New information, Genetic entropy and Junk DNA blablabla

[Rumraket]

Transposons are really no longer considered by anyone to be junk dna.

Some transposons are junk, some are not. Mostly, they're junk.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm just not educated in this enough to know whether or not transposons are junk. It's one of those things that I read about that seems to make sense and then read something that says something completely different that also makes sense but I can't really understand how one point refutes another or which one is correct.

 

[Nesslig20]

It has been a long time since I made a post about Standing For Truth.

You can see my comments on my interactions with him from over a year ago in the previous comments.

One of the things I noted about standing is his methods of discourse that are clearly intended to NOT understand their opposition, but to “GET” his opponents in a gotcha. That’s why his common mode of arguing is simply “Just asking questions”, which are assertions re-phrased as questions. This is also why he will freak out and rapid fire irrelevant nonsense, when he is pinned down on a point and his opponent won’t let him off the hook. He also tends to make every conversation as inconvenient as possible by engaging in filibusters and gish/gallops, as evident by him responding to my posts with several hour long hangouts, instead of actually joining the forum and discuss each point one at a time. He also tends to posture with the tired old and childish “come and debate me chicken”, which he does whenever he is faced with an argument that he can’t refute.

He even admitted this to me when he said the following:

I don't do this for you and the other BIASED atheists. I've chosen to do this to show FELLOW brothers in Christ that you evolutionary heavyweights of YouTube are not as smart as you think. I am enjoying this too much.

It’s not to learn…not to understand the subject and come to a conclusion while following the evidence…nor to engage in productive conversations with others who may disagree with him…he has already made up his mind, that’s obvious. It’s all about keeping up appearances, showing off in front of his sycophants, and maintaining his extreme biases, a position he won’t hesitate to project onto me (and others).

I also noted one instance when Standing was deliberately LYING about my position. But dishonesty doesn’t come as a surprise to me anymore. But here I documented other cases of intellectual dishonesty, some of the most blatant examples I have ever seen. Standing and his buddy “Raw matt” often make very poor videos which are clearly not fact checked properly. These often contain very dumb mistakes, but that’s not the worst of it. There were instances where I (and others) have pointed these mistakes out. When that happened, several times Standing and Raw Matt tried to quietly erase those errors from the record…and continue as if they never happened.

In this video, I give one example where this happens with someone else and also layout another example that I have personally dealt with. Just to show that they don’t care whether their audience are well-informed. As I said previously, to them…it’s all about appearances.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I don't really post here much anymore, and I just now saw this thread. I've kept tabs on SFT and his genetics arguments despite them not really being in my field. The haplogroups issue always felt easy to understand.

Since Nesslig20 didn't share the most recent development here, I will. SFT conceded that Jeanson was wrong about the haplogroups issue. After years of screaming the haplogroups don't nest, he finally was forced to admit it. His response? "Well what else was Jeanny Weenie supposed to do? The rooted tree made us look bad "

This was all captured in the live chat of video. Nesslig20 summed it up in the comments, which for documentation purposes I will reproduce below.

“Looking at SFT in the comments in between 1:01:20- 1:28:00 is pretty telling.

Jeanson used an unrooted tree diagram to support his assertion that none of the three nodes of the mitochondrial DNA tree, L M and N, is ancestral to any other. And that these represented the co-current existing wives of the sons of noah. However, as 54:00 Dan (creation myths) explained really well...you cannot determine the ancestral-descendant relationships of the nodes within an unrooted tree. From this tree alone, you cannot tell whether L is the ancestor of M an N or not. However, the major problem with this tree is that, no matter how you root it, two MUST be the descendants of one of these three. Which kills Jeansons claim that they are separate lineages that are not nested within each other. This should be pretty self-explanatory, but you can't really expect the average creationist to grasp such simple things, but it is astonishing to see this from someone who has a legit PhD. As we often say, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" but Jeanson isn't stupid. That's problematic to say the least.

Now I have had this conversation with SFT over two years ago, which I constructed a record of on the League of Reason forum, see thread New information, Genetic entropy and Junk DNA blablabla (scroll down a bit, or search for the word "jeanson" to find the relevant parts). One particular instance is where I had a convo with SFT in the YT comment section under the debate he had with Jackson Wheat. I pointed out that L and M are subsets of L. SFT responded with this (emphasis mine):

"BRO C'MON! This is why the atheists were angry in the chat. The Biblical Model was not falsified. Any biblical creationist who understands the data has NO REASON to give up the biblical based model, and any theistic evolutionist has ZERO excuse for compromising God's Word for a dumb theory. The N and M didn't come from L BECAUSE the L M N are very close together compared to other haplogroups. HOW can three haplogroups L M N that are CLOSE together be descended from one another? If they are close together, that means everyone descended from them instead. PLUS, the L that is connecting M and N shows much larger genetic differences from the rest of the L's like L1, L2, L0. SO how can the L come from the other L's if they are separated by so huge amounts of genetic differences? PLEASE just study the haplogroups, and that way, when doing these debates, I can be given an appropriate rebuttal. The atheists deserve strong rebuttals to my points, or else...they may CONVERT to biblical creation, do you want that?"

Notice the bold part? That's completely absurd. You cannot determine ancestor-descendant relationships by looking at how close the nodes are to each other. Just because three nodes are close, that certainly does NOT mean everything else descended from them. That's asinine. He just proved that he is an ignorant dipshit who doesn't have a single clue about the subject.

Here at 1:01:20 SFT claims that Jeanson knows where the root it is, but doesn't demonstrate it. Dan in the stream beautifully called out the flimsiness of this claim. Just put up or stfu. After Dan and CRISPR schooled SFT on this, he finally admitted at 1:03:29 and noted by Dan at 1:03:57 that if Jeanson send the rooted tree, it would look like M and N came from L. So SFT admitted Jeanson is wrong. And SFT does it again at 1:05:47 Jeanson is done by SFt's admission....end of the story....right...??....no....never with these people. The dead horse of creationism is a zombie horse. It will never stay put.

After SFT being childish and whining about not getting the respect that he doesn't deserve... SFT explains in his own terms why Jeanson uses an unrooted display over a rooted one.

1:08:35 "Jeansons point is that l m n all lived at the same time and so jeanson needs to unrooted display in order to allow for the more natural reading--That's where his predictions come in."

1:18:26 "essentially jeanson claims 3 roots l m n noah's 3 daughters in law so serious question --How else is he supposed to display it without it looking like m n came from l? legit question."

In other words, SFT is saying that the reason why Jeanson is using an unrooted display since a rooted display would clearly show that Jeanson is wrong. Wow!!!...holy shit...You cannot make this up. SFT is logically implying (without realizing) that Jeanson is dishonest. Jeanson is deliberately hiding the fact that his own data disproves his own position, and he hides it by using an unrooted display instead of a rooted one.”