The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

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?

Again, it is impossible for me to support my assertions if I don’t know which assertions are you talking about.

 

[leroy]

There are several examples where others have pointed out assertions you have made without defense of them.

And I responded with what I think is a good defense for such an assertion

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.

again which assertions?

The only evidence I have seen is repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof from you to others.

Asking others to support their assertions is not “shifting the burden proof”

If it were me, I would state the standing position, make my claims 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.

This is exactly what I have done.

For example I made the claim that “there is disagreement among scientists on the role of non-random mutations”

And I supported the claim with papers supporting both sides.

What else do you whant?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, it is impossible for me to support my assertions if I don’t know which assertions are you talking about.

All I see here is more tactics. More misdirect and evasion.

It is not impossible. You can simply say they are based on belief and have no support of evidence, theory or consensus. That they are belief and not science. You could say that no amount of evidence will shake you from your belief. That would be honest in my opinion.

 

[leroy]

All I see here is more tactics. More misdirect and evasion.

It is not impossible. You can simply say they are based on belief and have no support of evidence, theory or consensus. That they are belief and not science. You could say that no amount of evidence will shake you from your belief. That would be honest in my opinion.

Yes some of my assertions are just believes or things that I can’t support scientifically….. Other assertions are supported with scientific evidence.


But since I have no idea which assertions you are talking about I have no way to ether support them or admit that I can’t support them

That would be honest in my opinion

Sure if you quote an assertion that is supported by religious belief and not by science, I will be happy to be honest and admit it.

But since I have no idea which assertions you are talking about, then I don’t even have th eoportunity to be “honest” and admit that I can’t support them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I responded with what I think is a good defense for such an assertion




again which assertions?



Asking others to support their assertions is not “shifting the burden proof”




This is exactly what I have done.

For example I made the claim that “there is disagreement among scientists on the role of non-random mutations”

And I supported the claim with papers supporting both sides.

What else do you whant?

Not at all. I read them. It was just more of the same from you.

Demanding that others wade through numerous threads looking for posts you made while betting they won't bother is a tactic.

The way you do it is a tactic.

That there is a disagreement does not make your position the default position. That you were shown that the disagreement was nullified hasn't resulted in anything different from you. You still maintain the same tactics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes some of my assertions are just believes or things that I can’t support scientifically….. Other assertions are supported with scientific evidence.


But since I have no idea which assertions you are talking about I have no way to ether support them or admit that I can’t support them


Sure if you quote an assertion that is supported by religious belief and not by science, I will be happy to be honest and admit it.

But since I have no idea which assertions you are talking about, then I don’t even have th eoportunity to be “honest” and admit that I can’t support them.

You haven't supported anything. Showing evidence for a position and doggedly maintaining that position when your position has been refuted is not supporting your position and it is not the what I would expect from someone claiming a higher position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes some of my assertions are just believes or things that I can’t support scientifically….. Other assertions are supported with scientific evidence.


But since I have no idea which assertions you are talking about I have no way to ether support them or admit that I can’t support them


Sure if you quote an assertion that is supported by religious belief and not by science, I will be happy to be honest and admit it.

But since I have no idea which assertions you are talking about, then I don’t even have th eoportunity to be “honest” and admit that I can’t support them.

I just wanted to see if anything had changed. Nothing seems to have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution, including the theory of common descent and the theory of natural selection, is the current position accepted within science. If you dissent from this position, it is incumbent on the dissenter (YOU) to provide the argument, explanation and evidence to support that dissent. If your assertions are refuted, the honest thing to do is admit this, adjust your position and see how it aligns with current understanding. You can still maintain your religious beliefs within this context. The conclusions are based on observed reality and not what is believed on faith. Nothing in science is intended for or capable of being used to support or refute claims about the existence or non-existence of a deity of any sort.

Science is a tool to test and gain knowledge of the physical world and cannot test or generate conclusions on believed views that have no evidence and require faith.

Continually demanding that those accepting the consensus restate that acceptance, multitudinous shifting of the burden of proof, superfluous and irrelevant demands, and a festival of logical fallacies are tactics to confuse, distract, misinform and disrupt a discussion by those that cannot meet their burden of proof.

Asserting controversy in science is not a default that raises intelligent design, biblical creationism, or any unsupported belief or conjecture into a position of valid acceptance. Valid acceptance is based on a critical consideration of existing knowledge within a framework of theory, logic and evidence.

Intelligent design as a scientific position has been refuted. All the efforts of this modern religious movement under that name have been revealed to be nothing more than an attempt to get religion onto the syllabus of science classes.

 

[leroy]

Not at all. I read them. It was just more of the same from you.

Ok so please quote my comments and explain why you think I am wrong

Demanding that others wade through numerous threads looking for posts you made while betting they won't bother is a tactic.

The way you do it is a tactic.

What other option do I have? If you claim that my assertions are wrong, and I have no idea which assertions you are talking about, I have no other option but to ask you which assertions are you talking about,

That there is a disagreement does not make your position the default position.

I never made such a claim.

