Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 4:11 AM
25 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,110 Year: 9,146/19,786 Month: 1,568/2,119 Week: 328/576 Day: 3/128 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   more problems for the "directed mutation" zealots
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 13 (22473)
11-13-2002 10:21 AM


(did not want this to get buried in the thread I already mentioned this in)

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.
Ignoring for now the obvious absurdity and desperation in such a position, more and more evidence accumulates demonstrating that 'directed mutations' aren't.

The latest nail in the NREH/'directed mutation'/'Biotic message' argument:

***********************************************
Amplification-mutagenesis: evidence that "directed" adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2164-9

Hendrickson H, Slechta ES, Bergthorsson U, Andersson DI, Roth JR.

Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.

When a particular lac mutant of Escherichia coli starves in the presence of lactose, nongrowing cells appear to direct mutations preferentially to sites that allow growth (adaptive mutation). This observation suggested that growth limitation stimulates mutability. Evidence is provided here that this behavior is actually caused by a standard Darwinian process in which natural selection acts in three sequential steps. First, growth limitation favors growth of a subpopulation with an amplification of the mutant lac gene; next, it favors cells with a lac(+) revertant allele within the amplified array. Finally, it favors loss of mutant copies until a stable haploid lac(+) revertant arises and overgrows the colony. By increasing the lac copy number, selection enhances the likelihood of reversion within each developing clone. This sequence of events appears to direct mutations to useful sites. General mutagenesis is a side-effect of growth with an amplification (SOS induction). The F' plasmid, which carries lac, contributes by stimulating gene duplication and amplification. ,b>Selective stress has no direct effect on mutation rate or target specificity, but acts to favor a succession of cell types with progressively improved growth on lactose. The sequence of events--amplification, mutation, segregation--may help to explain both the origins of some cancers and the evolution of new genes under selection.

********************************************

The abstract speaks for itself...

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-13-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 8:39 PM derwood has responded

    
Itzpapalotl
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 13 (22479)
11-13-2002 10:43 AM


This research may be the latest nail in the coffin of 'directed mutation' it's by no means the first:

D. I. Andersson, E. S. Slechta, and J. R. Roth. Evidence that gene amplification underlies adaptive mutability of the bacterial lac operon. Science 282 (5391):1133-1135, 1998.

"Apparent directed mutability, its recombination requirement, and its apparent independence of cell growth are all accounted for by the model. Evidence is provided for the required residual function and gene amplification"

E. S. Slechta, J. Harold, D. I. Andersson, and J. R. Roth. The effect of genomic position on reversion of a lac frameshift mutation (lacIZ33) during non-lethal selection (adaptive mutation). Mol.Microbiol. 44 (4):1017-1032, 2002.

E. S. Slechta, J. Liu, D. I. Andersson, and J. R. Roth. Evidence That Selected Amplification of a Bacterial lac Frameshift Allele Stimulates Lac(+) Reversion (Adaptive Mutation) With or Without General Hypermutability. Genetics 161 (3):945-956, 2002.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by derwood, posted 11-13-2002 12:27 PM Itzpapalotl has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 3 of 13 (22499)
11-13-2002 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Itzpapalotl
11-13-2002 10:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Itzpapalotl:
This research may be the latest nail in the coffin of 'directed mutation' it's by no means the first:

D. I. Andersson, E. S. Slechta, and J. R. Roth. Evidence that gene amplification underlies adaptive mutability of the bacterial lac operon. Science 282 (5391):1133-1135, 1998.

"Apparent directed mutability, its recombination requirement, and its apparent independence of cell growth are all accounted for by the model. Evidence is provided for the required residual function and gene amplification"

E. S. Slechta, J. Harold, D. I. Andersson, and J. R. Roth. The effect of genomic position on reversion of a lac frameshift mutation (lacIZ33) during non-lethal selection (adaptive mutation). Mol.Microbiol. 44 (4):1017-1032, 2002.

E. S. Slechta, J. Liu, D. I. Andersson, and J. R. Roth. Evidence That Selected Amplification of a Bacterial lac Frameshift Allele Stimulates Lac(+) Reversion (Adaptive Mutation) With or Without General Hypermutability. Genetics 161 (3):945-956, 2002.


Indeed - I hav an even more extensive list.

But you can't teach an old dog new tricks - hence, the creationist will continue 'prosyletizing' this falsehood for years to come...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Itzpapalotl, posted 11-13-2002 10:43 AM Itzpapalotl has not yet responded

    
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 13 (22559)
11-13-2002 6:58 PM


you should post this over at arn.org
Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 8:30 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3021 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 responded

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

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 6 of 13 (22654)
11-14-2002 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Fred Williams
11-13-2002 8:39 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
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”. [/quote]

Last 6 months - THATS you excuse now? You mean you are no longer PROSELYTIZING this?

