Dr. Jay Wile (YEC)

[Simon Wat]

I am searching for any response from Evolutionary scientists to Dr. Jay Wile the YEC. But find nothing. Any one can help?

Here is one of his presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTExJZ80LwI


Thanks

[John Harshman]

Most of us here don't like to watch random youtube videos. Anything in
print?

[Dana Tweedy]

Appartly this Jay Wile as a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry. It's just more standard ICR pseudoscience.

DJT

[John Harshman]

On 10/30/15 3:14 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> Appartly this Jay Wile as a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry. It's just more standard ICR pseudoscience.

Did you actually watch the video? Is there a lot of nuclear chemistry in
it, or just the usual?

[RonO]

Just watch the first minute and observe how much nuclear chemistry is
put up.

How can you possibly be YEC and understand unstable isotopes?

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

No problem: omphalism.

[Dana Tweedy]

I didn't look at the video but I did look up "Jay Wile". I doubt the video has anything about nuclear chemistry.

[John Harshman]

On 10/30/15 3:45 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> I didn't look at the video but I did look up "Jay Wile". I doubt the video has anything about nuclear chemistry.
>

He has a blog: http://blog.drwile.com

Creationist crap, but as a slightly higher level of scientific literacy
than Ken Ham. Slightly.

[RonO]

On 10/30/2015 5:29 PM, John Harshman wrote:

This is part 3 in part 4 he gets around to demonstrating how bogus his
argument is. He uses the same bogus interpretation as Denton did in his
first book. As stupid as it is and Denton knows how wrong he was and
admits that common descent is a fact of nature. This boob repeats the
bogus analysis. It is really stupid when you think about it. Yeast,
plants, tuna, birds and horses have all been evolving for the same
amount of time since they shared a common ancestor. Why would you
expect to see more difference in the horse lineage? When the analysis
is done correctly and you look at closely related animals and work
backwards you see that chimp and humans have identical cyt c sequences,
horse is a couple substitutions different from humans, birds are around
3 times more different than horses, etc. It all works out when you
compare the sequences correctly. It is just wrong the way that this
boob does it.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

On 10/30/15 3:52 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 5:29 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/30/15 3:14 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>> Appartly this Jay Wile as a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry. It's just more
>>> standard ICR pseudoscience.
>>
>> Did you actually watch the video? Is there a lot of nuclear chemistry in
>> it, or just the usual?
>>
>
> This is part 3 in part 4 he gets around to demonstrating how bogus his
> argument is. He uses the same bogus interpretation as Denton did in his
> first book.

Which bogus interpretation? Interpretation of what? Are you talking
about cytochrome c? Ah, I see you are. Well of course a nuclear chemist
would clearly be expected to be an expert on phylogenetic analysis of
protein sequences. After all, cyt c is coded for by *nuclear* DNA.

[RonO]

The cyt c boondoggle in Denton's first book is the type of thing that he
likely slapped his forehead and wondered how he could have been so
stupid. Denton claimed to be a molecular biologist, but never checked
to see how the molecular analyses were actually done.

Any IDiot can check out the facts. After speciation we expect lineages
derived from a common ancestor to have been evolving independently since
they shared a common ancestor. Proteins like cyt c would be expected to
change over time independently, so if the protein could change all the
lineages would be accumulating changes during that time period. For cyt
c the changes are clock like in terms of all the lineages have acquired
around the same number of changes since the last common ancestor.
Yeast, fish, birds and horses have accumulated around the same number of
amino acid changes along their respective lineages since their last
shared eukaryotic ancestor, so comparing lineages to just the outgroup
species (this guy claimed to use bacteria, but Denton used yeast and
compared vertebrates) would give the same percentage change for each
lineage. For some reason this boob and Denton never did the pairwise
comparisons that would have told them that they were totally wrong.

Any IDiot can do the analysis with chimps and humans in the mix to see
how stupidly wrong the creationist interpretation of the molecular data
is. Like the other lineages (yeast, fish, birds and horses) the human
and chimp lineages would have very similar (identical, in fact)
percentage difference from the outgroup bacteria. This in no way
negates the fact of biological evolution because if you did the analysis
correctly you would find that chimps and humans are the same genetic
distance from bacteria for the cyt c gene because they have identical
cyt c protein sequences. The chimp and human lineage diverged so
recently that their cyt c protein sequences are still identical. You
obviously have to do the pairwise comparisons to learn anything about
the true relationships between the lineages.

When you do the pairwise relationship comparisons you find out that
chimps and humans are the most closely related, then chimp-human and
horses, then birds and mammals, then terrestrial vertebrates and fish,
and then vertebrates and yeast. This is actually amazing evidence for
biological evolution, and not the stupidity that this bonehead and
Denton put forward. That is one of the reasons why Denton now claims
that common descent is a fact of nature. All the denial of common
descent in Denton's first book was the usual bogus creationist denial.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

To be fair, Ernst Mayr, in advance of the data, had expected to see
something like what Denton expected.

