New reply to Crevo

Crevo recently replied to this post here.
His reply :

For those who want to compare whether or not my assertions about the difficulty for core functions to handle perterbations, see this paper in the most recent issue of Science (while Davidson may not agree with me on the difficulties of change in this case, he certainly points out that parts of the genome are "more core" than others, and are more constrained against change -- thus, as I said, small changes can lead
to dramatic phenotypic results, just not good ones).Read mine. Read the professor's. Read the cited literature. Decide for yourself!

Please do. Please also remind yourself of some key issues:
1. Crevo has yet to provide any rational, evidence supported explanation for why: a) Haldane's model as used by ReMine is applicable in human evolution
b) if ReMine's number is relevant, why it is a "dilemma"

Instead, Crevo wants to try to change topics. This is a common creationist tactic. While mulling over my last reply to him, something struck me that I did not comment on before. I had written:

One of my favorite refutations of this notion is the single point mutation in the FGF3-R gene that causes a form of achondroplasia (dwarfism). One little base pair substitution reduces the number of interphalangeal joints, produces disproportionate alterations in limb length, etc. Now, I am not presenting this as an example of evolution, nor as an example of a beneficial mutation. I am presenting this as evidence - proof even - that phenotypic changes do NOT in fact require large numbers of mutations.

Note the part I bolded. In his reply, Crevo wrote:

How many individual changes would it take to turn achondroplasia into a beneficial mutation?

Hmmmm... Is it just me, or did I explicitly write that what I presented was NOT an example of a beneficial mutation?

Anyway, I also encourage readers to check out the Science article Crevo seems to think helps his cause.

One will note, the article deals with different levels of conserved series of gene interactions, the 'uppermost' being the 'kernels' that dictate phyletic and superphyletic basic body plan, a middle level that affects body plan at the class, order, and family level, and a lower level that dictates speciation.

Crevo, a computer programmer, wrote:

As someone who creates and modifies codes on a daily basis, I know what kind of interactions are required to get large-scale changes stabilized and working.

in response to:

The real fact is, you have no idea how many fixed, beneficial mutations would have been required to evolve humans from an apelike ancestor and continuing to claim that 1667 is too few is at best disinformative propaganda and wishful thinking.

So, what ARE the "large scale changes" between human and chimpanzee? The programmer is unable to say and instead tries the standard creationist tactic of trying to shift the discussion. That is OK - Crevo's hero and fellow non-biologist, Walter ReMine cannot provide the very basic information required to know whether or not the ReMine number of mutations is too few or not. They prefer engaging in prolonged bouts of mental masturbation followed by condescening quips regarding their exceptional sexual prowess...

Crevo had written above:

"..while Davidson may not agree with me on the difficulties of change in this case, he certainly points out that parts of the genome are "more core" than others, and are more constrained against change -- thus, as I said, small changes can lead to dramatic phenotypic results, just not good ones."


And who said anything different? I am fully aware that many changes are bad, I never said otherwise. The FGFR-3 mutation I mentioned may be involved in one of the GRNs that is mentioned in the paper - but in fact, that demonstrates MY point, not Crevo's - that some large number of coordinated changes are in fact NOT required to elicit alterations in phenotype.


So AGAIN I ask - what traits did the presumptive human ancestor have that would require some large number of coordinated fixed beneficial mutations to get to the modern human condition? Which level of change (ala the Davidson paper) would these mutations have to have occurred at and how do you know, Crevo?

If you cannot answer at least these fundamental questions, then you have no busieness hawking electrixcal engineer creationist ReMine's claims on the matter.

Of note, the reader will notice that Crevo has decided, apparently, not to address ANY of the questions I posed for him in my last reply. One may want to wonder why that it...

Of interest are these blog posts regarding the Davidson article and a critique of an ID advocate's take on it.