But gee, Williams, you were so damn sure of yourself when you were PROSELYTIZING this before - remember?

The "large cache" of evidence that "directed mutations" occurred and could help explain (away) the obvious mythology of post-flood hyperspeciation?

That this 'refuted' Darwinism and all that?

Can this really be a GIGANTIC capitulation on the part of a creationism science expert like you?

I wonder what other things that you have been so damn confident about in the past you will now backpedal on....

quote:

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.

Oh, YOU realize that now?

This will be fun!

I have archives of posts in whihc you say things like neutral mutations actually take longer to fix in a population!

This is going to be so much fun!

Your overbearing overconfidence will once again demonstrate your incompetence.

quote:

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.

Bullshit. 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.

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.

The truth is, Williams, that you are just too damn egomaniacal to admit that you might have been wrong in the first place.

quote:

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.

Williams, you misrepresent me. Truth is hard for you to tell, even when the very words are plain to see.

I said Spetner is an "antievolutionist", not a YEC.

From the good folks at AiG:

"Spetner mentions the Torah (of which Genesis is a part) and a rabbinical tradition of some 730 separate kinds of animals and birds originally created."

In addition, there was a page - now unavailable - regarding the Torah and how Spetner was able to reconcile Rabbi David Lauria's interpretation using his "directed mutation" schtick.

Sorry, misrepresenter Moderator 3, the only misrepresentation is coming form you.

As always.

quote:

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?

No, and only the dishonest zealot would try to claim that I did.

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.

So, I guess you are ignoring my example?

Typical.

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 8:39 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2002 9:08 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 7 of 13 (22659)
11-14-2002 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by monkenstick
11-13-2002 6:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
you should post this over at arn.org

For mturner?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by monkenstick, posted 11-13-2002 6:58 PM monkenstick has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 8 of 13 (22664)
11-14-2002 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by derwood
11-14-2002 8:23 AM


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.

So, I guess you are ignoring my example?

Typical.
**************************

It is actually worse than that...there is plenty of evidence for random mutation AND there is also evidence against non-random mutation yet the zealots continue to claim things like "the jury is still out".

Maybe Peter will explain where in the alignment you provided the non-random mutations are?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 8:23 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 10 of 13 (22672)
11-14-2002 10:12 AM


Scott and Fred,

The purpose of the Forum Guidelines is to prevent discussion from becoming personal to the point where the issues become obscured. You both apparently feel the other is debating in a less than honest and forthright manner. I'm sure I speak for all the administrators of this board when I say we will do our best to insure you both are treated fairly, but we'll need your help. Please make an effort to view each other's motivations in the most positive possible light. Send email to admin@ if you feel the administrators need to become more active. Thanks!

------------------

--EvC Forum Administrator


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 10:40 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 13 (22677)
11-14-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Admin
11-14-2002 10:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Admin:
Scott and Fred,

The purpose of the Forum Guidelines is to prevent discussion from becoming personal to the point where the issues become obscured. You both apparently feel the other is debating in a less than honest and forthright manner. I'm sure I speak for all the administrators of this board when I say we will do our best to insure you both are treated fairly, but we'll need your help. Please make an effort to view each other's motivations in the most positive possible light. Send email to admin@ if you feel the administrators need to become more active. Thanks!


Sure. Considering the fact that Williams claimed I "misrepresented" Spetner's position by writing that he doesn't believe Spetner is a YEC when I actually wrote that he is an "antievolutionist" is a pretty clear misrepresentation.

As you should know by now, one of Fred's 'debate' tactics is to accuse whoever he is 'debating' of misrepresenting' this or that.

I suggest that such accusations from Fred be taken with a grain of salt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 11-14-2002 10:12 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:09 PM derwood has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3021 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:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=53&m=44#44 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=53&m=44#44">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=53&m=44#44

From 2 weeks ago:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=53&p=17 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=53&p=17">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=53&p=17

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 responded

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

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 13 of 13 (22868)
11-15-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 4:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
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. [/quote]

You misunderstand what I wrote and/or misrepresent me.

I know you have claimed to have backtracked on this former proselytization of yours, but I do not recall reading your retraction of this 6 months ago (now it appears that it is only 5 months...).
Indeed - the post you link to below was in response to Tranquility Base, not me, and I usually only read posts that are in response to me. Indeed, even a simpleton like you should know how much glee I would have found in pointing out this obvious flip-flop/capitulation from you "6 months ago." That I did not point this out at the time alone should be an indicator that I did not read that particular post from you.

Believe it or not, Moderator 3, everyone does not read each and every one of your typically shallow posts.

quote:

I still need to clarify something. I never “totally flip-flopped” on directed mutations. I still believe they occur!

