The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's review the chain of posts here...

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

Only in your dreams.

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

I most certainly did not.

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".

How you understood that to mean that I agree with the asanine and demonstrably false nonsense that "there is not enough time for humans to evolve from an ancient primate", is beyond me.

I rest my case and will leave the obvious intellectual dishonesty to speak for itself.

 

[leroy]

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

Yes I provided peer reviewed articles that conclue that there are other mechanisms apart form random mutations that play a major role in evolution. I even quoted the relevant parts of the article and paint the letter in red……….honestly what else do you want?

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

But nor Wikipedia nor the primary sources are affirming that all mutations are random. (feel free to quote a text that suggests otherwise)

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.

Which is awesome because nobody in this thread is denying the basics of the ToE, nobody is denying that organisms change and adapt, nobody is denying that we share a common ancestor with chimps, nobody is denying that eyes evolved form simpler organs etc.

The only claim that I am making is that some mutations are not random, and that non-random mutations played an important role. And I supported my position with scientific literature,

 

[leroy]

Let's review the chain of posts here...












How you understood that to mean that I agree with the asanine and demonstrably false nonsense that "there is not enough time for humans to evolve from an ancient primate", is beyond me.

I rest my case and will leave the obvious intellectual dishonesty to speak for itself.

So do you agree or disagree with the claim that non-random mutations played a major role in evolution?

 

[Jose Fly]

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

You're basing your argument and math on going from a modern chimp to a modern human. Evolutionary biology poses no such thing.

You're arguing against the idea that natural selection and mutation are the only two mechanisms behind evolution. Evolutionary biologists have identified more than just those two mechanisms.

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 )

As I noted earlier, you're assuming that each bp difference requires its own separate mutation, when in reality things like gene duplication can account for a 25,000+ bp difference with a single mutation.

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

Straw man (see above).

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.

Straw man (see above.

 

[leroy]

You're arguing against the idea that natural selection and mutation are the only two mechanisms behind evolution. Evolutionary biologists have identified more than just those two mechanisms.

Yes that is and has always been my point , I am not going against biologists, but your friends (@TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone etc.) form this forum seem to disagree with this statemenmt.

If any of them corrects me and clarifies that they dont claim that evolution is caused only by random mutations and natrual selection, I would take the blame and apologize for my strawman.

As I noted earlier, you're assuming that each bp difference requires its own separate mutation, when in reality things like gene duplication can account for a 25,000+ bp difference with a single mutation.

The 1-2% difference between chimps and humans that is commonly reported in the literature only accounts for the single nucleotide mutations (point mutations)..............(my math is relevant only for these type of differences)

Gene duplications are additional differences that also require an explanation.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes that is and has always been my point , I am not going against biologists, but your friends (@TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone etc.) form this forum seem to disagree with this statemenmt.

If any of them corrects me and clarifies that they dont claim that evolution is caused only by random mutations and natrual selection, I would take the blame and apologize for my strawman.

I've seen them mention things like genetic drift to you.

The 1-2% difference between chimps and humans

Again, you're comparing the genomes of modern chimps and modern humans, which is a straw man since evolutionary biology does not propose that either evolved from the other.

that is commonly reported in the literature only accounts for the single nucleotide mutations (point mutations)..............(my math is relevant only for these type of differences)

I don't think you're reading it correctly.

Gene duplications are additional differences that also require an explanation.

Um......what? Genes duplicate all the time. One human to the next will likely have different numbers of various genes.

 

[leroy]

I've seen them mention things like genetic drift to you]

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?

Again, you're comparing the genomes of modern chimps and modern humans, which is a straw man since evolutionary biology does not propose that either evolved from the other.

No, I am comparing the human genome vs the genome of the common ancestor between chimps and humans (whose genome is presumable halve way between chimps and humans)

I don't think you're reading it correctly.

form this source Differences between human and chimpanzee genomes and their implications in gene expression, protein functions and biochemical properties of the two species | BMC Genomics | Full Text

Human-specific single nucleotide alterations constituted 1.23% of human DNA, whereas more extended deletions and insertions cover ~ 3% of our genome

The math that I shared only deals with the 1.23% which are changes attributed to single nucleotide mutations.

