Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   more problems for the "directed mutation" zealots
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 5 of 13 (22582)
11-13-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
11-13-2002 10:21 AM


quote:
Many antievolution zealots (e.g., Spetner, Fred Williams, etc.) have 'proselytized' the concept of directed or 'non-random' mutations as evidence that post-flood hyperspeciation is possible and explicable by the "fact" that the genomes of the original 'kinds' on the ark had all of the 'genetic information' required to produce them all.
The internet king of misrepresention continues unabated, this time he misrpresesents both Spetner and myself, all in one sentence! Please Scott, post ANYTHING I’ve said within the last 6 months or so where I state that 'non-random' mutations are evidence that post-flood hyperspeciation is possible. Even prior to this, I thought hyperspeciation was possible despite the Haldane problem, but wasn't sure how. Now I realize Haldane's issue is not so severe considering the fact there is no speed limit on deleterious to neutral mutations. Since I reminded you last week of my change of position on this over 6 months ago, you have no excuse for your continued inability to tell the truth.
Also, please post any comments from Spetner on this. I submit you will have a hard time because for one, I don’t believe Spetner is YEC. Two misrepresentations in one sentence. Nice work.
Finally, evidence that mutations behave randomly is no big mystery. The jury is still out on non-random mutations. Or do you really think your citation disproves them once and for all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 11-13-2002 10:21 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 8:23 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 12 of 13 (22758)
11-14-2002 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by derwood
11-14-2002 10:40 AM


quote:
You never posted a thing to me or any board I've seen "6 months ago" about how you totally flip-flopped on the "directed mutations" schtick that you were a "proselytizer" of.
Then this! -->
quote:
You have alluded to this recently, but I suspect that it is because you are jsut trying to save face - the "I knew it all along" bit that you like to pull out now and then.
Thanks, you just contradicted yourself and proved my case.
I still need to clarify something. I never totally flip-flopped on directed mutations. I still believe they occur! I also said I'm on the sidelines watching the debate. I also said I could be wrong. I also said BFD. Now where I totally flip-flopped, if one can even call it that, is that I no longer think they may be necessary to explain hyper-speciation since the flood. I have stated this many times in the last 6 months. Get that through your thick as coal skull.
Read this post, from 5 months back:
http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
From 2 weeks ago:
http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
I think my position is quite clear. Perhaps you just have a reading comprehension problem? Even though you were posting around my 5-month ago post and likely read my comments, I could give you the benefit of doubt. But you responded to the two week ago post, even to the very statement I made, so you have no excuse to still be misrepresenting my position.
quote:
As you should know by now, one of Fred's 'debate' tactics is to accuse whoever he is 'debating' of misrepresenting' this or that.
Hmm, I’ve debated a lot of people, and maybe 10% of the time do I think I’m misrepresented. Funny that 10% is about 8% Dr Scott Page. Am I a lone-wolf creationist complaining about your misrepresentations, Scott? You are like this guy at lunch-time basketball who is always the one in the middle of a fight or argument, totally failing to realize perhaps he is the problem and not everyone else.
Regarding Spetner, I did not mean to imply you stated he was YEC. My implication is since I figured he was OEC, it was obvious he would have no reason to push hyper-speciation. I could be wrong on his YEC stance. The bottom line is that to my knowledge he never offered his non-random theory as evidence for post-flood hyperspeciation, ever. I’ve read plenty of his material and have never seen him make this correlation. Thus, you clearly misrepresented him, regardless of whether or not he is YEC. Perhaps you should read his book or his web material before you criticize what you assume he believes.
quote:
However, again only the dishonest zealot would continue to use "directed mutations" as an evolution refuter considering the fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against them.
Again you exaggerate my position. I don’t think it refutes something I think is already refuted. As I have said many times before, I don’t hang my hat on them. But I do know they falsify NDT as defined by evolutionists. I then qualify this by saying the evolutionists will accommodate such a find and incorporate it into their theory, which would demonstrate their test was nothing of the sort. The point is, evolutionary theory has propped itself up to accommodate everything, and thus is not falsifiable (that is a whole other thread).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 10:40 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:17 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024