The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[shunyadragon]

this is both false and irrelevant

false because that is not true, stuff like irreducible complexity and complex specified information arguments are falsifiable

irrelevant because nobody in this thread is proposing a hypothesis for ID

Present the reference that provides a demonstratable falsifiable hypothesis for ID. A falsifiable hypothesis for ID must be able to eliminate any possible natural explanation.

'Stuff like?' There has never been a falsifiable hypothesis to support irreducible complexity proposed still waiting . . .

 

[leroy]

Present the reference that provides a demonstratable falsifiable hypothesis for ID. A falsifiable hypothesis for ID must be able to eliminate any possible natural explanation.

'Stuff like?' There has never been a falsifiable hypothesis to support irreducible complexity proposed still waiting . . .

First you have to do 3 things

1Define " falsifiable"

2 provide an example of a falsifiable hypothesis

3 explain why is it falsifiable

 

[shunyadragon]

First you have to do 3 things

1Define " falsifiable"

2 provide an example of a falsifiable hypothesis

3 explain why is it falsifiable

I do have to do anything. It is up to you to have the basic knowledge of science.

The problem is you make claims without any knowledge in how Methodological Naturalism works, nor actually much about science. You should be able to answer these questions yourself before you making ridiculous non-scientific claims.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible—i.e., expressible in the language of the theory, which must have a conventional empirical interpretation.[A] Thus the theory must be about scientific evidence and it must prohibit some (but not all) logically possible observations. For example, the statement "All swans are white" is falsifiable because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it, whereas "All men are mortal" is not, because, unlike a swan being black, a man being immortal is not an inter-subjective property—there is no shared procedure to systematically conclude to immortality.[1][2]

Falsifiability was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), revised and translated into English in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation.

The role of falsifiability in Popper's philosophy is to make a rational critic or a deductive testing of the theory possible. This logical side is complemented by a methodological side that is hardly rigorous, because it involves irrational creative processes and, as pointed out by Duhem and others, definitive experimental falsifications are impossible. In this context, Popper argued for falsifiability and opposed this to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require assessment of all swans, which is not possible in any theory that has a reasonable empirical interpretation. In contrast, the single observation of a black swan is sufficient to falsify it. Moreover, even if a black swan was in principle impossible due to a fundamental law of biology, it would still be a potential falsifier—i.e., an observation that is logically possible and in contradiction with the claim, which is enough to show that the latter is falsifiable.[C]

As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications, even being used as legal precedent.

 

[sayak83]

Wow, I apologize if i didn’t listen in the past. your math is clear and I think I see where my mistake is.

I am trying to digest your argument at this point, so please be patient if I get this wrong; but it is my understanding that this math compromises you to conclude that most of the differences between chimps and humans are neutral mutations………….is that correct?

Most are. But many will be beneficial mutations also. The fixation probability of beneficial mutations is larger than neutral ones. But they are rarer.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2008.0248

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so according to your source the probability of fixiation in a small population of say 1,000 individuals is 1 in 2,000, if you get 60 mutation then the probability woudl be 60 in 2000 (or 1 in 33)

you need 33 tries (33 generations) to get a single mutation fixed

do the math, how long will it take you to get 30,000,000 mutations fixed?

A biologist (@Jose Fly in post 284) in this thread has just informed you that it is wrong to think that just one mutation gets fixed at a time, in the sense that it is wrong to then think that for 100 mutations to achieve fixation, it needs 3300 years.

So why do you repeat this same falsehood?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

stuff like irreducible complexity and complex specified information arguments are falsifiable

And deeply fallacious.

irrelevant because nobody in this thread is proposing a hypothesis for ID

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All you are doing is asserting that I have errors, but you haven’t justify them

Your alleged errors are not even relevant.

For example weather if the common ancestor of chimps and humans is half way between both or it´s more “chimp” or more “human” is irrelevant……………..for the sale of this conversation we can assume that it is more human-like than chimp-like , or more chimp-like than human, or 50/50 it doesn’t matter the problem doesn’t go away.

If you would have understand the argument, you would have noticed that I am already assuming that these mutations where extremely beneficial , I am already assuming the best possible scenario. If some of these mutations are neutral or negative then this problem becomes even harder to solve.

Why don’t you accept my challenge? Why don’t you explain the argument with your own words? That way I will know that you understand it, and if necessary I can correct you (perhaps you are unwillingly refuting an argument that I am not making)

I think it's hilarious how you continue to double down on your errors concerning biology while talking to a biologist, claiming that he "does not understand".

 

[leroy]

I've lost all interest in repeating myself ad nauseum.]

Nobody is asking you to repeat yourself, what you are expected to do is to justify your claims.

Names please.

Durrett Schmidt Lynch Abegg Sanford, Kimura, Haldine Brewer, Smith Baumgardner


sources
technical article The waiting time problem in a model hominin population | Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling | Full Text

news article.https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_origin_of_m/

These sources explain the problem with detail, and you can see the contributiosn of the scientists that I mentioned above.

Will you reed the source? NO

Will you present a serious objection to the source NO

Why not?

Because except for yourself all biologists and geneticists are aware of this problem, this is not “new stuff”

 

[leroy]

Most are. But many will be beneficial mutations also. The fixation probability of beneficial mutations is larger than neutral ones. But they are rarer.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2008.0248

Yes the problem is that this commits you to the view that most fixed mutations are neutral, and this inherits many other problems.

