Here’s the difference between our science and your “Creation science”
3 Likes
So in the book, he cites a paper by Kimura. Here’s what he says about a figure in that paper:
P23 – “In Kimura’s figure, he does not show any mutations to the right of zero – there are zero beneficial mutations shown. He obviously considered beneficial mutations so rare as to be outside of consideration.”
He then creates his own version of the figure with beneficial mutations barely represented and always within the “no selection” zone.
Here’s the Kimura paper:
Does that paper actually match what Sanford is saying about Kimura? I don’t think so.
1 Like
In my opinion personal attacks are very poor argument forms. It is a signal that the opposition does not have a coherent counter argument. The fact is a functional sequence is much more likely to break down with random change over time. Fitness and purifying selection can only slow this process down. This fact is agreed on by almost everyone and gives strength to Sanfords hypothesis of genetic entropy.
In my view, that means he IS a scientist, even if everything you say here is true.
1 Like
Bill “forgets” about the effects of feedback selection for the 28,476th time.
Sanford’s GE claims all life forms including humans were specially created 6000 years ago with a “perfect” genome and have been degrading ever since “The Fall”.
Is that your scientific position Bill?
2 Likes
That is a fact.
That is not a fact.
One of your facts is agreed on by almost everyone and one is rejected by almost everyone with the competence to judge. Sanford’s hypothesis is a nonstarter.
3 Likes
Your side has moved from ad hominem to assertion. Where is a real argument against Sanfords hypothesis? He has a published paper on this subject. Functional sequences are more likely to break down over time than anything else. If this is not a fact it is certainly a well supported empirical observation.
I gave you my professional opinion of your assertions. Since your assertions were about what “everyone” accepts as a fact, I told you what those who actually study natural selection actually accept.
Which hypothesis? That very slightly deleterious mutations, of too small an effect to be weeded out by natural selection, will inevitably accumulate? The argument is that: 1) there is no reason in evolutionary theory that this should be true. On the contrary, very slightly deleterious and very slightly beneficial mutations should typically be in balance; 2) there is no empirical evidence that this imbalance in very nearly neutral mutations exists; 3) there is empirical evidence that it doesn’t, in the absence of codon bias in complex organisms. This is a hypothesis with neither theoretical nor empirical support, and strong reasons to think it’s wrong. Why are we even talking about it?
6 Likes
Here is an interesting counter study, where antibiotic resistance silencing is shown to be reversible
Introduction…
Sporadic reports exist of bacteria harboring antibiotic resistance determinants that have become inactivated by a genetic defect …, a phenomenon we term “silencing of antibiotic resistance by mutation” (SARM). By definition, strains subject to SARM ordinarily fail to express antibiotic resistance, and will therefore be classified as antibiotic sensitive upon susceptibility testing. However, SARM may in some cases be reversible …, thereby allowing the rapid reemergence of antibiotic resistance in an apparently antibiotic-susceptible strain. Where reversion of SARM to full phenotypic resistance occurs during treatment of infection with the corresponding antibacterial drug, this would prompt an unanticipated therapeutic failure.
Discussion…
In the overwhelming majority of strains, SARM was found to be reversible, yielding progeny exhibiting phenotypic antibiotic resistance upon challenge with the corresponding antibiotic. SARM reversion occurred at frequencies (generally ≥10−9) readily attainable within bacterial populations during infection
Sure. If this is not true evolutionary theory is in doubt. He has written a paper challenging this assumption. Michael Lynch and @Joe_Felsenstein thought enough of the paper to write a counter argument.
Joe Felsenstein and Michael Lynch (JF and ML) wrote a blog post, “Does Basener and Sanford’s model of mutation vs selection show that deleterious mutations are unstoppable?” Their post is thoughtful and we are glad to continue the dialogue. This is the first part of a response to their post, focusing on the impact of R. A. Fisher’s work. Our paper can be found at: The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations | Journal of Mathematical Biology
Here is the thing: figure 4 reports how mutations are accumulating within an evolving LTEE population that became a mutator strain. It corresponds to a biological reality. Figure 5 reports the results of a simulation experiment aimed at seeing if the pattern of mutation accumulation observed in figure 4 is consistent with deleterious mutation accumulation. For this simulation, the mutation rate described by Lenski and a biologically realistic Weilbull-type distribution of mutation effects were used. And the thing is that the the observed pattern seen in figure 4 perfectly matches the simulated results of MA, wherein all mutations were deleterious. Conclusion: the pattern of mutation accumulation reported in the LTEE experiment is consistent with deleterious mutation accumulation. IOW, with genetic entropy.
The link I provided was Scott’s rejoinder to Sanford’s reply. The link to Sanford was supplied by Scott. For anyone who wishes to follow that discussion, the three links are:
Scott Buchanan on Genetic Entropy:
Letters to Creationists - STAN 4
Sanford reply to Buchanan:
Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy
Buchanan rejoiner:
Genetic Entropy
2 Likes
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. If evolutionary theory is correct, then genetic entropy should not be a thing. Yes, it’s certainly the case that if evolutionary theory is wrong, then evolutionary theory is in doubt. So what? My point was that Sanford argues for his hypothesis based his understanding of evolutionary theory, and his understanding is wrong.
?? They thought poorly enough of the paper that they thought it needed to be rebutted.
2 Likes
No, that isn’t a fact, and for that reason isn’t agreed upon by the vast, vast majority of experts in the relevant fields.
2 Likes
Reality. Look at the fitness trajectory on figure 4. It’s going up, not down.
Bill, why do you think organisms still exist in light of this inevitable decay to extinction? Sanford thinks it’s because there hasn’t been time since the Fall. What about you?
So as to help people like you to not be mislead by Sanford. It’s public service really.
You can also find scientists some times spending time refuting flat-Earthers.That’s not an indication there’s any merit to the idea of the Earth being flat.
One can spend time debunking bad ideas because you think those bad ideas have negative consequences, not necessarily because you think they’re good ideas.
5 Likes
What evidence do you have to support this very strange assertion ? I think most population geneticists would disagree with you on this. See Graur’s paper below for example.
And they then duly ripped it too shreds. That someone took the time to demonstrate how worthless a paper is does not change the fact that it is worthless.
3 Likes
Where is the evidence that slightly deleterious mutations outnumber slightly beneficial ones? Even more, how many slightly deleterious mutations are countered by a single beneficial mutation? If each slightly deleterious mutations reduces fitness by 1 fitness unit, can 100 of them be wiped out by a single beneficial mutation that increases fitness by 100 units?