The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[Jose Fly]

I´ll say that it is simply dishonest to simply assert that a bunch of papers contradict my view, why don’t you quote the relevant portions of 1 of the papers?

I didn't say "they contradict your view". I said they are listed as being among the published papers that criticized Shaprio's NGE.

You can choose to read them or not.

BTW all this papers refute evolution...............so reed them all and refute each one of them, untill then I win by default.

Um.....are you drunk? Google Scholar search results for "The Cactus Family"?

 

[leroy]

I didn't say "they contradict your view". I said they are listed as being among the published papers that criticized Shaprio's NGE.

You can choose to read them or not.

Again, the wiki article summarizes the criticism from multiple authors, none of these critiques are relevant to the points that I am making in this thread. If you disagree please feel free to quote the primary source.



but sure the answer to your question is No I haven’t read all the papers that have been written on the subject,

While Shapiro developed NGE in the peer-reviewed literature, the idea attracted far more attention when he summarized his work in his book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. [8] In part due to its discussion of the Intelligent Design movement, the book was widely and critically reviewed.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Criticism falls into two main categories:

1. The theory crosses the line into teleology, a line exemplified by the review written by Larry Moran.[17] The form of Shapiro's argument has points of resemblance to several creationist arguments to the effect that observed biology cannot be explained by a combination of "random" (undirected) mutation and natural selection. One of the many standard responses to these arguments is that biology can be sufficiently explained without invoking higher causes. Shapiro's view differs significantly from that of creationists, not the least because his higher causes exist only at the level of cellular machinery. However, to a critic unpersuaded of the need for higher causes, it is not persuasive to substitute material higher causes for the supernatural.
2. Shapiro does not give a fair reading of the central dogma. Shapiro's reading of the central dogma requires that only random mutations can be the root of evolutionary change. If this reading is correct, then, ignoring the looseness of such an application of the term "random", the several mechanisms identified by Shapiro (e.g., epigenetics) do indeed falsify this theory. However, Crick and geneticists in general had long been well aware of the existence of mutagens at the time of the formulation and restatement of the central dogma, and in fact before the discovery of the mechanisms of biological heredity.[27] A more conservative interpretation, in the words of Marshall Nirenberg, is simply that "DNA makes RNA makes protein."[28] Under this reading, proteins would not be expected to modify DNA, but Shapiro provides multiple examples of where this occurs, including histone modification, mutagenic subclasses of excision and repair enzymes, extensive regulation of mobile genetic elements, and various classes of RNA regulation, and direct modification of nucleotides via cytosine methylation and enzymatic deamination.[29]

Um.....are you drunk? Google Scholar search results for "The Cactus Family"?

yes the cactus familly refutes evolutivo. If you dont refute each of these artciles I win

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, the wiki article summarizes the criticism from multiple authors, none of these critiques are relevant to the points that I am making in this thread. If you disagree please feel free to quote the primary source.

Again, you're just making excuses for not bothering to even look at the papers cited. I mean, we're talking a literal mouse click, something that takes less than a second, and you won't even do that.

Do you think that's how scientists operate? When a colleague cites papers to them, they refuse to even look at them and demand the other scientist pull out the relevant parts for them?

FYI.....they don't. When a colleague sends me citations, I'm expected to at least look at them, get their gist, and respond accordingly. If I responded with a bunch of excuses for why I won't even look at them, I'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

But as the saying goes, you can lead a creationist to information but you can't make them think.

but sure the answer to your question is No I haven’t read all the papers that have been written on the subject

Have you read Shapiro's book?

yes the cactus familly refutes evolutivo. If you dont refute each of these artciles I win

Grow up Leroy.

 

[leroy]

Again, you're just making excuses for not bothering to even look at the papers cited. I mean, we're talking a literal mouse click, something that takes less than a second, and you won't even do that.

Do you think that's how scientists operate? When a colleague cites papers to them, they refuse to even look at them and demand the other scientist pull out the relevant parts for them?

FYI.....they don't. When a colleague sends me citations, I'm expected to at least look at them, get their gist, and respond accordingly. If I responded with a bunch of excuses for why I won't even look at them, I'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

. I am not reading the papers for the same reason you won’t read my cactus papers, there are not even good reasons to think that they are relevant for any of the points that have been made in this thread.

FYI.....they don't. When a colleague sends me citations, I'm expected to at least look at them,

But if a college disagrees with you, at least you would appreciate if he tells you on what point does he disagrees and why.