[Ernest Major]

Considering that Darwin knew better ("never say higher of lower") that's
quite shocking, even with Mayr's known preference for evolutionary
taxonomy. Have you a citation to hand?

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

No, just relying on memory. One of Mayr's defenses of "evolutionary"
taxonomy was that it would track genetic similarity better than
cladistic taxonomy would. Thus crocs ought to be genetically more
similar to lizards than to birds.

Anyway, one should look in his papers defending evolutionary taxonomy.

[RonO]

One of the original molecular evolution papers by Zukerkandl and Pauling
claimed things about fossil DNA being in extant lifeforms, and seemed
to miss the boat. It was the paper that everyone was citing, but when I
read it, it sounded like they had the wrong idea of what we expected to
find, so I didn't cite it in my thesis. Other papers that I have read
by Zukerkandl did have the correct idea, so they may have just not been
able to describe what they expected. It was a novel concept.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Which one?

[RonO]

I can't remember. It was the one that several papers that I read cited
as the beginning of molecular evolutionary biology. This was in the 1980's.

[John Harshman]

Presumably not one of the molecular clock papers.

[Steady Eddie]

Here's something posted on TO that tries to refute Marvin Lubenow:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lubenow_cg.html

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 30 October 2015 16:55:08 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 5:29 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 10/30/15 3:14 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >> Appartly this Jay Wile as a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry. It's just more
> >> standard ICR pseudoscience.
> >
> > Did you actually watch the video? Is there a lot of nuclear chemistry in
> > it, or just the usual?
> >
>
> This is part 3 in part 4 he gets around to demonstrating how bogus his
> argument is. He uses the same bogus interpretation as Denton did in his
> first book. As stupid as it is and Denton knows how wrong he was and
> admits that common descent is a fact of nature.

I agree that common descent is a fact of nature.
Everybody does.
But, did Denton say that UNIVERSAL common descent is a fact of nature?

> This boob repeats the
> bogus analysis. It is really stupid when you think about it. Yeast,
> plants, tuna, birds and horses have all been evolving for the same
> amount of time since they shared a common ancestor. Why would you
> expect to see more difference in the horse lineage? When the analysis
> is done correctly and you look at closely related animals and work
> backwards you see that chimp and humans have identical cyt c sequences,
> horse is a couple substitutions different from humans, birds are around
> 3 times more different than horses, etc. It all works out when you
> compare the sequences correctly. It is just wrong the way that this
> boob does it.
>
> Ron Okimoto

And you, of course, are the judge of who compares the sequences correctly and who does it "all wrong".

[Steady Eddie]

Put up your quotes, or shut up already.

Please give me the cited quote of where you read Denton denying common descent.
I would like to see for myself what he was talking about in context.
You don't have a problem with that, do you?

[Steady Eddie]

And you, of course, are judge of which of paper had the "wrong idea" and which the "correct idea".

[Steady Eddie]

BAIT AND SWITCH!
Put up the quotes or shut up.
You don't even know what you are talking about.
LOL

[John Harshman]

No, anyone who has any familiarity with the data would be an acceptable
judge. Ron, me, lots of others. Just not you.

[Steady Eddie]

In your objective judgement, that is.

[RonO]

What an idiot Eddie. This was probably 30 years ago. You probably
weren't even born when I read that paper. My memory isn't perfect, but
compared to mine your memory is like a colander.

Where is that wonderful science of intelligent design? Talk about bait
and switch. What a clown. Projection is one of the hallmarks of
IDiocy. Why is it that the only IDiots left are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest? What happened to the ISCID and the ID
Network? Where is the wonderful ID science?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

So look it up, idiot.
And put it up.
Or shut up.

[RonO]

The way that I describe the cyt c data in this post above is the way
that anyone would need to analyze the data.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/um6XscjIu-8/qwZol5usCAAJ

The molecules have been evolving in each lineage. We do not expect to
find ancient fossil DNA in extant lifeforms. We expect to find
molecules that have all been changing over time in each lineage. We
expect mutations to occur in the various lineages independently because
they aren't interbreeding. This means that the analysis can't be done
from the bottom up, but has to be done from the top down. You look at
closely related species like chimps and humans and compare them to other
mammals and compare mammals to other amniotes etc.

This is why we can get DNA blind from any source that you choose and do
a sequence analysis (we can do whole genome sequencing at this time) and
we can assemble the evolutionary relationships without knowing what the
species are. We could then go back and identify the species and tell
you their evolutionary history. We can do this by simply looking for
all the most closely related samples, then looking for their next
closest relatives etc until they are all linked together. Nothing
IDiocy has is that powerful and useful.

