Click the pic and knock em outa the park!
Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Please point out a lie that I have told?
“Do you agree that light travels in a straight path to the earth and that it takes 8.3 minutes to get here?” [excerpt]Unless it is acted upon by the gravity of the moon or the atmosphere, yes.
“Would you also agree that if you have a stake pointed towards the Sun without any shadow, that it is pointed at the Suns apparent position”... [excerpt]Yes, so far...
...“and where the suns actual position was 8.3 minutes ago? If you don’t agree, why not?” [excerpt]No.
“Please point out a lie that I have told?”LeGrande, why should I source what I said about you?
The authors tested the observed distribution of mutations against the pattern expected from a random multinomial distribution. They then entered into the fallacy of affirming the consequent in an attempt to explain the non-random (i.e. probabilistic) distribution. Please note that the authors of the article use the term 'random' correctly and distinguish it from the probabilistic evidence that was observed. This is counter to your claim that the word that 'random' can be used in place of the term probabilistic.
"Someone else sequenced the p53 gene in those different species and entered it into a databank."
That's fine.
" They looked into the databank and compared the sequences for those eleven species, finding that those responsible for the region that would bind to DNA were less likely to be different between species. This was a “dry” experiment. They only played with the sequences with math."
As I said above, they tested the observed distribution of mutations against the pattern expected from a random multinomial distribution. They found it non-random and then entered into a fallacy in an attempt to explain the non-random (i.e. probabilistic) distribution. Had they found a random distribution, there would have been nothing to explain.
"So how is this supposed to determine the frequency of mutation? Short answer...it doesn't."
I didn't say that the article 'determined the frequency of mutation'. I said that real scientists were finding that mutation isn't 'random'. Here's what the article said and one of the statements I quoted to you;
""Mutation hotspots were identified by comparing the observed distribution of mutations to the pattern expected from a random multinomial distribution."
Now, if you look at that statement, you can see that they compared observed mutation to a pattern expected from 'a random multinomial distribution'. Guess what. The pattern didn't fit this 'random multinomial distribution'.
Of course, we know that you don't dispute the probabilistic nature of mutation but choose to use the word 'random' to describe it when you understand that probabilistic is the correct term. You only want to argue whether this is the paper that proved probabilistic mutation, a claim I never made.
That is your claim. If they studied “distribution of mutation” by comparing how the gene exists in different species then for those differences to have arisen by mutation they must have been the same species at one point.
The differences between the human p53 gene and a monkey p53 gene are due to mutation in a common ancestor.
Nice to hear you admit as much.
But it still doesn't show the frequency of mutations as they happen, just how they survive within a population (Selection not mutation).
“You’ve admittedI'm no English major, thats for sure.your(sp?) you’re not a scientist, and it shows. Theatrics is not science. ” [excerpt]
“Explain to me how I am being “theatrical”? I have never claimed to be a working scientist but I do have an education and I do work in a field of business that requires a very high degree of experience and training in analytics.” [excerpt]Here is an example of theatrics(from 1,992):
“EVERYBODY? Really? So if I understand you correctly, if you and I can’t duplicate an experiment at home with our “Jr. Mr. Science Kit”, then it can’t be real science?” [excerpt]Quite irrelevant to the subject, and is really almost a strawman.
“Based on that statement from your own “about page”, tell me how you are more qualified to render a “scientific” opinion than I am?” [excerpt]On my about page I list a few things that I was taught by other people as well as a few things I have taught myself.
Not necessarily. You are confusing a couple of different things. I have already stated my claim that you cannot tell what is mutation what is original created difference without original DNA to compare. The authors of the article obviously are not creationists and approach the subject from an evolutionary perspective. This does not mean that mutation isn't probabilistic (as you already have admitted). It only means that you cannot definitively say that all differences are due to mutation.
It is also no defense for your position of equating the term 'random' with the correct term probabilistic. The authors of the article certainly didn't make that error. That you insist on your 'right' to do so speaks volumes.
" The differences between the human p53 gene and a monkey p53 gene are due to mutation in a common ancestor. Nice to hear you admit as much."
You are sadly confused. The claim of a 'common ancestor' is a non sequitur to the fact that mutation is probabilistic.
"But it still doesn't show the frequency of mutations as they happen, just how they survive within a population (Selection not mutation)."
Again, that is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
You continually fall into non sequiturs and fallacies when defending your position. Had you any critical thinking skills, that would be classic evidence that you hold an invalid position.
I compare monkey, chimp, human, badger, rat, mouse etc DNA.
The differences are due to mutation?
That is your claim. Live with it.
Moreover, even assuming the differences between species are due to mutation in a common ancestor, it still doesn't tell you anything about the frequency of mutation. Just which mutations can persist in a population.