But as the saying goes, you can lead a creationist to information but you can't make them think.

Then lead me to the information,

Have you read Shapiro's book?

No I have read some of the papers, but not the book

Which by the way most (if not all) the criticism concerns the book, not the papers.

 

[tas8831]

Well what kind of evidence would you accept for “directed mutations” ?

ACTUAL evidence.

if peer reviewed articles are not enough then what would be good enough for you?

You mean the peer reviewed articles in which the earlier claims of 'directed mutation' were in effect retracted?

Why isent this article good enough for you?


This paper supports these 2 claims

1 organism can rearrange their DNA

2 This process is not random

No, it doesn't.

That is the major issue with people like you - you do not actually understand what you read.

Please note that it came out in February 1992. I referred to a paper from 2014 that - via actual research, not Shapiro's extrapolations - that what had earlier been thought to be directed mutations were actually illusions.

Shapiro seems to lump all manner of phenomena into his 'rearrangement' of the genome. For example, he considers exon shuffling to be 'genome rearrangements.'

These sorts of 'rearrangements' are not "directed", and they are only "nonrandom" in that, in terms of transposon-mediated exon shuffling for example, specific DNA sequences are involved. As I explained earlier, such sites are, literally, all over the genome. That on occasion some of this shuffling confers a benefic should not be a surprise. Remember when I told you about my experiment and I found thousands of binding sites in just part of one chromosome, and you dismissed it because you did not understand the implication?

Further - the term "nonrandom" or non-random" does not even occur in that paper.

He did mention "directed mutation" - but I hope you can accept that that concept is moot as I provided actual research on that which post-dates Shapiro's paper by almost 15 years. In fact, Shapiro writes:

"In some cases, we know that there is regulation from genetic analysis even though the molecular components have not yet been identified. Two good examples are the 'directed mutation' phenomenon in bacteria and hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila.
(a) There have been numerous published and unpublished reports that prolonged incubation of bacteria under selective conditions triggers mutagenic processes ('directed mutation') that allow
the formation of mutant clones capable of growth (Shapiro, 1984; Cairns et al., 1988; Hall, 1988).
The results from various systems are quite consistent in showing that the frequencies of mutational events (base substitutions, frameshifts, excisions, fusions) increase by orders of magnitude under selection or related kinds of stress (Mittler & Lenski, 1990)."​

Please note the name I bolded in red.
It was one of Cairns' collaborators that I cited previously, having found that their initial impressions were in error.

THAT is why I do not accept those claims.

So why isn’t the paper good enough to support these 2 claims? What else do you need in order to grant these 2 claims?

See above - now please update your copy-paste archive, purge it of Shapiro's speculative and refuted claims.

 

[tas8831]

BTW all this papers refute evolution...............so reed them all and refute each one of them, untill then I win by default.

1. Backeberg C

(1966) Das Kakteenlexicon (Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart).
Google Scholar
[*]

You speak German and have read that 55 year old book? Amazing.

 

[Jose Fly]

. I am not reading the papers for the same reason you won’t read my cactus papers, there are not even good reasons to think that they are relevant for any of the points that have been made in this thread.

There's a Wiki page that cites those cactus papers as examples of criticism of evolution? Where?

But if a college disagrees with you, at least you would appreciate if he tells you on what point does he disagrees and why.

Not always. I've had more senior colleagues do little more than say "I think you should look at these".......and I do.

Then lead me to the information

Good grief man, what is wrong with you? I showed you specifically where to get them: citations 17-26 on the Wiki page on Natural Genetic Engineering.

No I have read some of the papers, but not the book

Which by the way most (if not all) the criticism concerns the book, not the papers.

Which papers have you read?

 

[Bear Wild]

BTW all this papers refute evolution...............so reed them all and refute each one of them, untill then I win by default.

Please do me the favor, since you know these articles so well, and explain how any or those articles refute evolutions. I pulled up what I could and am at a complete loss as to how you came to your conclusion.

 

[Bear Wild]

You speak German and have read that 55 year old book? Amazing.

I didn't see anything in what I could pull up to even remotely support what he is claiming. Or did I miss something?

