More creationist folk "genetics"

[tas8831]

My goodness, the Dunning-Kruger effect is really something.

A creationist recently wrote, emphasis mine:

"...For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene. So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another..."​

I asked about 6 times over the course of a couple days for the creationist to support that amazing "genetics". She finally replied with:

"About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, so those mutations have no effect. So, we have 10% functional DNA.
Mutations in this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful.
Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. Source:" Remine, The Biotic Message"​

Wow.....

But I do like how one creationist dismisses the 'no junkDNA' position of other creationists, all depending on which argument they think they are making.

 

[pacomascarot]

I evolved an amazing ability to read the thoughts of other people but it came at a cost. I ended up with 15 vestigial tails, 4 non-functional arms, pubic hair in place of my head hair and a nose with only one nostril.

 

[Frank Robert]

"...For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene. So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another..."

What creationists are ignoring is that selection is not random. I think it is more likely that they are pretending that selection does not exist as a cover to reject speciation.

 

[SkyWriting]

What creationists are ignoring is that selection is not random. I think it is more likely that they are pretending that selection does not exist as a cover to reject speciation.

Everyone knows that selection is not random. That's why it's called selection.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My goodness, the Dunning-Kruger effect is really something.

A creationist recently wrote, emphasis mine:

"...For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene. So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another..."​

I asked about 6 times over the course of a couple days for the creationist to support that amazing "genetics". She finally replied with:

"About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, so those mutations have no effect. So, we have 10% functional DNA.
Mutations in this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful.
Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. Source:" Remine, The Biotic Message"​

Wow.....

But I do like how one creationist dismisses the 'no junkDNA' position of other creationists, all depending on which argument they think they are making.

IIRC, Walter Remine is the guy that says sex could never evolve because passing on 50% of your genes isn't as good as passing on 100%...

Here's a geneticist's view of Remine's 'Message Theory' from 'The Biotic Message'.

 

[tas8831]

IIRC, Walter Remine is the guy that says sex could never evolve because passing on 50% of your genes isn't as good as passing on 100%...

Here's a geneticist's view of Remine's 'Message Theory' from 'The Biotic Message'.

Korthof's assessment is a good one. A little too generous, in my opinion.
I've encountered ReMine before. He used to show up on several News Groups under fake names and heap praise upon himself. Each time, however, his ego got the best of him and he would let slip that it was really him - typically by replying to negative comments about his claims with something like "You misrepresent me!" And each time he got caught, he would claim that he never claimed to be anyone else. Not even a good liar.

 

[tas8831]

What creationists are ignoring is that selection is not random. I think it is more likely that they are pretending that selection does not exist as a cover to reject speciation.

That and the notion that a gene has to have had 1000 bad mutations before experiencing one is... well... crazy.

 

[Frank Robert]

That and the notion that a gene has to have had 1000 bad mutations before experiencing one is... well... crazy.

Right. They fail to accept that it doesn't the ratio between beneficial and bad mutations doesn't matter if only beneficial mutations are selected.

 

[tas8831]

My goodness, the Dunning-Kruger effect is really something.

A creationist recently wrote, emphasis mine:

"...For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene. So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another..."​

I asked about 6 times over the course of a couple days for the creationist to support that amazing "genetics". She finally replied with:

"About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, so those mutations have no effect. So, we have 10% functional DNA.
Mutations in this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful.
Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. Source:" Remine, The Biotic Message"​

Wow.....

But I do like how one creationist dismisses the 'no junkDNA' position of other creationists, all depending on which argument they think they are making.

A shame that no YECs could come their brother's rescue, but then... they never can.