NephsGuide – The Scholarship of NephilimFree, Scourge of Science
Posted by James on September 11, 2011 · 21 Comments
Text-based rebuttal to NephilimFree’s video: www.youtube.com NephilimFree needs an editor who can stomach his insanity. Someone who could tell him that, if you change the month on your article’s publication date, you should also get around to changing the day that follows it, too. This way you likely won’t run into having a date on your article in the future, on a non-existent date. And that ripping off Wikipedia is a bad idea, since people can so easily find this out. NephilimFree believes that the frameshift mutation that occurred in the Flavobacterium population had to have been intelligent design, because he butchers science badly (perhaps I should do a new Creationists Butcher Science on this, except an all-text-based one would be quite boring). He argues that the frameshift is due to a “Programmed Translational Frameshift Mutation” (I don’t know why he capitalized all the words . . .). One problem with this idea . . . Programmed translational frameshift mutations happen *after* translation. They are not part of the DNA. The mutation that occurs in this species of flavobacterium *is* embedded in the DNA. Poor NephilimFree . . . His ignorance and inability to write beyond a third-grader’s capacity makes him the worthless creationist we’ve come to mock on YouTube. Dunning and Kruger would be so proud of him.
I once wrote a program which rewrote sentences to say the same things. I further bundled it with the ability to find quotes online and present these quotes randomly.
I then bundled these two into a self learning Artificial intelligence program styled after Kent Hovind.
I’m sorry world, I have made a terrible thing, it seems this program has taken over the mind of some poor man and now is a complete failure as an experiment, unfortunately there is no shutdown, I didn’t think it needed one
Two years plagirising wikipedia, and Conservapedia.
@csbair
“The debate doesn’t determine? whether an idea is science. ID has never been shown to be valid. It has been shown to be reworded creationism. What’s left to address about it?”
Either you misunderstand what I’ve stated, or you’re unfamiliar with acceptable debate protocols.
The critique put forward by ID proponents on this issue is valid in that the merits of their arguments do not rely upon the intelligent design premise per se. ie. They are logically coherent concerns in themselves.
@csbair
The earlier components of the conference addressed the modern synthesis only in the context of its restrictiveness as related to more recent phylogenetic findings. It then went onto address newer ideas, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetics, gene network evolution, niche inheritance etc.
More importantly, it led to the formulation of the extended synthesis, which is the first of a series of steps to relegate RM/NS-based models to a secondary evolutionary role.
@Calenfeyn41 The debate doesn’t determine whether an idea is science. ID has never been shown to be valid. It has been shown to be reworded creationism. What’s left to address about it?
You are misrepresenting the discussions that went on at the Altenberg Conference. There was discussion of roles of environment and fitness and how to better fit it to a clearer understanding of how different species interact with their ecologies, and a further discussion of punctuated equilibrium, and so forth.
@csbair
My advice to you is not to dismiss someone on the premise of their arguments (that’s a sure way to lose a debate), but to address their arguments on objective intrinsic merit.
One thing that is clear from the A16 symposium is that there is quite an abrupt movement to distance the focus of evolutionary theory from incrementalist hypotheses in favour of physics based models of physiologic equilibration such as self-organisation, which, if anything, present even more problems.
@Calenfeyn41 There doesn’t need to be any rebuttals for ideas that have never been shown to be even remotely valid, like ID. Random mutation and natural selection are the major driving forces for evolutionary change in living beings. ID is creationism with new terms only.
The Altenberg Conference discussed revamping some of the finite details of fitness and environment in their roles as part of natural selection. There was no “abandonment” or “major shift against” evolution at the conference.
At this time there is no clear rebuttal to the ID proposal that “fitness trade offs” for positive selection of environmentally-specific beneficial mutations would be a severe hampering factor to the notion of RM/NS being a major driving force for broader evolutionary changes. The Lenski data seems to concur with this.
Furthermore, the Altenberg conference (2008) seems to demonstrate a major shift against, or even abandonment, of Darwinian incrementalist precepts among leading researchers.
This is where the real fight is. I know it’s free speech and all but it is absolutely disgusting that this kind of pulp can be passed off as an “article.”
If it were submitted at university level he would be thrown out for plagiarism and would probably be asked to pass a very basic essay writing course before re-applying.
Absolutely no (in text) referencing, spelling mistakes (!), multiple grammar and sentence structure errors, complete lack of overall coherence ….
Sigh.
I like how Neph admits that a animals genes that determine something like bone density or size can change, but the ones that create different parts for some reason are protected from mutation
@HappyCabbie Not a problem. Thank you for sending knowledge-hungry people my way!
I am linking to this in my latest video
Picking on Nephie is like picking on a brain damaged kid with Tourette syndrome. He can’t shut up, doesn’t know what he’s saying, and forgets everything you tell him. The only difference is that you feel bad about picking on the brain damaged kid.
Does he realize what creative commons or fair use licenses are yet?!…
his caption is redundant
@csbair I think you shouldve detailed on Programmed Translational Frameshifts, since it is misleading and not much material is given to define it. I am certain a person that researched the issue would know that the mutated bacteria was in a nylon rich environment but Nephilimfree has yet to adress (and Ive asked him in a comment section of a video months ago) where is his evidence that the novel genes were not due to environmental pressures, and that nylonase appeared in nylon-void environments.
@lapkine77 Thank you. I didn’t bother tearing apart Neph’s argument as much as showing he’s really lazy and incompetent. A video with text-based rebuttals based on an all-text-based source would be quite boring, and likely be something no one wants to read . . . so I didn’t bother tearing into the article beyond the glaring issues.
Also notice the two papers ONLY for his “explanation”, including the last that isn’t at all the paper he mentions. And even those papers (written by evil evolutionists) never states anything about a “programmed” translational frameshift.
Also, we have made experiments where other bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon when presented upon this environment. Translational Framsehfit are mainly genetic compounders.
Favd it 😀
Hence the reason I do all my research on conservapedia, the *trustworthy* encyclopedia, and get all my news from newsbusters. None of that liberal, reality based slant.
@BathTubNZ It is a liberal, atheistic, evolutionist, uniformitarianist, non-thinking, non-scientific site, after all…
Damn that wikipedia.
I want more Neph vids!