1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by tas8831, May 26, 2020.

  1. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian
    This arrangements are nonrandom in the sense that the needs of the organism (selective pressure) cause this arrangements. Agree?

    If you agree then we can shake hands and conclude this topic

    If you disagree I will support the claim with a peer review source, and I won’t accept rebuttals, unless the rebuttal comes from a proper source and explains why my source is wrong.

    If you don’t explicitly agree nor disagree, but provide an ambiguous answer I will conclude this conversation
     
  2. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    You should not have stopped reading where you did - the response had some nuance to it, which you avoided/ignored.
    :hearteyecat:
     
    #462 tas8831, Jun 29, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2021
  3. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian

    No haven’t showed such papers. From the summery in the wiki article it´s clear none of those papers refute (or even try to refute) any of the claims that I have made…..
     
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    Ah, so what about this guy's 'correctness':

    Stephen Jay Gould
    "One review of his publications between 1965 and 2000 noted 479 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books, 300 essays, and 101 "major" book reviews."

    Or this guy, Robert Hazen?

    Maybe reconsider your claims?

    You want to cling to Shapiro's fantasies by citing a 30 year old paper, one of whose central premises was falsified in the years since its publication. That you still want to cling to his position despite this means that you cannot be taken seriously.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    All that plus one of Shapiro's central themes (directed mutations) was refuted by the very group that he cited in his 1992 paper, yet @leroy still hawks it.
     
  6. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,215
    Ratings:
    +2,943
    Religion:
    nature
    Unfortunately the ID people will look for anything to misrepresent because they have nothing to support their view. I will never understand how anyone cannot see the beauty of the theory of evolution. Darwin is one of my hero's considering what he was up against when he presented his theory. Ironically the ID people are still vexed by Darwin despite all the evidence Darwin did not have available and yet his words and thoughts still fundamentally resonate with what is true and that bothers the ID people so much. Even with all that we have learned they still cannot refute his original theory. Appreciate all you post. Thanks.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,215
    Ratings:
    +2,943
    Religion:
    nature
    So if you do not mind, what is your point? There is no evidence for ID. None what so ever and there is amazing evidence for the ability for genetics to create the incredible diverse phenotypic changes. There is no reason to not be a theist and believe in evolution. To me evolution is completely compatible with any believe in a god or goddess of your preference or both. Why not accept evolution as natural instead of trying to create an unworkable, unsupported. and difficult to explain concept that a god is directing anything when there is more than enough evidence for the natural process without any help?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    No. That has not been established. Mutations - and this includes the insertions of mobile elements - occur WITHOUT the 'needs' of the organism playing a role. This was established in many research publications, one of which I cited earlier and was written by one of Cairns' (whose group published among the first papers claiming to have identified nonrandom mutations positively affecting fitness) associates.
    If you disagree I will support the claim with a peer review source, and I won’t accept rebuttals, unless the rebuttal comes from a proper source and explains why my source is wrong.[/quote]
    You have yet to show that your source is correct, you just keep saying so, even after I provided a peer-reviewed paper refuting one of Shapiro's main points.
    You concluded before you started - you never change your mind about anything but minor math errors and such. I mean, you cannot even bring yourself to admit that your take on Haldane's model was wrong, despite me proving it in the OP of this thread!

    You just keep doing what you do, and I and others will continue to demonstrate that you are wrong. You will not admit it, but others will see and draw their conclusions about your integrity and scientific acumen.
     
  9. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    First, I sincerely doubt any of those make any such conclusion. The first one I checked absolutely did not (plus the research team basically retracted it via doing more research and finding they were mistaken).
    Second, I found another flub...

    In part, the fact that you clearly did not read most of the source material from your list (or maybe you did not read any of it, it is hard to tell). Out of curiosity, which creationist website did you copy these quotes from?

    I have already dealt with the Cairns paper, but here is another - only the 2nd of your list I have checked:

    "But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random"

    Here is their conclusion:

    "So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said. Rather, it is a combination of two opposing forces — the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function, Garvin said."

    IOW, hotspots that facilitate increased mutation rates, and selection to get rid of mutations that would act against function.

    Plus, of course, they were only looking at specific DNA regions (those containing repeats and were close genes). So they did not even consider intergenic regions.
    But that is besides the point - the point is, you (or much more likely, your creationist source) just snipped quotes from their context to tell a fake story for people like you to gobble up.
     
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian
    ok so we found a point of disagreement and sure I can support my claim with peer reviewd sources:

    Just to be clear the point that I am making is that this rearrangements are not random but rather caused by the needs of the organisms (selective preassure)

    So please do provide good relevant sources refuting this specific claim,
     
  11. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian

    My intend in this thread is not proving intelligent design, but rather provide evidence against Darwinism (organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and NS)

    The evidence for intelligent design come from other arguments. (fine tuning , specified complexity, irreducible complexity etc.)


    I personally admit that evolution represents a victory of atheism over theism.(atheism won that fight, but theist are still winning the war)… this is a common saying in Spanish, hopefully it makes sense in English too.



