TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you are trying to school @tas8831 , of all people, on genetics and think you know better then him.
Absolutely HILARIOUS.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The strange case of John Sanford, creationist
- Thread starter tas8831
- Start date
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you are trying to school @tas8831 , of all people, on genetics and think you know better then him.
Absolutely HILARIOUS.
leroy
Well-Known Member
This comment simply shows that you are not even following the conversation.
I am not even disputing his claims about genetics. I am disputing his nonsensical “logic” he thinks that he successfully disproved a paper written by James Shapiro, by disproving another paper written by another author whose experiments claims and conclusions have no impact on Shapiro’s experiments results and conclusions.
If you were an honest person you would have concluded that yes “ @tas8831 “ is wrong, because it is stupid to refute a paper by refuting another independent paper. …… but nooooooooooooo since tas is your friend you will always be on his side no matter how ridiculous his claims are.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
And refuted by subsequent research. By some of the same authors that Shapiro had relied on.
It adds additional evidence against the notion of directed mutations.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You have personally seen refutations of the concept of directed mutations, so your speculations are those of a layman with an agenda, not an honest discussant.
So I guess this is how you admit that you are changing topics to avoid having to admit defeat.
Pathetic, but predictable based on your posting history.
So I guess I have narrowed the possible explanations for your behavior.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Troll.
You presented the Shapiro paper. HE cited Cairns. I provide information that Cairns and his co-authors found that the conclusions in their earlier paper - the one Shapiro quoted - were not correct. I provide a quote from one of those researchers from several years later reiterating that there is no support for directed mutations.
Shapiro used the concept of directed mutations are 1 of this 3 lines of support for his NGE!
Why is this so difficult for you?
Oh, never mind - you're a troll.
leroy
Well-Known Member
It hilarious that you keep repeating the same lie over and over again…………..Shapiro is not relying on the paper that you refuted, Shapiro only quoted the paper as an introduction, none of his experiments, results or conclusion rely on the paper that you refuted.
The concept of directed mutations is not even controversial, scientists in the peer review literature are arguing about the relevance, the extent and the cause of such mutations, not on weather if these mutations occur.
On the question on why complexity “evolved” scientists are divided in three categories
1 there is an intrinsic bias in mutations towards complexity
2 there is an intrinsic bias in Natrual selection towards complexity
3 the average complexity has not (and does not) increase.
Based on the evidence that I have seen (yes me being a lay man) and after comparing all the views it seems to me that “1” is the most reasonable answer.
If you would rather go for 2 or 3 then this would be a point of disagreement and we can comment on it.
Channing the topic? You are the one who asked me stuff about this topic.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Its irrelevant since Shapiro is not relying on Cairns.
at best There is no support from that particular case. but you are suppose to refute Shapiro, not the author from an other paper.
Just use some common sense.
1 If Shaprio Relied on Carins
2 and Carins is wrong
Why was Shapiro´s paper published? … there are 2 alternatives
A ether the peer review process sucks
B you are wrong on at least one of the points above.
You cant blame me for preferring B
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Claims he isn't discussing genetics.
Continues to yap about papers in genetics and points made therein.
Priceless.
Because of all the "not discussion" of genetics, I don't even remember what point was being made. It is very confusing.
What is the current state of confusion being expressed on this thread?
Is it directed mutations exist, therefore God?
Is it directed mutations exist, therefore God?
Last edited:
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well I told you exactly clearly directly and unambiguously why I reject Tas´s refutation…. He is refuting a different paper written by a different author whose conclusions and results are independent from Shapiros paper.
so ether
1 agree with me
2 explain you disagree
3 keep trolling
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
4. don't fall for your silly games based in strawmen
@tas8831 already addressed your misunderstandings. The ball is in your court now. Either you keep up the charade, or you try and learn something for once.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well just for the record I was capable of spotting a specific flaw in his “refutation” and explain why is it a flaw.
Something that you have never been capable of doing.
And what am I supposed to refute/justify? Please be specific.
