Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)

Friday, January 13, 2006

"Hemi", for the last time.

Some folks just don't know when to stop.

Hemi is at it again. Knowing Hemi's antics as I do, this could go on for some time, each response of his focusing on some irrelevant minutae, on bits of information that have been explained to him a dozen times, on things that he just doesn't get. So, this will be my last reply to him, regardless of how much more absurdity he can regurgitate.
Hemi's rant in blue.


Pogge calculated a number of predicted mutations in the last 4,000 years. You ignorantly claim that prediction is a strawman. No it's not.

Yes it is, and I explained why. At least twice. It is premised on a, frankly, ridiculous interpretation of an offhand comment in a news article. Pogge "interpreted" this sentence:

"In some behavioral and cognitive traits, humans have changed dramatically since their evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor shared with chimpanzees."

to mean:

"The first sentence seems to imply something more like a 30/10 split rather than a 20/20 split because “humans have changed dramatically” compared to chimpanzees."

From this silly "interpretation", Pogge 'predicts' his farcical number. If you cannot see the silliness in that, then there is really little more I can do to help you. You are clearly in 'help my fellow creationist' mode now, and such a mode is impervious to reason.



All you did in your rebuttel to Pogge was accuse him of being dishonest and posted asinine sound bites to refute him.

'Sound bites'? You mean like where I posted entire paragraphs to illuminate Pogge's out of context quoting? My accusations of dishonesty (or incompetence) were supported with documentation, explanation, and links to source material when appropriate/possible. There is no need for a lengthy scientific rebuttal when an exposure of dishonest quote mining or bizarre and unwarranted interpretations/extrapolations can be demonstrated.


Since the 4,000 number is bogus, I asked you what was Your number. Surely your [sic] smart and have a prediction on how many mutations have occured in the last 4,000 years in the human species, after all you claim "we see them". And then, like the loud mouth no[sic] nothing you really are, you are claiming changes in genetic makeup you can actually see is not part of the phenotype.

That is correct. What is incorrect is your characterization of the issue. Yes, one can 'see' mutations by examining DNA sequence data, as I have linked to repeatedly. This, however, as has also been repeatedly explained to you, is not the phenotype. Phenotype is (emphases mine):

-The total characteristics displayed by an organism under a particular set of environmental factors, regardless of the actual genotype of the organism. Results from interaction between the genotype and the environment.

-What an organism looks like as a consequence of its genotype; two organisms with the same phenotype can have different genotypes.

-The visible characteristics of an organism resulting from the relevant coding of the genotype of the organism.

Ergo, 'seeing' mutations does not make them part of the phenotype, since they are part of the genotype.


You're just another loud mouth evolutionists [sic] that knows about half of what you pretend to know. Pogge, whoever he is, ran circles around you.

Hemi lacks a sufficient understanding of the material to warrant his coming to such a conclusion. Knowing little makes one very confident. Of note, Hemi is an auto body mechanic of some sort, not a biologist of any sort. Not that there is anything wrong with being a mechanic. But mechanics are generally not sources of in-depth technical knowledge in the biological sciences. I, for example, would not dream of telling Hemi how little he knows about cars. The same simple courtesy does not seem to be a part of the psyche of the anti-evolutionist.


All you could do to answer him is spit out "you're dishonest", "you quote mined". But the thing that got my attention is the mud hole you stepped in when you claim Pogge's predicted number of mutations that would be expected is a strawman, and yet at the same time you claim "yeah we see them".

Your conclusion is based on your inability to admit your own limitations in understanding the material and your devotion to the creationist cause. It would be possible to estimate a number of mutations accumulated within a certain time frame based on basic genetics and population genetics models. However, Pogge did not do this. His pseudo-estimate was premised, as I have repeatedly explained, on a naive interpretation of a statement.


Hemi's accusations and anger are typical of many lay creationists. Despite having a limited knowledge of the relevant issues, they have nonetheless convinced themselves of the 'certainty' of their position and therefore assume that anyone disagreeing with them, regardless of who they are or what they do for a living, must somehow be less informed, less intelligent, less capable then they are.

This sort of projection is common in such folk.

No comments:

Blog Archive