Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

Speaking of dodging.... why didn't you respond to this. .You said I cite AIG quote a bit. I asked you to back up your claim with evidence / stats. Why do you keep making claims, then dodging?

Are you saying you DON'T often use AiG? Have you forgotten about your favorite "biologist", Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell?

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose... I gave you page number and paragraph.

And nowhere did it say that genetic load was a problem regardless of population size, as you'd claimed it did.

Sheesh ..... why suggest he is lying. Your quote shows my statement is correct. Kondrashov is trying to reconcile the data with his beliefs. He is proposing a solution, to an unresolved problem.

You're not keeping your stories straight again. You claimed "The load problem / paradox is unresolved with ALL secular geneticists", yet in his 2002 paper that you cited, Kondrashov states that it's not a problem.

"Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]"​

That's funny for a couple reasons. Earlier I told you "You like bunny trails rather than just admit you were wrong". I understand why you suddenly want to talk about AIG... which has nothing to do with the evidence or what we have been discussing.

I'm not talking about AiG. I'm simply asking if you agree with the folowing:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

So far you've done everything you can to avoid answering. Why is that? Are you afraid of what your answer will reveal?

Speaking of dodging.... why didn't you respond to this. .You said I cite AIG quote a bit. I asked you to back up your claim with evidence / stats. Why do you keep making claims, then dodging?

???????? Are you actually arguing that you don't cite AiG? Seriously? If so, let me know and I'll be more than happy to document some of the times you linked to them.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you saying you DON'T often use AiG? Have you forgotten about your favorite "biologist", Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell?

It's bizarre, isn't it?

 

[Jose Fly]

After the recent challenge from [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] regarding whether or not he's cited AiG (and he has btw), I started a simple search to find examples of him citing/linking to that organization. In doing so, I came across THIS POST(from December 2016). As you can see, after I posted the following excerpt from AiG's Statement of Faith:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

6days responded to that by saying "Yes... that is true. Science always supports the truth of God's Word." So my question is answered. 6days clearly agrees with AiG's framework as stated.

So why is that important here? Well, as I've documented in this discussion of genetic load, mutation rates, and related material, 6days cherry picks from the papers he cites. The question is....why? Well, as shown above, he operates according to AiG's framework where if something agrees with the Bible, it's valid, whereas if something disagrees with the Bible it is automatically wrong no matter what.

We can see this in 6days' recent posts....

HERE we see 6days directly explain why he accepts the science used to identify the potential issue of genetic load: "The load problem is consistent with the Biblical account".

But when it comes to the resolutions to genetic load, 6days rejects those even though they're based on the exact same science. Why? 6days tells us: "Kondrashov carefully laid out the problem with data; but then tries brush the problem away with beliefs. He is suggesting a solution to trying to rationalize the data with his belief in millions of years.".

So we see how 6days employs the AiG framework. Kondrashov's identification of genetic load is valid because it agrees with the Bible, but Kondrashov's resolutions are not valid because they rely on millions of years, which does not agree with the Bible.....even though genetic load and its resolutions both extend from statistical modeling of how populations evolve (and both are even from the same person).

Even though AiG and 6days are quite up-front about their biased and highly anti-scientific approach to science, it's still fascinating to watch it unfold.

 

[6days]

Are you saying you DON'T often use AiG?

Hey... welcome back Greg. I thought you would reappear eventually and try change topic, hoping we would forget you told us you could dissect genetics .... and yet could not answer a very simple question. Maybe you have been studying? Here was the question and a post from a couple weeks ag.."Greg... if you don't understand near neutral mutations, VSDM's,then you obviously can't dissect anything in genetics."How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."

 

[6days]

And nowhere did it say that genetic load was a problem regardless of population size, as you'd claimed it did.

Nuh-uh. You were given page number and paragraph and quotes.

You're not keeping your stories straight again. You claimed "The load problem / paradox is unresolved with ALL secular geneticists", yet in his 2002 paper that you cited, Kondrashov states that it's not a problem.

You obviously do not understand the article. (Or are dishonest.)

Earlier I told you "You like bunny trails rather than just admit you were wrong". I understand why you suddenly want to talk about AIG

I'm not talking about AiG. I'm simply asking if you agree with the (AIG statement of faith)

Yes... you are running away from evidence trying to create bunny trails. Our discussion had nothing to do with AIG. Start a thread on that topic and we can discuss it.

