tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post364795942724740677..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population GeneticsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81023467497944116342015-10-03T09:31:42.143-04:002015-10-03T09:31:42.143-04:00I was reading old material and was reminded of thi...I was reading old material and was reminded of this thread. I noticed this, part of it, where Episcophagus and John Harshman correct me on the number of possible rooted binary trees.<br /><br />In the comment we're replying to "unkomasia" said "trees" not "binary trees". The figure of 292,137,824, which I corrected to 282,137,824, is the number of rooted possibly-multifurcating trees with unrooted interior nodes and rooted tips. That is calculated by a simple method in my 1978 paper. Also in Schröder's 1870 paper. The numbers Episcophagus and Harshman give are for the more restricted case of binary trees.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73884355590353892762015-05-18T23:13:40.129-04:002015-05-18T23:13:40.129-04:00Jerry Bergman posts five star reviews of his and o...Jerry Bergman posts five star reviews of his and other creationist books on Amazon using at least two sock puppet accounts (The Professor and Darwin Researcher (formerly known as biologyresearcher), and most likely The Scientist and Doctor, given the extreme (and suspicious) similarities between the accounts).<br />One of his degrees was from an unaccredited diploma mill and he lost one job after he lied about having qualifications when he didn't.<br />He's definitely not a reputable scientist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15757783333149305656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14353945877998361692013-07-13T14:44:14.452-04:002013-07-13T14:44:14.452-04:00Pathetic. Jerry Bergman is not a scientist. He is ...Pathetic. Jerry Bergman is not a scientist. He is a pathological liar posing as a scientist.<br /><br />It's pathetic to quote mine the Yuxin Fan 2002 paper yet again, pathetic to tell real scientists that 11-year old results are "recent research."<br /><br />The Yuxin Fan paper presents evidence that SUPPORTS chromosome fusion. They were quoted out of context by ID creationist Casey Luskin and Jerry Bergman, both pathological liars, neither a scientist.<br /><br />For a thorough refutation, Google Carl Zimmer's smack down of Luskin, "And now the hounding duck can rest."Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34203488737381871592013-07-13T13:20:05.138-04:002013-07-13T13:20:05.138-04:00Kristen Mayeaux:
I find her more credible and beli...Kristen Mayeaux:<br /><i>I find her more credible and believable just by the way she conducted herself.</i><br /><br />Babbling on about things she doesn't understand in front of a green-screened 'lab' that's actually a stock photo? Yeah, that just screams credibility.<br /><br /><i>If you cannot clearly and respectfully discuss and explain why she is wrong and give references, then don't be surprised that people will take Intelligent Design seriously.</i><br /><br />References? You want references to why population genetics and phylogenetics are two almost wholly independent scientific fields? Any introductory text for either field will do. If someone claimed that classical history and the history of science were the same thing, would you demand piles of references showing that each discipline has a distinct focus?<br /><br />This isn't about her "varying viewpoint"; it's about her abysmal ignorance, despite which she still feels perfectly entitled to lecture to people who know more than she does.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10079960325589486492013-06-10T21:18:39.508-04:002013-06-10T21:18:39.508-04:00Some of the most juvenile remarks are made on this...Some of the most juvenile remarks are made on this blog. So who cares if the pictured lab is one where she works or not. She actually does work in a lab. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07905058811123225422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21720534721029464762013-06-10T19:28:13.571-04:002013-06-10T19:28:13.571-04:00Dr. Jerry Bergman has made an argument that the ev...Dr. Jerry Bergman has made an argument that the evidence is not conclusive for the fusion event and here is one reason:<br />1. The purported fusion site on human chromosome 2 is actually located in a different position on chromosome 2 than predicted by the fusion model. The hypothetical fusion site is also in an area with suppressed recombination (meaning that the fusion sequence should be very pristine) and should exhibit very little degeneracy, compared to standard telomere sequence. Telomere sequences in humans normally consist of thousands of repeats of the standard 6-base sequence “TTAGGG.” We found that the hypothetical fusion region is completely degenerate and vaguely represents anything close to intact and fused telomeres. An earlier 2002 research report by molecular evolutionists also made note of this extreme sequence degeneracy and the obvious discrepancies it presented for the evolutionary model. <br /><br />Here is the paper from Genome Research and a quote from it:<br /><br /> "The head-to-head arrays of repeats at the fusion site in RP11-395L14 have degenerated significantly (14%) from the near perfect arrays of (TTAGGG found at telomeres."