 

[Jose Fly]

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?

Then you need to adjust your word usage. You keep harping on about there being more behind evolution than mutation and selection, which gives the impression that you're talking about the existence of mechanisms besides those two, such as genetic drift and migration. But really you're trying to talk about mutations being "non random". If that's what you want to discuss, then stick to that.

From what I've seen, the notion of non-random mutations was considered a while ago but never really went anywhere. Initially biologists noticed that under times of stress, some species seemed to ramp up their mutation rate. But later it was discovered that they were really just shutting down or reducing their DNA repair processes, which made it look like they were generating additional mutations to meet a need.

No, I am comparing the human genome vs the genome of the common ancestor between chimps and humans (whose genome is presumable halve way between chimps and humans)

Um.....no you're not. You've been basing your entire argument on the differences between the genomes of modern humans and modern chimps, not between the genomes of modern humans and an ancient ancestor.

And assuming that the ancestor's genome was half way between modern chimps and humans is utterly ridiculous. That's like saying my Grandpa's genome must have been half way between the genomes of my cousin and me.

form this source Differences between human and chimpanzee genomes and their implications in gene expression, protein functions and biochemical properties of the two species | BMC Genomics | Full Text

The math that I shared only deals with the 1.23% which are changes attributed to single nucleotide mutations.

Okay, fair enough. But did you read the entire thing? Did you notice where they said they still don't know which specific sequences make us human? That alone renders your entire argument moot.

 

[metis]

I even quoted the relevant parts of the article and paint the letter in red……….honestly what else do you want?

Sorry, but I never saw that post.

But nor Wikipedia nor the primary sources are affirming that all mutations are random. (feel free to quote a text that suggests otherwise)

I never said nor implied all mutations are random.

The only claim that I am making is that some mutations are not random, and that non-random mutations played an important role. And I supported my position with scientific literature,

It is virtually impossible to know which mutations may be entirely random versus those that may be caused by some entity, such as radiation for example. Sometimes we see patterns but sometimes we don't.

Seems that we're talking past each other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So do you agree or disagree with the claim that non-random mutations played a major role in evolution?

So you're just going to flat out ignore the enormous strawman I just exposed and go on with your nonsense as if nothing happened?

What else is new, I guess.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is virtually impossible to know which mutations may be entirely random versus those that may be caused by some entity, such as radiation for example.

Mutations caused by something like radiation, doesn't make them non-random.
In evolutionary context the "random" refers to "random to fitness"

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

I appreciate that honesty.

Not all mutations are random. That's true.

 

[leroy]

Then you need to adjust your word usage. You keep harping on about there being more behind evolution than mutation and selection, which gives the impression that you're talking about the existence of mechanisms besides those two, such as genetic drift and migration. But really you're trying to talk about mutations being "non random". If that's what you want to discuss, then stick to that.

From what I've seen, the notion of non-random mutations was considered a while ago but never really went anywhere. Initially biologists noticed that under times of stress, some species seemed to ramp up their mutation rate. But later it was discovered that they were really just shutting down or reducing their DNA repair processes, which made it look like they were generating additional mutations to meet a need.

What about the mechanisms that I mentioned in my sources like transposons, natural genetic engineering or epigenetics? Do you agree with me and with the authors of the papers on that probably* some of these mechanisms played an important role?

Um.....no you're not. You've been basing your entire argument on the differences between the genomes of modern humans and modern chimps, not between the genomes of modern humans and an ancient ancestor.

And assuming that the ancestor's genome was half way between modern chimps and humans is utterly ridiculous. That's like saying my Grandpa's genome must have been half way between the genomes of my cousin and me.

If the differences between chimps and humans is 1.2% then the difference between humans and the common ancestor should be around 0.6%.......agree?

