Looking for all the missing links

[AnotherAtheist]

Well John Sanford is an expert on the matter of genetic entrophy. John Sanford being a well credentialed scientist with published papers on entrophy and other topics. BTW Sanford used to be an evolutionist, turned YEC.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_43-47.pdf


John C. Sanford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But John Sanford's models don't bear close examination.

He based his model a certain distribution of the "value" of mutations, i.e. how many are beneficial, and how many are deleterious. He also defined an "effectively neutral zone" where mutations of small effect will not be selected for or against. Sanford took these models from a researcher called Kimura. but, Kimura's paper actually gives several models for the distribution of mutation "worth" or "value" versus frequency. Some of these models led to massively too fast evolution, and some led to devolution. Sanford chose one of Kimura's distributions that led to devolution, without adequately explaining why. He also decided that all beneficial mutations would be too small to be beneficial, to fall in the "effectively neutral zone". There's a heading in the review you link to, "good and bad mutations inseparable". But laboratory experiments show that beneficial mutations do appear in populations. This shows that Sanford's parameters do not match reality, and hence his conclusions are meaningless.

Secondly, Sanford assumes that mutations are independent. So that if a mutation is only slightly deleterious, that it won't be selected against. This ignores the fact that deleterious mutations can be cumulative.

Imagine that we have an organism with one tiny deleterious mutation. The difference this single mutation makes will be too small for there to be a noticeable selection pressure. But, if an organism has 50,000 such slightly deleterious mutations, the cumulative weight of those mutations can severely cripple the organism, and it will be flushed out of the gene pool. Sanford's claim that natural selection is ineffective is based on this inappropriate independence assumption.

Kimura does good simulation/model research. He considered the uncertainty we have concerning how many mutations are beneficial, and tried experiments with different distributions of mutation worth versus frequency. And found that these different distributions led to different results. We don't know what the distribution of deleterious versus beneficial mutations are in humans, and we don't know how these mutations combine to cumulatively affect the viability/competitive fitness of the individual. Kimura uses his model to help understand what we do and do not know. Sanford doesn't.

This article convincingly deconstructs Sanford's techniques and conclusions: STAN 4 | Letters to Creationists It is very interesting reading, and IMHO is a very useful article to read to understand the limitations of computer simulation.

 

[Norman321]

The Bible says that death entered by the sin of one man.

The Bible says that sin entered the world though Adam and there is a death that is a result of that sin. The reason Adam died was he was banned from the Garden of Eden so he could not eat from the tree of Life. There was clearly death in the world before Adam. There are many many many fossils. So there is evidence for death etched in stone.

Gen 3:22b "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"

 

[selfinflikted]

Science does not affirm evolution at all. Science affirms creation and my previous post re birds is just one example of it.

What a bass-ackwards thing to say. No, you're probably right - the majority of scientists today are just part of a huge conspiracy to confuse and confound the Biblethumpers.

 

[Astridhere]

Yes it also said this:
during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God."
That's the kind of thing sane men say all the time, I don't think, become religious yes but to say that?
His working life has been spent studying the development of plants and now he thinks evolution is wrong?
I can only assume his brain has suffered damage somewhere along the line.

There are many things I love about evos.

One of them is their ability to turn to philosophy rather than refute the basis of the evidence I present with more than their philosophical opinon.

Have another go at demonstrating any erraneous reasoning on my behalf, if you disagree!

My prediction is that you will not reply at all or will reply with philosphical twoddle that in no way refutes the basis of my assertion....The data re birds supports a creationist paradigm much better than an evolutionary one.

Go!!! Let's see if you can actually back up an appropriate refute.

 

[Norman321]

You evos did not even know that some dinosaurs had feathers at all untill recently. I can still remember all the nonsense I read about the rise of feathers in birds.

There could be flightless birds like the Ostrich. But real birds were created with the fish. Just as the fish swim and are carried by the current. Birds swim though the air and are carried by air currents.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

OK I'll stick to evolution....

