Ham's pet scientist caught in lie about Citrate evolution

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
the_ignored
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:05 am
Location: Right where I'm not supposed to be.
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Ham's pet scientist caught in lie about Citrate evolution

Postby the_ignored » Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:30 am

Too bad that this didn't get shot down during the debate itself. Or did it? I never watched.

Here is the video link. Watch Ham's pet Andrew Fabitch. Note the link to a blog post by Lenski and his grad student where they themselves call Fabitch out.

The second argument was more direct. Both Ham and Fabich asserted that the Cit+ function did not evolve because using citrate did not involve “any kind of new information … it’s just a switch that gets turned on and off.” (Fabich went on to state that this “switch” is what we reported. That is emphatically not true. It beggars belief that anyone, much less a trained microbiologist, could actually read our 2012 paper, where we reported the genetic basis of Cit+, and come away thinking this.) Variations on that wording are often used by creationists who discuss the citrate work because it implies that Cit+ arose because of a pre-existing regulatory switch and involved no evolution at all. But that simply is not the case – that wording, dare I say it, is a lie.
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
>Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
>Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
>illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
>the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
>and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
>still disappear if I was you.

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests