The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

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?

Yes that is correct

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes that is correct

So what are the main other mechanisms you consider important? I know epigenetics to be one of them.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Number 1 & 2 Fails. None of the above meets the criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis Claims concerning irreducible complexity not possible need ro presented as a falsifiable hypothesis by itself, and such things as specific evidence. No hypothesis nor scientific evidence has been presented that demonstrates a natural explanation is not possible.

 

[leroy]

So what are the main other mechanisms you consider important? I know epigenetics to be one of them.

trasposons, epigenetics, natural genetic engeneering,

but it seems to me that all these mechanisms are all part of the same mechanism,

 

[leroy]

Number 1 & 2 Fails. None of the above meets the criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis Claims concerning irreducible complexity not possible need ro presented as a falsifiable hypothesis by itself, and such things as specific evidence. No hypothesis nor scientific evidence has been presented that demonstrates a natural explanation is not possible.

there are observations that are logically possible that woudl disprove any of these 2 premises.

for example a step by step path where each step is positive woudl falsify premise 2

 

[leroy]

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.

this paper deals with the effect of delaterous mutations in asexual organisms. (without sex its harder to remove the bad mutations from the population) this is very interesting but it´s irrelevant, this has nothign to do with genetc entropy and the argument proposed by Sanfords.

 

[shunyadragon]

there are observations that are logically possible that woudl disprove any of these 2 premises.

for example a step by step path where each step is positive woudl falsify premise 2

Not a good example of anything. No positive steps are available to falsify any premise presented here. Science is based on objective verifiable evidence, and not 'what is logically possible.'Logical reasoning cannot replace evidence.

Reference to research that reaches your conclusions?!?!?.

 

[Bear Wild]

trasposons, epigenetics, natural genetic engeneering,

but it seems to me that all these mechanisms are all part of the same mechanism,

Transposons, epigenetics are appropriate and are well documented. The term natural genetic engineering may imply a level of intelligence as in human intelligence using the word engineering with its association with human behavior but at least it removes the intelligent design aspect and the supernatural. There is at least evidence for environmentally influenced changes affecting genetic expression along with increasingly more complex genetic combination and expression that is not random.

 

[Jose Fly]

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



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







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

Oh, I guess I wasn't aware that you've been doing nothing more than regurgitating old creationist arguments about Haldane's dilemma. That's kinda been done to death, don't you think? I mean, Haldane himself admitted that his calculations (that were done in the 1950's were likely erroneous) and the "dilemma" was generally seen as resolved with the advent of neutral theory.

Plus, ol' @tas8831 has started a few threads specifically on that, including this one. From what I can tell, your response seems to ignore his content and challenge him to develop his own model of exactly how humans evolved.

Creationists who think that there has "not been enough time"... | Religious Forums

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist | Religious Forums

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

for example a step by step path where each step is positive woudl falsify premise 2

The Evolution of the Flagellum - YouTube


You can go ahead and handwave that away with some nonsense reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reference to research that reaches you conclusions?!?!?.

Hahaha, that's funny.

I assume you were joking, off course.

 

[leroy]

Not a good example of anything. No positive steps are available to falsify any premise presented here. Science is based on objective verifiable evidence, and not 'what is logically possible.'Logical reasoning cannot replace evidence.

Reference to research that reaches your conclusions?!?!?.

and not 'what is logically possible

We are working with the definition of “falsifiability” that you yourself provided.

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

—
So yes the concept of falsifiability is about what is logically possible.

 

[leroy]

Transposons, epigenetics are appropriate and are well documented. The term natural genetic engineering may imply a level of intelligence as in human intelligence using the word engineering with its association with human behavior but at least it removes the intelligent design aspect and the supernatural. There is at least evidence for environmentally influenced changes affecting genetic expression along with increasingly more complex genetic combination and expression that is not random.

Yes that (in red) has always been my point

 

[leroy]

Oh, I guess I wasn't aware that you've been doing nothing more than regurgitating old creationist arguments about Haldane's dilemma.

