The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[Jose Fly]

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

I'm not asking you to trust me.

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

Several of those papers are review papers, which are rather lengthy. You've read all of them?

 

[leroy]

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.

yes my mistake, thanks for the correction

 

[leroy]

Several of those papers are review papers, which are rather lengthy. You've read all of them?

No I read the wiki article that summaries the main criticisms, none of the deny that:

1 organisms can rearrange their genome (change the letters)

2 this mechanisms is not random


these are the main critics

1. 
   

   [*]The theory crosses the line into teleology, a line exemplified by the review written by Larry Moran.[17] The form of Shapiro's argument has points of resemblance to several creationist arguments to the effect that observed biology cannot be explained by a combination of "random" (undirected) mutation and natural selection. One of the many standard responses to these arguments is that biology can be sufficiently explained without invoking higher causes. Shapiro's view differs significantly from that of creationists, not the least because his higher causes exist only at the level of cellular machinery. However, to a critic unpersuaded of the need for higher causes, it is not persuasive to substitute material higher causes for the supernatural.
   [*]Shapiro does not give a fair reading of the central dogma. Shapiro's reading of the central dogma requires that only random mutations can be the root of evolutionary change. If this reading is correct, then, ignoring the looseness of such an application of the term "random", the several mechanisms identified by Shapiro (e.g., epigenetics) do indeed falsify this theory. However, Crick and geneticists in general had long been well aware of the existence of mutagens at the time of the formulation and restatement of the central dogma, and in fact before the discovery of the mechanisms of biological heredity.[27] A more conservative interpretation, in the words of Marshall Nirenberg, is simply that "DNA makes RNA makes protein."[28] Under this reading, proteins would not be expected to modify DNA, but Shapiro provides multiple examples of where this occurs, including histone modification, mutagenic subclasses of excision and repair enzymes, extensive regulation of mobile genetic elements, and various classes of RNA regulation, and direct modification of nucleotides via cytosine methylation and enzymatic deaminatio

if you are aware of an other relevatn critique please share it

 

[Jose Fly]

No I read the wiki article that summaries the main criticisms

So you asked for papers in the scientific literature that counter Shapiro's NGE hypothesis, and when they're provided you don't bother to read them?

Do you appreciate how that comes across as intellectually dishonest?

, none of the deny that:

1 organisms can rearrange their genome (change the letters)

2 this mechanisms is not random


these are the main critics

if you are aware of an other relevatn critique please share it

Once again you are not understanding the material. Also, the portion you quoted is from Moran's critique, which @tas8831 posted earlier and you rejected because it wasn't from a peer-reviewed paper.

Do you see what's going on here? You reject Moran's critique because it's not from a scientific journal, but then you wave away and ignore critiques that are from scientific journals and in doing so you quote Moran's critique as justification for doing so.

All I can conclude is that you're either not keeping track of your own arguments, or you're deliberately playing a very dishonest game.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you see what's going on here? You reject Moran's critique because it's not from a scientific journal, but then you wave away and ignore critiques that are from scientific journals and in doing so you quote Moran's critique as justification for doing so.

All I can conclude is that you're either not keeping track of your own arguments, or you're deliberately playing a very dishonest game.

WHOEPS!

 

[tas8831]

1 organisms can rearrange their genome (change the letters)

The fact that you refer to nucleotides as "letters" says everything one needs to know.
Also, if by changing their "letters" you mean mutations, then those are not really "rearrangements'.

2 this mechanisms is not random

Which version of 'random' are you referring to this time?

if you are aware of an other relevatn critique please share it

How about instead presenting some actual evidence? Because you must realize that what you've linked to re: Shapiro's claims are just his interpretations of other research. And be sure not to include already retracted/debunked stuff like the citations you gleaned from some creationist website.

 

[tas8831]

yes my mistake, thanks for the correction

You've been at this for how many years and you just realized what epigenetics actually is???

 

[leroy]

So you asked for papers in the scientific literature that counter Shapiro's NGE hypothesis, and when they're provided you don't bother to read them?

Do you appreciate how that comes across as intellectually dishonest?


Once again you are not understanding the material. Also, the portion you quoted is from Moran's critique, which @tas8831 posted earlier and you rejected because it wasn't from a peer-reviewed paper.

Do you see what's going on here? You reject Moran's critique because it's not from a scientific journal, but then you wave away and ignore critiques that are from scientific journals and in doing so you quote Moran's critique as justification for doing so.

All I can conclude is that you're either not keeping track of your own arguments, or you're deliberately playing a very dishonest game.

1will ignore all the articles and critiques that dont refute (or even deal) with the actual claims that I am making.

2 I don't ignore non peer reviewed sources, I simply said that peer reviews sources have the bebefit of the doubt.

3 I do tend ignore sources when people simply say hey these articles refute your claims, without even explaining what claim is the article suppose to be refuting.


if you want me to deal with any source (peer reviewed or not) please quote the exact portion of the article wheee the author concludes that any of my relevant claims is wrong.

