The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[tas8831]

Biologists and geneticists are aware of this challenge and they are working to find a solution, you seem to be the only biologist that is not aware of this challenge.

No biologist is aware of a 'challenge' to explain how 33 million beneficial mutations became fixed in 5 million years because no biologist is stupid enough to think that 33 million mutational differences between humans and whoever are all beneficial.

 

[leroy]

What is your source that demonstrates that these 33 million mutations are beneficial and fixed?

Again, if are not arguing that most (or a big portion of) this 33,000,000 are benefitial then the dilema doesn’t apply to you

 

[tas8831]

Again haldine dilemma is a “problem” is you think that a big portion of the differences (in the genotype) are benefitial mutations.

But only ignorant creationists think that.

Is this doesn’t represent you then the the dilema doesn’t apply to you.

That is one way to get out of admitting you have nothing.
It doesn't apply to anyone because it is not a real problem (as Ewens wrote) and only creationists, ignorant of the science, assert otherwise.

This is one of the reasons I have asked creationists how many mutations they think it takes to alter a body part. None of them can answer, despite claiming that there are 'too few' such mutations (then there is you, whose take on the issue is the opposite of even the YECs you have referred to).

 

[leroy]

Nobody has seen you present data or evidence nonrandom mutations exist yet.

Again, a dozen or so peer reviewed articles have been presented in this forum, you only refute 1 (1988 one)

I am supporting my claims with peer reviewed sources, what else do you want?

 

[leroy]

But only ignorant creationists think that. That is one way to get out of admitting you are have nothing.
It doesn't apply to anyone because it is not a real problem (as Ewens wrote) and only creationists, ignorant of the science, assert otherwise.

You could have said:

“Hey I don’t claim that most (or a big portion of) fixed mutations are beneficial therefore the challenge doesn’t apply to me, bye.”

Imagine the hours’ worth of time that we would have saved, if you would have made that statement

It doesn't apply to anyone

Wrong, the scientific community is divided, ever heard about the “selectionists vs neutralist” controversy?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Oh I understand it, I just didn't appreciate that you were dredging up a creationist argument based on a 70 year old erroneous model.

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.

Which again, no biologist has said otherwise. That's why evolutionary theory includes mechanisms beyond mutations and selection.

“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?

You're jumping topics. Remember earlier when you insisted that we only focus on single base changes? Now you're invoking transposons and epigenetics, neither of which are ways in which SNPs accumulate.

Also, you can't lump NGE in with transposons and epigenetics. The latter two are widely accepted among geneticists, whereas NGE is not.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm one of those (inactive for the last decade). I find his challenge laughable. I might entertain it if it came from a 19 year old freshmen, but from someone presenting himself as Johnny Science expert on the intertubes, it just comes across as... well... typical for lay creationist types.

It's amazing how many experts in genetics and evolutionary biology are out there, isn't it?

 

[tas8831]

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

Cute - John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith & John Baumgardner are YECs, and at least Baumgardner is not even a biologist. I can't believe that they are still hawking "Mendel's Accountant" - their cruddy program that nobody uses. Funny thing - when it first came out, they touted it as the best program ever.... about 6 months later they totally re-engineered it because 1.0 sucked.

Kimura is dead, as is Haldane. They are not working on it. Kimura demonstrated that most mutations are neutral, and he predicted, using Neutral theory, both the number of genes and genome sizes of large mammals to within a few percent without any DNA sequence data in existence at the time.


RE: Durrett and Schmidt -

"In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

So I guess you really don't read the things you cite.

 

[tas8831]

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

But.... you didn't. 'Rapid' variation is not the same as 'rapid evolution', especially since the paper you cited was using 'rapid variation' in a specific way - you did read it, right?

 

[tas8831]

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

Tell us all about the problems of "neutralism."

Please quote any relevant comment from @tas8831 that I ignored

Umm.... Try the OP of this thread?

 

[tas8831]

The claims made by Shapiro are reported in multiple peer review articles.

Yes - his own and his minions.

Your supposed refutations are presented in a blogpost

Yes - by a former president of the Society for the Study of Evolution, author of hundreds of evolutionary biology research articles, etc. He was responding to Shapiro's creationist-like antics when publishing essays for public consumption based on his flights of fancy.

So until you present a peer reviewed article that debunks Shapiro I would argue that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I wouldn't for reasons that others have intimated.

HONESLTY what else do you want? What else do you expect from me? I am supporting my claims with peer reviewed articles if this is not enough to convince you then I don’t know what else to do

But you aren't - you have a distinct tendency to ignore explanations as to why your references are not what you claim/want them to be.

 

[tas8831]

Again, a dozen or so peer reviewed articles have been presented in this forum, you only refute 1 (1988 one)

For reasons I have already written - by the way, I did not say I 'refuted' anything. I pointed out how you used an out-of-date paper on directed mutations, and that I suspected I would find such errors - on your part - in all of them. More of an impeachment than a refutation.

I am supporting my claims with peer reviewed sources, what else do you want?

But... you're NOT. That is the issue you can't seem to get over.