That you were shown that the disagreement was nullified hasn't resulted in anything different from you.


cs.

that has not been shown........



BTW do you claim that there is no such disagreement? Or is it another case of you don’t claiming nor denying anything just playing to be skeptic.

 

[leroy]

The theory of evolution, including the theory of common descent and the theory of natural selection, is the current position accepted within science. If you dissent from this position, it is incumbent on the dissenter (YOU) to provide the argument, explanation and evidence to support that dissent. If your assertions are refuted, the honest thing to do is admit this, adjust your position and see how it aligns with current understanding. You can still maintain your religious beliefs within this context. The conclusions are based on observed reality and not what is believed on faith. Nothing in science is intended for or capable of being used to support or refute claims about the existence or non-existence of a deity of any sort.

Science is a tool to test and gain knowledge of the physical world and cannot test or generate conclusions on believed views that have no evidence and require faith.

Continually demanding that those accepting the consensus restate that acceptance, multitudinous shifting of the burden of proof, superfluous and irrelevant demands, and a festival of logical fallacies are tactics to confuse, distract, misinform and disrupt a discussion by those that cannot meet their burden of proof.

Asserting controversy in science is not a default that raises intelligent design, biblical creationism, or any unsupported belief or conjecture into a position of valid acceptance. Valid acceptance is based on a critical consideration of existing knowledge within a framework of theory, logic and evidence.

no disagreement on my part.

Intelligent design as a scientific position has been refuted. All the efforts of this modern religious movement under that name have been revealed to be nothing more than an attempt to get religion onto the syllabus of science classes.

I disagree, but it’s not relevant for this thread (at least not relevant to any of my comments)

 

[leroy]

I just wanted to see if anything had changed. Nothing seems to have.

Of course nothing has changed

1 you ask me to support my assertions

2 I ask you to give an example of an assertion that requires my support (because I have no idea on what assertions you are talking about)

3 you refuse to provide an answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course nothing has changed

1 you ask me to support my assertions

2 I ask you to give an example of an assertion that requires my support (because I have no idea on what assertions you are talking about)

3 you refuse to provide an answer.

All your assertions require your support.

I am done.

I refuse to play your pigeon chess.

 

[tas8831]

More ridiculous excuses to avoid supporting your claims ? Shame on you.

Hilarious projection.

The 3-legged stool of NGE lost one leg and you still hawk it like a zealot.
At least you gave up making a fool of yourself on Haldane's model.
Oh, wait, no you didn't.

 

[tas8831]

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.

More phony assertions based on your own inability to understand the science and/or your propensity for spreading disinformation.

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

I have one better idea - stop bringing up things that you have been shown to be wrong on multiple occasions.

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

In all seriousness - do you have a learning disorder? That is ONLY explanation that does not require you to be thought of as a pathetic troll with nothing or value or merit to add to the discussion.

In THIS THREAD alone, I have provided to you multiple citations - to include those from some of the ORIGINAL researchers claiming directed mutations were real - that 'directed mutations' are NOT real. They are an artifact of overall increased mutation rates.



Post in which I describe a research activity that I did regarding the binding/insertion sites of LINEs.


Post referring to refutation of one of Shapiro's citations re: nonrandom/directed mutation.

Post in which I cited and quoted a co-author from one of the papers Shapiro had cited re: directed mutations, years later explaining that they had been wrong:

"Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal. "​

From 2004. 17 years later, you are still claiming this is a real thing. Probably your new hero Shapiro is, too. But he's a con man. What are you?


Post in which I reiterate the above.

Post in which I cite and quote another paper refuting directed mutations:

""During lactose selection Lac- cells accumulate non-selected mutations, disproving the hypothesis that mutations to Lac+ are “directed” by the selective pressure ..."
​

Some of the 'faithful' (faithful to the dream of directed mutations) have taken to simply re-defining or re-naming processes to suit their needs. You once linked to a Wiki article to prop up your claim, but failed to realize the implications. Here is what I mean by re-defining/re-naming:

"Upon starvation some Escherichia coli cells undergo a transient, genome-wide hypermutation (called adaptive mutation)..."​

A true believer. Rosenberg put out a series of papers in the late 90s, early 2000s (probably still is) trying to rescue the concept of 'directed mutations'. Calling them 'adaptive mutations' doesn't change the fact that this increased likelihood of experiencing an adaptive mutation in a hypermutation state does not mean that the good mutations are directed. It just increases the odds.
But even she has pretty much abandoned the notion. A 2018 paper:

"Mechanisms of mutation upregulated by stress responses have been described in several organisms from bacteria to human. These mechanisms might accelerate genetic change specifically when cells are maladapted to their environment. Stress-induced mutation mechanisms differ in their genetic requirements from mutation in growing cells, occurring by different mechanisms in different assay systems, but having in common a requirement for the induction of stress-responses. "​

She is saying that, in essence, what she used to call directed mutations, then adaptive mutations, are not a thing. They are the product of a generic stress response that increases mutation rates overall.

Now I am sure this is all over your head and you will continue to keep claiming directed mutations are real either via re-defining what they are or how they occur or just repeating the same lies.. Because that is what most creationists do in order to prop up their faith.

