Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, let me help you to see the relevance. At the same time, I'm going to show you why "improvement" is a horrible way to talk about evolution.

Let's add insult to injury (as if my poor thirsty shaded plants lives weren't already bad enough)- suppose that the shaded group had "improved" genes. They had it within them to grow faster, heartier, resist frost much more adequately. Unfortunately, none of that matters, and none of it will be expressed in future populations on their count - because they didn;t get enough sunlight or moisture to pass those genes along. In this case the "lesser" genes won...and whatever a's, b's, or c's (go through the whole alphabet twice) they pass on will have had nothing to do with it. They simply survived.

[Mystic]

Perhaps they talk about it that way as a method of popularizing science to an audience that might find it difficult to comprehend it without those crutches in terms or language?

So they are tricking the population by making it seem very sensible to them, but it's far more complex than the surface they teach and doesn't rely on the principles they are teaching on the surface?

[popeyespappy]

MN, why not get your explanation from the horse’s mouth. The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" is a short article by Kenneth Miller the scientist that testified against irreducible complexity in the Dover trial.

If that doesn’t work for you try the paper The evolution of eukaryotic cilia and flagella as motile and sensory organelles by David Mitchell.

Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body is an easy to understand book that demonstrates biological homologies and explains the mechanisms that allowed us to evolve from fish to people.

[Mystic]

Ok so does that contradiction that notion it's not necessarily advantageous when you go outside that population area but within that population area, it must be advantageous?

[The Grand Nudger]

So they are tricking the population by making it seem very sensible to them, but it's far more complex than the surface they teach and doesn't rely on the principles they are teaching on the surface?

I think it might be more accurate to say that they are "popularizing" science and giving people a way to possess a sort of rough summary of how evolution occurs in a way that is intelligible to them. Do you spend much time reading peer reviewed papers in scientific journals? Neither does John Q. If you want to popularize something you have to speak to the public in a way that they will understand.

I believe the hope, is that by popularizing science people who may not have realized how interesting they found it to be would seek out a much more fully developed understanding of a subject - or even become part of that subject and contribute to it.

Rephrase the above question if it was directed at me?

[Mystic]

MN, why not get your explanation from the horse’s mouth. The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" is a short article by Kenneth Miller the scientist that testified against irreducible complexity in the Dover trial.

I think he strawman's irreducible complexity. The reason is not that any parts can't be missing like he goes on to prove (like some proteins or whatever) and still function.

I think he either misunderstands the irreducible complexity issue or is purposely strawmanning the argument or perhaps this is because I'm thinking of the particular version of Michael Behe's argument.

It's that there is essential components, not that you can't find some missing parts in some life form that is found in another life form, and therefore you disprove irreducible complexity.

Moreover, as we are discussing in this thread, showing "stage A" and "Stage B" in nature, while reasoning of Michael Behe seems to suggest to me, that going from stage A and Stage B might be impossible due to the fact you have various parts working together and that can't occur by small changes, because they aren't advantageous when not working in that function and have to somehow be heading towards that direction.

[The Grand Nudger]

What can't occur by small changes, a mutation does not have to be advantageous, and nothing is "heading" anywhere.

[Mystic]

Well, let me help you to see the relevance. At the same time, I'm going to show you why "improvement" is a horrible way to talk about evolution.

Let's add insult to injury (as if my poor thirsty shaded plants lives weren't already bad enough)- suppose that the shaded group had "improved" genes. They had it within them to grow faster, heartier, resist frost much more adequately. Unfortunately, none of that matters, and none of it will be expressed in future populations on their count - because they didn;t get enough sunlight or moisture to pass those genes along. In this case the "lesser" genes won...and whatever a's, b's, or c's (go through the whole alphabet twice) they pass on will have had nothing to do with it. They simply survived.

Ok so does that contradict that notion it's not necessarily advantageous when you go outside that population area but within that population area, it must be advantageous?

Sorry Rhythm.

---

What can't occur by small changes, a mutation does not have to be advantageous, and nothing is "heading" anywhere.

A mutation doesn't have to be, but a series of mutations has to be over all advantageous within a given population area to move a population area of species from point A to B when there is many many steps between A and B.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm still not entirely sure what you're asking - but...the contents of my cold-frame is the entire population of all life. There are no other populations. The purpose of this example is to show you that at the very core of it, the very principle, evolution does not require that a mutation be advantageous, it merely requires that the possessor of that mutation survive long enough to pass on it;s genetic material. The lesser plants in my example had no advantageous mutations whatsoever, any mutation that could even be remotely argued to be advantageous was possessed by the shaded group - which did not survive. This is why insisting that every step from A-Z be advantageous is nonsense. The possessors of these steps needn't out-compete their fellows, they need only survive.

I'm not sure if this answers your question.

[Mystic]

I think it might be more accurate to say that they are "popularizing" science and giving people a way to possess a sort of rough summary of how evolution occurs in a way that is intelligible to them.

If it's the rough summary and truthful, it follows most mutations from that move something from point A to B in function when there is significant amount of mutations have to be advantageous according to the theory.

It can't be only small percentage of the steps between A and B are advantageous.

Or otherwise, evolution as they teach the public, is deceitful to say the least.