 

[leroy]

Which again, no biologist has said otherwise. That's why evolutionary theory includes mechanisms beyond mutations and selection.

that is my point

You're jumping topics. Remember earlier when you insisted that we only focus on single base changes? Now you're invoking transposons and epigenetics, neither of which are ways in which SNPs accumulate.

The non random mechanisms that I suggested can alter multiple nucleotides at the same time

Also, you can't lump NGE in with transposons and epigenetics. The latter two are widely accepted among geneticists, whereas NGE is not.

Natural genetic engineering is available in the peer review literature and as far as I know there are no serious rebuttals.

So why wouldn’t it be at pair with epigenetics and transpososn?

 

[leroy]

But.... you didn't. 'Rapid' variation is not the same as 'rapid evolution', especially since the paper you cited was using 'rapid variation' in a specific way - you did read it, right?

Ok what the difference between rapid evolution and rapid variation?

What does the paper support, rapid evolution or rapid variation?

 

[leroy]

But you aren't - you have a distinct tendency to ignore explanations as to why your references are not what you claim/want them to be.

no sir, make a decision

ether

1 Shapiro and his peer reviewed articles are wrong (therefore I am wrong )

2 Shapiro is correct, but I misinterpreted his claims

You seem to be jumping from one and other.

 

[leroy]

For reasons I have already written - by the way, I did not say I 'refuted' anything. I pointed out how you used an out-of-date paper on directed mutations, and that I suspected I would find such errors - on your part - in all of them. More of an impeachment than a refutation.
But... you're NOT. That is the issue you can't seem to get over.

Well what kind of evidence would you accept for “directed mutations” ? if peer reviewed articles are not enough then what would be good enough for you?


Why isent this article good enough for you?

The results of molecular genetics have frequently been difficult to explain by conventional evolutionary theory. New findings about the genetic conservation of protein structure and function across very broad taxonomic boundaries, the mosaic structure of genomes and genetic loci, and the molecular mechanisms of genetic change all point to a view of evolution as involving the rearrangement of basic genetic motifs. A more detailed examination of how living cells restructure their genomes reveals a wide variety of sophisticated biochemical systems responsive to elaborate regulatory networks. In some cases, we know that cells are able to accomplish extensive genome reorganization within one or a few cell generations
(PDF) Natural genetic engineering in evolution

This paper supports these 2 claims

1 organism can rearrange their DNA

2 This process is not random

So why isn’t the paper good enough to support these 2 claims? What else do you need in order to grant these 2 claims?

 

[shunyadragon]

no sir, make a decision

ether

1 Shapiro and his peer reviewed articles are wrong (therefore I am wrong )

2 Shapiro is correct, but I misinterpreted his claims

You seem to be jumping from one and other.

Both conclusions are OK, Shapiro research is peer reviewed and right on.

IT remains that objective verifiable physical evidence is necessary for falsification for hypothesis.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes thanks for the correction

Your math was wrong and you are welcome.

 

[Jose Fly]

The non random mechanisms that I suggested can alter multiple nucleotides at the same time

First, when I said that to you before in the context of transposons and gene duplication, you said you were only focusing on single nucleotide mutations. So if we're now back to including mechanisms that can change thousands of bases at a time, then you need to be consistent in your argument.

Second, epigenetics is about changes in gene expression. It has to do with how genes are "packaged", and isn't a mechanism of mutation. So if we're talking about mutational changes to DNA, you need to drop epigenetics as a mechanism for that.

Natural genetic engineering is available in the peer review literature and as far as I know there are no serious rebuttals.

You seem to be under the impression that if a paper is published in a scientific journal, that means its contents are automatically valid. That's not the case at all. Journals oftentimes publish papers that posit hypotheticals to generate discussion among experts. It's not unusual for those types of papers to either be criticized by the author's peers, or to be ignored and fall into irrelevance.

In Shapiro's case, it was a bit of both. His original paper on NGE was generally ignored, and it wasn't until his book was published that more scientists noticed and offered their criticisms. If you want to see some of them that have been published in scientific journals, go to this Wiki page: Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia and read through citations 17-26.

So why wouldn’t it be at pair with epigenetics and transpososn?

Both epigenetics and transposons are directly observed, are relatively well understood, and have been widely accepted for quite a long time. NGE is none of those.

 

[leroy]

You seem to be under the impression that if a paper is published in a scientific journal, that means its contents are automatically valid. That's not the case at all. Journals oftentimes publish papers that posit hypotheticals to generate discussion among experts. It's not unusual for those types of papers to either be criticized by the author's peers, or to be ignored and fall into irrelevance.

I accept you point, but if my alternatives are

1 trusting a peer review article

2 trusting a guy from a forum that doesn’t even explain why the author is wrong

I think is obvious and understandable to go for option 1

In Shapiro's case, it was a bit of both. His original paper on NGE was generally ignored, and it wasn't until his book was published that more scientists noticed and offered their criticisms. If you want to see some of them that have been published in scientific journals, go to this Wiki page: Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia and read through citations 17-26.

.

None of the critics from your wiki article refutes any of my points.