The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

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.

Whats so hallarious about that?

 

[tas8831]

Whats so hallarious about that?

LOL!
That you cannot see tells me all I need to know (and already knew).

Here is a hint for you, Johnny Science - estimates vary, but the average mammalian gene contains ~1500 exonic nucleotides.

If a 'new' gene requires "thousands" of point mutations... Well, I hope even you can see how bogus your position is.

Also:

1. These (your) arguments seem to imply that any particular trait is brand new and thus must be accounted for by some large number of mutations. This exposes the multi-level ignorance of those making them.

Look at the generic mammal body type - what specific trait does a human have that, say, a lemur or a dog does not? All human traits are essentially variations on a theme, not brand new. Developmental tweaks are all that is actually needed, not some suite of new beneficial mutations to get, say, the human shoulder joint from an ancestral primate shoulder joint.
There is the case of familial achondroplasia (dwarfism) - a single point mutation causes alterations in limb proportion (to include all muscle/nerve/soft tissue/etc. changes), joints, facial features, etc. All from a single point mutation. I am not saying that this is beneficial or adaptive, I am merely explaining that some huge number of mutations is NOT needed to produce relatively large-scale phenotypic changes. THIS is what your Haldane's dilemma-spewing creationist sources can't or won't understand or mention - usually because THEY don't know this, or because they don't want their target audience to know about it.

2. These arguments imply that some huge number of beneficial mutations MUST HAVE BEEN required for this transition to take place. Given that we know that single point mutations can affect multiple body systems and overall morphology, other than a desire for it to be so, what do these Haldane's dilemma types present that actually supports their position?

I've read ReMine's book - he offers nothing in that regard. I've read more recent treatments of it - more of the same.

I mentioned that a creationist once claimed that just to get the changes in the pelvis for bipedal locomotion a million mutations would have been required. Do you think he provided a million 'changes' that had to have been made? Nope. He could not provide A SINGLE example, but as is is the way of the creationist, he merely insisted that he was correct.


My argument against such claims are 1. that there is no argument (see the Ewen's quote); 2. that the arguments are based on ignorance of developmental biology; 3. that they are premised on the argument from awe (big numbers).

 

[tas8831]

​

Yes, that is part of my point “transposons” while the can contribute to the diversity of the genome and can create very fast changes in the phenotype in a very small little amount of time, this mechanism is not random

Define and explain how they are non-random.

 

[tas8831]

​

I meant that Transposons are not the only nonrandom mechanism that could have played a role

Still haven
t explained how transposons are non-random, nor how they can produce rapid evolution.

 

[leroy]

​

Still haven
t explained how transposons are non-random, nor how they can produce rapid evolution.

that is expalined with detail in this article which you have ignored for months
DNA Transposons and the Evolution of Eukaryotic Genomes

 

[tas8831]

Ugh...

Of course you don’t care, keeping your position unclear an ambiguous seems to be your strategy and “changing” the definition of “random” so that you can include your “TTAAAA showed up 22,679 times irrelevant argument”

How is what I found irrelevant?
You claim that transposition is nonrandom, do you not?
If the insertion sites for one such transposon show up more than 22,679 times in just part of one chromosome, how often do you suppose it shows up across the entire genome?

What is your proposed (and preferably demonstrated) mechanism whereby a transposon can look for and find a SPECIFIC one of these 10's of thousands of potential insertion sites such that its insertion counts as being nonrandom with regard to fitness - after all, you are talking about nonrandom with regard to evolution (which is about fitness, yes?)?

You say I am keeping my position "unclear an ambiguous" when you do not seem capable of understanding what I am referring to and are even less capable of providing anything more than mere assertion.

Random simply means that a mutation is not more likely to occur just because the organism would benefit form that mutation.
Non random (directed) simply means the opposite, that a mutation is more likely to occure, given that the organism would benefit from it.

And thus you prove that my statement re: the occurrence of the binding site for the L1 LINE shows up 22,679 times in but 1/20 of one chromosome is RELEVANT.
For how would that LINE be "directed" to insert at a specific locus when the possible sites are in the 10s of thousands on just part of one chromosome?

How can this be so difficult for a science expert like you?

If you don’t like me to use the term “random” please let me know what term should I use in order to represent the definitions that I provideded

It is not the term I am most concerned with.

It is the concept - the concept that you cannot provide a single bit of evidence for.

