Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Stripe]

Yep. That's what it's called when someone abandons reasoning and goes for ridicule in an argument. Your disparaging reference is an attempt to avoid the direction our discussion was taking. Better yet, just show us a geneticist who says there's such a thing as "devolution."Show us someone who actually understands genetics who says so. You see, perhaps, that you really don't mitigate the fix you're in by a diversion.

As you learned, things do indeed devolve. Perhaps when your rage subsides over your ignorance being exposed, you'll be able to admit the facts. :up:

We showed you plenty of evidence. No point in denial. You'll just have to come to terms with the facts.

Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist.

As you learned, this does nothing to change the theory. You can't call Shannon information meaningful.

Turns out, his theory is actually inapplicable for evolutionists. His ideas have applications far beyond communications. But we don't expect Darwinists to appreciate the details when they get the basics so wrong.

No.

Yes. As you learned, Shannon is all about being able to eliminate noise in messages we receive. It's how NASA communicates over huge distances with low-powered transmitters. It's how the Internet works. Two things that most definitely did not arise from random mutations and natural selection (to go along with everything else).

It's all about reducing noise.

In the earlier days of long-distance communication this was indeed what people thought: when you're dealing with a noisy channel, you have no choice but trade your error rate for redundancy. In 1948, however, the mathematician Claude Shannon proved them wrong. In his ground-breaking Mathematical theory of communication Shannon showed that given any error rate, no matter how small, it's possible to find a code that produces this tiny error rate and enables you to transmit messages at a transmission rate that is only limited by the channel's capacity. This result is known as Shannon's noisy channel coding theorem. It shows that near-error-free transmission doesn't lead to near-zero efficiency.

What Shannon showed is that once the entropy is below some critical value, a code with an arbitrarily small rate of decoding error can always be found. Ie, how the receiver can eliminate the noise to get at the meaning. And it is the meaning that Shannon said nothing about and what you want nothing to do with.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yep. That's what it's called when someone abandons reasoning and goes for ridicule in an argument. Your disparaging reference is an attempt to avoid the direction our discussion was taking.

You've abandoned reason by ignoring the clear evidence I've presented by geneticists, Shannon and Weaver, and computer scientists.

So your statement here just doesn't make sense. Perhaps your seething rage has blinded you. Usually you abandon honest conversation in a wild rage so it's good to see you attempt to control yourself, but I'll take the credit for dialing your rage back with my calm demeanor.

I'll explain it for you:

Better yet, just show us a geneticist who says there's such a thing as "devolution."

No, it was a the joke you didn't get that I was explaining. Here, let me explain it again for you: That scene in Goodfellas was so cool and intense with Ray Liotta's character just trying to keep it light and Joe Pesci's character turning it around and coming back with a serious accusation saying "I’m funny? Funny, like, I’m a clown? I amuse you?". I realize Ray's character couldn't say it, but it would have been downright hilarious to see an outtake with Ray Liotta laughing back at Joe Pesci "Yeah, that's it!"

In this case, you're the outtake. :darwinsm:

Show us someone who actually understands genetics who says so.

I did. They said "mutational load" and that it needs to be mitigated. It's the same as devolving.

You see, if mutational load isn't mitigated, the genome of the population devolves until the population eventually dies a horrible extinction.

I showed you two models that did.

The model that works the best, ev, doesn't work at all.

IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2006; 25(1): 30–33.
Claude Shannon: Biologist
The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist.

Turns out, his theory is actually used by population biologists to understand evolution. His theorem has applications far beyond communications.

No. It was about the way one can accurately communicate over noisy channels. All channels have noise. His theorem showed that you could communicate over noisy channels by increasing redundancy and using an appropriate coding. It's how NASA communicates over huge distances with low-powered transmitters. It's how the internet works.

That doesn't say anything about "reducing noise", either.

