The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

Indeed. I also like how he moves his goal posts/alters his 'argument' all sneaky-like, hoping nobody will notice. This all started out with his claim about 500,000 'beneficial mutations' not being enough, then it became 30 million, then it became 30 million is too many... Now it is nonrandom mutations are what he was referring to all along...
And they wonder why people think of them the way we do...

500,000 mutation is the maximum number of beneficial mutations that could have happened in 5M years assuming a an unrealistically optimum scenario

30,000,000 is the actual number of mutations that you would need to evolve a human from a common ancestor.

For a selections most of this 30M mutations would have to be benefitial

This argument woundt apply for a neutralist, but neutralism has “other problems”

Is it really so hard to understand?

 

[blü 2]

In fact a single paper that concludes that evolutionary theory* is likely to be true would convince me. I would simply trust the scientists and the peer review process even if I myself can’t understand the math or the methodology of the paper.

· *With evolutionary theory it is meant that “organisms evolve mainly by a mechanism of random variation and NS.”

Thanks for your reply.

Start, perhaps, with an outline of evolution.

And move on to greater detail.

Various links are provided at the foot of the articles which may be of interest too. The truth is out there.

Good hunting!

 

[leroy]

Yes, pretty sure it is you, unless I plugged in the wrong number..
View attachment 40276

Ok originally you multiplied 3,000,000 not 3,000,000,000 that is why I didn’t understand your math nor what the 6.6 represented.

But with that said… ok

We can agree that on average mammals evolve 6.6 mutations per year, this is 6.6 mutations that occur and that become fixed in the population (ether by genetic drift or natural selection)

Given that such speed of evolution has never been observed to occur by random mutations and natural selection, and there is no even a single plausible model that such rate of evolution is even possible it seems obvious that there must have been other important and relevant mechanisms other than random mutations and natural section.

Beneficial mutations are very rare, and neutral mutations are very unlikely to become dominant and fixed in a population, there is no way you can average a speed of 6.6 unless there are other mechanism that would cause a faster “speed of evolution”

Just think about it in the last 30 years (since the genome project started) not a single mutation has been observed to become fixed in the human population, and you are supposed to average 6.6 per year

 

[leroy]

Thanks for your reply.

Start, perhaps, with an outline of evolution.

And move on to greater detail.

Various links are provided at the foot of the articles which may be of interest too. The truth is out there.

Good hunting!

Grated those articles describe different possible mechanism, and the wiki article is not shy in making emphasis that there is a controversy and different views in the scientific community on how is evolution suppose to work, and which mechanism play important roles.

So next time try to be more honest and provide an article that concludes “beyond reasonable doubt” that orgnaisms evolve by a mechanism of random mutations and natural selection (rather than by all the other mechanism explained in the very article that you quoted)

or you can simply join me (and @Wild Fox ) and amit that this is still an open and controvertial issue.
we dont know yet* which mechanisms are responsable for evolution

 

[blü 2]

So next time try to be more honest

I wouldn't bother trying to deceive you about anything. I was simply applying my brain to select a few doors you might find useful into the nature of evolution and the questions it provokes.

and provide an article that concludes “beyond reasonable doubt” that orgnaisms evolve by a mechanism of random mutations and natural selection (rather than by all the other mechanism explained in the very article that you quoted)

Well, cited rather than quoted. What's wrong with all the other mechanisms mentioned, by the way? They're parts of the theory of evolution too. The investigation didn't end with Darwin ─ it began there, and has continuously evolved since then as we learn more (including about our mistakes) every day.

But if your only point is that controversies arise quite often in the course of our reasearches, then yes, no argument from me ─ of course they do.

 

[leroy]

But if your only point is that controversies arise quite often in the course of our reasearches, then yes, no argument from me ─ of course they do.

Yes that has always been my point, there is controversy on how evolution is supposed to work and which mechanism play a major role.


I would also make a positive claim and state that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection play a minor role I would attribute evolution mainly to “non random variation” obviously this particular point is more controversial and there is literature for and against this position. One of the any arguments that I would provide in support of my position (which is the argument related to this thread) is that mammals (particularly the human line) evolved too fast, much faster that it would have been allowed by the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection.

Obviously my position is falsifiable, you( or anyone else) can in theory disagree and provide evidence that supports the claim that random mutations and NS can account for the evolution of mammals and particularly of the human line, and we can in theory have a nice and friendly discussion on which mechanism is better in explaining the data.

 

[tas8831]

No is my turn? You haven provided your proof nor your evidence yet.

Yes, I did.

Prove that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection (and perhaps genetic drift) can account for the genetic differences between chimps and humans, or more specifically between humans and the common ancestor. (given you only have 5M years)

Already did.

You are just making random and unrelated question, and dancing around irrelevant stuff which seems to be your tactic, your strategy seems to be “hey I will make this discussion long, tired and boring so that my opponent get tired, abandons the discussion and claim victory.

Projection.

If you can't hang, just say so.

You seem very desperate to try to run away from your own claims, seeing as how you keep changing them and trying to burden shift.

 

[tas8831]

Well then show that random mutations (rather than othe rmechanisms) where mainly responsible for larger brains, upright posture, cooperative behavior etc.

You seem to think otherwise, so where is YOUR evidence?

Why do you think that you can just toss out assertions and never back them up, but everyone else has to present evidence (that you ignore or dismiss or cannot understand)?

 

[tas8831]

But the evidence seems to be consistent with the idea that evolution was caused mainly by non random variation

Where is this "evidence"?

 

[leroy]

Yes, I did.

Already did.

Projection.

If you can't hang, just say so.

You seem very desperate to try to run away from your own claims, seeing as how you keep changing them and trying to burden shift.

So that is your strategy,

Make a whole bunch of creative excuses for not answering to my request, flood the forum with your irrelevant nonsense, and then simply claim “I already provided my evidence”

 

[leroy]

You seem to think otherwise, so where is YOUR evidence?

Why do you think that you can just toss out assertions and never back them up, but everyone else has to present evidence (that you ignore or dismiss or cannot understand)?

No, in fact my position is that nobody knows how brains, upright postures, cooperative behavior evolved.

You seem to be affirming that random mutations NS and genetic drift, where responsible for such an event and that there is no room for reasonable doubt concerning this affirmation. So why don’t you accept your burden proof and show your evidence, rather than claiming that “you already did”

 

[leroy]

Where is this "evidence"?

I would say that there are many arguments in favor of such a claim, one of them is the fact that mammals and particularly the human line evolved too fast such that random mutations and NS could have not account for such a fast speed of evolution.

I already provided the reasons for why I think random mutations and NS cant account for such a fast speed of evolution and all you have done in the last 100+postis is “make a big deal out of secondary and irrelevant stuff” ignore the actual problem and proclaiming that you already showed the evidence to the contrary even though we both know that you haven’t.

 

[shunyadragon]

[


More semantic games? Honestly aren’t you tired of repeating the same dishonest tactic?

Ok let me reformulate my question

Can you provide evidence that shows that the model that states that organisms evolve mainly by the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is “almost certainly true”?

No semantics at all. Evolution does not take place mainly by the mechanism of random mutation.

You are a liar such thing has never been done in this forum. Provide a single article that concludes beyond reasonable doubt, that organism evolve mainly by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection .

Collectively all the posts in this thread and many more: New discoveries of 'missing links.'

We know roughly* the mutation rate in humans and primates

We know roughly* the ration of beneficial / selectable mutations vs non beneficial mutations.

This does not conclude what you claim. What you claim is not enough time for the evolution to take place.

Still waitng . . .

We know roughly* the probability of fixation of beneficial and neutral mutations.

No we do not. No scientific reference presented on your part.

From this 3 numbers we get an approximation of how fast can primates evolve through the process of random mutations and natural selection

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

No. You have not provided any scientific articles provided on your part to justify this.

Given the values that I estimated the answer is “NO” 5M years is not enough time. (Feel free to correct me and make your own math with the correct values)

Again no, no scientific articles provided to justify your assertions.

Given that the human line evolved much faster than the maximum speed allowed by random mutations and natural selection , it is fare to hypothesis that maybe* there was another main mechanism that caused this “super fast evolution” (being random mutations and NS just a minor part of the process.

No, no scientific articles provided to remotely justify these assertions based on a religious agenda. Random mutations only provide the genetic diversity in the populations.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that there are many arguments in favor of such a claim, one of them is the fact that mammals and particularly the human line evolved too fast such that random mutations and NS could have not account for such a fast speed of evolution.

I already provided the reasons for why I think random mutations and NS cant account for such a fast speed of evolution and all you have done in the last 100+postis is “make a big deal out of secondary and irrelevant stuff” ignore the actual problem and proclaiming that you already showed the evidence to the contrary even though we both know that you haven’t.

None of your references justified what you claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

500,000 mutation is the maximum number of beneficial mutations that could have happened in 5M years assuming a an unrealistically optimum scenario

30,000,000 is the actual number of mutations that you would need to evolve a human from a common ancestor.

For a selections most of this 30M mutations would have to be benefitial

This argument woundt apply for a neutralist, but neutralism has “other problems”

Is it really so hard to understand?

No, the requirement 30 M mutations is a creationist myth, and no basis in science.
You have not provided a reliable peer reviewed reference to justify these numbers.

Still waiting . . .

 

[leroy]

No semantics at all. Evolution does not take place mainly by the mechanism of random mutation and natrual selection .

I added the part in red, assuming that you made a mistake and forgot to add that part.

if you accept the quote + my addition in red, then we both agree. And we have nothing else to argue about. If you don’t accept my addition in red letters, then you are simply being the dishonest, because you are answering something that I didn’t ask for.

So which one is it?

Collectively all the posts in this thread and many more: New discoveries of 'missing links.'

You are being dishonest once again, no where in the article does it say that organisms (whales in this case) evolved by the mechanism of random mutation and NS

This does not conclude what you claim. What you claim is not enough time for the evolution to take place.

AGREE.
In order to arrive at the conclution that I am proposing you have to take in to account all the points, not just this one

No we do not. No scientific reference presented on your part.

Ok, granted we don’t know, but I decided to be very generous and assume that there is a 100% probability that a beneficial mutation would become fixed and dominant in 1 generation. Even then there is not enough time to account to account for the differences between humans and chimps

No. You have not provided any scientific articles provided on your part to justify this.

Once again I was very generous and assume that the differences between humans and chimps 1%, we both know that the difference is much greater than 1% if you take in to account non condign DNA, duplications, Orphan genes, etc.

Again no, no scientific articles provided to justify your assertions

.

Any mistakes In my assertions would be mistakes that work in your favor,


but feel free to make your own model with the correct "assumtions"

 

[leroy]

None of your references justified what you claim.

Why not? Because you say so? Do you have any source that confirms your position?

 

[tas8831]

We know roughly* the ration of beneficial / selectable mutations vs non beneficial mutations

Documentation please.

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

Given the values that I estimated the answer is “NO” 5M years is not enough time. (Feel free to correct me and make your own math with the correct values)

That is an interesting yet 100% unjustified series of assertions leading to a unsupported conclusion.

You could have avoided this by addressing the questions/statements I made to you a year ago and reproduced above. I have emphasized things for clarity when needed.

Here is why I am very confident that such a large number of beneficial mutations is NOT needed to produce the relatively minor phenotypic changes we see between extant chimps and humans as derived from a common ancestor:

1. These 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).

​

Let's see you EVIDENCE, not your opinions or assertions, that, even if we use YOUR numbers, 1,000 beneficial mutations over 5 million years is just not enough to produce these un-named differences.

As an aside - when you wrote:

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

what did you mean? Are you referring to nucleotide differences? If yes, then you still cannot seem to understand the difference between ALL nucleotide differences and beneficial ones, and this renders all of your claims on this issue moot.
If you are referring to phenotypic differences, then you will need to make a list of them, and explain how you decided these were relevant. Then you will to show how many beneficial mutations were required to produce those differences from an ancestral species AND, most importantly, HOW you know this.

Mere assertions will not do. Put up or shut up. And if you shut up, please do not ever make these arguments again, for it will demonstrate certain things about you that will not be very nice.
And if you put up, it will need to be supported with evidence, not just assertions of paraphrases of YECs that also had no evidence.

 

[leroy]

No, the requirement 30 M mutations is a creationist myth, and no basis in science.
You have not provided a reliable peer reviewed reference to justify these numbers.

Still waiting . . .

Well I told you how did I got the 30M mutations, and it is largely a result of assuming the best possible and most generous scenarios, obviously in reality you would need much more.

Feel free to to your own math and let us know what the correct number is.

 

[tas8831]

But the evidence seems to be consistent with the idea that evolution was caused mainly by non random variation

Where is this "evidence"?

I would say that there are many arguments in favor of such a claim, one of them is the fact that mammals and particularly the human line evolved too fast such that random mutations and NS could have not account for such a fast speed of evolution.

Let me get this straight...

1. You claim RM/NS is not fast enough to account for human evolution.
2. I ask for evidence for this, you eventually declare nonrandom mutations like transposons make it fast enough, even though you don;t believe it anyway
3. I remind you that a transposon still has to spread through a population like an SNP has to, and ask how this would speed things up. You ignore it.
4. then you claim as support that RM/NS is not fast enough.

Are you familiar with the concept of the circular argument?

I already provided the reasons for why I think random mutations and NS cant account for such a fast speed of evolution

Reasons? No, you merely provided a series of assertions premised on your grade-school calculation.
Where is your evidence that nonrandom mutations somehow make evolution 'faster'? You have provided nothing of the sort.

and all you have done in the last 100+postis is “make a big deal out of secondary and irrelevant stuff” ignore the actual problem and proclaiming that you already showed the evidence to the contrary even though we both know that you haven’t.

There are not 100 posts in this thread.

You have not demonstrated that your mere assertions ARE a problem.

Why should I waste time meeting your imaginary standards when you cannot provide a SINGLE reference showing that:

1. 5 million years is not enough time (for what???)
2. Nonrandom mutations somehow spread faster through a population than SNPs.
3. "mammals and particularly the human line evolved too fast "

Your Tattersall article said NOTHING about "too fast", and did not even mention genetics!

Again, put up or shut up.

You are not fooling anyone except other lay creationists.