    I personally accept that evolution probably occurs naturally.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  12. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,215
    Ratings:
    +2,943
    Religion:
    nature
    That was nice of you to say. There is no reason that one cannot believe in a god or goddess yet accept the theory of evolution.
     
  13. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809

    I cannot decide whether you are trolling, or you have issues, or what - did you not see the dates of your citations?

    2002 and 2007.

    To be clear, you presented those 2 papers supposedly to counter my statement:

    "No. That has not been established. Mutations - and this includes the insertions of mobile elements - occur WITHOUT the 'needs' of the organism playing a role. This was established in many research publications, one of which I cited earlier and was written by one of Cairns' (whose group published among the first papers claiming to have identified nonrandom mutations positively affecting fitness) associates."​

    To be clearer, the paper I had cited earlier - by one of Cairns' collaborators and whom Shapiro had cited himself - indicates (2004):

    "Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal. The first negative evidence was obtained not with FC40, but with SM195. SM195 has an amber mutation in lacZ and so reverts both by intragenic mutations and by the creation of tRNA suppressors (11). The continued appearance of extragenic suppressors during lactose selection allowed us to dismiss the hypothesis that the selective conditions “instructed” the cell to make appropriate mutations—in the case of extragenic suppressors, there is no direct path from the phenotype (Lac+) to the mutated gene (encoding a tRNA) (23). Later it was shown that about two-thirds of the late-appearing Lac+ revertants of SM195 were due to slow-growing ochre suppressors that probably arose during growth prior to lactose selection (57). Nonetheless, the continued appearance of fast-growing amber suppressors in addition to the true revertants demonstrated that mutations appear elsewhere than in the gene directly under selection (24)."​

    Yet again, you cite a review article by Shapiro, one in which, as seems to be his norm, he simply combs the literature for things he thinks supports his cause. I do note that he did not cite the 2004 Foster paper. Interesting.

    Another from Foster (2012):

    EcoSal Plus . 2012 Nov;5(1):10.1128/ecosalplus.7.2.3. doi: 10.1128/ecosalplus.7.2.3.
    Stress-Induced Mutagenesis
    Ashley B Williams, Patricia L Foster
    PMID: 26442828 PMCID: PMC423720

    "...recent results from a variety of experimental systems suggest that mutation rates can increase in response to selective pressures. This chapter summarizes data demonstrating that, under stressful conditions, Escherichia coli and Salmonella can increase the likelihood of beneficial mutations by modulating their potential for genetic change.[NOTE - do NOT assume that this means that this paper supports the NGE crud or that it supports 'directed mutation' - indeed, they explain (see below quote) that the increased beneficial mutations are the result of overall hypermutation] Several experimental systems used to study stress-induced mutagenesis are discussed, with special emphasis on the Foster-Cairns system for "adaptive mutation" in E. coli and Salmonella. Examples from other model systems are given to illustrate that stress-induced mutagenesis is a natural and general phenomenon that is not confined to enteric bacteria. Finally, some of the controversy in the field of stress-induced mutagenesis is summarized and discussed, and a perspective on the current state of the field is provided."​

    and:

    "During lactose selection Lac- cells accumulate non-selected mutations, disproving the hypothesis that mutations to Lac+ are “directed” by the selective pressure (41, 76, 77, 183). The rate of accumulation of non-selected mutations is higher on the episome than on the chromosome (41, 76, 77), possibly due to more frequent episomal replication and recombination. "
    Also of note is the brief discussion of the fact that the 'beneficial mutations' that occur in their model system occur spontaneously, and that in the hypermutation state, they increase by an order of magnitude (from 10^9 to 10^8), which sounds like a lot, but then, it happens a lot anyway.

    That is a review paper of this phenomenon, and I'm guessing that Shapiro will not be citing this in any of his subsequent 'look at me!' publications.

    Look, I get that you have moved on from Haldane, hopefully because you finally realized you were not even in the ballpark with your take on that, and that now you've moved on the Shapiro. But your ability to understand the impact of research, and how subsequent research can overturn earlier work, etc., is pretty poor.

    I do hope that you do not actually think that your Shapiro-worship was vindicated, because I am just going to ignore your continued burden-shifting, goal-post moving, topic changing antics (like how you aren't even discussing Haldane or Sanford any more) if you do.
     
  14. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian
    Aja, so what’s your point? That there are other mechanisms apart from those mentioned by Shapiro? thats a given,

    The specific claim that you have to refute is that such thing as NGE doesn’t occur , or that there is a better explanation rather than NGE to explain shapiros fidings.





    [/QUOTE]
    I do hope that you do not actually think that your Shapiro-worship was vindicated, because I am just going to ignore your continued burden-shifting, goal-post moving, topic changing antics (like how you aren't even discussing Haldane or Sanford any more) if you do.[/QUOTE]

    We can talk about any topic that you want, just:

    1 spot a specific point of disagreement,

    2 quote my actual claims

    3 Explain why you think my claims are wrong.


    Your current tactic of sending random unrelated articles is becoming borring



    But accepting every single Word from your articles in no way falsify Shapiro’s conclusions.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    Who is "Aja"?

    Why do I have to refute that which has not been established? That which has had one of it's major tenets upended by someone that he had previously quoted favorably?