How's this for presenting information that demonstrates the muddle of evolution, in context that is not a quote mine......

Once again Astrid presents information that shows science doing what it does best - progressing through continual re-examination and refinement of theories. And somehow presents this as if it argues against evolution.

I've challenged her several times to tell us how science making progress means that evolution is wrong, but haven't had a reply. I wonder why.

Well, creationists do not have to do anything because the raw data supports a creationist paradigm.

And perhaps you could explain to us what this "raw data" is that supports a creationist paradigm?

(Not holding my breath)

 

[Astridhere]

What a bass-ackwards thing to say. No, you're probably right - the majority of scientists today are just part of a huge conspiracy to confuse and confound the Biblethumpers.

Again another person with many words and nothing to say

You have said nothing of value. Do you seriously think your opinion or generalizing has any substance? If I am wrong then do please show me the error of my reasoning re birds as just one example.

Most scientists supported human knuckle walking ancestry for the past 150 years and more. Guess what? They were all wrong. So much for the value of 'common thinking' in the majority.

Are you able to defend this bird evolution of yours or not?

Your opinion means little to me. How about trying something novel and using some research to refute the basis of my assertion.

Here is a hint to save you time... You can't refute the irrefuteable.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There could be flightless birds like the Ostrich. But real birds were created with the fish. Just as the fish swim and are carried by the current. Birds swim though the air and are carried by air currents.

Or it could be that science is doing what science does best. Taking a theory such as "birds descended from dinosaurs" and checking and rechecking it against old and new evidence, and considering that there might be a better theory. And, there is significant possibility that there is a better theory being developed to replace it.

I can't understand why Astrid thinks that demonstrating how good science is and how much effort goes into making sure that it's as accurate as it can be supports her creationist beliefs.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Are you able to defend this bird evolution of yours or not?

Why would anyone "defend" one model of bird evolution? We want to know what the true history of bird evolution is. And the more we know (e.g. one of your links mentioned new fossils), the better theory we can create.

That's the whole point of science. But unfortunately you seem to have no idea how science works.

 

[selfinflikted]

Again another person with many words and nothing to say

You have said nothing of value. Do you seriously think your opinion or generalizing has any substance? If I am wrong then do please show me the error of my reasoning re birds as just one example.

Most scientists supported human knuckle walking ancestry for the past 150 years and more. Guess what? They were all wrong. So much for the value of 'common thinking' in the majority.

Are you able to defend this bird evolution of yours or not?

Your opinion means little to me. How about trying something novel and using some research to refute the basis of my assertion.

Here is a hint to save you time... You can't refute the irrefuteable.

I have no interest whatsoever in deabting the merits of evolution with you, because frankly, I don't like you.

I just think it's funny that you, and a handful of creation "scientists," have the skinny on evolution, and everyone else is wrong. Hilarious, actually.

ETA: Also, the tag "Ignore Astrid." I lol'd.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I have no interest whatsoever in deabting the merits of evolution with you, because frankly, I don't like you.

I just think it's funny that you, and a handful of creation "scientists," have the skinny on evolution, and everyone else is wrong. Hilarious, actually.

At least she's fully dressed in her profile pic. Unlike another poster who has been posting here recently.

ETA: Also, the tag "Ignore Astrid." I lol'd.

This thread needs Astrid. If we don't have enough people arguing for Creationism, how will we debate?

 

[hollyda]

Aaaaaand I'm subscribing 'cause it appears I have a lot of posts to read through. Must remember where this is.

 

[selfinflikted]

If we don't have enough people arguing for Creationism, how will we debate?

I know! I mean this in all sincerety when I say I really do miss AV.

 

[hollyda]

I know! I mean this in all sincerety when I say I really do miss AV.

Where the heck is AV? I've genuinely been wondering this for a few days now. Did I miss something?

ETA: I now know what happened to him, but not why. *cries*

 

[Astridhere]

Once again Astrid presents information that shows science doing what it does best - progressing through continual re-examination and refinement of theories. And somehow presents this as if it argues against evolution.