Which proves my previous point “you didn’t understand the argument” you where just making random claims and random “objections” to an argument that you didn’t understand.

That's kinda been done to death, don't you think? I mean, Haldane himself admitted that his calculations (that were done in the 1950's were likely erroneous) and the "dilemma" was generally seen as resolved with the advent of neutral theory.

which means that this problem can not be solved with Darwinism (random mutations+natural selection) which means that darwinism is an icomplete theory which is and has always been my point.

Ofcourse “neutralism” has many problems so by solving this problem with “neutral theory” you inherit a few new problems which is why I proposed an other solution

“maybe a relevant portion of mutations is not random” maybe an organism can “change” many portions of the genome (and the phenotype) in a beneficial way in a small amount of time. We know about many mechanisms that can do this (traspososn, NGE, Epigenetics etc) so why not assuming that these mechanisms played an important role in the evolution of the human – line?

So if you affirm that neutralism is a better solution than mine, we can discuss on that particular topic.

If you what to take the typical atheist position of “I don’t affirm not deny anything” I will just play skeptic then I would rather end this conversation.

Plus, ol' @tas8831 has started a few threads specifically on that, including this one. From what I can tell, your response seems to ignore his content and challenge him to develop his own model of exactly how humans evolved.
s

Please quote any relevant comment from @tas8831 that I ignored

 

[leroy]

The Evolution of the Flagellum - YouTube


You can go ahead and handwave that away with some nonsense reason.

So just to be clear, are you claiming that this video (+the sources behind it)falsify the argument of IC

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So just to be clear, are you claiming that this video (+the sources behind it)falsify the argument of IC

It provides a model of how the flagellum can gradually evolve.
The flagellum is one of the things, THE thing actually, that Behe and his fellow con-men hold up as something that "can not evolve" and is "irredicibly complex".

I agree the flagellum in its present form is "irreducibly complex", if "irreducible complex" means that removing a component breaks the entire thing.
The problem is that they try to sneak in the nonsense that says "therefor it can't evolve".

This is not true.

As has been pointed out many times already, IC structures can easily evolve. It's not even hard. Or rare.

 

[leroy]

It provides a model of how the flagellum can gradually evolve.
The flagellum is one of the things, THE thing actually, that Behe and his fellow con-men hold up as something that "can not evolve" and is "irredicibly complex".

I agree the flagellum in its present form is "irreducibly complex", if "irreducible complex" means that removing a component breaks the entire thing.
The problem is that they try to sneak in the nonsense that says "therefor it can't evolve".

This is not true.

As has been pointed out many times already, IC structures can easily evolve. It's not even hard. Or rare.

Sure my point is the argument is falsifiable, and according to you the argument has been falsified ……..which means, it seems to me, that we agree on that the argument is falsifiable.

After we agree on this (in red) we can move on, and I can explain to you why your video fails.

 

[tas8831]

I am not interested in discussing what Sanford says, whoever he is.

Sanford is a former legitimate scientist that, as many such folk do, decided to abandon reason and ignore science when he became a full-time creationist. See the OP for an example of how he ignores, does not know about, or 'forgot' real science.

 

[shunyadragon]

We are working with the definition of “falsifiability” that you yourself provided.

Yes, which requires objective verifiable evidence, and the results of peer reviewed scientific research. The claims of Intelligent Design irreducible complexity lacks this.

So yes the concept of falsifiability is about what is logically possible.

No what is logically possible does not include objectively verifiable evidence.

 

[leroy]

Yes, which requires objective verifiable evidence, and the results of peer reviewed scientific research. The claims of Intelligent Design irreducible complexity lacks this.

Again given the definition of “falsifiable” that you quoted a claim can be falsifiable independently of weather if there is verifiable evidence supporting this claim or not…. All you need is an observation that is logically possible that would refute that claim,

If you are using a different definition of “falsifiable” then provide your new definition.