The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[shunyadragon]

My intend in this thread is not proving intelligent design, but rather provide evidence against Darwinism (organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and NS)

The evidence for intelligent design come from other arguments. (fine tuning , specified complexity, irreducible complexity etc.).

By definition evolution not Darwinism claim that organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and NS. Random nor non-random mutations are not part of the definition for evolution nor Darwinism nor do they determine the outcome of evolutionary processes. Evolution takes place through changing environment with Natural Selection.

I personally admit that evolution represents a victory of atheism over theism.(atheism won that fight, but theist are still winning the war)… this is a common saying in Spanish, hopefully it makes sense in English too.

The science of evolution is simply based on the objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical world and is neutral to whether God exists of Not. I am a theist and a scientist that supports the sciences of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

I personally accept that evolution probably occurs naturally.

Needs further explanation.

 

[leroy]

By your logic, so have everything I have claimed. You are arguing like a child. Now stamp your feet, run off for a bit, then come back making the same old claims. Like you usually do.

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

So what, none of the papers that you quoted refute (or even attempt to refute) Shapiro………………………but don’t worry I know you will come back in 6 months claiming that you already refuted Shapiro

 

[leroy]

By definition evolution not Darwinism claim that organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and NS. Random nor non-random mutations are not part of the definition for evolution nor Darwinism nor do they determine the outcome of evolutionary processes. Evolution takes place through changing environment with Natural Selection.

We´ve been over this before, this is just semantics, but the main contribution that Darwini made was “random variation” that is the main difference between Darwin and Lamarck

Needs further explanation.

I view evolution as a Rube Golber machine,. The dominos that fall and hit the ball so that the ball can turn un a switch are analogous to natural laws.

But the machine itself is designed with a goal in mind

 

[shunyadragon]

We´ve been over this before, this is just semantics, but the main contribution that Darwini made was “random variation” that is the main difference between Darwin and Lamarck.

Yes we have and this is not true. I defined Lamarckian, and that is not the reason for the difference. Random variation was not ever proposed by Charles Darwin caused anything, because he knew nothing about genetics. Charles Darwin proposed variation in changes in the species was due to selective pressure due environmental change, ie survival of the fittest. Charles Darwin's main contribution of his thesis is variation was due to Natural selection and survival of the fittest caused by changes in the environment

As previously cited there is not anything in Charles Darwin's proposal nor in the definition of the Darwinian Theory that random variation caused anything.

Lamarck proposed: What Lamarck Believed — New England Complex Systems Institute

Lamarck is best known for his Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, first presented in 1801 (Darwin's first book dealing with natural selection was published in 1859): If an organism changes during life in order to adapt to its environment, those changes are passed on to its offspring. He said that change is made by what the organisms want or need. For example, Lamarck believed that elephants all used to have short trunks. When there was no food or water that they could reach with their short trunks, they stretched their trunks to reach the water and branches, and their offspring inherited long trunks. Lamarck also said that body parts that are not being used, such as the human appendix and little toes are gradually disappearing. Eventually, people will be born without these parts. Lamarck also believed that evolution happens according to a predetermined plan and that the results have already been decided.

Please note Charles Darwin never proposed anything close to this.

I view evolution as a Rube Golber machine,. The dominos that fall and hit the ball so that the ball can turn one switch are analogous to natural laws.

The above is your own personal description, and not what is previously and clearly defined previously of contemporary evolution nor the evolution proposed by Charles Darwin leading to your religious agenda conclusion of Intelligent Design that follows.

Your totally neglecting the fact that Charles Darwin proposed 'Survival of the fittest' in a changing environment, therefore Natural Selection. Nothing related to 'random variation' was proposed by Charles Darwin. .

But the machine itself is designed with a goal in mind

Previously you stated you were not proposing a proof of ID. Nothing you have proposed so far is true of evolution, what Charles Darwin proposed or what Lamarck proposed.

 

[tas8831]

So what, none of the papers that you quoted refute (or even attempt to refute) Shapiro………………………but don’t worry I know you will come back in 6 months claiming that you already refuted Shapiro

YOU refuted Shapiro by providing citations to papers Shapiro relied on for his claims - papers written by people that later OVERTURNED their original conclusions by performing more expansive research. Just as I documented. That you reject this obvious undercutting of your new hero's claims is your usual thing - you've done the same with Haldane, Sanford, etc. It is your calling-card, of a sort. Once you realize you've lost on one issue, you not-so-cleverly just move on to another, hoping your 'new' hero (whom you misunderstand and misrepresent) can help you do what your other heroes did not.

