Tour & Sanford

[Faizal_Ali]

@thoughtful

No, their ideas fit the observational data. Scientists are going to learn that the data no longer fit the evolutionary model.

Since you keep admitting you know nothing about science, I wonder you keep acting like you know something about it. All you accomplish is to confirm that, yes, you do know nothing.

@thoughtful

But all of this doesn’t apply to mtDNA and y-chromosome pedigree rates. I’m still figuring out genetics but I can see that I think Correct me if I’m wrong. Those genes are passed on in copies to each generation, so you only have certain types of mutations.

Case in point.

@thoughtful

What do you see as passive-aggressive?

Hee hee. OK, I don’t know if you meant this as a joke but, regardless, it’s a good one.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Faizal_Ali

Since you keep admitting you know nothing about science, I wonder you keep acting like you know something about it. All you accomplish is to confirm that, yes, you do know nothing.

I love the approach by some internet Creationists:

“ALL OF EVOLUTION IS WRONG!!” Now please teach me the basics of biology and geology and genetics and paleontology and physics so I can tell you why."

[dsterncardinale]

@thoughtful

How does inbreeding affect them?

Inbreeding reduces diversity within a population, specifically by increasing homozygosity. Since the Y chromosome is haploid (i.e. only one copy per cell), and mitochondria are only inherited from one parent, inbreeding isn’t a factor there. That fact that you picked up on this while ignoring the rest of what I said, is notable.

Would you care to address the question I ended with? What gave you the impression none of that stuff (selection, etc.) applies to the mtDNA and Y chromosome?

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

What do you see as passive-aggressive?

Well, for example, your response to

@John_Harshman

What amazes and annoys me most is the very cheerfulness with which you reject or distort science.

by saying

@thoughtful

Thanks. I’m glad I come across as joyful.

If that wasn’t intended as snide (what some refer to as “Minnesota polite”), then you should rethink how you respond to people.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@dsterncardinale

Inbreeding reduces diversity within a population, specifically by increasing homozygosity. Since the Y chromosome is haploid (i.e. only one copy per cell), and mitochondria are only inherited from one parent, inbreeding isn’t a factor there. That fact that you picked up on this while ignoring the rest of what I said, is notable.

Would you care to address the question I ended with? What gave you the impression none of that stuff (selection, etc.) applies to the mtDNA and Y chromosome?

Because you included inbreeding, I was inclined not to trust the rest since that seemed pretty fundamental. Anyway, I’ll go read up on the topic before making more comments. I’ll be interested to see what Sanford has to say tonight. I want to continue to learn more about it.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

If that wasn’t intended as snide (what some refer to as “Minnesota polite”), then you should rethink how you respond to people.

My impression is that my beliefs get under your skin a bit and you were venting and insulting me in a creative way. But in a way, there’s often sort of a compliment there, so that’s what I was picking up on. I wanted to let you know you can continue to insult me creatively, but I’m not going away just because you do so.

[dsterncardinale]

So what gave you the idea that selection, drift, etc. don’t apply to the mtDNA or Y chromosome? Obviously Jeanson, Carter, etc. imply that, but never outright say it.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

My impression is that my beliefs get under your skin a bit and you were venting and insulting me in a creative way.

Your impression is mistaken.

@thoughtful

But in a way, there’s often sort of a compliment there, so that’s what I was picking up on.

There was no compliment. Cheerful ignorance is not a virtue. One should be dissatisfied, even ashamed of, one’s ignorance.

@thoughtful

I’m not going away just because you do so.

I’m not insulting you, and my hope is not that you go away but that you amend your behavior.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

I’m not insulting you, and my hope is not that you go away but that you amend your behavior.

I’m not surprised this was your response. It’s more of the same. That’s OK. I can handle it.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

That’s OK. I can handle it.

By which, presumably, you mean that you will ignore all advice. Passive-aggressive.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@thoughtful

I’ll be interested to see what Sanford has to say tonight. I want to continue to learn more about it.

If you want to do what you say in sentence 2, your intention in sentence 1 is the absolute last thing you should do.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@thoughtful

It happens all the time in science. Germ theory, general relativity, etc.

If it happens all the time in science, you should be able to give at least one example. Germ theory and general relativity were not insane ideas by crackpots overthrowing established paradigms.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Okay so Sanford literally stated that he’s not personally aware of even one single beneficial mutation that isn’t “reductive”. Not even one single example.

And the podcast is just a platform for Sanford to spew all his nonsense. There’s zero pushback from Tour, who seems to be gobbling it all up uncritically.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

But hey, they both just loooove Jesus so much, and said God bless you to each other, so it’s all fine I guess. Oodles of stultifying pseudoscience, but… Jesus! So now we have to respect them for this veritable orgy of nutbaggery, because they were courteous to each other and expressed their love for Jesus.