The estrogen receptor paper that you put up to claim that two mutations
were needed to change the receptor function used this type of analysis
to determine what the ancestral sequence looked like. They were able to
create proteins with the ancestral sequence and test what changing what
amino acids did. The fact is that we can determine what the coalescent
point is (work back to the ancestral sequence). We don't start with the
ancestral sequence and go forward like this Wiley joker is trying to do.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Do you have any familiarity with the data?

[RonO]

What an idiot Eddie. I'll take the time to look it up if you put up a
scientific paper that demonstrates that the IDer really exists. You
know the paper where the ID perps actually use CSI or IC to determine
something about ID and it is verifiable. That just means that they
present their work in a way that other scientists can repeat it and
verify it. The type of science paper that gets published every day. Go
for it Eddie, just lying to yourself has gone on long enough. Put up or
shut up. Just any IDiot paper claiming to have determined IDiocy that
has a materials and methods section so that anyone can repeat the research.

I will take the time to look it up because I can search ZukerKandel and
look up his old papers. I'd probably have to go to the library to check
unless someone has archived the old papers from the 1960's on line
somewhere. What are you going to do? Really, put up or shut up.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Put it up or shut it up, pal.

[Steady Eddie]

No, I'm just familiar with your mental blindness.

[RonO]

Eddie why be such a juvenile little shit? Even when I find the
reference you will just run in denial. Not only that, but what point
would I be defending that you are interested in? I've made a very fair
offer. You are the IDiot that believes that the ID science exists. Now
is the time to demonstrate that you aren't lying to yourself. You put
up the ID science that you have been lying to yourself about and I will
go to the library within the next couple of weeks (I'm not going to drop
what I would have done to satisfy the likes of you). I know that I can
find the reference, it would just take some effort and a trip to the
university library, but you have never demonstrated that you are worth
that kind of effort. Really, when I find the reference what will you
do? You don't have a clue. As far as I can tell you don't have the
faintest idea of why I should even look up the reference.

I know why I want to see the ID science, but you haven't got a clue why
you want to see that old reference because nothing about it matters.
Really, what are you going to do with a 50 year old reference when we
are sequencing whole genomes today? So you go first. Put up or shut
up. Let's see the ID science.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

In the category of Why does a dog lick himself?

>Eddie why be such a juvenile little shit?

Because he can.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Steady Eddie]

You said that Michael Denton believes in common descent.
Where did he say that?

[John Harshman]

Ah, the ad hominem argument. How is that working for you?

[dang...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 30 October 2015 20:15:08 UTC, Simon Wat wrote:
> I am searching for any response from Evolutionary scientists to Dr. Jay Wile the YEC. But find nothing. Any one can help?
>
> Here is one of his presentation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTExJZ80LwI
>
>
> Thanks

Yes, sure. Just accept the facts of science being presented by Dr Wile instead of trying to find nonsense debunk objections.

[Steady Eddie]

+1

[John Harshman]

Dr. J., is that you?

[RonO]

You butted in on when we were talking about Zuckerkandl.

I already gave you that material weeks ago.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/qsqGMhXeX-E/D5tydZZJEAAJ

Here is the quote from his second book.

QUOTE:
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here
is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of
the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on
the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in
the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals,
atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
END QUOTE:

So now put up or shut up. Where is that ID science?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 15:47:29 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>In the category of Why does a dog lick himself?
>
>
>>Eddie why be such a juvenile little shit?
>
>
>Because he can.

I'd be willing to say he must; it may not be his fault.

[jillery]

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:03:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Perhaps, but then he would be pitiful instead of pathetic.
Also, whether by compulsion or preference, the net effect is the same.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 30 October 2015 22:55:08 UTC, Ron O wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 5:29 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 10/30/15 3:14 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >> Appartly this Jay Wile as a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry. It's just more
> >> standard ICR pseudoscience.
> >
> > Did you actually watch the video? Is there a lot of nuclear chemistry in
> > it, or just the usual?
> >
>
> This is part 3 in part 4 he gets around to demonstrating how bogus his
> argument is. He uses the same bogus interpretation as Denton did in his

> first book. As stupid as it is and Denton knows how wrong he was and

> admits that common descent is a fact of nature. This boob repeats the
> bogus analysis. It is really stupid when you think about it. Yeast,
> plants, tuna, birds and horses have all been evolving for the same
> amount of time since they shared a common ancestor. Why would you
> expect to see more difference in the horse lineage? When the analysis
> is done correctly and you look at closely related animals and work
> backwards you see that chimp and humans have identical cyt c sequences,
> horse is a couple substitutions different from humans, birds are around
> 3 times more different than horses, etc. It all works out when you
> compare the sequences correctly. It is just wrong the way that this
> boob does it.

