene loss; you'd expect him to find that. What you haven't shown is any instances of him looking at total gene count.

I'm also not going to email him, because:
1. I've already looked into mammalian genomes, and i know he's wrong.
2. I've already looked at Behe's past responses, and i know he's just going to claim he's right anyway.

Well, certainly, but further work has been done, confirming the trend:

Source: Darwin Devolves

Several of the workers from the same group recently tested a more complex system, in which two different species of bacteria indirectly competed with each other, and showed that E. coli could adapt by damaging any of several genes.

© Copyright Original Source

What does this show? Changes in a single environment.

What were we talking about? Change in variety of environmental conditions.

Please, put some effort into keeping track of your own arguments.

Right, but given all the tree, evolution is expected to produce lower-order branches first.

what part of "not possible" isn't clear?

Or do you have some definition of "lower order" that's unrelated to its typical meaning?

[TheLurch]

Not only does Michael Behe not grasp this, but Stephen Meyer doesn't grasp it either. It's not surprising that Lee gets it the wrong way round when this error permeates the DI writings.

Interesting. I'd always viewed Meyer as a complete charlatan, but thought that Behe was mostly lying to himself, and just taking others along for the ride incidentally.

[lee_merrill]

What does this show? Changes in a single environment.

What were we talking about? Change in variety of environmental conditions.

So examining changes in a variety of environments can give an indication of evolution's performance in a variety of conditions.

what part of "not possible" isn't clear?

Or do you have some definition of "lower order" that's unrelated to its typical meaning?

I mean that evolution is expected to produce a sequence of small variation, accumulating to large variations. But we see large changes in the fossil record, that are not preceded by small incremental variation.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=lee_merrill;623469]So examining changes in a variety of environments can give an indication of evolution's performance in a variety of conditions.

I mean that evolution is expected to produce a sequence of small variation, accumulating to large variations. But we see large changes in the fossil record, that are not preceded by small incremental variation.

Blessings,
Lee

Evolution does not produce anything, nor particularly 'sequences of small nor large variations.' Genetic mutations produce the sequences of variations that result in the genetic diversity in populations over time. Evolution results in the change in the genetic diversity in the populations due to the changes in the environment.

Remember evolution takes place over millions or hundreds of thousands of years.

[TheLurch]

So examining changes in a variety of environments can give an indication of evolution's performance in a variety of conditions.

Critically, it can tell us whether a mutation is generally adaptive, or only adaptive to a very specific and limited set of conditions.

Again, an example is the hypermutator mutations that eliminate proofreading during DNA replication. Those aren't generally adaptive, since we don't see them in the wild. But they often pop up in lab experiments.

I mean that evolution is expected to produce a sequence of small variation, accumulating to large variations. But we see large changes in the fossil record, that are not preceded by small incremental variation.

Well, that's not what the terms you used mean.

And in any case, the statement is only partially true; sometimes we see lots of incremental variation, like the origins of tetrapods or whales.

[tabibito]

And in any case, the statement is only partially true; sometimes we see lots of incremental variation, like the origins of tetrapods or whales.

Yup - I once said to my daughter that evolution is pretty much proven on the level of species (cats for example developing into different kinds of cats), but at the family level (non cat becoming cat), nothing had been shown to demonstrate the possibility. Lo and behold, a few years later ...

If nothing else shows one family becoming a different family, whales certainly do. The developmental sequence is compelling - it's almost like watching a film of a developing foetus.

[lee_merrill]

Parts two and three of Behe's response to his Lehigh colleagues are up...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Critically, it can tell us whether a mutation is generally adaptive, or only adaptive to a very specific and limited set of conditions.

Well, we can also spot trends by examining many examples.

And in any case, the statement is only partially true; sometimes we see lots of incremental variation, like the origins of tetrapods or whales.

But the trend in evolution is large changes, followed by small ones, hence "punctuated equilibrium".

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

If nothing else shows one family becoming a different family, whales certainly do. The developmental sequence is compelling - it's almost like watching a film of a developing foetus.

And Behe acknowledges that families can become different families...

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

And Behe acknowledges that families can become different families...

Blessings,
Lee

Not meaningful and a bit confusing. Needs explanation as to what Behe acknowledges, since he does not acknowledge evolution.

[shunyadragon]

Well, we can also spot trends by examining many examples.

Meaningless.

But the trend in evolution is large changes, followed by small ones, hence "punctuated equilibrium".

Blessings,
Lee

Simply No.

[shunyadragon]

Yup - I once said to my daughter that evolution is pretty much proven on the level of species (cats for example developing into different kinds of cats), but at the family level (non cat becoming cat), nothing had been shown to demonstrate the possibility. Lo and behold, a few years later ...

If nothing else shows one family becoming a different family, whales certainly do. The developmental sequence is compelling - it's almost like watching a film of a developing foetus.

The detailed step by step evolution of birds is also a very good example.

[tabibito]

The detailed step by step evolution of birds is also a very good example.

So? Is there a resource that someone with no background in the relevant sciences could understand?

[TheLurch]

Well, we can also spot trends by examining many examples.

Only if the examples are relevant. Lots of examples that aren't relevant (like, say, these) won't tell us of a relevant trend.

But the trend in evolution is large changes, followed by small ones, hence "punctuated equilibrium".

Really? How can you demonstrate this is a trend, and not just that there are examples of both?

NB: quoting a couple of guys as saying it is is not a demonstration.