The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why don’t you stop dancing around, accept your burden proof and explain how could a difference of 60M “letters” can be explained using evolutionary theory.

Reproduce
mutate
survive
repeat

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or how a bit of simple math makes creationist nonsense look like the nonsense that it is.

He thought he had such a good argument but when it failed using his own poor numbers he had to pretend that the response was never given.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He thought he had such a good argument but when it failed using his own poor numbers he had to pretend that the response was never given.

Which is so surprising because he usually never does that!

 

[leroy]

[

FYI: for a mutation to achieve fixation, it takes plenty of generations to spread from the individual where the mutation occured, to +80% of ALL individuals of a population.

So why on earth would you think this could happen in 30 years?

I had my first kid when I was 36

No it can't happen that's the point that I am making.

I am glad we agree on this too.

 

[leroy]

He thought he had such a good argument but when it failed using his own poor numbers he had to pretend that the response was never given.

But you can't quote any comment where the response was given right ?

 

[leroy]

At this point you need to find evidence why natural selection and variation is not enough. Hand waving does not count as evidence.

Do you realize that the burden proof in on the guy who affirms that random mutations and natural selection is enough?

The question is are you that guy? Just kidding I know that you will not answer to this question

 

[leroy]

Or how a bit of simple math makes creationist nonsense look like the nonsense that it is.

Well the I invite you to do the "correct math" spot my errors and substitute it for the correct value !!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

[

No it can't happen that's the point that I am making.

I am glad we agree on this too.

That's the equivalent of agreeing that if I drop my keys, they will fall to earth instead of shooting into space.

You're becoming quite proficient at stating the obvious while pretending you're making some kind of relevant point.

Why would you make the point that fixation of a mutation in humans can't happen in 30 years, when there is nobody who claims otherwise?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you realize that the burden proof in on the guy who affirms that random mutations and natural selection is enough?

The question is are you that guy? Just kidding I know that you will not answer to this question

Every agriculture program, every breeding program, every lab experiment, every observation in the wild, every genome sequenced, every genetic algoritm shows that it is enough.

That is.... assuming that by "natural selection" we mean it in broad terms, to also include things like sexual selection and other such sub-processes and extra variables - all of which are natural.

Perhaps the burden of proof should be on the one who claims that something extra is required?
Or is that person exempt from a burden of proof, because that person happens to be you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well the I invite you to do the "correct math" spot my errors and substitute it for the correct value !!!

@Subduction Zone already did that.


Alternatively, you could supply your own math which you think makes your point...

But I know already that you won't do that. ;-)

 

[leroy]

That's the equivalent of agreeing that if I drop my keys, they will fall to earth instead of shooting into space.

You're becoming quite proficient at stating the obvious while pretending you're making some kind of relevant point.

Why would you make the point that fixation of a mutation in humans can't happen in 30 years, when there is nobody who claims otherwise?

well thats the point that I made to @tas8831


We can ask him directly.

Tas, do you agree that mutations in primates don’t become fixed and dominat in 30 years (you need much more time)

 

[leroy]

Every agriculture program, every breeding program, every lab experiment, every observation in the wild, every genome sequenced, every genetic algoritm shows that it is enough.

That is.... assuming that by "natural selection" we mean it in broad terms, to also include things like sexual selection and other such sub-processes and extra variables - all of which are natural.

Perhaps the burden of proof should be on the one who claims that something extra is required?
Or is that person exempt from a burden of proof, because that person happens to be you?

Ok you can you provide your proof that random mutations and natural selection by themselves can explain the differences between chimps and humans?

We are talking about 2% of the genome in just 5M years………..this is super-fast evolution for creatures with slow reproductive cycles like primates , which is why I (and other scientists) suggest that other mechanisms could play a role (for example perhaps mutations are not random)

 

[leroy]

@Subduction Zone already did that.


Alternatively, you could supply your own math which you think makes your point...

But I know already that you won't do that. ;-)

Then please quote the comment where made the correct math

My math

- The human/chimp genome is 3B base pairs long

- The difference between chimps and humans is said to be 2%

- 2% of 2billion is 60,000

The math seems to be correct, but feel free to find any errors.

 

[Bear Wild]

Then please quote the comment where made the correct math

My math

- The human/chimp genome is 3B base pairs long

- The difference between chimps and humans is said to be 2%

- 2% of 2billion is 60,000

The math seems to be correct, but feel free to find any errors.

In your math did you include the functional differences that are not associated with the immune system by any chance. When you figure out that number the come back with your math and we can talk about it. You will see your big number dwindle to a very small difference. You can of course ignore what is real and stay in you fantasy but the true differences that are important in phenotypic and physiologic changes is truly small. Yes we are related to the other apes after all.

 

[Bear Wild]

Do you realize that the burden proof in on the guy who affirms that random mutations and natural selection is enough?

Can you at least be up to date and inclusive in the theory of evolution before make pointless statements. Random mutation is only on part of a vast way of genetic and epigenetic factors that create change in species and are influenced by natural selection. There is more than enough to explain the changes we see.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ok you can you provide your proof that random mutations and natural selection by themselves can explain the differences between chimps and humans?

Again random mutation is just one of many genetic influences. You only focus on this because of the word random and ignore all of the other evidence. Same old misuse of words by the ID fellowship of deniers. You go for an untestable explanation with no evidence instead and then rant about how much evidence is not present. I cannot keep up with all of the new advances that are continuing support evolution. Your responses show you are not even trying.

 

[leroy]

In your math did you include the functional differences that are not associated with the immune system by any chance. When you figure out that number the come back with your math and we can talk about it. You will see your big number dwindle to a very small difference. You can of course ignore what is real and stay in you fantasy but the true differences that are important in phenotypic and physiologic changes is truly small. Yes we are related to the other apes after all.

Ok then please provide the correct math

 

[leroy]

Can you at least be up to date and inclusive in the theory of evolution before make pointless statements. Random mutation is only on part of a vast way of genetic and epigenetic factors that create change in species and are influenced by natural selection. There is more than enough to explain the changes we see.

Yes that is and has always been my point.

But people like @TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone seem to disagree with us

 

[leroy]

Again random mutation is just one of many genetic influences. You only focus on this because of the word random and ignore all of the other evidence. Same old misuse of words by the ID fellowship of deniers. You go for an untestable explanation with no evidence instead and then rant about how much evidence is not present. I cannot keep up with all of the new advances that are continuing support evolution. Your responses show you are not even trying.

What are you talking about?

I am the one who is in claiming that there are other mechanisms (apart from random mutations) that play an important role in evolution .

 

[Bear Wild]

What are you talking about?

I am the one who is in claiming that there are other mechanisms (apart from random mutations) that play an important role in evolution .

Of course there are other genetic components to evolution. Random mutations create the primary changes but in terms of phenotypic expression there are other important genetic and epigenetic factors at work. All supporting the theory of evolution. Mutations are critical for evolution but even sexual selection not just natural selection plays a role. But no matter what process that occurs, it all supports the theory and no other theory.