<br /><br />Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.<br /><br /> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_the_litera_1062521.html<br />http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-undermines-key-argument/<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07905058811123225422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74548657095341473292013-06-10T17:53:02.941-04:002013-06-10T17:53:02.941-04:00Maybe Ann Gauger has too much class to stoop to th...Maybe Ann Gauger has too much class to stoop to the level of name calling and acting like elementary kids on Facebook. I was surprised to the total lack of civility and respect for anybody who has a varying viewpoint. How are laypeople like myself really supposed to know what to believe. I find her more credible and believable just by the way she conducted herself. If you cannot clearly and respectfully discuss and explain why she is wrong and give references, then don't be surprised that people will take Intelligent Design seriously.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07905058811123225422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64279469359269603662012-12-21T14:19:43.609-05:002012-12-21T14:19:43.609-05:00That's what I get too. And the number for 11 t...That's what I get too. And the number for 11 taxa is already 654,729,075.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39646567750555113512012-12-21T10:03:01.027-05:002012-12-21T10:03:01.027-05:00How nice of @chemicalscum to reply with a referenc...How nice of @chemicalscum to reply with a reference and more. I wish I was as diligent. All that I did was just smacked my forehead with mine own palm. But she is only lying so hard to get the Templeton. Ayala did it, why can't she?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8106805813409078352012-12-20T22:36:16.947-05:002012-12-20T22:36:16.947-05:00It's like the DI isn't even trying anymore...It's like the DI isn't even trying anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14467627587161375442012-12-20T21:28:10.791-05:002012-12-20T21:28:10.791-05:00I get the number of possible rooted binary trees f...I get the number of possible rooted binary trees for ten taxa to 17!! = 34,459,425. Thus I reckon you must be talking about something else, but I can't figure out what.Episcophagushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14618300462284477595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76778249595949383492012-12-18T19:32:07.481-05:002012-12-18T19:32:07.481-05:00I know you don't care and are merely a creatio...I know you don't care and are merely a creationist troll, but I'll explain anyway. "More likely" is a technical term here. Under a particular model, any data set has a probability of being observed that can be quantified. That's what a model does: it tells us the probability of observing particular events if the model is true. In Theobald's case, the probability of observing the data he tested was much higher under a model that supposed a single tree than under any model that supposed disconnected trees. Conditional probabilities (in this case conditional on the model being used) are called likelihoods. If you read Theobald's paper, which of course you never will, you will be able to see the actual, numerical likelihoods and statistical tests of whether they are significantly different (they are) -- that is, whether the common descent model is "much more likely" than the separate creation model (it is).john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47194970199050150212012-12-18T19:18:19.034-05:002012-12-18T19:18:19.034-05:00Oh I see. That's how science is done. The da...Oh I see. That's how science is done. The data are 'more likely' under a hypothesis of common ancestry. That settles that.<br /><br />All we need to do is offer the opinion that something is more likely and we can close the book on the question.<br /><br />I had no idea it was that easy!Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61236338137776239242012-12-18T19:02:23.405-05:002012-12-18T19:02:23.405-05:00Quibble: coalescent theory does have something to ...Quibble: coalescent theory does have something to do with constructing trees; there are a few recent phylogenetic methods that take it into account. In theory, these methods, when presented with a set of several loci, will deal with the problem of lineage sorting and the so-called "anomaly zone". In theory.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77231050697972569162012-12-18T18:56:58.954-05:002012-12-18T18:56:58.954-05:00Geiger, Gauger, tomato, tomahto.Geiger, Gauger, tomato, tomahto.