Oh, so not only have you flip-flopped (gone from prosyletizing their glorious ability to 'rescue' creationary genetics (sic) to putting them well down on the list of possibilites) but you are still hoping against hope that they actually occur - evidence to the contrary be damned - because after all, you might be able to start proselytizing again!

Talk about adapting to the landscape like fog...

quote:

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.

OK, Moderator 3 information theory expert. Whatever you say.

quote:

Read this post, from 5 months back:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=53&m=44#44 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=53&m=44#44">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=53&m=44#44

From 2 weeks ago:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=53&p=17 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=53&p=17">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=53&p=17

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.


Why is it likely that I read your comments? Do you really think that highly of yourself? As I already explained, I don't read them all, especially the mushy quasi-homosexual back-patting posts between fellow creationists. Those give me the creeps.

quote:

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.

"You ignore this though I’ve told it to you before."

One, that is a misrepresentation. You never "told me" any such thing.

Simply because you mention something in a post is no guarantee that I - or anyone else will have read it.

Two, since you still believe that they occur - contrary to the evidence (of course, evidence doesn't seem to mean much to the creationist, does it?) - you are still 'proselytizing' them in a way.

You are misrepresenting reality.

From your link:

"Second, I never claimed non-random mutations were the only possible solution, and in fact have stated that I recently (within last 6 months) can see other mechanisms that can exmplain the rapid diversification in 5K years (in fact we see many examples in nature, such as Darwin’s finches)."

and from above:

"I no longer think they may be necessary to explain hyper-speciation since the flood."

I don't see how you not thinking that they are "necessary" removes the fact that you obviously still think they play a role.

Of course, your new 'stated' position, IS, in fact, quite a turn around from your earlier "proselytization" of them. You are just trying cover up the fact that in reality, you DID put a high price on the impact of these mythical 'directed mutations' when you were in a higher state of "deny the evidence" mode.

Also from your second link above:

"First, there could easily have been 30K kinds or more."

Do you have any evidence for this?

I know that you really don't like to supply evidence, but your repeated matter-of-fact statements are just so damn tiresome...

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.


Thats you, Mr.Electrical engineer creationist "information theory expert.". You don't like having your obvious shortcomings displayed, and I like to do it. You call it misrepresentation. I call it cutting throgh the face-saving double-speak.

quote:

Am I a lone-wolf creationist complaining about your misrepresentations, Scott?

No, you and ReMine. I think you do it because your hero ReMine likes ot accuse everyone of it.
Oh, and this one guy on the 'creationtalk' board. I said that he uses 'awe' as evidence fopr creation. He said I was misrepresenting him becaus he never used the word 'awe'.
I think maybe he has read ReMine too...

quote:

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.

You have used that same statement before. Didn't really match reality then, either.

You are like the character that Nicole Sullivan played on Mad TV - the annoying, rude lady with the 'bitchy' voice who insulted people left and right, and when they conformted her she put her fingers in her ears and chanted "lalalalalala".

quote:

Regarding Spetner, I did not mean to imply you stated he was YEC.

Must be one of those shortcomings of the media. Yeah, the english language is a tricky one....

quote:

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.

He did not really offer a theory at all. A theory actually has to have some supporting evidence. All Spetner had - and all he still has - is wild extrapolations, argument via definition, and, like you, way too much confidence.
And all you are offering is one of those arguments via "I/he did not say exactly that". Like when ReMine claims that he never said there was a conspiracy by evolutionists to keep 'Haldane's dilemma' covered up (which is utterly stupid on the face of it), that he only said that it was "hushed up and brushed aside" for 40 years...
the implications are clear enough.

Of course, your old buggery boy 'John Paul' certainly advocated Spetner's fantasy to account for the post-flood fantasy.
Maybe you'd better straighten him out.

quote:

I’ve read plenty of his material

Of course you have - isn't it required?

quote:

and have never seen him make this correlation. Thus, you clearly misrepresented him,

Thus, oh master of the acusation, I must have misrepresented him because YOU, FRED "Info Expert" WILLIAMS, see it that way.

It must be true then.

quote:

regardless of whether or not he is YEC.

Well, that is good, because I never said he was a YEC. You made that up to trump up a charge of 'misrepresentation', then when you saw that was a lie on your part, you trump up something else. Good false witness, there god boy.

quote:

Perhaps you should read his book or his web material before you criticize what you assume he believes.

Maybe you should take off those bliders and see the implications of claims rather than using this absolutinst mindset of yours.

quote:

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.


In the end, nobody really cares what some personal web page creationist thinks, anyway.

quote:

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.

Gee - good thing that they don't really occur!

quote:

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).

Wow - an information theory expert, a master population geneticist, a bibilcal scholar, AND an espert in the philosophy of science! Wow!

quote:
Fred:
Mar. 25 2001,00:19
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll skip discussion on directed mutation until I complete my article.

Got that article done yet? No? Then why are you discussing them?

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:09 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019