For example “neutral mutations” are in reality “slightly deleterious” in most of the cases, which means that they don’t kill the organism nor harm it in any relevant way, but they can accumulate over time and create a serious damage.

An analogy would be a spelling mistake, a single spelling mistake is not harmfull in most of the cases, (you can still read and understand the book ) but if you accumulate many spelling mistakes you end up with a serious problem and you will reach a point where the book is impossible to read.

This is what Sanford calls Genetic entropy

 

[leroy]

A biologist (@Jose Fly in post 284) in this thread has just informed you that it is wrong to think that just one mutation gets fixed at a time, in the sense that it is wrong to then think that for 100 mutations to achieve fixation, it needs 3300 years.

So why do you repeat this same falsehood?

I am using an average of 1 mutation per generation (10 years)………this is a far too generous assumption


I am not ignoring the fact that many mutations can get fixed at the same time, this is why I used a generous average of 1 fixed mutation per generation

 

[leroy]

I think it's hilarious how you continue to double down on your errors concerning biology while talking to a biologist, claiming that he "does not understand".

The errors that I am accusing @Jose Fly are not errors concerning biology but errors concerning his ability to understand an argument/point.....................

So his degree in biology is not relevant

 

[leroy]

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible—

Ok using that definition.

Behes argument is based on 2 premises

1 Irreducible complex stuff cant evolve through Darwinian mechanisms (random variation + natural selection)

2 the flagellum is irreducibly complex

Therefore the flagellum could have not evolved.

Based on that definition, the argument is falsifiable all you have to do is show that any of the premises is wrong.

There are many experiments and observations that are logically possible that could refute any of those premises.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes the problem is that this commits you to the view that most fixed mutations are neutral, and this inherits many other problems.

For example “neutral mutations” are in reality “slightly deleterious” in most of the cases, which means that they don’t kill the organism nor harm it in any relevant way, but they can accumulate over time and create a serious damage.

An analogy would be a spelling mistake, a single spelling mistake is not harmfull in most of the cases, (you can still read and understand the book ) but if you accumulate many spelling mistakes you end up with a serious problem and you will reach a point where the book is impossible to read.

This is what Sanford calls Genetic entropy

Your comparison once again exposes your lack of knowledge of genetics.

You complete ignore mutations in inactive dna. Your "spelling mistake" only applies to active dna.
Your comparison with "spelling mistakes" also isn't really correct either.
You ignore things like "synonyms". It's more like changing a word to another word with the same meaning.
You also ignore the redundancy that exists in dna.

I'm not a geneticist either. But even I can see how shallow and simplistic your approach is here, to the point where what comes out is simple nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am using an average of 1 mutation per generation (10 years)………this is a far too generous assumption

I am not ignoring the fact that many mutations can get fixed at the same time, this is why I used a generous average of 1 fixed mutation per generation

That you can't see the obvious contradiction in this post, is beyond me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The errors that I am accusing @Jose Fly are not errors concerning biology but errors concerning his ability to understand an argument/point.....................

So his degree in biology is not relevant

Your argument / point is invalid because it is based in ignorance and misrepresentation.
He's correcting you. Instead of reviewing and adjusting your argument accordingly, you are instead merely accusing him of not understanding the argument, while doubling down on the already exposed mistakes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok using that definition.

Behes argument is based on 2 premises

1 Irreducible complex stuff cant evolve through Darwinian mechanisms (random variation + natural selection)

2 the flagellum is irreducibly complex

Therefore the flagellum could have not evolved.

Based on that definition, the argument is falsifiable all you have to do is show that any of the premises is wrong.

Premise 1 is a bare claim.
It's not anyone's job to show it to be wrong (eventhough plenty of people already did - so much so that I'm surprised you aren't aware of it... especially so since I consider it impossible that nobody has ever pointed it out to you... I guess you ignored it again).

It's Behe's job (or however is presenting that argument) to SUPPORT premise 1.

There are many experiments and observations that are logically possible that could refute any of those premises.

And they have.
"irreducible systems" evolve all the time. It's not even hard.

3 words: repurposing of parts.




Having said all that......
Note that @shunyadragon said that ID was unfalsifiable. You then moved the goalpost to "irreducible complexity".

 

[leroy]

Your argument / point is invalid because it is based in ignorance and misrepresentation.
He's correcting you. Instead of reviewing and adjusting your argument accordingly, you are instead merely accusing him of not understanding the argument, while doubling down on the already exposed mistakes.

Ok the quote my argument and his correction,

 

[leroy]

Note that @shunyadragon said that ID was unfalsifiable. You then moved the goalpost to "irreducible complexity".

Ok then it was my mistake.

Sure ID as a whole is unfalsifiable

But the specific arguments used to support ID are falsifiable.

Any disagreement?

 

[tas8831]

well thats the point that I made to @tas8831


We can ask him directly.

Tas, do you agree that mutations in primates don’t become fixed and dominat in 30 years (you need much more time)

It depends on the population size, generation time, the strength of selection, etc. Surely a master population geneticist such as yourself should know this (despite conflating beneficial with all mutations for the last several years).

 

[tas8831]

Hi @leroy - remember when you claimed:

: "the RM+NS model would require a gene duplication + thousands of point mutations in order to get something that we would call a “new gene”

That was HILARIOUS! But at the same time, it explains so much about your 'argument' - you have at best, a cursory knowledge of genetics and population genetics. And this shallow grasp allows you to think WAYYY more highly of your ability to argue matters on these topics because you simply do not understand how little you understand. This is classic Dunning-Kruger effect.