I've challenged her several times to tell us how science making progress means that evolution is wrong, but haven't had a reply. I wonder why.

SHE can stick to the topic and is not lead down the garden path of asides when being specific. You may see 150 years of change as progression. I see 150 years of falsifications of previous 'undeniable evidence' for evolution' as researchers groping in the dark. The bottom line is that after 150 years of speculation and so called 'progress' evolutionists are no closer to answering the when, where, how or why of evolution than they were back then.

The evasion and your inability to respond appropriately is apparent when I am requesting a scientific and research based refute and what I get is your calibre of philosophical questioning that leads to absolutely nowhere.
Then you try to take on some sort of hero stance on the back of it.

If you want a response from me then post something worth replying to.

And perhaps you could explain to us what this "raw data" is that supports a creationist paradigm?

(Not holding my breath)

Well it certainly does not support an evolutionary one!

I am saying that bird footprints dating to 212mya supports the creation of birds prior to dinosaurs which is exactly what a creationist would expect to find and not what evos want to find. Hence you have a muddle and I do not. Archaeopteryx has been knocked off its perch. Hence the data re birds is MORE in line with creationist expectations than yours. I use the term 'raw data' to imply data without the hypothetical speculative scenarios attached to it by your researchers.

Of course I know this sort of thing is no problem for evos because they are used to it.

TOE is as clear as mud and replies such as yours are a demonstration that indeed evos are unable to defend themselves and clear the water when it comes down to the nitty gritty.

If you evos want to refute me with any substance at all, you will have to, you know, start with providing more than your most humble opinion. Your opinion and refering to 'because they said so' is not using science or research.

Thus far the data re birds, a topic brought up by another poster, supports a creationist paradigm and not an evolutionary one.

In address of the thread topic, bird evolution is just another example, on top of others I have spoken to, that suggests the opening letter in post 1 is a good reflection of the evolutionary status quo.

 

[Astridhere]

But John Sanford's models don't bear close examination.

He based his model a certain distribution of the "value" of mutations, i.e. how many are beneficial, and how many are deleterious. He also defined an "effectively neutral zone" where mutations of small effect will not be selected for or against. Sanford took these models from a researcher called Kimura. but, Kimura's paper actually gives several models for the distribution of mutation "worth" or "value" versus frequency. Some of these models led to massively too fast evolution, and some led to devolution. Sanford chose one of Kimura's distributions that led to devolution, without adequately explaining why. He also decided that all beneficial mutations would be too small to be beneficial, to fall in the "effectively neutral zone". There's a heading in the review you link to, "good and bad mutations inseparable". But laboratory experiments show that beneficial mutations do appear in populations. This shows that Sanford's parameters do not match reality, and hence his conclusions are meaningless.

Secondly, Sanford assumes that mutations are independent. So that if a mutation is only slightly deleterious, that it won't be selected against. This ignores the fact that deleterious mutations can be cumulative.

Imagine that we have an organism with one tiny deleterious mutation. The difference this single mutation makes will be too small for there to be a noticeable selection pressure. But, if an organism has 50,000 such slightly deleterious mutations, the cumulative weight of those mutations can severely cripple the organism, and it will be flushed out of the gene pool. Sanford's claim that natural selection is ineffective is based on this inappropriate independence assumption.

Kimura does good simulation/model research. He considered the uncertainty we have concerning how many mutations are beneficial, and tried experiments with different distributions of mutation worth versus frequency. And found that these different distributions led to different results. We don't know what the distribution of deleterious versus beneficial mutations are in humans, and we don't know how these mutations combine to cumulatively affect the viability/competitive fitness of the individual. Kimura uses his model to help understand what we do and do not know. Sanford doesn't.

This article convincingly deconstructs Sanford's techniques and conclusions: STAN 4 | Letters to Creationists It is very interesting reading, and IMHO is a very useful article to read to understand the limitations of computer simulation.

All I have to say in reply to this post is "Get over it".

Indeed the entirety of anything you provide is firmly rooted in assumptions and they are the basis of all your speculations and algorithmic magic.