???????? Are you actually arguing that you don't cite AiG?

Nope... you need pay attention. You said I quote from them a fair bit. I asked for evidence / data/ stats which you seem to have an aversion to. What does a fair bit mean.... 5%?


It understandable why you would rather discuss AIG, then stay on topic.


The unresolved problem / paradox of increasing genetic load is consistent with the Biblical account. The unresolved problem / paradox of increasing genetic load continues being a problem for secularists who create unrealistic models such as synergistic epistasis trying to sweep their problem under the rug. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4957254/

 

[Stripe]

After the recent challenge from [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] regarding whether or not he's cited AiG (and he has btw), I started a simple search to find examples of him citing/linking to that organization. In doing so, I came across THIS POST(from December 2016). As you can see, after I posted the following excerpt from AiG's Statement of Faith:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

6days responded to that by saying "Yes... that is true. Science always supports the truth of God's Word." So my question is answered. 6days clearly agrees with AiG's framework as stated.

So why is that important here? Well, as I've documented in this discussion of genetic load, mutation rates, and related material, 6days cherry picks from the papers he cites. The question is....why? Well, as shown above, he operates according to AiG's framework where if something agrees with the Bible, it's valid, whereas if something disagrees with the Bible it is automatically wrong no matter what.

We can see this in 6days' recent posts....

HERE we see 6days directly explain why he accepts the science used to identify the potential issue of genetic load: "The load problem is consistent with the Biblical account".

But when it comes to the resolutions to genetic load, 6days rejects those even though they're based on the exact same science. Why? 6days tells us: "Kondrashov carefully laid out the problem with data; but then tries brush the problem away with beliefs. He is suggesting a solution to trying to rationalize the data with his belief in millions of years.".

So we see how 6days employs the AiG framework. Kondrashov's identification of genetic load is valid because it agrees with the Bible, but Kondrashov's resolutions are not valid because they rely on millions of years, which does not agree with the Bible.....even though genetic load and its resolutions both extend from statistical modeling of how populations evolve (and both are even from the same person).

Even though AiG and 6days are quite up-front about their biased and highly anti-scientific approach to science, it's still fascinating to watch it unfold.

:yawn:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hey... welcome back Greg. I thought you would reappear eventually and try change topic, hoping we would forget you told us you could dissect genetics .... and yet could not answer a very simple question. Maybe you have been studying? Here was the question and a post from a couple weeks ag.."Greg... if you don't understand near neutral mutations, VSDM's,then you obviously can't dissect anything in genetics."How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."

Thanks for the welcome

Yeah I vividly remember telling you I wasn't an expert in whatever VSDMs were, and explaining that I don't pretend to be an expert in areas I'm not qualified in, unlike you YECs. But misrepresent me all you like: everyone knows your game here


And I'm SO SO sorry that I took a week off to spend with my girlfriend instead of further engaging someone who ignores facts. I was willing to admit to you that your mutation accumulation presented a problem that needed explanation. Are you willing to admit as much when it comes to radiometric dating?

And finally: Care to answer the question I asked you in the post you quoted? I'll remind you of it: Are you claiming that you DO NOT often use AiG as a source?

 

[Greg Jennings]

It's bizarre, isn't it?

At this point, no.

After 6days's story of his trip to Cuba I was convinced he was good person, and perhaps capable of rational thought. But I've been shocked by some of his dishonest "tactics." And the saddest part is I don't even know if he recognizes how dishonest it is because he learned it from YECs organizations. They are inherently scientifically dishonest, as their mission statements reveal

 

[Stripe]

Darwinists hate a discussion over the evidence.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists hate a discussion over the evidence.

You keep ignoring Jose's attempts at discussion. I also asked you what you would like to discuss, and received no reply


Who do you think you're fooling? Only gullible YECs (so nearly all of them), I can assure you

 

[Jose Fly]

Nuh-uh. You were given page number and paragraph and quotes.

To recap...you claimed Muller (1950) wrote that genetic load was a problem "regardless of population size" and then claimed he said so on the bottom of pg. 149 and 150. Everyone can CLICK HERE to see those pages and the fact that Muller simply does not say what you claimed.

You obviously do not understand the article. (Or are dishonest.)

Your dodging of the material is noted.

