Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
Like I said, when it came time to put up or shut up he did neither.
What is it like to go through life without a sense of irony?
Without even getting into how you utterly dropped the ball on ERVs and how you still are trying to conflate various measurements of genetic mutation after more than a year and a half you still haven't given a satifactory explanation as to why Turkana Boy was the size of a tween but had the cranial capacity of a toddler other than to obfuscate and handwave. After two years plus you still have yet to point to the genetic bottlenecks in your post-Flood hyperevolution fantasy. You also have yet to reconcille the fact that you think hyperevolution could have occured post-Flood in X number of species but justify why you are still incredulous about HAR1.
And I'm forgetting a bunch of other stuff you have never answered or danced around.
You must have stone cajones to ask others to "put up or shut up" at this point.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
Hey Mark, hope everything went well with your last tour.
FYI, peteos and I started a thread on the data indicating that chimps and humans share 200,000 ERV's. The thread can be found here. Your input would be much appreciated.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Hey Mark, hope everything went well with your last tour.
FYI, peteos and I started a thread on the data indicating that chimps and humans share 200,000 ERV's. The thread can be found here. Your input would be much appreciated.
Everything went fine, I'm on leave now and going into the regular Army in a couple of days. I'll check out the thread.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Everything went fine, I'm on leave now and going into the regular Army in a couple of days. I'll check out the thread.
I didn't know that we had a constipated Army.
Good luck my friend. Watch your six.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Ok I get it... ...yet another awkwardly worded post. I posted something to the thread you invited me to.
Grace and peace,
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Here's a puzzle for you Tom, what is the rate when the divergence is calculated at 5% instead of 1.33%?
The average mutation rate was estimated to be 2.5 x 10-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation...Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common.
All nucleotide subs mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-8
Length mutations mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-9
All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8
Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates of molecular evolution given in Table 1.
Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%
The honest answer is that it is foolish to calculate such a thing and you are too scientificaly illiterate to understand why.
Hey Professor, long time no see. You mean to say it's perfectly ok to calculate spontaneous mutation rates as long as you don't do it for human evolution. This all started when Time and Nature misrepresented the actual divergence, they both said it was 98%. There could only be one reason for that, they don't want to count the indels.
I think the problem here is that you guys simply want to dismiss the divergence when it no longer suits you. Don't calculate it, it makes no difference to me but don't tell me that an indel a million base pairs long is the same as one 1 base pair long.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Hey creationist, I see you are still making the exact same error-riddled claims.
You mean to say it's perfectly ok to calculate spontaneous mutation rates as long as you don't do it for human evolution.
No, I am saying that you have to account for mutations in a rational way. Claiming that all the nucleotides in an indel of 100 bps in length counts as 100 mutations is not the rational - or correct - way to do it. You say it is, despite having the nonsensical claim explained to be in error to you repeatedly.
This all started when Time and Nature misrepresented the actual divergence, they both said it was 98%. There could only be one reason for that, they don't want to count the indels.
Yes, that must be it. Because I guess they know that internet creationists with no background in any science at all, much less genetics, would 'find out' that all the nucleotides in mutational single-events must really all individually be accounted for in the mutation rate...
No, wait - actual scientists are not that ignorant.
I think the problem here is that you guys simply want to dismiss the divergence when it no longer suits you.
Actually, we are the ones that seem to understand how these things are accounted for. Had you ever considered even the mere possibility that YOU might be the one in error here?
Don't calculate it, it makes no difference to me but don't tell me that an indel a million base pairs long is the same as one 1 base pair long.
Invincible ignorance is, afterall, invincible.
A 1 million BP indel is STILL A SINGLE MUTATIONAL EVENT WHETHER YOUR YEC SENSIBILITIES ACCPET THAT FACT OR NOT.
No wonder people tend to ignore you these days - you are too arrogant to allow that you've been wrong on this issue for the last 5 years or whatever it is.
I mean, if you admit that you were wrong on this, what ELSE might you be wrong about....????
Last edited by SLP; 5th June 2008 at 03:09 PM.
Reason: typo
Hey creationist, I see you are still making the exact same error-riddled claims.
It's odd that you would say that when you are not making claims at all.
No, I am saying that you have to account for mutations in a rational way. Claiming that all the nucleotides in an indel of 100 bps in length counts as 100 mutations is not the rational - or correct - way to do it. You say it is, despite having the nonsensical claim explained to be in error to you repeatedly.
Correct me if I'm wrong Professor but didn't you work on a paper that claimed we should be in the same genus as chimpanzees? Now that the divergence has changed I wonder if you are reconsidering your position on that particular view or revising it.
Yes, that must be it. Because I guess they know that internet creationists with no background in any science at all, much less genetics, would 'find out' that all the nucleotides in mutational single-events must really all individually be accounted for in the mutation rate...
No one is saying or suggesting that a single event has to be equated with a single nucleotide or base pair. We both know that a per nucleotide/base pair rate is perfectly viable if only a curiosity. What I'm trying to get through to you, and I think you already know is, that the divergence goes up and probability goes down. It's pretty simple really, you don't accept the inverse logic of your homology argument.
No, wait - actual scientists are not that ignorant.
And the inevitable presumption of ignorance for anyone who refuses your a priori assumption of universal common decent.
Actually, we are the ones that seem to understand how these things are accounted for. Had you ever considered even the mere possibility that YOU might be the one in error here?
There won't be enough details discussed or debated for anyone to actually make an error.
Invincible ignorance is, afterall, invincible.
Indeed but the knife cuts both ways my learned friend.
A 1 million BP indel is STILL A SINGLE MUTATIONAL EVENT WHETHER YOUR YEC SENSIBILITIES ACCPET THAT FACT OR NOT.
How many of these 1 million base pair indels do you have in you? How many of them have been directly observed or demonstrated by genetics researchers? Do you really think it makes the enormous divergence you either ignore or dismiss because you think you can magically make a 1 million base pair mutation the same as a single base substitution?
No wonder people tend to ignore you these days - you are too arrogant to allow that you've been wrong on this issue for the last 5 years or whatever it is.
I'm rarely ignored, I have not posted in months and you are responding to me regularly.
I mean, if you admit that you were wrong on this, what ELSE might you be wrong about....????
How on earth does a Biology Professor have the slightest interest in an uneducated, error prone, incredulous laymen? How?
Could it be that you have a sneaking suspicion that we are right? There is no doubt in my mind that this does not come from science or that you will continue to conflate and convolve the actual facts with all your might. What I really don't get is if I'm so wrong why you would have the slightest interest in talking to me. Much less that you would be responding to my posts months after I have lost interest in even discussing the topic.
Straight up Professor, what do you want from me? Do you want me to recant, desist, repent or otherwise change my views? What on earth do you think you are accomplishing by pursuing this dialogue? If I am so deluded and error prone why would you not simply ignore me as you would a failing student too inept and undisciplined to pass a Biology class?
What do you want? Seriously, what do you think you are accomplishing?
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
...yet another awkwardly worded post. I posted something to the thread you invited me to.
Linear Mode