No I never said, nor implied that transposons get fixed and dominant in all the population and even if I did use the “wrong words” I have clarified this multiple times and you still repeat the same comment..

Here are some things you have written in this thread - things for which you have not provided a single citation for, mush less any kind of explanation, are in RED:

"Yes, that is part of my point “transposons” while the can contribute to the diversity of the genome and can create very fast changes in the phenotype in a very small little amount of time, this mechanism is not random"

"My point is and has always been that organism changing and adapt mainly by nonrandom mechanism (being random mutations just a minor contributor)"

"Trasposons is just 1 of many other non random mechanism that could have played a mayor role."

"But the evidence seems to be consistent with the idea that evolution was caused mainly by non random variation, if you would affirm the opposite (random mutations are the mayor contributor) we can have a discussion where you present your arguments and I present mine." [NOTE - why not just present your amazing evidence?]

"Well then show that random mutations (rather than othe rmechanisms) where mainly responsible for larger brains, upright posture, cooperative behavior etc." [NOTE: I must have missed where you presented yours]

"We know roughly* the ration of beneficial / selectable mutations vs non beneficial mutations" [NOTE: then why do you never provide this ratio/numbers?]

"And we know roughly* how different are humans from chimps, and from that we can infer the differences between humans and the common ancestor.

From this values one can evaluate if 5M years is enough time" [NOTE: not if you cannot provide evidence for the numbers of mutations needed for those changes]

"Given that the human line evolved much faster than the maximum speed allowed by random mutations and natural selection , " [NOTE: your assertions are not in evidence]

Enough for now.

 

[sayak83]

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

I am not interested in discussing what Sanford says, whoever he is. If there are any published scientific papers making the claim about this so called genetic entropy, I can look into it. Otherwise it's just an unscientific and unverfied claim.
Anyways I am happy that we are now agreed that there was enough time for humans and chimps to acquire the genetic divergence that is seen in their DNA.

 

[leroy]

Ugh...
How is what I found irrelevant?
You claim that transposition is nonrandom, do you not?

Straw man , I didn’t say that transposons are always “nonrandom”

}
Here are some things you have written in this thread - things for which you have not provided a single citation for, mush less any kind of explanation, are in RED

:
Ok lets strat with the first

"Yes, that is part of my point “transposons” while the can contribute to the diversity of the genome and can create very fast changes in the phenotype in a very small little amount of time, this mechanism is not random"

source
DNA Transposons and the Evolution of Eukaryotic Genomes
The generation of new alleles and the creation of novel regulatory circuits is a major force underlying the diversification of species (14, 24, 104, 196). As DNA transposon excision can rapidly generate allelic diversity, many subtle adaptive modifications of gene and promoter sequences could conceivably have involved insertion/excision of DNA transposons,

So after you admit that I succeeded in supporting the first claim (in green above) I will proceed in supporting my other claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Yes, much.
But since there is far too much to unpack here, I suggest you reserve your goal moving games about that topic for another thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok the quote my argument and his correction,

Go back and read for yourself.
You have lost any and all credit to be making demands like that.

You can regain that credit by demonstrating that you are capable of responding to posts instead of ignoring them.

Until then, why should I bother?
I've better things to do with my time then to go the extra mile only to end up talking to a wall again.

 

[leroy]

I am not interested in discussing what Sanford says, whoever he is. If there are any published scientific papers making the claim about this so called genetic entropy, I can look into it. Otherwise it's just an unscientific and unverfied claim.
Anyways I am happy that we are now agreed that there was enough time for humans and chimps to acquire the genetic divergence that is seen in their DNA.

Anyways I am happy that we are now agreed that there was enough time for humans and chimps to acquire the genetic divergence that is seen in their DNA

Only if you are willing to pay the price “becoming a neutralist and deal with all the problems of neutralism”


But I honestly and sincerely appreciate your correction

 

[leroy]

Go back and read for yourself.
You have lost any and all credit to be making demands like that.

You can regain that credit by demonstrating that you are capable of responding to posts instead of ignoring them.

Until then, why should I bother?
I've better things to do with my time then to go the extra mile only to end up talking to a wall again.

Well if you are unable to quote my alleged mistakes and the alleged corrections, how am I suppose to “respond” rather than ignoring?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well if you are unable to quote

I am not unable.
I am unwilling.

You're showing your wonderful "honesty" again.

how am I suppose to “respond” rather than ignoring?

There's 2 ways to go about it.