 

[Bear Wild]

1 organism can rearrange their DNA

2 This process is not random

These have been known for a long time in genetics. The directed aspect that is described by some does not refer to an external agent directing anything. It is still natural reactions to the environment they are arguing on. The processes that Shapiro identifies has been misused by the ID people. The problem is all in the intentional misleading conclusions brought forth by the ID people. There is no complex intelligence operating in his proposal but unfortunately when you use a word like engineering people who do not understand the concepts presented immediately see human like intelligence therefor god like intelligence at work since humans are engineers and design. There is no intelligence or god acting in Shapiros proposal. There are only desperate ID people misusing words of other scientific proposals because they lack anything to support there. I have heard the term decision making at the cellular level but to interpret that as like human decision making is a mistake made out of ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't see anything in what I could pull up to even remotely support what he is claiming. Or did I miss something?

He's just trolling and being a jerk in that post.

 

[leroy]

Please do me the favor, since you know these articles so well, and explain how any or those articles refute evolutions. I pulled up what I could and am at a complete loss as to how you came to your conclusion.

I am being sarcastic.

@Jose Fly Claimed that my points are refuted in a bunch of articles that he quoted, but is unable to quote the text that supposedly refutes my points.

My point is that it is dishonest and lazy to simply quote articles without context and without quoting the relevant text

 

[leroy]

Not always. I've had more senior colleagues do little more than say "I think you should look at these".......and I do.

You would only read those papers if you have good reasons to think that your college is being honest. And that he sincerely believes that the papers are relevant.

What you are doing is just throwing 9 random papers that you have read, so that you can claim victory i}until I read them

Good grief man, what is wrong with you? I showed you specifically where to get them: citations 17-26 on the Wiki page on Natural Genetic Engineering.

and I read the wiki article and responded to it.

If you think there is relevant point that was not addressed on the wiki article please share it.

]Which papers have you read?

The ones that I have quoted in this tread for example.

 

[Jose Fly]

You would only read those papers if you have good reasons to think that your college is being honest. And that he sincerely believes that the papers are relevant.

What you are doing is just throwing 9 random papers that you have read, so that you can claim victory i}until I read them

I've not "claimed victory". If you don't want to read the papers you requested, what do I care? It's not like you're the first creationist to challenge people to show you information only to ignore it when it's provided. In fact, it's pretty stereotypical creationist behavior.

If you refuse to even click a link and at least glance through the papers, that's your issue, not mine.

 

[tas8831]

I didn't see anything in what I could pull up to even remotely support what he is claiming. Or did I miss something?

Nope. He seems to be a search-n-poster.

 

[leroy]

I've not "claimed victory". If you don't want to read the papers you requested, what do I care? It's not like you're the first creationist to challenge people to show you information only to ignore it when it's provided. In fact, it's pretty stereotypical creationist behavior.

If you refuse to even click a link and at least glance through the papers, that's your issue, not mine.

I´ll say that this is typical atheist behavior, claim that an articles refutes your view, but refure to quote the actual text.

 

[tas8831]

I really don’t know if the any of the articles refute the specific claims that I made about Shapiro, because all I did was read a summery.(I didn’t read the complete articles)

From the summery, none of my claims are refuted or even questioned.

That does not come close to answering my question, which was How is it that YOU know Shapiro's claims are correct?

Oh - and don't forget this response.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
1 organism can rearrange their DNA

2 This process is not random

These have been known for a long time in genetics.

Yes I know, but for some reason people like @Jose Fly or @tas8831 are unable to learn and Acknowledge this simple and widely known fact.

The directed aspect that is described by some does not refer to an external agent directing anything. It is still natural reactions to the environment they are arguing on. The processes that Shapiro identifies has been misused by the ID people. The problem is all in the intentional misleading conclusions brought forth by the ID people.

And I did my best to be careful and avoid those misleading conclusions.

 

[leroy]

That does not come close to answering my question, which was How is it that YOU know Shapiro's claims are correct?

Oh - and don't forget this response.

I don’t know with certainty that he is correct, but the fact that he has multiple peer reviewed articles strongly suggest that he is correct.

You haven’t answered my question.

If peer reviewed articles are not enough to support my claims, then what else do you expect?

 

[Jose Fly]

I´ll say that this is typical atheist behavior, claim that an articles refutes your view, but refure to quote the actual text.

I never said the articles "refute" anything.

If peer reviewed articles are not enough to support my claims, then what else do you expect?

You can't be serious. On one hand you claim the mere fact that an idea you support is published in a peer-reviewed paper is sufficient to show that the idea is valid, but when provided peer-review papers that criticize the same idea you wave them away and refuse to even look at them.

I'm done here, because the phrase "too stupid to bother with" won't leave my mind.