In the earlier days of long-distance communication this was indeed what people thought: when you're dealing with a noisy channel, you have no choice but trade your error rate for redundancy. In 1948, however, the mathematician Claude Shannon proved them wrong. In his ground-breaking Mathematical theory of communication Shannon showed that given any error rate, no matter how small, it's possible to find a code that produces this tiny error rate and enables you to transmit messages at a transmission rate that is only limited by the channel's capacity. This result is known as Shannon's noisy channel coding theorem. It shows that near-error-free transmission doesn't lead to near-zero efficiency.
...
What Shannon showed is that once the entropy is below some critical value, a code with an arbitrarily small rate of decoding error can always be found.

Shannon did want to reduce the impact of noise. Why? It's obvious, and he even said it clearly, "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

 

[The Barbarian]

You've abandoned reason by ignoring the clear evidence I've presented by geneticists, Shannon and Weaver, and computer scientists.

I merely pointed out that your claim about geneticists concerned about "devolution" was without substance. As I predicted, you were unable to find even one who has said so. And I showed you how Shannon's theorem works in biology. As we discussed, you're still unable to even apply the math to a biological system.

Perhaps your seething rage has blinded you.

Since you gave up making a cogent argument, and went straight to attempted ridicule, you're clearly projecting again.
Usually you abandon honest conversation in that manner.

No, it was a the joke you didn't get

Everyone got it. You were upset and trolling, after you were unable to find even one geneticist who said anything about "devolution."

I did.

No. Not one. No point in denying it.

They said "mutational load" and that it needs to be mitigated.

But nothing about "devolution?" That's what I told you, you'd find.

It's the same as devolving.

"Devolving" is a joke by a 1980s pop group. Did you actually believe it meant something in biology? Seriously?

You see, if mutational load isn't mitigated, the genome of the population devolves until the population eventually dies a horrible extinction.

It's your belief, but of course, it's not part of science. Perhaps you don't know what Devo meant by "devolution." What do you think it means? Hint: it doesn't mean "mutational load."

Mutational load is the total genetic burden in a population resulting from accumulated deleterious mutations. It is a kind of genetic load.

It can be thought of as a balance between selection against a deleterious gene and its production by mutation. At the equilibrium, a dominant deleterious mutation has a frequency of m/s, where m is the mutation rate and s is the selective disadvantage of the mutation.

In this case the mutational load can be calculated to be equal to the mutation rate. The load expresses the fact that individuals are dying because of the deleterious mutations that arise. The population carries a load of deleterious mutations, which reduce the average fitness of its members.
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Mutational_load.asp

Barbarian observes:
I showed you two models that did. No point in denial. You've have to come to terms with the facts.

The model that works the best, ev,

Show everyone how your model works better than the ones used by biologists.

doesn't work at all.

Does that suggest to you, why other models are used by people who actually understand the subject?

Shannon did want to reduce the impact of noise.

When sending messages.

Why?

Because that's a different purpose. Information, in a biological system, is not for exact replication. In fact, a biological system has built-in error systems that function only as adaptive mechanisms. Mutation rates, in stable populations are optimal for the environment.

All communications systems have the property that they are important to living organisms. That is, too much sphere overlap is detrimental. In contrast, although the continuously changing microstates of a physical system, such as a rock on the moon or a solar prominence, can be represented by one or more thermal noise spheres, these spheres may overlap, and there is no consequence because there is no reproduction and there are no future generations. A living organism with a nonfunctional communication system is unlikely to have progeny, so its genome may disappear.

Shannon's crucial concept was that the spheres must not intersect in a communications system, and from this he built the channel capacity formula and theorem. But, at its root, the concept that the spheres must be separated is a biological criterion that does not apply to physical systems in general. Although it is well known that Shannon's uncertainty measure is similar to the entropy function, the channel capacity and its theorem are rarely, if ever, mentioned in thermodynamics or physics, perhaps because these aspects of information theory are about biology, so no direct application could be found in those fields. Since he used a property of biology to formulate his mathematics, I conclude that Claude Shannon was doing biology and was therefore, effectively, a biologist—although he was probably unaware of it.