 

[leroy]

The fact that you refer to nucleotides as "letters" says everything one needs to know.
Also, if by changing their "letters" you mean mutations, then those are not really "rearrangements'.

Which version of 'random' are you referring to this time?
How about instead presenting some actual evidence? Because you must realize that what you've linked to re: Shapiro's claims are just his interpretations of other research. And be sure not to include already retracted/debunked stuff like the citations you gleaned from some creationist website.

+sorry, I will not respond untill you respond to this comment
The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

 

[Jose Fly]

1will ignore all the articles and critiques that dont refute (or even deal) with the actual claims that I am making.

2 I don't ignore non peer reviewed sources, I simply said that peer reviews sources have the bebefit of the doubt.

3 I do tend ignore sources when people simply say hey these articles refute your claims, without even explaining what claim is the article suppose to be refuting.


if you want me to deal with any source (peer reviewed or not) please quote the exact portion of the article wheee the author concludes that any of my relevant claims is wrong.

You know what I see? I see a person making lame excuses for why he won't even look at published papers that he himself requested.

You asked for them and people provided them. The rest is up to you.

 

[leroy]

You know what I see? I see a person making lame excuses for why he won't even look at published papers that he himself requested.

You asked for them and people provided them. The rest is up to you.

Again, non of the articles refute any of my claims and assertions in this thread, please feel free to show otherwise.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, non of the articles refute any of my claims and assertions in this thread,

How do you know?

 

[leroy]

How do you know?

Ok I dotn really know,

But based on the wiki article that you shared that supposedly summaries all the objections and assuming* that the summery was accurate and representative, I reached this conclusion.

I you think I or the wiki article are wrong, please feel free to share your sources and quote the exact portions that refute the claims that I am making.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok I dotn really know

Then go look. If your interest here is to learn, you would do so.

 

[tas8831]

From now on, I believe that I will present a positive case for my position by merely offering a few quotes and links. If someone doubts the relevance/veracity of the material, I will demand that they provide a sound refutation of my sources. And when they do, I will not read them and claim that their refutations are not on-topic, relevant enough, etc.

 

[tas8831]

Ok I dotn really know,

So HOW is it again that you DO know that fringe Shapiro's claims are correct?

 

[leroy]

So is it again that you DO know that fringe Shapiro's claims are correct?

I really don’t know if the any of the articles refute the specific claims that I made about Shapiro, because all I did was read a summery.(I didn’t read the complete articles)

From the summery, none of my claims are refuted or even questioned.

 

[leroy]

From now on, I believe that I will present a positive case for my position by merely offering a few quotes and links. If someone doubts the relevance/veracity of the material, I will demand that they provide a sound refutation of my sources. And when they do, I will not read them and claim that their refutations are not on-topic, relevant enough, etc.

Sounds good to me, and I have an objection I will tell you exactly what my objection is, and I will provide relevant sources (and quote the relevant text) that support my refutation.

I will not do something pathetic and dishonest like saying “Ohhh you are wrong because these sources say so” and simply quote 10+ different papers without even explaining nor quoting the supposed refutation.

 

[Jose Fly]

I really don’t know if the any of the articles refute the specific claims that I made about Shapiro, because all I did was read a summery.(I didn’t read the complete articles)

From the summery, none of my claims are refuted or even questioned.

LOL....the summary you read from the Wiki page was focused on Moran's criticisms. If you want to see what the review papers say, you'll have to.....get this........go read them.

Unless of course you, like just about every internet creationist I've ever encountered, don't want to see what they say. If that's the case, you'll keep doing what you've been doing, namely making excuses for why you won't just read the papers.

 

[leroy]

LOL....the summary you read from the Wiki page were focused on Moran's criticisms. If you want to see what the review papers say, you'll have to.....get this........go read them.

Unless of course you, like just about every internet creationist I've ever encountered, don't want to see what they say. If that's the case, you'll keep doing what you've been doing, namely making excuses for why you won't just read the papers.

I´ll say that it is simply dishonest to simply assert that a bunch of papers contradict my view, why don’t you quote the relevant portions of 1 of the papers?



BTW all this papers refute evolution...............so reed them all and refute each one of them, untill then I win by default.

1. 
   

   [*]↵
   

   1. Anderson EF

   (2001) The Cactus Family (Timber, Portland, OR), p 776.
   Google Scholar
   [*]↵
   

   1. Hunt D

   (2006) The New Cactus Lexicon (Remous, Milborne Port, UK).
   Google Scholar
   [*]↵
   

   1. Schumann K

   (1903) Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen (Monographia Cactacearum) (J. Neumann, Neudamm, Germany), 2nd Ed, p 832.
   Google Scholar
   [*]↵
   

   1. Backeberg C

   (1966) Das Kakteenlexicon (Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart).
   Google Scholar
   [*]