Your own researchers debate and love to refute and falsify each other and the dino to bird thing, or visa versa, is just one example of it. The only thing your researchers agree on is "it all evolved', and so did Sanford for a time. That goes for mutation rates, hot spots, recombination and anything else you care to name.

You may as well suggest that not one of your evolutionary scientists has any credibility because there is nothing within evolutionary science that is not challenged as flavour of the month.

Sanfords work is as credible as anything you can produce.

 

[NailsII]

If evolution is true, then death is in the world long before humans. That is in stark contrast to what the Scriptures say. The Bible says that death entered by the sin of one man.

Forget evolution, we have evidence of death long before humans - evolution is irrelevant here.
The evidence contradicts the bible - so one of them MUST be wrong.

OK I'll stick to evolution....

How's this for presenting information that demonstrates the muddle of evolution, in context that is not a quote mine......

You evos did not even know that some dinosaurs had feathers at all untill recently. I can still remember all the nonsense I read about the rise of feathers in birds.

Furthermore to that modern bird footprints have been found dated to 212mya and preceed the dinosaurs they were meant to have evolved from.

i won't check your links, I will beieve you (cos a Christian would never lie, right?).
So, a question mark has been raised over bird evolution due to new evidence. What to do?
Shall we throw away the baby with the bathwater?
This is how science works, a theory must explain all the facts.
If it doesn't, then the theory needs to be modified or replaced.
As new facts are uncovered, the theory will be checked again and again.

Personally, I wouldn't get too excited.
I would wait and see what happens.

Here is a hint to save you time... You can't refute the irrefuteable.

Irony - a beautiful word.
I wouldn't defend a theory - I would rather know the truth.

Actually the only embarrasment is the theory of evolution itself. Punctuated equilibrium states that a bird hatched from a reptile egg. This is the current most widely held belief of evolutionists today. There is no proof, so there's our proof. Again, evolution does not state that everything produces after its kind, but that changes create a new kind. As I said, a cow producing a non-cow. Through moden genetics we can see this is impossible. That an animal can only produce afyer what's already in its gene code.

Oh dear.
When you have something intelligent to say, please let me know.
This rubbish isn't worth reading, let alone replying to.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

All I have to say in reply to this post is "Get over it".

Get over what?

Indeed the entirety of anything you provide is firmly rooted in assumptions and they are the basis of all your speculations and algorithmic magic.

Nope. There is a clear distinction between evidence such as fossils and genetic sequences, and theories. There are mountains of such evidence and only evolution comes anywhere near coming up with a plausible explanation of the evidence from the natural world.

Your own researchers debate and love to refute and falsify each other and the dino to bird thing, or visa versa, is just one example of it. The only thing your researchers agree on is "it all evolved', and so did Sanford for a time. That goes for mutation rates, hot spots, recombination and anything else you care to name.

Yes, scientists debate each other. But scientists don't just refute each other. Have a look at scientific papers and you'll find that it's very often scientists confirming each others discoveries and theories, not refuting them. And you'll also find that it's scientists correcting each other that you're pointing out. E.g. did birds evolve from dinosaurs. It's not that the old birds from dinosaurs theory has just been completely thrown out, it's been refined and improved. The tree of how life evolved from life is substantially the same, except that one branch has been moved slightly. It's been improved after a reevaluation of the evidence.

You still haven't come up with any reasons while this vital part of the scientific process, the checking, rechecking, and refining, in any way argues against evolution. Can you?

 

[Split Rock]

At least she's fully dressed in her profile pic. Unlike another poster who has been posting here recently.

I'm convinced that is a Poe account. Did you read this person's blog about modeling semi-nude for in art class for her pastor and most of the male congregation? Hilarious!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I'm convinced that is a Poe account. Did you read this person's blog about modeling semi-nude for in art class for her pastor and most of the male congregation? Hilarious!

Ah, no, I didn't read that.

I'm not familiar with the "Poe" term. I presume it's a false flag account.