It is not surprising that Shannon's mathematics can be fruitfully applied to understanding biological systems [7], [8], [14]. Models built with information theory methods can be used to characterize the patterns in DNA or RNA to which proteins and other molecules bind [15]-[19] and even can be used to predict if a change to the DNA will cause a genetic disease in humans [20], [21]. Further information about molecular information theory is available at the Web site http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/.

What are the implications of the idea that Shannon was doing biology? First, it means that communications systems and molecular biology are headed on a collision course. As electrical circuits approach molecular sizes, the results of molecular biologists can be used to guide designs [22], [23]. We might envision a day when communications and biology are treated as a single field. Second, codes discovered for communications potentially teach us new biology if we find the same codes in a biological system. Finally, the reverse is also to be anticipated: discoveries in molecular biology about systems that have been refined by evolution for billions of years should tell us how to build new and more efficient communications systems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538977/

I think, if you spent the time necessary to understand the mathematics behind Shannon's work, this wouldn't be a mystery to you. Worth a try?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"]Mutational load is the total genetic burden in a population resulting from accumulated deleterious mutations. It is a kind of genetic load.

It can be thought of as a balance between selection against a deleterious gene and its production by mutation. At the equilibrium, a dominant deleterious mutation has a frequency of m/s, where m is the mutation rate and s is the selective disadvantage of the mutation.

In this case the mutational load can be calculated to be equal to the mutation rate. The load expresses the fact that individuals are dying because of the deleterious mutations that arise. The population carries a load of deleterious mutations, which reduce the average fitness of its members.
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Mutational_load.asp

Which is perfectly consistent with God creating a perfect genome with Adam and Eve, and having it degrade over millennia.

You've have to come to terms with the facts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which is perfectly consistent with God creating a perfect genome with Adam and Eve, and having it degrade over millennia.

No, that won't work. Here's why:

Adam and Eve could have had, at most, four alleles between them. Yet there are hundreds of useful alleles in humans today. All the rest of them evolved after Adam and Eve. The EPAS gene, for example, permitting humans to live at very high altitudes. The Milano Mutation, which provides immunity to hardening of the arteries (and we know who first had that mutation; wasn't Adam or Eve). There are many, many more.

Your confusion is in imagining a "perfect" genome. In fact, a genome's fitness only counts in terms of the environment. Adam and Eve lived in a very forgiving environment; many of us today do not. And so our genomes are more fit for those environments than those of Adam and Eve.

Those are the facts. Learn to live with them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interesting idea, "devolution" applied to creationism. What exactly do creationists mean by "devolution?" It has a technical meaning in government, but that's probably not what they are thinking of.

(Barbarian researches)

Well, there's the old creationist misconception of evolution as "progress." Hence the attachment to this cartoon:

Ironically, it was first published by an author who did it to debunk the idea. F. Clark Howell, explicitly explained that the evolution of mankind probably wasn’t a progressive process. Nevertheless, it took hold because it was simple and a lot easier to imagine than the actual process of evolution. So you see it a lot in creationist writings, represented as evolutionary theory.

And logically enough, if evolution is a ladder of progress, it should be possible to climb back down the ladder. Hence:

And commenting on the decline of American politicians:

Or polemics:

So intrinsically, there's the notion of a ladder of progress that can just as easily reverse to produce something "less progressive." But a degenerating human gemome wouldn't produce an ape, just a degenerate human. There's no way back.

There is, of course, the fact that "information" or "complexity" does not have to increase by evolution. It's quite possible that that evolution might decrease either or both of these, in the process of increasing fitness. Mammals, for example, have a simpler lower jaw, shoulders, and ribs than earlier tetrapods. And the amount of information in a genome is now guide to the fitness or the complexity of an organism. Humans have much less DNA than many other organisms.

So it appears that the notion of "devolution" is based on a serious misconception about the way evolution works.

And this sums it up pretty well, except, of course, religion doesn't usually deny science:

 

[Stripe]

What exactly do creationists mean by "devolution?"

We know why Barbarian doesn't want to just acknowledge what he has been told we mean.

 

[Yorzhik]

I merely pointed out that your claim about geneticists concerned about "devolution" was without substance. As I predicted, you were unable to find even one who has said so. And I showed you how Shannon's theorem works in biology. As we discussed, you're still unable to even apply the math to a biological system.

