More creationist failure.

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Once in a while, creationists will attempt to cite actual research in their favor. In every case I have ever come across, the research turns out to be irrelevant to the subject, misrepresented, made up, or some combination thereof. Here is a recent example of that continuing legacy of failure.

In another thread on this forum - this one - user Ed1wolf quoted this interview, referring to a supposed group of mathematicians at Cornell who 'determined that it would take 60,000 years for a mutation to arise, and 6 million years for it to become general in the population to go from an apelike ancestor to humans'. Here is the interview,

Science vs. Darwinism - WORLD

Here's the thing - email exists.

I emailed the math department at Cornell, linking them to the interview and asking if they knew anything about it. If this is meant to refer to an actual study that happened there, neither the Assistant to the Chair of Mathematics, nor Professor of Applied Mathematics Steve Strogatz, have ever heard of it. The following was written by Professor Strogatz, and forwarded to me by the Assistant,

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

I have no idea what article is being referred to. Honestly, though, the person being interviewed in the article is saying a lot of unreliable and false things that no reputable biologist would agree with. So I wouldn’t expect that there is an actual reference for the “Cornell mathematician who did a study of DNA binding” – or if there is, I imagine that she is misinterpreting the results of that article.

Feel free to pass my remarks along to the person who made the inquiry.

Best,

Steve

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

Again, that is allowing the possibility that this is even referring to an actual study at all.

I am posting this here for reference, in case any creationist tries to cite this interview in the future.

 

[SkyWriting]

Once in a while, creationists will attempt to cite actual research in their favor. In every case I have ever come across, the research turns out to be irrelevant to the subject, misrepresented, made up, or some combination thereof. Here is a recent example of that continuing legacy of failure.

In another thread on this forum - this one - user Ed1wolf quoted this interview, referring to a supposed group of mathematicians at Cornell who 'determined that it would take 60,000 years for a mutation to arise, and 6 million years for it to become general in the population to go from an apelike ancestor to humans'. Here is the interview,

Science vs. Darwinism - WORLD

Here's the thing - email exists.

I emailed the math department at Cornell, linking them to the interview and asking if they knew anything about it. If this is meant to refer to an actual study that happened there, neither the Assistant to the Chair of Mathematics, nor Professor of Applied Mathematics Steve Strogatz, have ever heard of it. The following was written by Professor Strogatz, and forwarded to me by the Assistant,

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

I have no idea what article is being referred to. Honestly, though, the person being interviewed in the article is saying a lot of unreliable and false things that no reputable biologist would agree with. So I wouldn’t expect that there is an actual reference for the “Cornell mathematician who did a study of DNA binding” – or if there is, I imagine that she is misinterpreting the results of that article.

Feel free to pass my remarks along to the person who made the inquiry.

Best,

Steve

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

Again, that is allowing the possibility that this is even referring to an actual study at all.

I am posting this here for reference, in case any creationist tries to cite this interview in the future.

Rates are based on data rather than math probabilities.
When I supported creationist ideas, I used science-news magazine.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion please. The topic of transgender doesn't qualify.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[USincognito]

This is hardly surprising. If you look at Creationist claims many of them seem to match one of thse scenarios.

- They're from fellow Creationists who are cited as "Dr. X, University of Y" when they haven't had any affiliation with the university since the got their degree.
- The citations to support the claim don't actually support the claim.
- The source of the citation doesn't actually exist.

 

[xianghua]

This is hardly surprising. If you look at Creationist claims many of them seem to match one of thse scenarios.

- They're from fellow Creationists who are cited as "Dr. X, University of Y" when they haven't had any affiliation with the university since the got their degree.
- The citations to support the claim don't actually support the claim.
- The source of the citation doesn't actually exist.

i think that she is referring to this paper:

Gauger

even if it is a wrong conclusion i do think that we need more time then the age of the earth to produce even a small protein like a globin for instance. a globin is a small 150 amino acids ling protein. say that its minimal length need about 100 amino acids. its still a lot.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

i think that she is referring to this paper:

Gauger

even if it is a wrong conclusion i do think that we need more time then the age of the earth to produce even a small protein like a globin for instance. a globin is a small 150 amino acids ling protein. say that its minimal length need about 100 amino acids. its still a lot.

That's not the same subject, and not from Cornell. It's from Biologic Institute, whose scientific credibility is dubious, to put it politely as possible.

 

[tas8831]

This is hardly surprising. If you look at Creationist claims many of them seem to match one of thse scenarios.

- They're from fellow Creationists who are cited as "Dr. X, University of Y" when they haven't had any affiliation with the university since the got their degree.
- The citations to support the claim don't actually support the claim.
- The source of the citation doesn't actually exist.

Like how Jon Wells kept his Berkley affiliation for YEARS after he had left academia for the far more lucratrive ID apologetics world at the Discovery Institute....

 

[tas8831]

i think that she is referring to this paper:

Gauger

even if it is a wrong conclusion i do think that we need more time then the age of the earth to produce even a small protein like a globin for instance. a globin is a small 150 amino acids ling protein. say that its minimal length need about 100 amino acids. its still a lot.

Providing that such a protein was an established goal.

But who would have set such a goal? Your Designer? I thought the Designer used god magic and just poofed things from dust?

Do you know what a strawman is?