...and why would we expect a new sequence of random mutations along with natural selection of those mutations to produce the SAME phenotypic result again? Is this your flawed understanding of "repeatable"?<quoted text>
I agree with Feynman and just based on THAT alone
Evolutionary wishful thinking should be relegated the significance it deserves...
INTO THE DUST BIN OF FAILED PSEUDOSCIENCE
Same authors as you have referenced in your post, however a more recent paper:
"Here, we expand this approach to demonstrate that when replicate lineages are initiated from the ...
SAME MUTANT GENOTYPE....
same mutant genotype, phenotypic evolution is only sometimes repeatable.
How about this: Its a repeatable experiment that a fair coin tossed 1000 times will produce approximately 500 heads and 500 tails. However, you could do the experiment 100 times and its exceedingly unlikely that you would ever have the SAME sequence (e.g. HHTHHTTTTH etc) repeated twice.
WHAT is repeatable? Recovery.
WHAT is unique? The particular random sequence of mutations available for selection, that drive each recovery event.
...and any significant degree of recovery AT ONCE falsifies Sanford's hypothesis that genetic entropy is a one-way street that natural selection cannot reverse.
They would not HAVE to ALWAYS recover fitness to falsify Sanford. That they should do so EVER, is enough to falsify Sanford's genetic entropy hypothesis as laid out in his book.MA genotypes -------Russell here: read wild type------ that recovered ancestral fitness in the previous experiment did not always do so here.
And the problem is?Further, the pattern of adaptive evolution in independently evolved replicates was contingent upon the MA genotype and varied among fitness-related traits.
The very first sentence there completely falsifies Sanford. The rest is exactly what you would expect in a process where the source of new variation is random and of course the previous "historical loss of fitness", the starting point, is unique too.Our findings suggest that new beneficial mutations can drive rapid fitness evolution, but that the adaptive process is rendered somewhat unpredictable by its susceptibility to chance events and sensitivity to the evolutionary history of the starting population."
Actually, EXACTLY as I like. Because IF the process yielded exactly the same results every time, it would be evidence AGAINST non-directed, randomly sourced evolutionary change. In fact if the response was the same every time, we would then suspect that the driving force was a pre-programmed adaptive response, NOT evolutionary adaptation.Not quite so cut and dried as you may like...
So thanks, you have merely offered further confirmation that both
1. Sanford was falsified and
2. Evolution is a process driven by random genetic change, not pre-programmed adaptation.
And I am even bothering to argue with a YEC nutcase because? Until you get over that bit of Santa Clausery, I cannot even see the point of arguing any other SCIENCE with you.