Geneticists are concerned with mutational load, which is what devolution is if mutational load isn't mitigated.

Since you gave up making a cogent argument, and went straight to attempted ridicule, you're clearly projecting again.
Usually you abandon honest conversation in that manner.

I've been providing relevant evidence that you've been ignoring.

Everyone got it. You were upset and trolling, after you were unable to find even one geneticist who said anything about "devolution."

I've provided the relevant quotes that show geneticists realize that mutational load will result in devolution if it isn't somehow explained away.

It's your belief, but of course, it's not part of science. Perhaps you don't know what Devo meant by "devolution." What do you think it means? Hint: it doesn't mean "mutational load."

Devolution is short for the breaking down of the information of life so that populations beceome less fit over time. It's what happens when mutational load accumulates in DNA (and other epigenetic information carriers between generations).

Mutational load is the total genetic burden in a population resulting from accumulated deleterious mutations. It is a kind of genetic load.

It can be thought of as a balance between selection against a deleterious gene and its production by mutation. At the equilibrium, a dominant deleterious mutation has a frequency of m/s, where m is the mutation rate and s is the selective disadvantage of the mutation.

In this case the mutational load can be calculated to be equal to the mutation rate. The load expresses the fact that individuals are dying because of the deleterious mutations that arise. The population carries a load of deleterious mutations, which reduce the average fitness of its members.
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Mutational_load.asp

Reduced average fitness and devolution are the same thing.

Barbarian observes:
I showed you two models that did. No point in denial. You've have to come to terms with the facts.

Show everyone how your model works better than the ones used by biologists.

Does that suggest to you, why other models are used by people who actually understand the subject?

Biologists have worked hard to make a computer program that models common descent. Their best attempt so far is a program called "Ev", but it doesn't work.

There hasn't been another model that works better, but if you know of one let us know the name.

When sending messages.

Biology includes messages not only between generations, but for every facet of life. These functional messages have to be preserved between generations, too.

Because that's a different purpose. Information, in a biological system, is not for exact replication. In fact, a biological system has built-in error systems that function only as adaptive mechanisms. Mutation rates, in stable populations are optimal for the environment.

All communications systems have the property that they are important to living organisms. That is, too much sphere overlap is detrimental. In contrast, although the continuously changing microstates of a physical system, such as a rock on the moon or a solar prominence, can be represented by one or more thermal noise spheres, these spheres may overlap, and there is no consequence because there is no reproduction and there are no future generations. A living organism with a nonfunctional communication system is unlikely to have progeny, so its genome may disappear.

Shannon's crucial concept was that the spheres must not intersect in a communications system, and from this he built the channel capacity formula and theorem. But, at its root, the concept that the spheres must be separated is a biological criterion that does not apply to physical systems in general. Although it is well known that Shannon's uncertainty measure is similar to the entropy function, the channel capacity and its theorem are rarely, if ever, mentioned in thermodynamics or physics, perhaps because these aspects of information theory are about biology, so no direct application could be found in those fields. Since he used a property of biology to formulate his mathematics, I conclude that Claude Shannon was doing biology and was therefore, effectively, a biologist—although he was probably unaware of it.

It is not surprising that Shannon's mathematics can be fruitfully applied to understanding biological systems [7], [8], [14]. Models built with information theory methods can be used to characterize the patterns in DNA or RNA to which proteins and other molecules bind [15]-[19] and even can be used to predict if a change to the DNA will cause a genetic disease in humans [20], [21]. Further information about molecular information theory is available at the Web site http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/.

What are the implications of the idea that Shannon was doing biology? First, it means that communications systems and molecular biology are headed on a collision course. As electrical circuits approach molecular sizes, the results of molecular biologists can be used to guide designs [22], [23]. We might envision a day when communications and biology are treated as a single field. Second, codes discovered for communications potentially teach us new biology if we find the same codes in a biological system. Finally, the reverse is also to be anticipated: discoveries in molecular biology about systems that have been refined by evolution for billions of years should tell us how to build new and more efficient communications systems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538977/

I think, if you spent the time necessary to understand the mathematics behind Shannon's work, this wouldn't be a mystery to you. Worth a try?