The first is to go back and actually read and respond to the posts you ignored and / or strawmanned.
The second is to reboot with a clean slate and start properly, and honestly, responding to replies you get starting now.

However, both will require you to actually engage in intellectual honest conversation while at the same time having the dignity to admit your mistakes while not assuming you know better then actually experts in the fields you insist on discussing.

That last part is something I predict you will have difficulty with.

 

[leroy]

I am not unable.
I am unwilling.

You're showing your wonderful "honesty" again.



There's 2 ways to go about it.

The first is to go back and actually read and respond to the posts you ignored and / or strawmanned.
The second is to reboot with a clean slate and start properly, and honestly, responding to replies you get starting now.

However, both will require you to actually engage in intellectual honest conversation while at the same time having the dignity to admit your mistakes while not assuming you know better then actually experts in the fields you insist on discussing.

That last part is something I predict you will have difficulty with.

So once again our conversation is following this pattern

1 you say ohhh your claims have been refuted

2 I answer, well quote my claims and the refutation

3 you say no I am not willing o do it because quak quak quak

My question remaisn the same,

How am I supposed to be honest and admit my mistakes if you don’t even tell me what my mistakes are supposed to be?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So once again our conversation is following this pattern

1 you say ohhh your claims have been refuted

2 I answer, well quote my claims and the refutation

3 you say no I am not willing o do it because quak quak quak

My question remaisn the same,

How am I supposed to be honest and admit my mistakes if you don’t even tell me what my mistakes are supposed to be?

It seems you have chosen option 3: not change your ways, double down on ignorance and keep up the status quo.
I didn't expect much else tbh.

Tell you what.
There are 2 posts of @tas8831 on this page where he (re)addresses some of your common mistakes.
You may start by actually replying to the points he raises.

I don't think you will though.

 

[leroy]

It seems you have chosen option 3: not change your ways, double down on ignorance and keep up the status quo.
I didn't expect much else tbh.

Tell you what.
There are 2 posts of @tas8831 on this page where he (re)addresses some of your common mistakes.
You may start by actually replying to the points he raises.

I don't think you will though.

in this case @tas8831 was clear And told me exactly which are the claims that I am supposed to support. (why can’t you do that?)

I already supported my first claim using a peer reviewed article as a source….I am awaiting for his answer and if he agrees that I successfully supported my claim, I will move to the next cliam.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

in this case @tas8831 was clear And told me exactly which are the claims that I am supposed to support. (why can’t you do that?)

I already supported my first claim using a peer reviewed article as a source….I am awaiting for his answer and if he agrees that I successfully supported my claim, I will move to the next cliam.

You didn't support anything.
You posted a link that you've spammed countless times before and gave zero explanation of how it supposedly supports your nonsense.

And meanwhile, you ignored all the other points he raised in those two posts.


Ironically, what you are pointing to is in fact an instance of the exact behavior that almost everybody that talks to you complains about.

Take a hint.

 

[leroy]

You didn't support anything.

Yes I supported the claim that transposons can cause rapid evolution. (rapid variation)

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes I supported the claim that transposons can cause rapid evolution. (rapid variation)

Just so I understand you agree with the theory of evolution but support additional mechanisms of genetic change in addition to mutations as part of the way that evolution occurs.

Would you say that is correct?

 

[sayak83]

Only if you are willing to pay the price “becoming a neutralist and deal with all the problems of neutralism”


But I honestly and sincerely appreciate your correction

Ok. I looked into. Researchers have found that even an extremely small rate of arising of beneficial mutation rate is sufficient to overcome the genomic degeneration caused by accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations.
Dynamic Mutation–Selection Balance as an Evolutionary Attractor

"Hence any stable evolutionary state of a population in a static environment must involve a dynamic mutation–selection balance, where accumulation of deleterious mutations is on average offset by the influx of beneficial mutations. We argue that such a state can exist for any population size N and mutation rate U and calculate the fraction of beneficial mutations, ε, that maintains the balanced state. We find that a surprisingly low ε suffices to achieve stability, even in small populations in the face of high mutation rates and weak selection, maintaining a well-adapted population in spite of Muller’s ratchet. This may explain the maintenance of mitochondria and other asexual genomes."

In infinite populations it has long been recognized that the balance between mutational pressure and purifying selection leads to a fitness equilibrium (Eigen 1971; Haigh 1978). Our analysis demonstrates that such an equilibrium also exists in a finite population, despite the action of genetic drift and Muller’s ratchet.