I copy-paste below your abject failure:

...did you not see the dates of your citations?

2002 and 2007.

To be clear, you presented those 2 papers supposedly to counter my statement:

"No. That has not been established. Mutations - and this includes the insertions of mobile elements - occur WITHOUT the 'needs' of the organism playing a role. This was established in many research publications, one of which I cited earlier and was written by one of Cairns' (whose group published among the first papers claiming to have identified nonrandom mutations positively affecting fitness) associates."​

To be clearer, the paper I had cited earlier - by one of Cairns' collaborators and whom Shapiro had cited himself - indicates (2004):

"Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal. The first negative evidence was obtained not with FC40, but with SM195. SM195 has an amber mutation in lacZ and so reverts both by intragenic mutations and by the creation of tRNA suppressors (11). The continued appearance of extragenic suppressors during lactose selection allowed us to dismiss the hypothesis that the selective conditions “instructed” the cell to make appropriate mutations—in the case of extragenic suppressors, there is no direct path from the phenotype (Lac+) to the mutated gene (encoding a tRNA) (23). Later it was shown that about two-thirds of the late-appearing Lac+ revertants of SM195 were due to slow-growing ochre suppressors that probably arose during growth prior to lactose selection (57). Nonetheless, the continued appearance of fast-growing amber suppressors in addition to the true revertants demonstrated that mutations appear elsewhere than in the gene directly under selection (24)."​

Yet again, you cite a review article by Shapiro, one in which, as seems to be his norm, he simply combs the literature for things he thinks supports his cause. I do note that he did not cite the 2004 Foster paper. Interesting.

Another from Foster (2012):

EcoSal Plus . 2012 Nov;5(1):10.1128/ecosalplus.7.2.3. doi: 10.1128/ecosalplus.7.2.3.
Stress-Induced Mutagenesis
Ashley B Williams, Patricia L Foster
PMID: 26442828 PMCID: PMC423720

"...recent results from a variety of experimental systems suggest that mutation rates can increase in response to selective pressures. This chapter summarizes data demonstrating that, under stressful conditions, Escherichia coli and Salmonella can increase the likelihood of beneficial mutations by modulating their potential for genetic change.[NOTE - do NOT assume that this means that this paper supports the NGE crud or that it supports 'directed mutation' - indeed, they explain (see below quote) that the increased beneficial mutations are the result of overall hypermutation] Several experimental systems used to study stress-induced mutagenesis are discussed, with special emphasis on the Foster-Cairns system for "adaptive mutation" in E. coli and Salmonella. Examples from other model systems are given to illustrate that stress-induced mutagenesis is a natural and general phenomenon that is not confined to enteric bacteria. Finally, some of the controversy in the field of stress-induced mutagenesis is summarized and discussed, and a perspective on the current state of the field is provided."​

and:

"During lactose selection Lac- cells accumulate non-selected mutations, disproving the hypothesis that mutations to Lac+ are “directed” by the selective pressure (41, 76, 77, 183). The rate of accumulation of non-selected mutations is higher on the episome than on the chromosome (41, 76, 77), possibly due to more frequent episomal replication and recombination. "
​

Also of note is the brief discussion of the fact that the 'beneficial mutations' that occur in their model system occur spontaneously, and that in the hypermutation state, they increase by an order of magnitude (from 10^9 to 10^8), which sounds like a lot, but then, it happens a lot anyway.
​

Can't get much clearer than that. But you keep pretending that you've scored points for your IDC fantasies. Everyone else will see the facts.

 

[leroy]

YOU refuted Shapiro by providing citations to papers Shapiro relied on for his claims - papers written by people that later OVERTURNED their original conclusions by performing more expansive research. Just as I documented. That you reject this obvious undercutting of your new hero's claims is your usual thing - you've done the same with Haldane, Sanford, etc. It is your calling-card, of a sort. Once you realize you've lost on one issue, you not-so-cleverly just move on to another, hoping your 'new' hero (whom you misunderstand and misrepresent) can help you do what your other heroes did not.

I copy-paste below your abject failure:

...did you not see the dates of your citations?

2002 and 2007.