The programmed variation in organisms is carefully controlled by other programs. Any mutations to the code outside of the programmed variation results in mutational load.

 

[The Barbarian]

Geneticists are concerned with mutational load, which is what devolution is if mutational load isn't mitigated.

I've provided the relevant quotes that show geneticists realize that mutational load will result in devolution if it isn't somehow explained away.

So far, you've failed to show even one mentioning "devolution" as a concern. We all know why.

Devolution is short for the breaking down of the information of life

Show us your numbers for that belief. Take a genome of a European, and the genome of a Tibetan, and show us how the different alleles of the EPAS1 gene make one "broken down."

so that populations beceome less fit over time.

As you learned earlier, the mutated allele found in Tibetans make them more fit, not less. If your belief doesn't fit reality, isn't that an important clue for you?

Reduced average fitness and devolution are the same thing.

Maybe in the doctrines of YE creationism. Not in genetics.

Biologists have worked hard to make a computer program that models common descent. Their best attempt so far is a program called "Ev", but it doesn't work.

I already showed you two that work. No point in denying the fact.

Biology includes messages not only between generations, but for every facet of life.

Apply that to the mutation found in Tibetans. Explain how the fact that the "message" was changed, makes Tibetans less fit in their environment.

The programmed variation in organisms is carefully controlled by other programs. Any mutations to the code outside of the programmed variation results in mutational load.

Show us your numbers for the EPAS1 gene.

 

[Stripe]

It's pretty simple:

When a genome changes in response to the environment, that's not the result of a mutation.

Moreover, the unadapted genome has more capacity for adaptation than the adapted one.

 

[Yorzhik]

So far, you've failed to show even one mentioning "devolution" as a concern. We all know why.



Show us your numbers for that belief. Take a genome of a European, and the genome of a Tibetan, and show us how the different alleles of the EPAS1 gene make one "broken down."



As you learned earlier, the mutated allele found in Tibetans make them more fit, not less. If your belief doesn't fit reality, isn't that an important clue for you?



Maybe in the doctrines of YE creationism. Not in genetics.

Geneticists are concerned with mutational load, which is what devolution is if mutational load isn't mitigated.

I already showed you two that work. No point in denying the fact.

Biologists have worked hard to make a computer program that models common descent. Their best attempt so far is a program called "Ev", but it doesn't work.

There hasn't been another model that works better, but if you know of one let us know the name.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."

Geneticists are concerned with mutational load, which is what devolution is if mutational load isn't mitigated.

But you can't find even one cite in the literature that says so? Isn't that a wake-up call?

Biologists have worked hard to make a computer program that models common descent. Their best attempt so far is a program called "Ev", but it doesn't work.

You've been badly misled:

Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292

It works. This is the point; in living things, we see a nested hierarchy of taxa that never occur without common descent.

That is why Linnaeus, who first discovered it, was puzzled when he couldn't find the same kind of order in minerals and other natural things; it won't happen without common descent.

So some biologists, before Darwin tried to apply a scala natura to living things, applying the pagan philosophy of Neoplatonism to imagine a deity who would produce all possible life forms on a scale from lowest to highest. This became modern YE creationism, via the Seventh Day Adventists Ellen G. White and George McCready Price, who evangelized this pagan idea to the founders of the Institute for Creastion Research.

But there isn't a "ladder" of higher to lower. Mollusks were considered quite low by the creationist, but comparing an octopus to a lamprey, it's obvious that the creationist notion of higher and lower will not fit.

There are lots of models that show phylogenetic diversity and how it forms. The above is one I haven't shown you before.

 

[The Barbarian]

And I'm still waiting on this:

Show us your numbers for that belief. Take a genome of a European, and the genome of a Tibetan, and show us how the different alleles of the EPAS1 gene make one "broken down."


If you can't even do that, what makes you think you're right about any of it?

