VoxRat

Isn't ck1 a geneticist?

Mind you, it's sometimes difficult to demarcate where one discipline ends and the next begins; it's that whole consilience thing.

I, for instance, am a biochemist/molecular biologist. I would consider that to be largely overlapping the field of "genetics".

Wolfhound

My dear Rodent, you know very well that if everybody here happened to be a geneticist it would make not one whit of difference to our favourite fundie. Only scientists who agree with Dave and his masters at DI and AiG are legit. The rest are denying Gawd's Truth and seeking to cover it up. C'mon, the conspiracy is so deep that we all know in our hearts that Teh Flud was an historic fact but we have been so brainwashed by the Darwinists that we can't see the truth that's right before our eyes, even with all of that overhwhelming empirical evidence he supplied in his debate.

ck1

For what it is worth, Dave, my Ph.D is in biology; I subspecialized in genetics, cell and developmental biology; I did my thesis in a mammalian genetics lab. My post-doc was in a virology lab.

The Crow paper is pretty straightforward, Dave, and does not require a lot of specialized knowledge to understand - numerous posters (in fact everyone who commented) have concluded that you have misinterpreted the paper.

You also suggested a focused discussion on Sanford back on RD.net. I cannot access that site to get my previous response, but I see no reason to spend money and time on a book by an author who has yet to present his ideas in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you can point me to a paper by Sanford that I missed, I would be happy to read it. (Well, maybe happy is not the right word here...)

Dave Hawkins

If I can point you to A paper? The guy is quite well represented in Google Scholar. Perhaps you mean that he hasn't got his ideas in Genetic Entropy published in a peer-reviewed journal? Don't make me laugh. That will never happen. We've been through this. BTW are you going to try to support your false statement about me with an actual quote of mine?

I am glad you have a PhD in biology. I have always enjoyed conversing with you because of your familiarity with the scientific literature and your restrained manner. I think you are wrong about Sanford, though, and I hope you will see this when I find the time to do a detailed online review of his book ... either in a normal thread or in a Formal Debate.

ck1

I checked Google Scholar. The first 20 entries seem to be about the gene gun invented by Sanford. Do you have a specific reference in which he outlines his ideas on genomic deterioration - a link would be nice.

In response to your other question, I will try to respond later. RD.net seems to be nonfunctional right now.

Amaleq13

Would you consider the statements of another geneticist who confirms what everyone else here has tried to explain to you about Crow's article?

Do you honestly think that technical expertise is necessary to accurately comprehend Crow's article or is this just a red herring to avoid admitting that you were misguided in following Sanford's misinterpretation?

ck1

Dave, this is the RD.net exchange I was referring to:

ericmurphy

Dave, you claimed that you know more about genetics as it applies to evolution than ck1 does. You can imagine how much credibility a statement like that makes.

Dave, this is nothing more than another argument from authority. How many times do we have to tell you that arguments from authority get you nowhere in science? Sanford's argument is wrong, no matter what kind of authority you think he has. We've read the quote Sanford is saying means Crow thinks modern humans' genome is inferior to ancient humans. We can read Crow just as well as Sanford can. Sanford is obviously misinterpreting Crow; any idiot (well, most idiots, anyway) can see that.

VoxRat

J.C. Sanford is not a particularly rare name.
Most of those are not your man, Dave. His website claims "over 75 publications". I think you'll find that most of those are collaborations, where he's listed as a coauthor on studies that used his invention as a tool.

So far as I can tell, most if not all of his publications have to do with his "biolistic gun". Nothing, so far as I can tell, on genetics, per se.

Faid

Hi dave.

So, you say this:

Fine. In that case, why don't you consider the statements of Crow carefully?

Crow states (and you are in no position to deny this, since it's there in the paper you quoted, plain as plain) that in the past, Natural Selection purged deleterious mutations from our genome (by thwarting the survival of those individuals), which does not happen now because of our advances in medical technology.
Sanford claims that this is incorrect, and that natural selection cannot possibly remove these acumulating mutations.

This certainly sounds like a contradiction to me, dave.

So, Why don't you consider Crow's contradicting statements carefully, like you said you would? Why do you handwave them away, exactly like Sanford does?

Now dave, If I wanted to behave like you and engage in an authority clash, I could easily do it. Comparing geneticists of the magnitude of Crow (and Kondrashov, and others) to the "inventor of the gene gun", would not fare that well for your side.

But there's no need to. You see, as we have already told you a dozen times, Crow (and Kondrashov, and Kimura, iirc) have produced calculations and models, published in scientific papers, that demonstrate how natural selection can, in fact, work to purge the genome of those mutations and stop them from accumulating.

Now, where is Sanford's scientific response, to back up his assertions? Where does he address these calculations by these scientists, to show exactly why and how they are inaccurate or misleading?

We have asked you this question many months ago, at AtBC, and we are still waiting for a response.

All we have is Sanford's "300 generations till complete deterioration" claim, which is ridiculous by itself (since it's disproved by reality), and an irrelevant reference- the famous Schoen paper, that, as we found out, actually refers to mutation accumulation in seed storage.

But an attempt to directly address and refute the work of those scientists? None that we know of.



As usual, dave, we have the data. As usual, we win.






BTW: Are you gonna retract your claims of ck1's statement being "inaccurate" and "false", now that it was supported with your actual words? I wonder.

(Not to mention that other post, where you claim you may not know much at first, but you "pick up fast"...)