Does it matter that yeast and horses and humans
reproduce themselves on different time scales?

[Ernest Major]

The number of cell divisions in the life cycle is roughly inversely
proportional to the length of the life cycle, so the two numbers tend to
cancel out.

Observationally the trait most obviously correlating with long branches
on molecular cladograms is parasitism.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:35:33 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:03:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 15:47:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>In the category of Why does a dog lick himself?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eddie why be such a juvenile little shit?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because he can.
>>
>>I'd be willing to say he must; it may not be his fault.
>
>
>Perhaps, but then he would be pitiful instead of pathetic.
>Also, whether by compulsion or preference, the net effect is the same.

Acknowledged.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Robert Carnegie]

Sorry, I may not be "getting" that. Is it an assertion
that parasites evolve fast?

I suppose that their prey may develop resistance quickly,
and so the parasite must evolve more, overall, in order
to stay in the game.

I think I heard this mentioned in the context of a cuckoo's
ability to lay eggs that look just like other birds' eggs -
presumably without taking a look itself beforehand?

[Ernest Major]

At the DNA level parasites tend to evolve fast.

>
> I suppose that their prey may develop resistance quickly,
> and so the parasite must evolve more, overall, in order
> to stay in the game.

My understanding is that the faster rate of genome change is (in part)
down to less stringent normalising selection - like primates and GULO,
only applied to more of the genome.

>
> I think I heard this mentioned in the context of a cuckoo's
> ability to lay eggs that look just like other birds' eggs -
> presumably without taking a look itself beforehand?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 7:20:05 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:

> On Friday, 30 October 2015 16:55:08 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> > On 10/30/2015 5:29 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 10/30/15 3:14 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > >> Appartly this Jay Wile as a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry. It's just more
> > >> standard ICR pseudoscience.
> > >
> > > Did you actually watch the video? Is there a lot of nuclear chemistry in
> > > it, or just the usual?
> > >
> >
> > This is part 3 in part 4 he gets around to demonstrating how bogus his
> > argument is. He uses the same bogus interpretation as Denton did in his
> > first book. As stupid as it is and Denton knows how wrong he was and
> > admits that common descent is a fact of nature.
>

> I agree that common descent is a fact of nature.

I thought you were a Creationist?

Ray

> Everybody does.
> But, did Denton say that UNIVERSAL common descent is a fact of nature?

>
> > This boob repeats the
> > bogus analysis. It is really stupid when you think about it. Yeast,
> > plants, tuna, birds and horses have all been evolving for the same
> > amount of time since they shared a common ancestor. Why would you
> > expect to see more difference in the horse lineage? When the analysis
> > is done correctly and you look at closely related animals and work
> > backwards you see that chimp and humans have identical cyt c sequences,
> > horse is a couple substitutions different from humans, birds are around
> > 3 times more different than horses, etc. It all works out when you
> > compare the sequences correctly. It is just wrong the way that this
> > boob does it.
> >

> > Ron Okimoto
>
> And you, of course, are the judge of who compares the sequences correctly and who does it "all wrong".

[John Harshman]

On 11/17/15 1:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 7:20:05 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Friday, 30 October 2015 16:55:08 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2015 5:29 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/15 3:14 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>>>> Appartly this Jay Wile as a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry. It's just more
>>>>> standard ICR pseudoscience.
>>>>
>>>> Did you actually watch the video? Is there a lot of nuclear chemistry in
>>>> it, or just the usual?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is part 3 in part 4 he gets around to demonstrating how bogus his
>>> argument is. He uses the same bogus interpretation as Denton did in his
>>> first book. As stupid as it is and Denton knows how wrong he was and
>>> admits that common descent is a fact of nature.
>>
>> I agree that common descent is a fact of nature.
>
> I thought you were a Creationist?

Eddie is trying to play a little semantic trick. By "common descent" he
means that individuals descend from other individuals, not common
descent of different species.

So no problem for you. You and Eddie can be BFFs.

[jayho...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:15:08 PM UTC-7, Simon Wat wrote:
> I am searching for any response from Evolutionary scientists to Dr. Jay Wile the YEC. But find nothing. Any one can help?
>
> Here is one of his presentation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTExJZ80LwI
>
>
> Thanks

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8

[jayho...@gmail.com]

[jayho...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:15:08 PM UTC-7, Simon Wat wrote:
> I am searching for any response from Evolutionary scientists to Dr. Jay Wile the YEC. But find nothing. Any one can help?
>
> Here is one of his presentation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTExJZ80LwI
>
>
> Thanks

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8

[jayho...@gmail.com]