 

[Stripe]

And I'm still waiting on this:

Show us your numbers for that belief. Take a genome of a European, and the genome of a Tibetan, and show us how the different alleles of the EPAS1 gene make one "broken down."


If you can't even do that, what makes you think you're right about any of it?

Take a planet and sew it onto a black hole. What? You can't? Your Darwinism must be wrong.

 

[ok doser]

Ahhhhhh

Poetry.

 

[Yorzhik]

(Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."

Wiki points out the obvious: "High genetic load may put a population in danger of extinction"

But you can't find even one cite in the literature that says so? Isn't that a wake-up call?

I just did. Again.

You've been badly misled:

Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292

It works. This is the point; in living things, we see a nested hierarchy of taxa that never occur without common descent.

That is why Linnaeus, who first discovered it, was puzzled when he couldn't find the same kind of order in minerals and other natural things; it won't happen without common descent.

So some biologists, before Darwin tried to apply a scala natura to living things, applying the pagan philosophy of Neoplatonism to imagine a deity who would produce all possible life forms on a scale from lowest to highest. This became modern YE creationism, via the Seventh Day Adventists Ellen G. White and George McCready Price, who evangelized this pagan idea to the founders of the Institute for Creastion Research.

But there isn't a "ladder" of higher to lower. Mollusks were considered quite low by the creationist, but comparing an octopus to a lamprey, it's obvious that the creationist notion of higher and lower will not fit.

There are lots of models that show phylogenetic diversity and how it forms. The above is one I haven't shown you before.

This program, like the others you've shown, are not computer models of common descent. The latest computer model of common descent is called "Ev", and it fails. There hasn't been a successful computer model for common descent. Or are you saying Ev is not a computer model for common descent?

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."

(Yorzhik still can't find one)

Kind of a wake-up, isn't it? And no, as you learned, none of those quotes even mentions "devolution." Why not just admit you're never going to find a geneticist who says what you claim?

(Yorzhik denies computer simulation of common descent is a computer simulation of common descent)

There's a pattern showing up here...

Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292


In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree)—a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the 'end', or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. A phylogenetic tree can be rooted or unrooted. A rooted tree indicates the common ancestor, or ancestral lineage, of the tree. An unrooted tree makes no assumption about the ancestral line, and does not show the origin or "root" of the gene or organism in question.[5] Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

If you don't get that, then you're as lost as a guy who flunked algebra, trying to understand vector analysis.

Read the article and learn. Hint: "Phylogenesis" is common descent.

 

[Yorzhik]

(Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."

(Yorzhik still can't find one)

Kind of a wake-up, isn't it? And no, as you learned, none of those quotes even mentions "devolution." Why not just admit you're never going to find a geneticist who says what you claim?

Since mutational load, and genetic load, gets a lot of attention from geneticists we have a lot of information on just what devolution is. Geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will devolve.

(Yorzhik denies computer simulation of common descent is a computer simulation of common descent)

There's a pattern showing up here...

Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292


In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree)—a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the 'end', or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. A phylogenetic tree can be rooted or unrooted. A rooted tree indicates the common ancestor, or ancestral lineage, of the tree. An unrooted tree makes no assumption about the ancestral line, and does not show the origin or "root" of the gene or organism in question.[5] Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

If you don't get that, then you're as lost as a guy who flunked algebra, trying to understand vector analysis.

Read the article and learn. Hint: "Phylogenesis" is common descent.

A Phylogenetic Analysis is not a computer simulation of common descent. Ev is, as far as I know, the latest attempt at making a computer model of common descent and it fails. The reason another hasn't been attempted is because they can't even speculate how to model common descent.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since mutational load, and genetic load, gets a lot of attention from geneticists we have a lot of information on just what devolution is. Geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will devolve.

That's what you claimed. But when asked to show even one geneticist who said so, you couldn't do it. So we can only conclude there aren't any.

Or have you found one, now? Show us what you've got.

 

[Stripe]

That's what you claimed. But when asked to show even one geneticist who said so, you couldn't do it. So we can only conclude there aren't any.

Or have you found one, now? Show us what you've got.

:troll: