tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post4075624169330448774..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: Using deleterious mutations to cross fitness valleys - as misunderstood by ID creationistsBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-17742040128324893102012-03-26T17:34:38.489-07:002012-03-26T17:34:38.489-07:00John, it is simply not true that the overwhelming ...John, it is simply not true that the overwhelming majority of Christians - in the US - accept evolution. Many catholics (as opposed to the Vatican), Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, many Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists don't. There are others. <br /><br />Also, "some form of evolution" really isn't good enough. Which "forms" are you thinking about? In my book, believing only parts of current evolutionary theory (leaving out the details currently discussed and under investigation), while holding that God created part of it, is simply not enough.<br /><br />No, I cannot understand why you would close your ears when "atheists speak", just because Carl Sagan may or may not have been wrong on some scientific points. That is unwarranted. I do not, similarly, close my ears to what religious people say, just because Rick Santorum talks like a deuchebag on all subjects, including evolution.<br /><br />And also note, why on Earth should I ignore Christians that don't believe in evolution, when all Republican presidential candidates say they don't believe it (save for <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/21/300395/huntsman-slams-perry-again-on-climate-and-evolution-wrong-side-of-science/?mobile=nc" rel="nofollow">Huntsman</a>)?Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-79022555785171322512012-03-26T15:54:58.713-07:002012-03-26T15:54:58.713-07:00The overwhelming majority of Christians accept som...The overwhelming majority of Christians accept some form of evolution so picking on a scant minority isnt proof of anything. I could pick Stalin or a child rapists for my atheist debate too.<br />There seems to be some sense of joy in the quest for superiority as if that some how will change anything in the end. I personally dont blame a small group not trusting in people who believe something can come out of nothing, and then lop on the insurmountable odds of life forming as if it were trivial.<br /><br />Carl sagan has been shown to be worse than a cartoon character in his use of logic when he said there only a few conditions a planet needed for life. You could laugh from the day he said that all the way till today and it still wouldnt do justice to its sheer stupidity--and you cant understand why some have chosen to simply plug up their ears when atheists speak?<br /><br />They're too biased and its hurt education. Look how long it took them to accept a "beginning"--and now Fine tuning. Now they move to multiverses which is milk coming out of your nose type of lunacy. I think when you strip away all the quests for personal glory you left with very little but a personal opinionJohn Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-17449875924214575072011-07-07T07:50:11.318-07:002011-07-07T07:50:11.318-07:00Bjørn Østman: But seriously, how do you like my fi...<b>Bjørn Østman</b>: <i>But seriously, how do you like my figure?</i><br /><br />The newest creation by noted artist, Bjørn Østman, will certainly raise a fuss in certain circles. The simplicity of the figures, the drama of the conflict, draws the viewer into the story. Those at the very apex of the mountain are confident, perhaps overconfident, even bored looking at the futile efforts of those stuck on the lower hill of knowledge. The vigor of the usurpers is apparent, their advance only stopped by the chasm (well, more like a short hop), separating them from the fitness slope to victory! They draw up to the very precipice, and we are left to wonder whether they dare to cross. <br /><br />Might we suggest a name for the drawing, <i>The Argument Regarding Design</i>.<br /><br />-<br />xposted to AntiEvolutionZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-31702627542910088672011-07-03T18:21:39.020-07:002011-07-03T18:21:39.020-07:00John, sorry for the delay. I have tried to answer ...John, sorry for the delay. I have tried to answer your questions in a new post: <a href="http://pleion.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-on-high-dimensional-fitness.html" rel="nofollow">More on high-dimensional fitness landscapes</a>. Let me know if I failed to do so adequately.<br /><br />Also, note that I nicked those stick-men from <a href="http://xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">xkcd</a> by Randall Munroe, in case that wasn't clear.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-79160079974807255222011-07-01T14:57:58.152-07:002011-07-01T14:57:58.152-07:00Hey,
I am also interested to hear your reply to ...Hey, <br /><br />I am also interested to hear your reply to John's question. <br /><br />Sergey Kryazhimskiy's attempt at classifying landscapes is also very interesting - http://www.pnas.org/content/106/44/18638.full.pdf<br /><br />Finally, I have not yet had the time to read your paper thoroughly, but I would appreciate if you can also comment on how you measure 'ruggedness' of a landscape. <br /><br />I recall from one of Dan Hartl's talks on evolutionary analysis of malaria resistance, he mentioned, for example, that they used Aita's method to quantify the ruggedness -well, in fact, "smoothness"- of the simulated landscapes. <br /><br />Aita's paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11707608<br /><br />Cheers, <br /><br />ps. Those guys over at xkcd should better start looking for a job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-91629837437009846042011-07-01T05:49:58.298-07:002011-07-01T05:49:58.298-07:00Okay, blah blah blah. But seriously, how do you li...Okay, blah blah blah. But seriously, how do you like my figure?<br /><br />(Will get back to you, John, with a coherent answer, if I can.)Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-23173221246623340452011-07-01T04:41:45.362-07:002011-07-01T04:41:45.362-07:00Whoops, that was me. I was logged in under my wif...Whoops, that was me. I was logged in under my wife's e-mail.James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-75887616666324042852011-07-01T04:40:57.582-07:002011-07-01T04:40:57.582-07:00No matter how many times it repeats itself, I stil...No matter how many times it repeats itself, I still find this kind of willful misunderstanding shocking. Oh well, what can you do?<br /><br />There seems to be a pattern to a lot of the more simple-minded Creationist misquoting: A research paper on evolution sets out to say something along the lines of, "Here is a question about evolution as we understand it. Past answers to this question have been inadequate because of blah-blah-blah. Here is our answer, and why we think it is a better answer." Which is a rather natural way for a <i>research</i> paper to proceed, isn't it? (Far better than, "Past answers have been robust and complete and no further explanation is needed -- but just for shits and giggles I made up this other thing about it, too," eh?) But of course then the quote-mining leaves off the part about the actual answer.<br /><br />Which leads to the amusing and yet utterly headdesking phenomenon of Creationists quoting a paper in order to support some idiosyncratic critique of evolution, when that very paper is itself an excellent refutation to said critique. Gotta love it..Mariahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09018918148698101001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-16363328469506864152011-06-30T19:18:09.971-07:002011-06-30T19:18:09.971-07:00How does your work tie in with Gavrilets' stuf...How does your work tie in with Gavrilets' stuff on high dimensional landscapes?John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.com