The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

Th

Also, the theory doesn't say "mainly" nor does it say "only".
.

Well that is (and has always been my point)

So we agree on that the claim that organisms evolve mainly through random beneficial mutations + natural selection is still an open question with no consensus among biologists

Perhaps there are other important mechanisms, perhaps that mechanism is enough …we don’t know scientist are still working to find an answer…………….any disagreement?

 

[leroy]

You make no sense with this self-contradictory nonsense.

First you say that it is a near certainty that it happens through the gradual process of variation plus selection and in the next breath you say we don't know.

Make up your mind.

We know that organism’s evolve through a gradual process of variation + natural selection……………we don’t know the details, for example we don’t know the role and relevance of none random mutations, or the role of genetic drift etc.

No contradiction there………..please let me know if you disagree.

Which is a religious belief for which no evidence exists.
It reeks of cdesign proponentsist nonsense.

Well what other alternative do you propose and what is your evidence for it? Why is your alternative better than mine?

For example an argument that I would use to support of my position. (Which doesn’t require an intelligent designer nor supernatural stuff) would be the fact that natural selection doesn’t aims at complexity. (sometimes becoming simpler or staying the same is better) There is no reason for why the average complexity of life has increased. My solution to this problem is that some mutations are directed (nor random) and that directed muttions played in important role. these mutations have a bias towards complexity which is why complexity on average has increasd.

If you have a better solution in mind please feel free to share it.


The good news for you is that directed mutations have been observed and are moreless well understood (nothing supernatural there)

Which isn't surprising. You frequently invoke the pseudo-scientific terminology of those con-men.
Like "fine tuning" and "specified complexity" and such other nonsense.

Ok what terms should I use? do you realize that this is just semantics?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well that is (and has always been my point)

So we agree on that the claim that organisms evolve mainly through random beneficial mutations + natural selection is still an open question with no consensus among biologists

It's irrelevant because it's not even a question.
As I said: science will only include those things for which there is supportive evidence.

If you wish to insist that there is something more to it, you are free to write up a paper and submit it for review and publication.

Until then, it's just hot air.

Perhaps there are other important mechanisms, perhaps that mechanism is enough

And perhaps there are undetectable genetic pixies fiddling with the genes.
Why would anyone suggest them if there is no reason to in the form of evidence?

…we don’t know scientist are still working to find an answer

No, scientists aren't working on brainfarts for no reason.

…………….any disagreement?

Yes. See above.
You're essentially arguing a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know that organism’s evolve through a gradual process of variation + natural selection……………we don’t know the details, for example we don’t know the role and relevance of none random mutations, or the role of genetic drift etc.

Maybe you don't.
Geneticists / biologists on this very forum have been trying to school you, but it seems it's all in one ear and out the other, followed by a repeat of the nonsense.

Well what other alternative do you propose and what is your evidence for it? Why is your alternative better than mine?

I don't need any "alternatives" for baseless religious beliefs.

For example an argument that I would use to support of my position. (Which doesn’t require an intelligent designer nor supernatural stuff) would be the fact that natural selection doesn’t aims at complexity. (sometimes becoming simpler or staying the same is better) There is no reason for why the average complexity of life has increased. My solution to this problem is that some mutations are directed (nor random) and that directed muttions played in important role. these mutations have a bias towards complexity which is why complexity on average has increasd.

See, this is what I meant previously with the "in one ear and out the other".

This nonsense has been addressed before. By myself as well as others.
As expected, it was just a gigantic waste of everybody's time.

We have tried to explain to you how in a process like evolution, a rise in complexity is not a constant. How complexity will inevitably rise rather fast at first since when you start with the extremely simple, the only way complexity can go is UP.

I won't have that conversation again as clearly it makes no difference at all.
I no longer try to bring sense to those who are too stubborn to learn anything.

If you have a better solution in mind please feel free to share it.

Been there, done that. I just drove into that wall made from willful ignorance that you have erected around your beliefs. I see no point in doing that again.

