The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

Says the troll.



It didn't work the first 20 times. I have no hope that attempt 21 will be any different.

All I am asking you is to provide your points of disagreement. Why is this so hard?................let me guess, you dont disagree with me, but you want admit it because you don’t what to go against your evolutionist friends.

 

[shunyadragon]

Aja

And I provided peer reviewed sources that conclude that some mutations are not random and that they play a major role in evolution.

So ether agree with the peer reviewed sources, or show that the authors are wrong.

No you did not!

The individual occurrence of mutations is random, which only contributes to the diversity of the genetics of DNA. The process of evolution, such as genetic drift, and change over time in response to changes in the environment is NOT RANDOM. Evolution is not a random process.

Please cite where any of your sources describe evolution as a random process

 

[leroy]

You have been spamming those "sources" for months and people, including actual biologists, have addressed those multiple times already.

Would you quote a single time where anyone (biologist or not) addressed those sources?

And even more important do you agree or disagree with their conclusions (some mutations are not random and they play an important role)

 

[leroy]

No you did not!

The individual occurrence of mutations is random, which only contributes to the diversity of the genetics of DNA. The process of evolution, such as genetic drift, and change over time in response to changes in the environment is NOT RANDOM. Evolution is not a random process.

Please cite where any of your sources describe evolution as a random process

That is a dishonest straw man and you know it.

I never claimed that evolution is a random process, I never claimed that biologists claim such a thing, I never claimed that you (or anyone from this forum) makes that claim.

My only claim is that some mutations are not random and that they play an important role, and I provided sources supporting that claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is a dishonest straw man and you know it.

I never claimed that evolution is a random process, I never claimed that biologists claim such a thing, I never claimed that you (or anyone from this forum) makes that claim.

My only claim is that some mutations are not random and that they play an important role, and I provided sources supporting that claim.

The individual occurrence of mutations is random, which only contributes to the diversity of the genetics of DNA. The process of evolution, such as genetic drift, and change over time in response to changes in the environment is NOT RANDOM. Evolution is not a random process.

Please cite where any of your sources describe evolution as a random process

 

[Jose Fly]

Aja

And I provided peer reviewed sources that conclude that some mutations are not random and that they play a major role in evolution.

So ether agree with the peer reviewed sources, or show that the authors are wrong.

Addressed that a long time ago, and in typical fashion you ignored it.

 

[leroy]

Addressed that a long time ago, and in typical fashion you ignored it.

If it has been addressed, why cant you quote a single post where it was addressed?

 

[shunyadragon]

That is a dishonest straw man and you know it.

I never claimed that evolution is a random process, I never claimed that biologists claim such a thing, I never claimed that you (or anyone from this forum) makes that claim.

My only claim is that some mutations are not random and that they play an important role, and I provided sources supporting that claim.

Meaningless issue, because all mutations regardless of whether they are described as random or non-random only contribute to genetic diversity in the population and nothing more. Evolution is process driven by changes in the environment.

 

[Jose Fly]

If it has been addressed, why cant you quote a single post where it was addressed?

Dude, you are the last person who can criticize others for not following up.

Heck, I don't even get your point here. First you were arguing about the number of mutations needed to go from chimp to human, which not only is a goofy straw man, it also contained several fundamental math errors that multiple people pointed out. You ignored many of them, including mine.

Then you moved to arguing that random mutation and natural selection aren't sufficient to generate all the biodiversity around us, which again is a goofy straw man.

Perhaps you should take a bit, think a little, and come back with a consistent, coherent point that relates to evolutionary biology as it is, rather than ridiculous straw man versions of it.

 

[leroy]

Meaningless issue, because all mutations regardless of whether they are described as random or non-random only contribute to genetic diversity in the population and nothing more. Evolution is process driven by changes in the environment.

Ok it's "meaningless" but is still true that not all mutations are random and that non random mutations play an important role.


If you personally find it meaningless or unimportant then feel free to go to other threads that you personally find more important

 

[leroy]

Dude, you are the last person who can criticize others for not following up.

Heck, I don't even get your point here. First you were arguing about the number of mutations needed to go from chimp to human, which not only is a goofy straw man, it also contained several fundamental math errors that multiple people pointed out. You ignored many of them, including mine.

Then you moved to arguing that random mutation and natural selection aren't sufficient to generate all the biodiversity around us, which again is a goofy straw man.

Perhaps you should take a bit, think a little, and come back with a consistent, coherent point that relates to evolutionary biology as it is, rather than ridiculous straw man versions of it.

Strawman ? Why? Please correct me please quote my actual comment where I made a straw man


Yes my math has been corrected with minor details......but the conclusion has not been challenged "there is no enough time to evolve a human from an ancient primate " (which is why I and many others suggest that maybe some mutations are not random )

Heck, I don't even get your point here. First you were arguing about the number of mutations needed to go from chimp to human,

Then you moved to arguing that random mutation and natural selection aren't sufficient to generate all the biodiversity around us

Both topics are related

1 my general point is that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to explain evolution

2 a specific example would be the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor , random mutations + natural selection by themselves can't explain such a fast evolution in such a small period of time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I am asking you is to provide your points of disagreement. Why is this so hard?

