OK, I did.
Let’s discuss the only evidence I’ve seen presented in any of the articles I’ve examined:
What data are graphed here? Specifically and in your own words, please.
That graph shows the relative mutation count of H1N1 Spanish Flu over time (just as it says right there on the chart). This is Dr. Carter’s work, not my own work. The article was co-authored.
I asked you to describe it in your own words, because the label on the Y axis is not correct. How can only <2000 of the 13588 nucleotides be mutated over 90 years given the known mutation rate of the virus?
In modern scientific publication ethics, ALL coauthors share responsibility for the accuracy of the paper. Do you reject those ethics?
1 Like
This figure is taken from the following peer-reviewed research:
Given that Dr. Carter is the one with the Ph.D, not myself, I cannot give you an authoritative answer here, but I suspect your issue probably has something to do with the descriptor term “relative” here.
In modern scientific publication ethics, ALL coauthors share responsibility for the accuracy of the paper. Do you reject those ethics?
Absolutely not, but you are grossly misapplying them here. This is a web article designed for a lay audience, and that graph was taken from Dr. Carter’s peer-reviewed work with Dr. Sanford. It would be Dr. Carter and Dr. Sanford who take responsibility for it. The article I co-authored was not published in a science journal, nor would I be qualified to publish a scientific paper for such a journal. I stand behind Dr. Carter’s work and I understand it at least well enough to help with co-authoring an article on it for lay audiences. I don’t believe Carter has made a mistake here, but if so you would need to direct your query to him on this particular chart.
Evasion and total lack of understanding noted.
What does the word “accumulation” mean in the title and the figure legend in the paper, but that is deceptively missing from the paper you authored?
1 Like
You should consider starting a thread based on this article. The author seems to make some interesting assumptions, such as using virulence as a measure of fitness and ignoring the possibility of herd immunity. I would also be interested in what the author calls a “new virus”. Presumably, these would be viruses of the same age, just found in other species.
I’m just starting with the substantive misrepresentation in the figure the article that @PDPrice authored. He claimed that he is here to learn, no?
I agree that there are many, many problems with this, the assumption that virulence correlates with fitness being the most laughable.
But I’d rather just go through the actual evidence.
This objection is dealt with in the text of the article at creation.com/fitness . I made sure we included it 
But you are qualified to publish “scientific” articles on CMI’s website.
Exactly.
4 Likes
I don’t think you understand it at all, and you’re already running away from standing behind it.
I’m not referring to anyone’s qualifications. I’m referring to simple accuracy. Don’t you have an ethical obligation to present evidence accurately?
It’s too late for that evasion:
He’s not here and you’ve claimed that you don’t believe he made a mistake. I don’t see any basis for your belief. All I see is you running in fear from addressing any real evidence.
1 Like
As I said, I’m more interested in exploring your simple, total lack of understanding of the actual evidence you presented, not exploring any interpretations or insane assumptions, just the evidence. My simple question to you is not addressed in the text of the article.
Everything I write I back up with relevant citations. I base nothing on my own authority nor do I claim to be a scientist myself. This is a pointless ad hominem, now isn’t it? Ever heard of science magazines, etc. where people write articles dealing with scientific topics?
That objection about virulence is addressed. You are trying to nitpick Dr. Carter’s chart that happened to be included in the article. I don’t see how your objection about the label on the Y axis is supposed to overturn anything.
You aren’t addressing the arguments of the article, you’re nitpicking the wording on the axis of the chart. The chart shows mutation accumulation in that viral strain over time. What is the mistake supposed to be? You’re saying it should have been more mutations than what he plotted? You’re obviously trying to play a gotcha game here.
I’m not talking about that assumption. I’m talking about the misrepresentation of evidence.
Then my question is perfectly reasonable:
Are you really stumped about something so simple, Paul?
I’m stumped as to what your argument here is. You’re trying to play a gotcha game, but I’m not playing. Address the content of the article, not the label on the Y axis. If Carter made such an elementary mistake as what you seem to be suggesting he made, then I don’t see how the article would have passed secular peer-review and been published, do you?
I understand it, for sure, but I don’t claim to have the same level of understanding of it that a PhD scientist would have. Would you honestly expect that? I’m still waiting to see what the alleged mistake here is supposed to be. This is devolving into a pointless character assault.
False.
I’m asking if you understand what the evidence is in the chart. If you had the presence of mind and the humility to check the figure against the legend in the actual paper and thought about the big hint I offered, we could move forward, but your evasions and stonewalling make my point just as well.
I’m talking about your utter refusal to personally engage with evidence. Science isn’t about arguments, it’s about evidence.
1 Like
See how you just revealed that you are, indeed, playing a ‘gotcha game’ and are not discussing this in good faith? I have got the original paper pulled up and the Y - axis label is the same there. I’ll ask again: what mistake are you trying to claim Carter (or I) have made?
Since you “understand it, for sure,” given the known mutation rate of influenza virus, how could only 2000 of 13,500 bases be mutated in 90 years?
The math doesn’t require a PhD. Are you incapable of looking up the mutation rate?
Quit making ridiculous excuses and dig into the evidence. Be brave. Have faith.