The good news for you is that directed mutations have been observed and are moreless well understood (nothing supernatural there)

And the bad news for you is that they really don't mean what you like them to mean.
As has also been addressed a multitude of times by people like @tas8831

But as usual, he too drove right into that wall you have erected.

Ok what terms should I use? do you realize that this is just semantics?

It's not at all semantics. It's instead very telling from where you are coming from.
It tells us where you get all this nonsense from and what angle you are working.
It also reveals the agenda behind your continued arguing about this.

 

[leroy]

It's irrelevant because it's not even a question.
As I said: science will only include those things for which there is supportive evidence.

If you wish to insist that there is something more to it, you are free to write up a paper and submit it for review and publication.

Until then, it's just hot air.

That has been done multiple times, many scientists have published papers describing mechanisms that could complement benefitial random mutations + natural selection.

First try (expecting to recivie a direct answer)

Do you claim that organisms evolved mainly through random beneficial mutations + natural selection (do you affirm such a thing?)

You're essentially arguing a strawman.

Well it’s hard not to do straw man arguments, when you don’t explain your position. And refuse to answer to questions on what your views are.

 

[leroy]

I don't need any "alternatives" for baseless religious beliefs.

Another pathetic excuse to avoid a direct answer.

This nonsense has been addressed before. By myself as well as others.
As expected, it was just a gigantic waste of everybody's time.

We have tried to explain to you how in a process like evolution, a rise in complexity is not a constant. How complexity will inevitably rise rather fast at first since when you start with the extremely simple, the only way complexity can go is UP.

Yes you made that assertion multiple times, but you haven’t supported that assertion. … all you do is “its sounds logical to me therefore it most be true”

The sad thing is that scientists are aware of this challenge and are proposing solutions. (many of them are available in peer review literature)

1 some say that there is a bias towards complexity

2 some say that the average complexity has not increased.

And within the 1 and the 2 there are many “sub views”… the point that I am making is that scientists are currently discussing this issue, and except for yourself nobody claims to have a definitive answer.

As a side note , I haven’t seen any paper making the nonsense assertion that you are making so ether you are too smart and know something that scientists don’t know, or your assertion is too stupid that is not even worth mentioning.

I won't have that conversation again as clearly it makes no difference at all.

agree, you will repeat your assertion multipel times, without even trying to understand why you are wrong


Been there, done that. I just drove into that wall made from willful ignorance that you have erected around your beliefs. I see no point in doing that again.

It's not at all semantics. It's instead very telling from where you are coming from.
It tells us where you get all this nonsense from and what angle you are working.
It also reveals the agenda behind your continued arguing about this.

Yes arguing that I am wrong because I am using terms like fine tuning and specified complexity is semantics by definition.

You are also committing the genetic fallacy, weather if I have an agenda or not is irrelevant to weather if the arguments are good or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you quote any assertion that I have made, that I haven't supported?

Can you do anything, anything at all to support your assertions?

Hello. Hello? Is there anybody there? Hello.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm relying on @leroy to have the honesty, integrity and rejection of evasion that is, I'm told, central to the spirit and practice of Christianity.

I certainly wouldn't expect him, or any person of decency, to sink into the moral mud of the apologist.

I would not expect an a Christian to labor continuously in misdirection, focusing on a series of superfluous demands regarding clarification of the statements of others, while openly failing to explain and support their assertions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No what I don't know is your personal understanding of "modern theory of evolution"

So please provide a clear and direct definition with your own words, so that I can tell you if I agree or disagree with what you call evolution.

What a joke.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I consider myself an agnostic on this issue (in other words I don't know) and as far as I am aware of scientist don't know either.

Sure we know with high degree of certainly that organisms evolved through a gradual process of variation +natural selection and genetic drift.

But we don't know the details of how organisms evolved.

Particularly there is disagreement amoung scientists on the role of non random mutations (also called directed mutations) and the role of genetic drift (the role of neutral mutations)


My best guess is that the universe was fine tunned since the begging such that everything would unpack to a series of cause and effects that eventually lead to the origin of humans (like a Rube Goldberg machine)


So if we are going to have a conversation , the first step is to find point s of disagreement....so have you found any point of disagreement?

