|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: a graph for borger to explain | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Tell us Fred! tell us! Of course, we must not assume that the study is accurate. Only creationist assertions are to be presumed accurate - not to mention beyond reproach....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] quote: Why am I not surprised the resident post-hole digger didn't figure this out. [/quote] Why am I not surprised that the resident pseudocertain creationist (AKA Moderator 3) feels the need to disparage his intellectual superiors to make himslef feel more important? Guess you were just waiting for someone else to explain it for you...quote: Great. Then maybe you can FINALLY provide soje actual unequivocal evidence for "adaptively directed mutations" - you know, the mythical cretin nonsense that you are a 'prosyletizer' of? That you were supposedly writing an 'article' (for your own web site only, no doubt) about over a year ago but apparently were not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Right, Moderator 3, everything is a red herring when you can't provide a legitimate response. The 'red herring' was presented because you simply ignore the requests everywhere else. I cannot help it that you provide false claims (re: writing an article on 'non-random mutations'; 'large cache of evidence for them; etc...) and then tuck and run whenever you are called on it. That is what creationists do. Creationists like you and your 'intellectual' handler, Wally 'I don't have to follow the agreed upon debate guidelines' ReMine. You can nitpick the off-the-cuff internet discussionboard replies of others all day and it will not make you any more able to discuss the issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Is this an example of projecting, or is it just superiorly ironic:
quote: I vote a little of each. Williams is, after all, the 'puffed up' creationist engineer that has claimed to be an 'expert' in information theory, and to have become an expert in a period of three years or so while acknowledging to have done no pertinent research, had no advanced taining, or made any contributions to the field... Amazing...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Well, I referred Fred to this:
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm or one of my other alignments on several occasions, in order that he could direct his years of scienitfic experience, his information theory expertise, and his acute knowledge of genetics on real data and provide answers to such questions. He claimed that it was a 'joke' and that one can't tell which mutations are random and which are not. Apparently, one just has to have Faith...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
The creationist is nothing if not predictable and overconfident...
quote: Well, it isn't that easy in reality. The knowledgible creationist knows that Hall's and Cairn's original conclusions were based on 'partial knowledge' (like Haldane's) - further studies indicated that the effewcts seen by Cairns et al. were the result of genome-wide hypermutation in response to oxidative stress. But why does math come into play here? And why doesn't the creationist EXPLAIN this 'math'?quote: So why again is this supportive of non-random mutations?[/quote] As Page pointed out, Cairns recanted some aspect of his original study, but from recent literature Cairns obviously still holds to adaptive mutation, disputing an important claim of the anti-adaptive mutation crowed that virtually all the mutations are occurring in a hyper-mutating sub-population. See Contribution of Bacterial Hypermutators to Mutation in Stationary Phase | Genetics | Oxford Academic RSTINDEX=0&journalcode=genet%20ics[/quote] Has Cairns - or anyone else - observed this phenomenon in multicellular eukaryotes? Or is the continued creationist insistence upon this as a panacea for their mythology a reflection of their naivete? But I have to wonder how well the creationist read his link: "These results imply that most single (Lac+) mutants are arising in cells that have a lower mutation rate than the cells that produce double mutants. As Rosche and Foster pointed out, the most reasonable hypothesis is that all cells are undergoing mutation, but a small minority have a much higher mutation rate. In other words, when there is selection for just a single novel trait, most of the survivors will not be burdened with multiple changes in the rest of their genome." Not only does that not sound like a ringing endorsement for the creationist extrapolation on 'non-random mutations', but in fact sounds very Darwinian.
quote: You have been stating such a 'belief' for some time, and claimed to be writing an 'article' on it as reason not to supply citations supportive of this 'belief' in the past, and this inability to supply supportive documentation has not changed. The mechanisms of insertion are hardly the silver bullet you want. To see if you can figure out why, perhaps you can explain how transposons 'find' an insertion site. Here is a hint - there is a simple explanation for it.quote: "Personal study"? Let me guess - you are writing an 'article' about this for your personal web site and so deign not to grace us with your sound scientific observations - supported with documentation, of course - on this issue. But that brings up an interesting conundrum - if you think that 'rapid diversification' is possible regardless of Haldane's model, I see no rationale for insisting that human evolution from an ape-like ancestor is untenable. Care to explain this paradox?quote: What about those dishonest Christians that claim that thsi country was built on Judeo-Christian 'values'? Anyway, Williams, I like to quote your 'backed off' of statements not to 'misrepresent' you, but to point out your arrogance and hypocrisy. Did you not at one time insult myself, sumac, and others for daring to disagree with you on SNPs and phylogenetic analysis? Did you not repeatedly claim that "informed evos" (whoever they are - you never did supply a single name!) know that were right, and that we were "morons", "knuckleheads", etc. for not acknowledging yo8ur supreme knowlegde? Only to later (much later) see you claim to have known all along that we were right, and the seeming 'disagreement' was due to the 'shortcomings of the medium' - the medium being written English? Come on...quote: Shame that you don't pop in to support your claims, instead of this asinine post-and-run-and-ignore technique that you seem to favor. So - what is the status of 'information' when: A gene duplication results in a shift in phenotype? A mutation results in increased gene expression that provides pesticide resistance? Or are you going to ignore these scenarios? You are the 'information theory' expert, are you not? Why not educate all us underlings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Interesting statement on the Rosenberg link - the one provided by Williams supposedly in support of the notion of 'directed mutations':
quote: I eagerly await the announcement from Borger that this really means that directed mutations disprove NDT....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: As usual, the hypocrisy - and irony - is thick enough to walk on....quote: Don't you mean the 'world-wide deluge' that there is no evidence for that you biblical litearlist cultists insists happened? The story that is "coincidentaqlly" quite similar to the tales of Gilgamesh that predate the bible? That one? I cannot wait to see if you will actually respond - substantively - to the 'information' scenarios I posited, and the fact that you basically refuted creationary 'genetics' .... So - I guess you will not be "prosyletizing" NREH as a cretin panacea anymore? Or only when you get a 'fresh' audience that does not know about the literature indicating its true nature?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024