 

[tas8831]

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

"... 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"

 

[leroy]

All your assertions require your support.

I am done.

I refuse to play your pigeon chess.

Ok

My assertion:
There is disagreement on how organisms evolve.

My support.
Multiple papers each suggesting a different mechanism.

Hilarious projection.

The 3-legged stool of NGE lost one leg and you still hawk it like a zealot.
At least you gave up making a fool of yourself on Haldane's model.
Oh, wait, no you didn't.

Again refuting a reference in the paper on NGE doesn’t refute the paper itself. Especially because the NGE Paper doesn’t rely on the refuted reference.

 

[leroy]

More phony assertions based on your own inability to understand the science and/or your propensity for spreading disinformation.

I have one better idea - stop bringing up things that you have been shown to be wrong on multiple occasions.


In all seriousness - do you have a learning disorder? That is ONLY explanation that does not require you to be thought of as a pathetic troll with nothing or value or merit to add to the discussion.

In THIS THREAD alone, I have provided to you multiple citations - to include those from some of the ORIGINAL researchers claiming directed mutations were real - that 'directed mutations' are NOT real. They are an artifact of overall increased mutation rates.



Post in which I describe a research activity that I did regarding the binding/insertion sites of LINEs.


Post referring to refutation of one of Shapiro's citations re: nonrandom/directed mutation.

Post in which I cited and quoted a co-author from one of the papers Shapiro had cited re: directed mutations, years later explaining that they had been wrong:

"Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal. "​

From 2004. 17 years later, you are still claiming this is a real thing. Probably your new hero Shapiro is, too. But he's a con man. What are you?


Post in which I reiterate the above.

Post in which I cite and quote another paper refuting directed mutations:

""During lactose selection Lac- cells accumulate non-selected mutations, disproving the hypothesis that mutations to Lac+ are “directed” by the selective pressure ..."
​

Some of the 'faithful' (faithful to the dream of directed mutations) have taken to simply re-defining or re-naming processes to suit their needs. You once linked to a Wiki article to prop up your claim, but failed to realize the implications. Here is what I mean by re-defining/re-naming:

"Upon starvation some Escherichia coli cells undergo a transient, genome-wide hypermutation (called adaptive mutation)..."​

A true believer. Rosenberg put out a series of papers in the late 90s, early 2000s (probably still is) trying to rescue the concept of 'directed mutations'. Calling them 'adaptive mutations' doesn't change the fact that this increased likelihood of experiencing an adaptive mutation in a hypermutation state does not mean that the good mutations are directed. It just increases the odds.
But even she has pretty much abandoned the notion. A 2018 paper:

"Mechanisms of mutation upregulated by stress responses have been described in several organisms from bacteria to human. These mechanisms might accelerate genetic change specifically when cells are maladapted to their environment. Stress-induced mutation mechanisms differ in their genetic requirements from mutation in growing cells, occurring by different mechanisms in different assay systems, but having in common a requirement for the induction of stress-responses. "​

She is saying that, in essence, what she used to call directed mutations, then adaptive mutations, are not a thing. They are the product of a generic stress response that increases mutation rates overall.

Now I am sure this is all over your head and you will continue to keep claiming directed mutations are real either via re-defining what they are or how they occur or just repeating the same lies.. Because that is what most creationists do in order to prop up their faith.

Yes you proved that this specific example is not directed mutatrion. We already agreed on that.

But that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as “directed mutations” as has been show by multiple papers

 

[leroy]

"... some mutations are directed (nor random)]

This assertion has been supported.


The Shapiro paper is just one example….. and no refuting the LAC+ doesn’t do anything to refute Shapiro.

and that directed muttions played in important role. these mutations have a bias towards complexity which is why complexity on average has increasd"

Yes those 2 assertions are just speculations as I made it very clear in the post that you quoted. As I said in the post “its my best guess” based on the evidence that I have personally seen.

If you have a better explanation for why the average complexity has increased please feel free to share it

see
@TagliatelliMonster everythign is much easier if you simply quote th eassertins that require support. that way I can ether support the assertion or admit that I cant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?)

I've answered this nonsense multiple times over again.

Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results".

Well it’s hard not to do straw man arguments, when you don’t explain your position.

But it's incredibly easy to do if you ignore the answers you get.

And refuse to answer to questions on what your views are.

I gave you those answers on multiple occasions already.
I can't help it if you insist on ignoring them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Another pathetic excuse to avoid a direct answer.

No. What you said there is a religious belief. I don't require alternative explanation for religious brainfarts which don't address anything at all except your religious ideas.

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.

Again, this point has been done to death already.
You ignored the answers then, you will ignore them again now.

Why would I waste more time trying to cater to your intellectual dishonesty?

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

Please don't project your flaws the rest of us.

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.

Now you are engaging in juvenile playground "debate" tactics.

"I know you are but what am I".

pathetic.

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

Except I didn't argue that you are wrong because of that.
Reading comprehension isn't among your skill set it seems.

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.

I didn't argue that either.