I wish creationists would limit themselves to new creationist ideas, rather than using all of them, every time it comes up.

That, or they could point out why refutations of IDC are inaccurate and start from there.

You are very right that rebutting everything they butt gives them an unfair "advantage" in the debate format that the issue seems to be in.

As for drift v. selection. I think people say drift when selection would not be pc.

Razib:

I would say that your comments amounted to a "rebuke" (and its justification) rather than an "insult."

gene, only a one sentence comment? is that all i'm worth? :)

But it was a bloody good sentence, wasn't it?

long discussion about ID with other geneticists today. general agreement that it is frightening in a deep way. (not the superficial -- aren't those red necks stupid.) rather, this is a tipping point for the scientific project.

some agreement that public figures including journalists w/o a science background are not helping matters. their reasoning seems to go like this: (1) science is complicated, but (2) i'm a smart person, so (3) there must be something weird about scientists.

Razib, I long ago decided that arguing with cultists was a waste of time.

In the end, my position came down to something like this:

1. Science is an elite ideology and always will be. This is because you need an IQ of what? 120+ say, to grasp it in any kind of holistic way, and without that broad grasp, you are prey to every pseudoscientific claim for your attention that comes along. Without a high level of reasoning skills AND a strong ideological commitment to the scientific project, you just don't have a strong enough anti-BS, "mental immune system" to fend off parasitic meme infestations. Doubly so for memes implanted by systematic childhood cultic conditioning or popular memes supported by the mainstream media and/or peer pressure.

2. Did you learn your basic science from school? I know I didn't. Anyone who is cut out for this field is likely going to be driven to read for themselves. By the time I was 12, I already knew huge amounts of basic physics, chemistry, biology. The official curriculum didn't catch up with me till University. For instance, I've read every single issue of Sci Am cover to cover since I was 14. This is despite being brought up in a religious cult.

The moral: Those who need to know the truth will find it out for themselves. They can teach anything they like in their schools. Who cares?

3. In a democracy the ignorant masses will always dominate the popular debate. Get used to it. In the end the politicians will always support science because it scares them shitless. They dare not ignore it. If country A doesn't support your field for ideological/cult reasons, country B will. So you have to move. Big deal. Science is bigger than politics and we have a trust to uphold for our species. Even if the species doesn't know it yet.

Scientia Vincit Omnia.

Amen Dan.
Minor point.
We all owe the Hippies and IDers a vote of thanks for leting us take our kids out of their schools, something the mainstream masses would not allow. The schools will always be "their schools" and frankly, anyone who understands the potential they waste and sends their kids their anyway deserves their kids contempt.

Really enjoyed the civil comments.

"Kimura's insight vis Neutral Theory is that most substitution - might not be due to positive selection but neutral fixation".......again you may call it "insight" others "insight is not science".

I did read Kimura on this specific area and noted he suggests "very slightly " beneficial mutations can be effectively neutral and so be substituted as a neutral mutation would be. But this overlooks its own bad side-effect. By this same logic, very slightly "harmful" mutations will be substituted as through neutral. Accoring to this neutral theory, these substitutions occur at a rate given by their mutation rates. Since slightly harmful mutations greatly outnmuber silightly beneficial mutations, the net result of the substitions will be harmful
Even Kimura acknowledges this Using a mutational load argument, he attempted to show that the genetic harm is not large. Yet his argument allowes that merely 10,000 gene loci are available to suffer harmful mutation. He assumed that 99.7% of the genome is inert. Thus he obviously substantially underestimated the genetic harm that results from the process.

Note also Kimura estimates that amino-acid altering mutations are roughly 10x more likely to be harmful than neutral. Yet King and Jukes cite that 90-95% of mutations are harmful and only 5-10% are neutral.

I also checked out a number of other books who's authors contradict each other.

Again, this is all THEORETICAL
Yet, for some members of other "cults" it is dogma.

I note all evolutionary genetics texbooks discuss harmful mutation in terms of mutational load. Mutational load is a concept for estimating how harmful muation rates affect differential survival. This assumes that mutation and selection are in equilibrium, the rate that new harmful mutations occur in population equals the rate they are eliminated by selection.
The concept makes the hidden assumption that error castatrophe does not occur. I note some offer other models such as truncation selection..in a smorgasboard fashin and do not connect it to evolutionary theiory in a unfied, coherent or TESTABLE manner. Again, this is a smorgasboard, not a science

this is a smorgasboard, not a science

On the contrary, science is a smorgasboard!

alexandra, all models have assumptions.

in any case, the old joke goes

a mathematician says 4.
a scientist says 4.0.
an engineering says between 3 and 5, make it 7 to be safe.

perhaps you don't think approximate models are testable and valid science. well, so be it. scientists do think it works, and that is what science is. with all due respect, eukaryotic genomes tend to be nearly neutral....

oh, btw, assumptions of neutrality and constraint are testable. just read papers comparing intron vs. synonymous constraint the other day.

The concept makes the hidden assumption that error castatrophe does not occur.

this happens. they get purged in the case of mammals during gestation. anyway, it depends on what model you are looking at. infinite alleles of small effect is just one model, not the only one. i know a researcher who is doing microevolution that contradicts infinite alleles in the case of a particular fish. disagreemants within the paradigm is a strength of the science, not a weakeness.

look, you can find the models unconvincing, that is your liberty. the fact is many scientists take these as serious starting point for scholarship. you might think that the scholarship might be bunk, but that's the only game in town, intelligent design isn't producing positive models.

allotment loan military allotment loan military allotment loan military. advance cash check columbus advance cash check columbus advance cash check columbus.