Let me get this straight. If Shapiro cited Carnes as evidence for his conclusions, and Carnes later clarifies his findings do not support directed mutations and then reiterates that, someone thinks that the conclusions of Shapiro's paper still stand?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
WHICH SHAPIRO CITED TO PROP UP ONE OF HIS 3-LEGS FOR NGE!!!
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Will a 2-legged stool stand? Maybe if it is held up by Jesus?
leroy
Well-Known Member
That seems reasonable to me. I was pretty sure I understood what you said, but I didn't my degrees at D/K U. Go Mighty Lame Ducks.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, you weren't. And @tas8831 told you how your objection isn't valid at all.
I have and did. It just so happens this didn't occur in discussions with you.
If you wouldn't ignore the posts explaining it, maybe you wouldn't need to ask for it again only to ignore it once more.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I was skimming though this as yesterday I watched a YouTube video of a scientist responding to Sanford's claims from a recent exchange, and something that I had not noticed before popped out at me:
Does Sanford explain why, and provide supporting documentation/evidence? No, of course he does not.
This is one among many reasons that the use of "information" arguments, mixed with an apparent shallowness of understanding of his own general field, makes for unwarranted proclamations.
Sanford, like ReMine before him, like pretty much every YEC/IDC I have encountered, seem to think there is a discreet, unchanging 1-to-1 relationship between a mutation and its phenotypic effects, and more, that this relationship indicates that the changes can only be, and only ever are, tiny.
"HOW can it be!!!". they seem to be thinking, "that a tiny number - a mere 1000 beneficial changes - of mutations could possibly produce a poet, doctor, philosopher from a poop-flinging ape???!!!??? SURELY, the real answer is JESUS!"
Crude, I suppose, but that seems to pretty sum up Sanford's passage.
A simple refutation of this apparent/implied 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype belief - one that I am NOT presenting as evidence of evolution or benefit, but merely to show how extensive the effects of even a single point mutation can be - is seen in familial achondroplasia.
A single mutation in the gene FGFR-3 (fibroblast growth factor receptor 3) can produce altered limb proportion, reduced stature, identifiable changes in the facial skeleton, reduction of interphalangeal joints, etc., as well as all of the related changes in muscle, nervous tissue, blood vessels, etc, associated with these gross morphological changes. And all from a single base substitution.
But sure, Johnny, 1000 mutations, darn it, just are not "enough"...
For clarity:
Within reasonable evolutionary timeframes, we can only select for an extremely limited number of unlinked nucleotides. In the last 6 million years, selection could maximally fix 1,000 unlinked beneficial mutations, creating less new information than is on this page of text.* There is no way that such a small amount of information could transform an ape into a human....
Does Sanford explain why, and provide supporting documentation/evidence? No, of course he does not.
This is one among many reasons that the use of "information" arguments, mixed with an apparent shallowness of understanding of his own general field, makes for unwarranted proclamations.
Sanford, like ReMine before him, like pretty much every YEC/IDC I have encountered, seem to think there is a discreet, unchanging 1-to-1 relationship between a mutation and its phenotypic effects, and more, that this relationship indicates that the changes can only be, and only ever are, tiny.
"HOW can it be!!!". they seem to be thinking, "that a tiny number - a mere 1000 beneficial changes - of mutations could possibly produce a poet, doctor, philosopher from a poop-flinging ape???!!!??? SURELY, the real answer is JESUS!"
Crude, I suppose, but that seems to pretty sum up Sanford's passage.
A simple refutation of this apparent/implied 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype belief - one that I am NOT presenting as evidence of evolution or benefit, but merely to show how extensive the effects of even a single point mutation can be - is seen in familial achondroplasia.
A single mutation in the gene FGFR-3 (fibroblast growth factor receptor 3) can produce altered limb proportion, reduced stature, identifiable changes in the facial skeleton, reduction of interphalangeal joints, etc., as well as all of the related changes in muscle, nervous tissue, blood vessels, etc, associated with these gross morphological changes. And all from a single base substitution.
But sure, Johnny, 1000 mutations, darn it, just are not "enough"...
Last edited: