|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why can creationists give straight answers? | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Occasional particiapant YEC Fred Williams simply cannot or will not respond to simple, direct questions. In a thread on the Baptist Board, Williams has repeatedly been asked a simple, straightforward question (one that I have asked him probably dozens of times):
"What is the evidence that 1667 beneficial mutations can’t account for human evolution? You can end this debate by putting your cards on the table. I think it is becoming clear to everyone that you are holding no cards, so you have no choice but to bluff and misdirect." (see http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_to...) Williams' response? "But common sense alone suggests that 1667 beneficial changes is way too low given that there are at least 30 million bp differences separating us from chimps (more on this below). Yes, many of these may be neutral differences, but only 1667 beneficial? I don’t think so. I think it’s a pipe-dream to believe otherwise, but I cannot prove it and never claimed I could." So, Williams 'admits' that there is no support for his repeated (and borrowed) mantra. Does anyone think this will stop Williams from repeating his assertions over and over ad nauseum? Of course not. Williams makes a number of errors and false claims in his latest reply there, which I will expose shortly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Hi Mark, Haldane's model (from where the 1667 thing comes from) was a theoretical model devised in the late 1950s which 'limits' the speed of adaptive evolution to 1 beneficial allele per 300 generations. The model entailed what I (and many others) believe to be unrealistic assumptions, such as a constant population size and selection always being minor. Of course, the model had a lot going for it, too, though Haldane himslef admitted that his numbers would probably need 'drastic revision.' ReMine latched onto "Haldane's Dilemma" as it became known and made much of it. ReMine, as Williams and John Paul have done repeatedly, simply asserts that 1667 beneficial mutations and some number of neutral ones is too few to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor. For this repeated assertion, they provide no evidence whatsoever - indeed, Williams finally admitted as much in the thread I linked to. But the assertion begs some questions - what was the ancestor? How many mutations are required to account for various phenotypic changes? ReMine, nor any of his followers (whom, interestingly, all seem to be engineers like he is) has even attempted to address this issue. That is, theirs is an argument based on ignorance. As to the question, there are some documented examples of Haldane's 'limit' being exceeded, and, contrary to ReMine's claims, the issue had been discussed frequently in the literature and at conferences over the years, and many talented and knowledgible geneticists have provided 'solutions' premised on more realistic scenarios which have gone ignored by the Dilemma mongers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Oh - as for replying at BB -
http://geocities.com/huxter4441/baptist.html easier to win the debate when you don't allow the opposition to take aprt...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Thats the rubber hen... It has been shown not to apply is some circumstances, but its general thrust is claimed by many to be intact (though not a 'dilemma').quote: Indeed.quote: Well, that is not really the question, at least when applied strictly to Haldane's Dilamma as portraye dby the YECs. The question is Is 1667 fbms enough to account for humans from an ape-like ancestor which would have also been the ancestor of chimps.quote: [Added missing close quote. --Admin] While it is obviously useful to examine chimps as well as humans in pursuing this issue, ReMine insists that it is irrelevant. Chimps, of course, are under the same pressures (or rather their genomes are) that we are, and so would have experienced substitutions and such just like us, as you say. But they are not our ancestors any more than a person's cousin is their ancestor. [This message has been edited by Admin, 08-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
The 1667 figure represents only fixed, beneficial (adaptive) mutations. These are not necessarily point mutations (indeed, many are probably not), nor are all of them necessarily in coding regions.
Neutral mutations (those changes that do not affect fitness) can reach fixation in a population at a rate comparable to the rate of occurrance of these mutations, that is, at a much higher rate than adaptiove mutations. Then, of course, there are intraspecies polymorphisms which do not necessarily affect phenotype. So, when we look at a human and a chimp genome, they differ by about 1.1%, or roughly 35 million bps total. Which means that roughly 17.5 million of these will be in each lineage, many of which are polymorphisms, most of which are neutral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Frankly, considering the fact that you 'think' that the ancient Hebrews knew all about bacteria (see the "Medical Evidence" section at the "Bible Evidences" link - it is all pretty funny!) because in Leviticus they are told to wash the tapestries in the home of the leper, I am not all that concerned about what you think. However, I admit that 'many' is not an accurate depiction. 'Some' is more in line. However, if we consider all mutations, then I would argue that indels contribute the largest per site numbers. For example, see this alignment. Follow the sequence for "Cja" (Callithrix jacchus) for about 300 bases. You will see a point at which Cja appears to have recieved an insertion of about 115 bases in length. This sort of occurrance is commonplace, especially in intergenic DNA and to a lesser (though not always - see the same alignment) extent in introns. Williams may now try to insert his recent claims about the functional importance of introns, but it is irrelevant. It has long been known that introns contain conserved sequence, particularly at the 'ends', where spliceosomes form on the mRNA transcript, for example. Obviously, mutations there can impact the expression of the protein. If the protein is involved in development, well, by golly...
quote: Kimura, M. 1987. "Molecular Evolutionary Clock and the Neutral Theory." "If the mutant is selectively neutral, the probability of ultimate fixation is equal to its initial frequency , that is, u=1/(2N) in the diploid population... In other words, for neutral alleles, the rate of evolution is equal to the mutation rate." Kimura had explained all this in his book and at least one other paper that I know of and have cited for Williams before. I find it astounding that someone that repeatedly claims to have read a "wealth of information" on this topic so frequently misrepresents or "forgets" such commonplace information.
quote: I cannot believe that Williams is foolish enough to bring this up again. Tell me Willaims - are you hoping that a 'new' audience will not know about the previous instances in which you were shown to be completely in the dark on this? Tell us all, Williams, How - EXACTLY - SNPs are then REMOVED from such analyses? Do I really have to explain this to you AGAIN? Or how about quoting someone you love and respect? "I am fully aware that past sequence comparisons must have included SNPs!" This same person had previously written: "THEY (SNPs) ONLY PLAY A ROLE IN INTRA-SPECIES COMPARISON." Imagine that... Oh - and this same person wrote; "When informed evolutionists give estimates between chimp & man, they are referring to fixed differences. Trust me! " That was BEFORE he wrote the quotes above. But wait - the same person who wrote those quotes, also wrote this: "I am not necessarily stating that "SNPs are excluded when scientists compare human and chimp sequences"[/I] Is it possible that I knew the scientists doing the comparisons did not filter out the noise (SNPs), realizing 1) there is not enough data to accomplish this, 2) the affect was negligible for their estimate anyway?"[/i] And now, we have Williams most recent post in this thread, trying to say all over again that "An accurate measure of difference between chimps and man cannot, must not, include polymorphisms. " Simply amazing.... Of course, an honest debater would see that I had already qualified my statement INDICATING THAT SOME OF THE INFERRED GENETIC DISTANCE WOULD CONSIST OF POLYMORPHISMS. "Which means that roughly 17.5 million of these will be in each lineage, many of which are polymorphisms, most of which are neutral." You have also admitted - under duress - that there is no way to identify and remove SNPs (not directly, anyway - more later) prior to typical phylogenetic analyses, so I have no clue whatsoever why you would even bring this up again, except perhaps as an attempt to make it appear as though 1. I made a mistake and 2. you know more than you really do... Of course, those that are actually involved in perfroming relevant scientific research know that most phylogeny programs take polymorphisms into account during phylogenetic reconstruction. They are referred to as "phylogenetically uninformative sites". Gee... What a coincidnece that is! I hope it does not come as a shock to the creationist Williams to be told that - believe it or not - such things have been taken into account long before he came on the scene...quote: Yes, it would, wouldn't it? As such, I am quite surprised that you and/or ReMine and or anyone else that tries to use sequence data and numbers to bluff their fantasies true have not as yet tried to 'prove' that 'huge' numbers of SNPs are not the norm and are in fact rare. Shame that actual data so often flubs up potential creation-friendly sound bites!... Please Fred - in the future, at least make an attempt to keep your own arguments constant. You might try to make light of the fact that some evolutionists save the internet posts of you and other creationists, but I show above the real reasons... Goodbye, Fred. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I was casually perusing some other threads, and came across an exchange that I had with Williams - on the VERY TOPIC that he rants about above! Amazingly, I had already explained all this - for about the 10th time - in that thread. Williams, as he has a tendancy to do, ignored that message. Perhaps so that he can later claim that no one rebutted him?
http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) The curious reader should wonder why it is that Williams - like many other creationists - simply re-asks, re-claims, re-states, and especially, re-asserts the same things over and over despite the fact that they have had the realities explained to them on many occasions. I think that I know why...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It is flawed because you wildly and illogically extrapolate some commonplace activities as 'proof' that the ancient Hebrews had in-depth knowledge about microbes.M. leprae, by the way, does not in fact live very long outside of a host. Do you really think that the only 'ancient' peoples to engage in hygiene were the Hebrews?
Let me guess - one of those "shortcomings of the medium" schticks?
Then perhaps that is what you actually should have asked.
Oh really? Just curious? Odd - I fouond your phrasing to be somewhat different than that which is normally associated with mere curiosity...
That is because you never seem to be able to make a point, and what point you do make (I will be generous here) is that you don't have a clue as to how molecular phylogenetic analyses are done.
You belabor the obvious, oh Grand Wizard of Undereducated Creationists! What a splendid point! I'll bet all the creationists are hanging on your every word....
Amazingly, did I not state when I mentioned this that SNPs are in the mix? Why, yes I did! My original assessment (in this thread) is on the mark... AGAIN!
Translation: I have no clue what I am talking about, but I have ot say SOMETHING!
You stand by everything you say.write. That is, obviously, no indicator of correctness. So, again, I see absolutley no reason whatsoever for you to have brought up your usual bullshit, except a sad attempt to look smarter than you are.
Give me a friggin break.... Your eyebrow is where is usually is - ticking Wally Kuckoo's glutes... Informed cretins know that difference estimates are raw estimates because, as has been explained to you numerous times, such differences are gleaned using single or a few specimens of each taxon. Therefore, informed cretins know that there is no way to know exactly how many fixed v. unfixed differences there are. Informed cretins also know that whether or not a site is fixed in a species is essentially irrelevant in performing phylogenetic analyses (Poor Johnny Paul really stepped in it on that issue...). By the way all - this is how Freddie 'admits' error.... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Sorry to disappoint - but there was no need to go into any depth - red herrings and all. One thing - informed cretins know that '% differences' are not meant to be "precise"...quote: In a perfect world, sure. Sequencing is EXPENSIVE, even if you have your own sequencers (around $125,000 and up), reagents are on the order of 300-500 dollars for 100 or so reactions... However, phylogeny analysis does not really need consensus sequences to work. Consensus sequences would provide greater resolutiom and stronger results in most cases, but if your locus contains enough phylogenetically informative sites, it doesn't matter. [/B][/QUOTE]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Oh - and Fred - did you follow the link to the alignment?
I wish you would. I have always found that seeing actual data strengthens one's understanding....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote: You still have failed to give a decent rebuttal (only a strawman) why my leprosy claim is flawed. For anyone interested, here is the passage in question:
quote: [/I] Scott, the onus is on you to show this was not advanced knowledge of that time.[/quote] Actually, I believe that the onus is on you to demonstrate that the REASON that the Hebes were told to wash the tapesties and such is BECAUSE they KNEW about bacteria and that the bacteria might be living on them. The only 'strawman' is your laughably bizarre extrapolation claim that the Bible teaches about microbes.
quote: Yes I did, but it didn’t have much bearing on the debate since you already admitted some was the more appropriate depiction. Besides, I didn’t have a problem with your belief that indels (specifically insertions) represent the largest per site numbers. I would suggest however that this particular insertion was likely a non-random mutation. [/QUOTE] Your suggestions are based on your limited knowledge of the topic. Care to provide any reasonable evidence? But I am glad that, for now anyway, you have decided to abandon your silly tiurades about molecular phylogenetics methods. You were really looking foolish. I will be archiving this thread, too, for future use, as I am confident that I will, at some time, have to drag it out again to show your underhanded 'debate' tactics to a new audience. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Alright gene, mark, john and randy:
Now, you know that it is not fair to pull the rug out from under the fundamentalist, especially when they are going to such lengths to try to prop up their fantasies....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Here is what your saterical website has on it, empohasis mine: ************************************ Bacteria Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can live on walls and garments! How often and how sweet it is when we see skeptic's attempts to denigrate God and the Bible turned around such that they end up glorifying God! **************************************************** I challenge the mentally stable to explain, exactly, how it can be that I am making a 'strawman argument' when I say that you claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Indeed. Here: http://www.kobashi.to/...hyssop_kb001108/Hyssop_kb001108.htm ************************************ Latin name: Hyssopus officinalis L. Family name Labiatae (Lamiaceae) Oil from leaves and flowers Obtained by steam distilled Origin English - direct from the grower.We bought all he grew this year. Density this Batch: 0.912915 Aroma: This is a Truly Beautiful and Penetrating Oil -Clean, Sweet, Herby and more. Color: very light straw Hyssop Oil File: C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\KBOILNEW\NEWCOL~1\011031\0701007.DOperator: Ira, & Scott Kobashi Essential Oils Date Acquired: 4 Nov 2000 00:57 Method File: KBOILLOW Sample Name: Hyssop kb001108 England 7/2000 threshold=15, area cutoff=0 GC 5890 system and auto sampler Oil solution: 50uls of oil in 2ml pentane (acetone to clear if necessary) Injection volume: 1m l, splitless Column type: zTx5 reztec, 59.23m, 0.22mmID, 0.25um film thickness Carrier gas: Helium Flow rate: 1ml/min, 25.9cm/sec Pressure: 186 KPa Injector temp: oil dependant, this oil 250C Detector temp: 280 C Ms ( Mass Spectrum) System: Hp Ms5972 quadrapole detector Hyssop Oil analysed in conjunction with Hp Chemstation , Wiley 275Library,Own retention library developed over many years of testing Kobashi Essential Oils, standards chemicals, and own distillations. Chemical cross analysed with Indentification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatograpy/Mass Spectroscopy by Robert P Adams. Individual Ion patterns of chemicals have been confirmed through wiley 275L.RT Area% Library/ID Wiley Ref# CAS# Quality match 10.660.25 .alpha.-Thujene 25175 002867-05-2 91 10.990.72 .alpha.-pinene 25199 000080-56-8 97 11.590.09 Camphene 25359 000079-92-5 97 11.640.12 Camphene 25162 000079-92-5 94 12.7914.26 sabinene + beta.Pinene 25224 000127-91-3 97 13.001.73 Myrcene 25355 000123-35-3 96 14.180.08 Terpinene.alpha. 25315 000099-86-5 98 14.865.74 para cymene (t), Limonene<1%,beta. Phellandrene 25109 000555-10-2 94 15.391.10 Ocimene, cis-.beta, (Z) 25324 027400-71-1 94 15.960.12 .gamma.-Terpinene 25353 000099-85-4 96 17.300.09 terpinolene 25330 000586-62-9 98 17.780.71 Linalool 40052 000078-70-6 94 18.210.10 Thujone.alpha. (cis-) 37854 000546-80-5 96 18.700.09 Thujone.beta. (trans-) 37962 000471-15-8 96 19.020.06 Ocimene, trans-.beta. (E) 25381 027400-72-2 97 20.170.07 camphor 37827 000076-22-2 93 21.048.39 Pinocamphone 38410 000547-60-4 91 21.121.15 Pinocarvone 36044 016812-40-1 80 21.8924.45 Isopinocamphone 38475 000473-62-1 91 22.440.75 myrtenol 37866 000515-00-4 96 22.510.20 myrtenal 35962 000564-94-3 96 25.470.02 Geranial (a citral) 37948 000141-27-5 94 30.290.23 .alpha.-Copaene 89527 003856-25-5 99 30.811.79 .beta.-Bourbonene 89548 005208-59-3 98 31.230.04 Elemene, beta 89661 000515-13-9 95 31.340.20 Methyl eugenol 62470 000093-15-2 98 31.830.76 .alpha.-Gurjunene 89465 000489-40-7 99 32.322.69 trans-Caryophyllene (beta) 89248 000087-44-5 99 32.391.84 trans-Caryophyllene (beta) 89248 000087-44-5 99 35.007.40 Germacrene-D 89658 023986-74-5 99 35.210.37 valencene 89600 046030-07-3 93 35.562.48 bicyclogermacrene 89615 100762-46-7 97 36.260.22 .beta.-sesquiphellandrene 89155 020307-83-9 90 36.360.27 .delta.-cadinene (armoise-Maroc) 89582 000483-76-1 99 37.604.78 elemol 108450 000639-99-6 91 39.030.56 Caryophyllene oxide 105971 001139-30-6 93 44.640.01 Nootkatone 103740 004674-50-4 58 Density 0.905 @20 C (BULK Bulgarian, KB9023)Density (lit) SG; 0.9225 @20 C (c, sevtopolis) SG; 0.935-0.956 @15 C (French, d) SG; 0.957 @20/4 C (USSR, d) Refractive index (lit) 1.4780 (c, sevtopolis) 1.478-1.490 (French, d) Optical rotation -15 to —18 (French, d) TO USE: 4-8 drops in vaporizeror in burner on water. 3-5 drops in bath. ~1 drop in 10ml (2tspn) or < 1% in carrier oil, moisturiser, shampoo, etc. CAUTION: Do not take internally or apply undiluted to the skin. KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN AND EYES. Usages: good for a sluggish constitution, mind clearing., ingredient of Chartreuse liqueur. Interesting reading in Gunther The Essential Oils Volume III pages 436-437, Aromatherapy An A-Z by Patricia Davis, The Practice of Aromatherapy by Dr Jean Valnet, Kobashi Essential Oils 2 Fore Street Ide devon EX2 9RQ UK Kobashi Aromatherapy Products, Best Essential Oil, Vegetable & Nut Oils hyssop@kobashi.com Used safely this is a beautiful Oil. *******Health & Safety******* Precautions in case of over exposure.This information is for manufacturers use: buying of large quantities to bottle and sell on. * Ingestion: Do not induce vomiting, drink at least 1 pint of water.Seek urgent medical advice.* Inhalation: Remove casualty to fresh air,keep respiratory passages free and seek medical advice immediately. Harmful: May cause lung damage if swallowed. If swallowed do don’t induce vomiting: seek medical advice immediately and show container or label. * Eye contact: Irrigate with clean water for at least 15 minutes. Seek medical advice if stinging persist. * Skin Contact:Remove contaminated clothing and wash with soap and water. * Storage:Tightly sealed, well filled containers in a cool dark place. Keep away from sources of ignition. *Flammable: Flash point 52 degrees C In case of fire use only dry powder or foam-never use water. *Spillage: Eliminate all sources of ignition. No smoking. (e.g. propietary oil drying granules or sand, NOT sawdust or other flammable materials) and transfer to an approved waste disposal container, observing national legislation. Wash area clean with water and detergent. References Checked by Dr. Kevin Brigden;Neurotoxic (g) Abortive in over use (f) AVOID — during pregnancy / by epileptics / children under 2 (g) / elderly (f) / high blood pressure (m) A mild toxin, use with caution (k) Should not be taken orally, may cause convulsions (g) Hyssopus officinalis pinocamphone and isopinocamphone account for its toxicity (g) (a) Brian Lawrence Essential oils books (1976-94) yes (b) Leonard Price folder yes (c) Oil folder yes (d) Gunther The Essential Oils Volumes I-VI (Volume III pages 436-437 yes (e) Journals (from XL list) yes, none (f) Aromatherapy for health profs, Shirley & Len Price. yes (g) Essential Oil Safety,a Guide for Health Care Professionals R. Tisserand, T. Balacs yes (h) The chemistry of essential oils yes (i) Health and safety info (IFRA) yes,none (k) The Encyclopaedia of Essential oils(Julia Lawless) yes (l) health and safety folder yes, none (m) The aromatherapy practitioner, reference manual,Sylla Sheppard-Hanger. Vol. 1 yes (n) A safety guide on the use of essential oils,by, the international school of aromatherapy yes (o) BIDS essential oil search doc yes (p) Perfume & Flavour yes ******************************************************* I see nothing about "antifungal" (which wouldn't have anything to do with leprosey) or "antimicrobial". Any reliable evidence for your claims, Williams?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Originally posted by Randy: Hmmm.... Must be we all chug gallons of hyssop oil and just, by golly, don't know it... Hey - didn't they also used to burn witches? I mean, afterall, witchism is catchy....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024