Which is it dude? Is the evolution of life known or not known?

Good grief.

 

[leroy]

Can you do anything, anything at all to support your assertions?

Hello. Hello? Is there anybody there? Hello.

Yes, please quote any of my assertions that you think requires support……………please do not answer “all of them” be specific

 

[leroy]

Which is it dude? Is the evolution of life known or not known?

Good grief.

We know (with high degree of certainty) that organism evolve

We don’t know the mechanisms. (Different scientists propose different mechanisms we don’t know yet who is correct)

NO contradictions there,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, please quote any of my assertions that you think requires support……………please do not answer “all of them” be specific

Do you think that you will ever shift from your pattern of evasion, misdirection and pigeon chess and actually support an assertion that you make on here?

Surely, even you tire of this mindless, endless game.

 

[leroy]

I would not expect an a Christian to labor continuously in misdirection, focusing on a series of superfluous demands regarding clarification of the statements of others, while openly failing to explain and support their assertions.

Wow, so is asking someone to clarify his view or to define a term so that I can understand and answer accordingly a “superfluous demand”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We know (with high degree of certainty) that organism evolve

We don’t know the mechanisms. (Different scientists propose different mechanisms we don’t know yet who is correct)

NO contradictions there,

Always contradictions with you. Always. No straight answers. Burden shifting turned into a ritual.

All these tactics you use that make any discussion with you a pointless endeavor.

 

[leroy]

Do you think that you will ever shift from your pattern of evasion, misdirection and pigeon chess and actually support an assertion that you make on here?

Surely, even you tire of this mindless, endless game.

Asking you to tell me exactly which assertion should I support is the opposite of “evasion” … … honestly I don’t understand why you interpret this as an “evasion tactic”….. I simply what to know which assertions do you think I have made and that require support.


wouldn’t you do the same if I ask you to support your assertions? Would you ask “what assertions are you talking about?”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow, so is asking someone to clarify his view or to define a term so that I can understand and answer accordingly a “superfluous demand”

Yes, when you do it.

Just another tactic to avoid supporting your assertions.

In my view, you are a classic apologist with absolutely nothing to argue. If you had anything substantial to report, you would just do it and support it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Asking you to tell me exactly which assertion should I support is the opposite of “evasion” … … honestly I don’t understand why you interpret this as an “evasion tactic”….. I simply what to know which assertions do you think I have made and that require support.


wouldn’t you do the same if I ask you to support your assertions? Would you ask “what assertions are you talking about?”

This is a prime example of a favorite tactic to belabor nonsense and keep you in a game you don't really play while playing.

I bet you could keep this going for pages. You already have. How much shorter would these threads be if you removed all the superfluous nonsense tactics you use?

 

[leroy]

Always contradictions with you. Always. No straight answers. Burden shifting turned into a ritual.

All these tactics you use that make any discussion with you a pointless endeavor.

where is the contradiction?

Burden shifting turned into a ritual.

What are you talking about? I am not even making a claim (let alone shifting the burden proof) I simply explained what my position is.

If you disagree please let me know where is your point of disagreement so that we can comment on it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Asking you to tell me exactly which assertion should I support is the opposite of “evasion” … … honestly I don’t understand why you interpret this as an “evasion tactic”….. I simply what to know which assertions do you think I have made and that require support.


wouldn’t you do the same if I ask you to support your assertions? Would you ask “what assertions are you talking about?”

There are several examples where others have pointed out assertions you have made without defense of them. So, in my opinion, continually asking others to do this is an obvious tactic to keep you in a debate that you lost from the very start by making those assertions and failing to follow up on them. The only evidence I have seen is repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof from you to others.

If it were me, I would state the standing position. Make my claims regarding my view of that position and defend those claims. If shown that my position had no standing, I would seek to understand why and amend my position as necessary. That is the honest, Christian approach to this.