    You've got to be just trolling at this point.
    Random unrelated articles? You mean the ones that directly counter your and your new hero's 'nonrandom' claims?

    Get back to me when you are done trolling.
    Right... One of the lynchpins of Shapiros assertions is the existence of nonrandom mutations (he even called them 'directed' in one of your papers).
    I provide 2 sources - more recent than the paper you cite - disproving the occurrence of such mutations.

    You are just engaging in your sad hero-worship again. Didn't work with ReMine and Sanford, so now you're on a Shapiro kick.

    I am just going to ignore your continued burden-shifting, goal-post moving, topic changing antics (like how you aren't even discussing Haldane or Sanford any more).

    You are just annoying now.
     
  16. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian
    NGE has been established in peer reviewed literature……………………..now if you point is that it has not been established with 100% certainty (or even beyond reasonable doubt)…………then we both agree, and no need to discuss more on this issue.




    Yes random unrelated articles because none of them even pretends to refute or address Shapiro´s NGE.





    You provided sources that refuted* some specific mutations reported by another author, nothing to do with SHAPIRO.

    Please ether quote a paper that concludes that Shapiro is wrong and explain why you support that paper over those that conclude that he is correct-.

    -Or-

    Join the mayority of the scientific community and Simply admit that probably there are nonrandom mutations that played an important rule (the key word is “probably”) nobody in this thread is claiming anything with 100% certainty


    The reason why it didn’t worked with Sanford and Remine, is because till this point I have no idea on what is your point if disagreement.

    It would help if you quote my actual words and explain why you disagree,

    I have no problem in defending my claims, just tell exactly which claim do you disagree with.



    .
    If you are affirming that Shapiro is wrong, then you do have a burden proof….. I don’t know what is it we you and your tremendous efforts in avoiding the Burden proof even with thatyou are affirming.

    Now if you correct me and argue that you are not claiming that Shapiro is Wrong and that you don’t claim that there is no NGE, then I can apologize and take the blame for the misunderstanding.
     
  17. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,463
    Ratings:
    +8,593
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Shapiro is neither right nor wrong. He performed very good research on NGE, but his work is not conclusive nor accepted by all scientists in his field. The emphasis on Shapiro's work is 'Natural' and not remotely intended to relate to Intelligent Design. In fact Shapiro denied and refuted that there was any justification for ID using his research.

    Response to Pauline Hogeweg’s review of my book, “Evolution: a view from the 21st century”

    Response to Pauline Hogeweg’s review of my book, “Evolution: a view from the 21st century” - Evolutionary Intelligence

    "It is a great irony to be criticized in a journal with the adventurous title of “Evolutionary Intelligence” for using the terms “‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful,’” as Pauline Hogeweg did in her review. I myself, by the way, never used the term “thoughtful.” It appeared in a quotation from Barbara McClintock’s fascinating and instructive 1983 Nobel Prize lecture (the text is at The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1983, and my take on it can be found at Barbara McClintock, Genome Self-Repair and Cell Cognition: A Revolutionary Vision for the Future of Biology | HuffPost).

    Pauline accuses me of using “suggestive language.” However, I described exactly what I meant by cognition (=action based on knowledge acquired through sensing), and Part I of the book provides precise molecular descriptions of the sensory cell systems used to acquire that knowledge by bacteria, yeast and mammalian cells. I think this manner of proceeding deserves the term “explicit” rather than “suggestive,” even from someone who may disagree with the substance of my argument.

    Pauline also complains that my terminology does not “set a clear research agenda.” Her statement notwithstanding, I explained how “intelligent application of such molecular mechanisms [is today not] outside the boundaries of contemporary biology” (pp. 136–137). Moreover, I outlined two complementary experimental approaches to test the possibilities of heuristic guidance for genome restructurings (pp. 137–138), clearly a subject relevant to readers of this journal.

    When discussing why contemporary evolutionists still cling to a random error-based mutation model, despite overwhelming molecular evidence to the contrary, I argued that the real objections to a more informatic (and therefore more informed) approach to evolutionary change are philosophical (pp. 138–139). I expected that readers of “Evolutionary Intelligence” would appreciate learning about the molecular basis for a cognitive take on evolutionary processes.

    Pauline evidently shares the neo-Darwinist philosophy. At the end of her review she makes this perspective explicit: “This [i.e., existing accomplishment in evolutionary computation] is just a beginning, but it shows we are still far from understanding what the basic paradigm of ‘random mutation selection’ can do.” What she says is undoubtedly true, but it is also possible that other paradigms may accomplish even more. I wish she had appreciated an attempt to formulate one with greater enthusiasm."
     
  18. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian
    grate
    once again we agree.

    i never said that his work is conclusive. I simply said that his work is serious and worthy of consideration
     
  19. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,463
    Ratings:
    +8,593
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    . . . but not for an argument for Intelligent Design.
     
  20. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,452
    Ratings:
    +3,809

    By your logic, so have everything I have claimed. You are arguing like a child. Now stamp your feet, run off for a bit, then come back making the same old claims. Like you usually do.

    The strange case of John Sanford, creationist
     
Loading...