You have no idea what your talking about. You insult the Scientists whose experiment you don't even understand while attempting to claim superior understanding. You amuse me to no end!
“Fichori, is this thing still working? Maybe nobody can post anything. Or maybe they just won't.” [excerpt]I think we're in hot potato mode right now.
I’m in tired-of-beating-my-head-against-a-brick-wall mode, if you want to know.
You mean without using the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
"I compare monkey, chimp, human, badger, rat, mouse etc DNA. The differences are due to mutation?"
You must assume ancestors-in-common and common descent before there is any relevance to anything. Without the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the differences don't mean anything.
"That is your claim. Live with it."
I clearly said that you cannot tell what is mutation and what was created difference between species without original DNA to compare against.
"Moreover, even assuming the differences between species are due to mutation in a common ancestor, it still doesn't tell you anything about the frequency of mutation. Just which mutations can persist in a population."
The authors compared observed mutation against a random multinomial distribution and found it probabilistic. They even used the terms 'random' and 'probabilistic' correctly, unlike yourself.
"You have no idea what your talking about. You insult the Scientists whose experiment you don't even understand while attempting to claim superior understanding. You amuse me to no end!"
You are a sadly confused and dishonest person. Your positions are nothing but fallacy upon fallacy upon non sequitur upon non sequitur.
You saw a paper that said what you wanted it to say, but it was buried in a bunch of stuff about evolution, so you Gibsoned it, chopping the quote you wanted out of context.
The paper compared the DNA sequence of a gene in eleven different species. It was YOUR contention that you could tell that mutation wasn't random due to the differences in these eleven species not being randomly distributed.
Now you say it is not relevant to mutation.
You had the intent to deceive when you chopped out your quote from a paper about evolution. You were confused about what it meant because you didn't understand it; but claimed it showed that mutation was not random.
Now that you are beginning to understand the paper, you say it has no relevance to mutation at all unless one assumes a common ancestor. That is what I have been telling you in POST after POST.
“You must assume ancestors-in-common and common descent before there is any relevance to anything (mutation).”
So differences in a gene between species is “observed mutation”? Or is it not relevant to anything unless one assumes common ancestry?
Which is it? Confused again? I know Science must be hard for a Geo-centrist, but to try to take both positions simultaneously must be quite the mental contortion.
I suppose I should hold out hope that your just confused, but your Gibsoning the Science paper, chopping its quote out of context, doesn't give me much confidence in your veracity.
Not at all. You're confused by your own evo-think.
"You saw a paper that said what you wanted it to say, but it was buried in a bunch of stuff about evolution, so you Gibsoned it, chopping the quote you wanted out of context."
The paper demonstrated that mutation was probabilistic by comparing observed mutation to random multinomial distributions. That was the point in contention at the time. This was, of course, before you admitted that mutation is probabilistic but that you use the term 'random' when you know that the correct term is probabilistic.
"The paper compared the DNA sequence of a gene in eleven different species. It was YOUR contention that you could tell that mutation wasn't random due to the differences in these eleven species not being randomly distributed."
It was the author's contention and one that you agreed with. You have already admitted that mutation is probabilistic but that you choose to use the term 'random' instead. The authors did not make that error.
"Now you say it is not relevant to mutation."
Nope. You misunderstand because you can only view ideas through the lens of evo-think.
"You had the intent to deceive when you chopped out your quote from a paper about evolution. You were confused about what it meant because you didn't understand it; but claimed it showed that mutation was not random."
Wrong again. I was demonstrating that science finds that mutation is probabilistic, not random. You have since admitted that mutation is probabilistic but that you choose to use the term 'random' instead. If anyone has an intent to deceive, it would be one who uses the term 'random' when they understand that probabilistic is the correct term to use.
"Now that you are beginning to understand the paper, you say it has no relevance to mutation at all unless one assumes a common ancestor. That is what I have been telling you in POST after POST."
Not that it has no relevance to mutation, the paper clearly shows that the p53 gene has probabilistic mutational tendencies. What it has no relevance to is the evolutionary idea of common descent unless you assume an ancestor-in-common.
It's the classic evolutionary circular thinking that has you confused. Not anything I said.
Depends on whether you are assuming evolution and an ancestor-in-common or not. You had asked if 'differences' are due to mutation or creation. I said you can't tell without DNA from the alleged ancestor-in-common and the original populations of these species before you could tell what was mutation and what was created difference.
"Which is it? Confused again? I know Science must be hard for a Geo-centrist, but to try to take both positions simultaneously must be quite the mental contortion."
Ah yes, the fallacy of appeal to ridicule. One of your favorites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.