Yes... you are running away from evidence trying to create bunny trails. Our discussion had nothing to do with AIG.

Our discussion is about the state of the science regarding genetic load. As I've documented, you regularly cherry-pick from the papers you cite, accepting the parts that you believe agree with the Bible and rejecting the parts that you believe conflict with it.

One of your common talking points is that we all operate from the same data, but we interpret it through different frameworks, correct? Given that, the fact that you employ a binary non-scientific framework is entirely relevant to this discussion.

You said I quote from them a fair bit. I asked for evidence / data/ stats which you seem to have an aversion to. What does a fair bit mean.... 5%?

It's an expression 6days. Try and not take everything so literally.

It understandable why you would rather discuss AIG, then stay on topic.

Ah, but this isn't about AiG, it's about you and the framework through which you interpret scientific data. Surely you're not trying to argue that that's off-topic, are you?

 

[Jose Fly]

At this point, no.

After 6days's story of his trip to Cuba I was convinced he was good person, and perhaps capable of rational thought. But I've been shocked by some of his dishonest "tactics." And the saddest part is I don't even know if he recognizes how dishonest it is because he learned it from YECs organizations. They are inherently scientifically dishonest, as their mission statements reveal

That's been a point of debate among those who engage creationists for years....do the creationists realize what they're doing but just don't care, or are they so beholden to their religion that they simply don't realize it?

I honestly don't know. If you look at 6days, he clearly states how he processes science; if it agrees with the Bible it's good valid science, and if it conflicts with the Bible it's wrong.....period.

I believe it's more important to not forget that everything 6days says about science is an extension of that framework, rather than focus on whether he's being deliberately dishonest.

 

[Stripe]

That's been a point of debate among those who engage creationists for years....do the creationists realize what they're doing but just don't care, or are they so beholden to their religion that they simply don't realize it?

I honestly don't know. If you look at 6days, he clearly states how he processes science; if it agrees with the Bible it's good valid science, and if it conflicts with the Bible it's wrong.....period.

I believe it's more important to not forget that everything 6days says about science is an extension of that framework, rather than focus on whether he's being deliberately dishonest.

Darwinists always focus on what people believe at the expense of a discussion over the evidence.

 

[Stuu]

Darwinists always focus on what people believe at the expense of a discussion over the evidence.

Another Glyn Tucker record.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Another Glyn Tucker record.Stuart

I'm not the one talking religion, Stuu.

Evidence. The conversation was interesting for a while there.

 

[Stuu]

I'm not the one talking religion, Stuu.

That's all you ever talk. Although your gods never seem to get a mention.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

That's all you ever talk. Although your gods never seem to get a mention. Stuart

Nope.

There was a conversation going on.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.

There was a conversation going on.

There was. And you refused to further engage with Jose or myself.

That's on YOU

 

[6days]

recap...you claimed Muller (1950) wrote that genetic load was a problem "regardless of population size" and then claimed he said so on the bottom of pg. 149 and 150. Everyone can CLICK HERE to see those pages and the fact that Muller simply does not say what you claimed.

WellJose... if anyone other than you and me read these posts, I hope they do read that paragraph. They will notice Muellers concern of accumulating mutations has nothing to do with population size. (Although, as we already agreed it can cause rapid extinction in small populations).

Our discussion is about the state of the science regarding genetic load. As I've documented, you regularly cherry-pick from the papers you cite, accepting the parts that you believe agree with the Bible and rejecting the parts that you believe conflict with it

The funny thing is..... it is YOU, Jose Fly who is rejecting the data and imposing your beliefs upon it. I have cited numerous secular articles, but in each case you use a rescue device to 'save' yourself. For example, you say essentially 'But IF...IF synergistic epistasis' works the right way, it solves my problem'.

It's an expression 6days. Try and not take everything so literally.

Oh... I see. So when you say someone quotes from AIG a fair bit, that can mean they seldom do? It is sort of a meaningless expression, to create a bunny trail?

Ah, but this isn't about AiG, it's about you and the framework through which you interpret scientific data. Surely you're not trying to argue that that's off-topic, are you?

Once again... it IS YOU who is imposing your worldview...your beliefs.... your framework upon the data. I don't need all the rescue devices the various articles use to rationalize the data with their pre-conceived conclusions (truncation selection, multipicative model, synergistic epistasis, quasi truncation, additive model)