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12829985870135842522012-12-18T18:55:39.826-05:002012-12-18T18:55:39.826-05:00If we replace "population genetics" by &...If we replace "population genetics" by "phylogenetics", her argument becomes that models of evolution assume there's a tree to reconstruct. And that is indeed the case. All phylogenetic analysis programs will give you one or more trees from an input data set, but what they won't do is give you two or more entirely unconnected trees. But this is a limitation of the programs, not of the models. All you have to do to test the disconnected tree hypothesis is apply the same model to two trees vs. one tree and see which fits the data better. Now in practice nobody does this, because it's a stupid hypothesis. But Doug Theobald did it anyway.<br /><br />Theobald, D. 2010. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 465: 219–222.<br /><br />Can you guess the result? It turns out that the data are much more likely under a hypothesis of common ancestry than under one of separate ancestry. Humans are not only related to chimps, but to Eubacteria and Archaea. Shocking that a biologist of Geiger's stature would not be acquainted with this paper. (Do I need the smiley this time?)<br /><br />john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49929340989151048322012-12-18T17:06:11.467-05:002012-12-18T17:06:11.467-05:00Talking of labs:
http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/0...Talking of labs:<br />http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/05/testing_evolution_in_the_lab_w.html<br /><br />Now we know it was virtual research green-screened into a virtual lab.<br /><br /><i>...a new article she and Dr. Ralph Seelke have in the peer-reviewed journal BIO-Complexity...</i><br /><br />Peer-reviewed by themselves, it seems, as both authors are members of the editorial board... but then bloody well everything that gets published in that travesty of a journal is contributed by the editorial team. There isn't much of it anyway.<br /><br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42952590029241817102012-12-18T14:25:41.699-05:002012-12-18T14:25:41.699-05:00Steve wrote "Ann...was polite enough to reply...Steve wrote "Ann...was polite enough to reply."<br /><br />Where? Got a URL? Did she mention her laboratory background?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40123707502454823052012-12-18T11:42:31.651-05:002012-12-18T11:42:31.651-05:00It's interesting that they so frequently make ...It's interesting that they so frequently make reference to this blog, but rarely if ever take advantage of the comments section to dialogue directly with Larry. They really are afraid of direct confrontation of their ideas.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17215821790657255442012-12-18T10:22:26.726-05:002012-12-18T10:22:26.726-05:00Steve says,
Larry, instead of firing spitballs fr...Steve says,<br /><br /><i>Larry, instead of firing spitballs from your sandbox...er walk, why don't you invite your colleague Ann Gauger to respond directly?</i><br /><br />Ann Gauger is not my colleague.<br /><br />Many IDiots read my blog. They frequently reply to my criticism by posting responses on the main creationist blogs. I'm looking forward to seeing Gauger's response to the charge that she doesn't understand population genetics. <br /><br />I'm guessing that her reply will consist mostly of an attack on my use of "Saturday morning cartoons" and my reference to IDiots as "creationists."Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40422195765358660352012-12-18T09:29:27.489-05:002012-12-18T09:29:27.489-05:00I wonder if the "Biologic Institute" pai...I wonder if the "Biologic Institute" paid for the use of this picture ?<br /><br />For folk who hide behind a veneer of faux scientific victimhood they seem to be pretty free and easy with the intellectual property of others.steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36601011302994818112012-12-18T08:59:22.081-05:002012-12-18T08:59:22.081-05:00Thanks, it's made my day! The Biologic Institu...Thanks, it's made my day! The Biologic Institute hasn't even got a lab where its "scientists" could be video'd (never mind doing any work).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53382947867387029172012-12-18T07:46:29.788-05:002012-12-18T07:46:29.788-05:00lutesuite, you can catch her reply on the shopping...lutesuite, you can catch her reply on the shopping channel.<br /><br />Her clarity and calm demeanor is a big hit with the rubes there.<br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79382569193240254012012-12-18T06:51:24.528-05:002012-12-18T06:51:24.528-05:00Where is her reply?Where is her reply?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63238649128809103172012-12-18T06:30:59.070-05:002012-12-18T06:30:59.070-05:00How's that bluepill working out for ya, pure b...How's that bluepill working out for ya, pure bliss right?Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.com