Okay, fair enough. But did you read the entire thing? Did you notice where they said they still don't know which specific sequences make us human? That alone renders your entire argument moot.

Irrelevant,

 

[leroy]

.

I never said nor implied all mutations are random.

OK so we agree

[]It is virtually impossible to know which mutations may be entirely random versus those that may be caused by some entity, such as radiation for example. Sometimes we see patterns but sometimes we don't.

Seems that we're talking past each other.

With random I mean random with respect to the needs of the organism………..an organism is not more likely to get a mutation just because he needs it.


so woudl you agree on that non-random mutations occure and play an important role? some examples of non-random mutations would be epigenetics, natrual genetic engeneerign, jumping genes etc.

 

[leroy]

So you're just going to flat out ignore the enormous strawman

granted I made a mistake

will you ever answer my question? do you agree on that some mutations are not random and that they play an important role in evolution?

 

[leroy]

I appreciate that honesty.

Not all mutations are random. That's true.

Wow, it took you 1 try to answer Cleary and unambiguously. Others like @TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone etc. might learn from you

 

[Jose Fly]

What about the mechanisms that I mentioned in my sources like transposons, natural genetic engineering or epigenetics? Do you agree with me and with the authors of the papers on that probably* some of these mechanisms played an important role?

Transposons and epigenetics are long-standing and well-known factors. Natural genetic engineering, as I understand it, is not in the same category.

If the differences between chimps and humans is 1.2% then the difference between humans and the common ancestor should be around 0.6%.......agree?

No.

Irrelevant,

Um.....no. If geneticists don't know what sequences specifically make us human, then we also can't know which mutations in our history were vital to us becoming human, which makes attempts to see if there was enough time for them to arise and become fixed, meaningless.

IOW, if you don't know which mutations were important in our evolution, then you certainly can't say much of anything about the time over which they occurred (because you don't even know what they are).

 

[leroy]

Transposons and epigenetics are long-standing and well-known factors. .

Ok so unless you correct me I will assume that you agree on that those mechanisms play an important role in evolution……………

No.

Ok what number do you propose?

Um.....no. If geneticists don't know what sequences specifically make us human, then we also can't know which mutations in our history were vital to us becoming human, which makes attempts to see if there was enough time for them to arise and become fixed, meaningless.

IOW, if you don't know which mutations were important in our evolution, then you certainly can't say much of anything about the time over which they occurred (because you don't even know what they are).

Among other things, You need around 20-30M single point mutations to explain the differences between humans and chimps

Weather if any of these mutations are vital or not is irrelevant,..........it is still a fact that these mutations had to occure and become fixed and dominant. and we need an expalnation for that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok so unless you correct me I will assume that you agree on that those mechanisms play an important role in evolution……………

Transposons and epigenetics, certainly (and btw, you've been using the term "epigenetics" wrong). Natural genetic engineering OTOH, no. From what I saw, it was advocated by one person who published a paper on it that was mostly ignored, but after he wrote it into a book a number of geneticists criticized it and the idea hasn't gone anywhere since.

Ok what number do you propose?

Given the lack of information regarding what sequences makes us "human", any number at this point is going to be mostly made up, and therefore meaningless.

Among other things, You need around 20-30M single point mutations to explain the differences between humans and chimps

Good grief man, you're just repeating the same error. No one knows which mutations are meaningful to "the differences between humans and chimps". Do you not understand that?

Weather if any of these mutations are vital or not is irrelevant,..........it is still a fact that these mutations had to occure and become fixed and dominant. and we need an expalnation for that.

The likelihood of a mutation becoming fixed is directly related to how vital the mutation is. If you don't know which mutations are vital and which ones aren't, then everything else becomes meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

granted I made a mistake

You do that quite often. This is the first time you acknowledged it. Although it certainly is not the first time your mistakes were pointed out to you.

will you ever answer my question?

It's been answered multiple times by multiple people. Just a few posts ago it was answered yet again by @Jose Fly in post #268


I have nothing to add to what he said.