It's not hard. Plenty of people have already dismantled your nonsense, including myself.
I just grew tired of repeating myself only to result in you ignoring it all and just doubling down on the nonsense.

................let me guess, you dont disagree with me, but you want admit it because you don’t what to go against your evolutionist friends.

You should stop with all the guessing and believing and assuming and vain attempts at mind reading, because you suck at it, and instead read the replies you receive with a speck of attention.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you quote a single time where anyone (biologist or not) addressed those sources?

No. You'll just ignore them again anyway.
Maybe someone else still finds the energy to talk to the wall you have erected.

I'm done.

I would tell you to go look it up yourself, but I know you won't. And even if you did, you'ld just strawman it into the ground again anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

.but the conclusion has not been challenged "there is no enough time to evolve a human from an ancient primate "

Only in your dreams.

 

[leroy]

Only in your dreams.

It's funny because a few days ago you agreed with this statement.

You are obviously lost and defeated, you are unable to support your accusations, you are unable to quote a post where any of my claims was refuted, you can't even explain which are your points of disagreement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's funny because a few days ago you agreed with this statement.

I most certainly did not. You merely imagined that. Told you before that you should stop with the guessing, the assuming and the pathetic attempts at mind reading, because you clearly suck at it.

You are obviously lost and defeated, you are unable to support your accusations, you are unable to quote a post where any of my claims was refuted,

This is you flying back to your flock, claiming victory after having crapped all over the chessboard.

you can't even explain which are your points of disagreement.

I can and did. But for some reason, when you read it you seem to walk away thinking I said the exact opposite of what I actually said. And then you get strawmen nonsense like in the first quote, where you pretend that I previously agreed with your nonsense.


And then you wonder why I no longer think it's worth it to go into detail concerning your questions, strawmen and nonsense....

The first quote above is a perfect example.
I never agreed to any such thing. Not even remotely.
Yet, here you are, claiming the opposite.

O well....

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, I guess.
You're not fooling anyone here, though.

 

[metis]

Well the peer reviewd articles that I shared* conclude the opposite,

Where was it peer-reviewed? Your link doesn't provide this, so...?

Random mutation + natural selection are too limited and can’t explain evolution

Categorically false. Here's a link to the Wiki article, and this article includes links to studies that show that the three major causes of the evolution of life are mutations, random genetic drift, and natural selection.

Evolution - Wikipedia


Also, common sense alone should tell one that life evolves over time as all material objects appear to change over time, and life-forms and genes are material objects. Thus, religious faith should be enlightening towards reality and not a set of blinders from what we know. I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I was raised in and contemplated going into the ministry partially because of the denomination's anti-science position, and fortunately I eventually joined a church that accepts scientific axioms, such as the basic ToE.

 

[jonathan180iq]

My only claim is that some mutations are not random and that they play an important role, and I provided sources supporting that claim.

Are you using this hinge point as an opening to try and squeeze Intelligent Design into the conversation? Is that where this is going?

I've read in difference places where you're arguing that human evolution was a little faster than normal, which I assume is also part of the ID argument, right?

So like, you're going to eventually argue that mutations aren't random and human evolution was a little special which means there must be room for a Creator, yeah?

Maybe I'm missing something, but 13 pages of bickering doesn't seem necessary if we can just get to the meat of what everyone is actually trying to say.

 

[leroy]

I most certainly did not. You merely imagined that. Told you before that you should stop with the guessing, the assuming and the pathetic attempts at mind reading, because you clearly suck at it.

Well in this quote you seemed to be agreeing with me

I told you in the beginning that for the purpose of the point, I assume "mutation + selection" to be very broadly defined to primarily mean blind natural processes. Strictly speaking, for example, "sexual selection" isn't necessarily included in strict definitions of "natural selection".

Given that you are using a broad definition of “mutation” I understand that you are also including “non random genetic variation” in your definition. (transposons, natural genetic engineering, epigenetics etc are included in your “broad definition” of mutation.

If I misunderstood your view, You can simply correct me, perhaps with “mutation” you mean strictly “random mutations”………. Why don’t you simply clarify this point to me?

What is the point of keeping your position vague and ambiguous?

 

[leroy]

Are you using this hinge point as an opening to try and squeeze Intelligent Design into the conversation? Is that where this is going?

I've read in difference places where you're arguing that human evolution was a little faster than normal, which I assume is also part of the ID argument, right?

So like, you're going to eventually argue that mutations aren't random and human evolution was a little special which means there must be room for a Creator, yeah?

Maybe I'm missing something, but 13 pages of bickering doesn't seem necessary if we can just get to the meat of what everyone is actually trying to say.

Maybe, but introducing ID would be a completely independent argument that would have to stand or fall under its own merits.

The only point that I am making is that the evidence seems to suggest that genetic variation is not always random………weather if this has theological implications that you personally don’t like or not is irrelevant at this point.