To be clear, you presented those 2 papers supposedly to counter my statement:

"No. That has not been established. Mutations - and this includes the insertions of mobile elements - occur WITHOUT the 'needs' of the organism playing a role. This was established in many research publications, one of which I cited earlier and was written by one of Cairns' (whose group published among the first papers claiming to have identified nonrandom mutations positively affecting fitness) associates."​

To be clearer, the paper I had cited earlier - by one of Cairns' collaborators and whom Shapiro had cited himself - indicates (2004):

"Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal. The first negative evidence was obtained not with FC40, but with SM195. SM195 has an amber mutation in lacZ and so reverts both by intragenic mutations and by the creation of tRNA suppressors (11). The continued appearance of extragenic suppressors during lactose selection allowed us to dismiss the hypothesis that the selective conditions “instructed” the cell to make appropriate mutations—in the case of extragenic suppressors, there is no direct path from the phenotype (Lac+) to the mutated gene (encoding a tRNA) (23). Later it was shown that about two-thirds of the late-appearing Lac+ revertants of SM195 were due to slow-growing ochre suppressors that probably arose during growth prior to lactose selection (57). Nonetheless, the continued appearance of fast-growing amber suppressors in addition to the true revertants demonstrated that mutations appear elsewhere than in the gene directly under selection (24)."​

Yet again, you cite a review article by Shapiro, one in which, as seems to be his norm, he simply combs the literature for things he thinks supports his cause. I do note that he did not cite the 2004 Foster paper. Interesting.

Another from Foster (2012):

EcoSal Plus . 2012 Nov;5(1):10.1128/ecosalplus.7.2.3. doi: 10.1128/ecosalplus.7.2.3.
Stress-Induced Mutagenesis
Ashley B Williams, Patricia L Foster
PMID: 26442828 PMCID: PMC423720

"...recent results from a variety of experimental systems suggest that mutation rates can increase in response to selective pressures. This chapter summarizes data demonstrating that, under stressful conditions, Escherichia coli and Salmonella can increase the likelihood of beneficial mutations by modulating their potential for genetic change.[NOTE - do NOT assume that this means that this paper supports the NGE crud or that it supports 'directed mutation' - indeed, they explain (see below quote) that the increased beneficial mutations are the result of overall hypermutation] Several experimental systems used to study stress-induced mutagenesis are discussed, with special emphasis on the Foster-Cairns system for "adaptive mutation" in E. coli and Salmonella. Examples from other model systems are given to illustrate that stress-induced mutagenesis is a natural and general phenomenon that is not confined to enteric bacteria. Finally, some of the controversy in the field of stress-induced mutagenesis is summarized and discussed, and a perspective on the current state of the field is provided."​

and:

"During lactose selection Lac- cells accumulate non-selected mutations, disproving the hypothesis that mutations to Lac+ are “directed” by the selective pressure (41, 76, 77, 183). The rate of accumulation of non-selected mutations is higher on the episome than on the chromosome (41, 76, 77), possibly due to more frequent episomal replication and recombination. "
​

Also of note is the brief discussion of the fact that the 'beneficial mutations' that occur in their model system occur spontaneously, and that in the hypermutation state, they increase by an order of magnitude (from 10^9 to 10^8), which sounds like a lot, but then, it happens a lot anyway.​

Can't get much clearer than that. But you keep pretending that you've scored points for your IDC fantasies. Everyone else will see the facts.

So basically since Shapiro used Cairn as a source (out of many others) and Cairn was proven wrong with the specific example of “Lac+ thing” Shapiro is also wrong (despite the fact that Shapiro focused his research in other stuff unrelated to the lac+ example that was refuted)


Do you honestly think that this in an appropriate refutation?


Sahpiro Only Quoted Cairn as an introduction with the intend of expalinign that others have suggested directed mutations in the past………….He did not based his research nor conclutions on Cairn´s work.

So no you didn’t refute Shapiro, you didn’t refute any of the exampels provided by Shapiro, all you did is “more-less refute” another man that was quoted by Shapiro and “more-less” refute an example of alleged directed mutation that was not even addressed by Shapiro.

 

[tas8831]

So basically since Shapiro used Cairn as a source (out of many others) and Cairn was proven wrong with the specific example of “Lac+ thing” Shapiro is also wrong (despite the fact that Shapiro focused his research in other stuff unrelated to the lac+ example that was refuted)

LOL!

Did you even read Shapiro's pap? Do you even read your won claims?

"I am talking about specifically about “non random mutations” do you agree or disagree with the claim that nonrandom mutations occur and that they play an important role?"​

You do know that "nonrandom mutations" and "directed mutations" are the same thing, right? Though I know you like to get into the weeds and didn't know how transposons works and all that...

Do you honestly think that this in an appropriate refutation?

Yes, seeing as how Shapiro specifically cited their original (later self-refuted) paper as one of only 3 primary citations for directed mutations. Only Cairns' group published follow-ups.

Sahpiro Only Quoted Cairn as an introduction with the intend of expalinign that others have suggested directed mutations in the past………….He did not based his research nor conclutions on Cairn´s work.

Right. He just cited it as one of 3 papers supporting the notion of directed mutations, a concept later debunked NOT just by one of the people he cited, but by several others.

So no you didn’t refute Shapiro, you didn’t refute any of the exampels provided by Shapiro, all you did is “more-less refute” another man that was quoted by Shapiro and “more-less” refute an example of alleged directed mutation that was not even addressed by Shapiro.

Right, Shapiro did not even count directed mutation among his bits of support for NGE... yup.. you're an amazing scholar.

Other than your hero-worship of Shapiro, I accept your concession that you were refuted re: Haldane.

 

[leroy]

LOL!

Did you even read Shapiro's pap? Do you even read your won claims?

"I am talking about specifically about “non random mutations” do you agree or disagree with the claim that nonrandom mutations occur and that they play an important role?"​

You do know that "nonrandom mutations" and "directed mutations" are the same thing, right? Though I know you like to get into the weeds and didn't know how transposons works and all that...


Yes, seeing as how Shapiro specifically cited their original (later self-refuted) paper as one of only 3 primary citations for directed mutations. Only Cairns' group published follow-ups.
Right. He just cited it as one of 3 papers supporting the notion of directed mutations, a concept later debunked NOT just by one of the people he cited, but by several others.

Right, Shapiro did not even count directed mutation among his bits of support for NGE... yup.. you're an amazing scholar.

Other than your hero-worship of Shapiro, I accept your concession that you were refuted re: Haldane.

YOU are suppose to refute shapiros work, and his conclusions, refuting a paper that he quoted as in introduction is far from meeting your burden.

By your logic……..Alllllllll the papers that cite Carins are wrong by default even if the research is independent from Carins.

Yes you showed successfully (well more-less) that the specific example of Lac+ is not a directed mutation, but that doesn’t mean that directed mutations don’t exist, Shapiro provided examples in the sources that I provided (that are independent on anything done by Carins)

 

[blü 2]

Ok if creationist can only do strawmans and false assumptions.... Why don you provide your own correct model with correct assumptions, and show that humans and chimps could have evolved from a common ancestor 5Mya through the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection.

Or you can simply admit that such model doesn't exist

First, how would that make Sanford's claims legit?

Second, if such a model as you ask for is provided, will it change your view?

 

[leroy]

First, how would that make Sanford's claims legit?

Well if you say that the math/assumptions are wrong then I invite you to present the correct model with the correct math and the correct assumptions.

Darwinists like to keep their “theory” vague and ambiguous so that they can say “ohhh but evolution doesn’t claim that” anytime an objection is presented…………and when asked how evolution works then, they avoid the question … so that they can go back and keep it vague and ambiguous,

In this particular case Creationists concluded that there is a limit of 30,000 random benefitial mutations that could have becomes fixed on the human population since chimps and humans diverged. (30,000 comes from the best possible scenario)

Darwinist are expected to ether

1 claim that it doesn’t matter 30,000 is enough to explain the differences between chimes and humans (and present the evidence)

2 show that the math is severely wrong and that the number is many times higher than 30,000

3 admit that you don’t know and admit that this is a true challenge for Darwinism (perhaps look for a different theory)

4 avoid the burden proof at all cost , troll change the topic and repeat the same mistakes for 100+pages (peopel like @TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone etc.) whent for this option.

whcih one do you pick?

Second, if such a model as you ask for is provided, will it change your view?

yeeeeeeeeeees

 

[blü 2]

Well if you say that the math/assumptions are wrong then I invite you to present the correct model with the correct math and the correct assumptions.

Darwinists like to keep their “theory” vague and ambiguous so that they can say “ohhh but evolution doesn’t claim that” anytime an objection is presented…………and when asked how evolution works then, they avoid the question … so that they can go back and keep it vague and ambiguous,

In this particular case Creationists concluded that there is a limit of 30,000 random benefitial mutations that could have becomes fixed on the human population since chimps and humans diverged. (30,000 comes from the best possible scenario)

Darwinist are expected to ether

1 claim that it doesn’t matter 30,000 is enough to explain the differences between chimes and humans (and present the evidence)

2 show that the math is severely wrong and that the number is many times higher than 30,000

How would any of that make what Sanford says legit?
3 admit that you don’t know and admit that this is a true challenge for Darwinism (perhaps look for a different theory)

4 avoid the burden proof at all cost , troll change the topic and repeat the same mistakes for 100+pages (peopel like @TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone etc.) whent for this option.

whcih one do you pick?





yeeeeeeeeeees[/QUOTE]

 

[leroy]

How would any of that make what Sanford says legit?]

Because his conclusions follow from information found in peer reviewed sources and based on reasonable assumptions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Darwinists like to keep their “theory” vague and ambiguous

1. the label of "darwinist" is pretty meaningless.

2. no. Evolution theory is anything but "ambiguous and vague". Instead, it's a very clear, very established, scientific model that successfully makes testable predictions

so that they can say “ohhh but evolution doesn’t claim that” anytime an objection is presented

Or perhaps, this is just the pathetic excuse used whenever people have their strawmen exposed and/or expose their ignorance on the subject?

…………and when asked how evolution works then, they avoid the question … so that they can go back and keep it vague and ambiguous,

Or.... the responses are given and subsequently ignored and then afterwards, when those responses are burried deep in threads by a load of bullocks and PRATTs and peeing contests, again the above is asserted as a cop-out?

In this particular case Creationists concluded that there is a limit of 30,000 random benefitial mutations that could have becomes fixed on the human population since chimps and humans diverged. (30,000 comes from the best possible scenario)

Which is asanine nonnsense.

Darwinist are expected to ether

1 claim that it doesn’t matter 30,000 is enough to explain the differences between chimes and humans (and present the evidence)

2 show that the math is severely wrong and that the number is many times higher than 30,000

3 admit that you don’t know and admit that this is a true challenge for Darwinism (perhaps look for a different theory)

"darwinists" don't need to do anything in response to con-men with no qualifications and no publications.

4 avoid the burden proof at all cost , troll change the topic and repeat the same mistakes for 100+pages (peopel like @TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone etc.) whent for this option.

Again a case of you lying and being dishonest.

whcih one do you pick?

As usual, you offer nothing but dishonest false dichotomies.
Nothing new under the sun.

 

[blü 2]

Because his conclusions follow from information found in peer reviewed sources and based on reasonable assumptions.

The Bible is not a peer-reviewed authority on science, and the assumptions that God has objective existence and created the world in seven days by magic are not reasonable, but rather are incoherent and without foundation.

 

[leroy]

The Bible is not a peer-reviewed authority on science, and the assumptions that God has objective existence and created the world in seven days by magic are not reasonable, but rather are incoherent and without foundation.

Which is irrelevant-. because nobody in this thread is using the bible as a source for anything

 

[blü 2]

Which is irrelevant-. because nobody in this thread is using the bible as a source for anything

Except of course those who deny the fact of evolution and oppose the theory of evolution on religious grounds and believe all living things were created by magic as in Genesis.

 

[leroy]

Except of course those who deny the fact of evolution and oppose the theory of evolution on religious grounds and believe all living things were created by magic as in Genesis.

Ok in that case reply to the comments of people that do that.

 

[leroy]

1. the label of "darwinist" is pretty meaningless.

2. no. Evolution theory is anything but "ambiguous and vague". Instead, it's a very clear, very established, scientific model that successfully makes testable predictions



Or perhaps, this is just the pathetic excuse used whenever people have their strawmen exposed and/or expose their ignorance on the subject?



Or.... the responses are given and subsequently ignored and then afterwards, when those responses are burried deep in threads by a load of bullocks and PRATTs and peeing contests, again the above is asserted as a cop-out?




Which is asanine nonnsense.



"darwinists" don't need to do anything in response to con-men with no qualifications and no publications.



Again a case of you lying and being dishonest.



As usual, you offer nothing but dishonest false dichotomies.
Nothing new under the sun.

ok you whent for option 4

4 avoid the burden proof at all cost , troll change the topic and repeat the same mistakes for 100+pages (peopel like @TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone etc.) whent for this option.

 

[blü 2]

Ok in that case reply to the comments of people that do that.

Just to be clear, which part of what I said doesn't represent your own views?

 

[leroy]

Just to be clear, which part of what I said doesn't represent your own views?

I don't oppose the theory of evolution on religious grounds.