Comments on Sanford and Carter respond to PS participants

[davecarlson]

The topic I am referring to is population genetics. The last time (I think) that I tried to engage with you on population genetics, it was with this exchange on neutral theory:

Paul Price: What are the Substantive Critiques of Genetic Entropy?

It does however state that selection plays a lesser role in comparison to drift. Thus, we would not expect the genome to be much better than “random” (as @Joe_Felsenstein said). We would only expect it to be slightly better.

Paul Price: What are the Substantive Critiques of Genetic Entropy?

This is really not true at all.

Paul Price: What are the Substantive Critiques of Genetic Entropy?

Explain what you mean.

Paul Price: What are the Substantive Critiques of Genetic Entropy?

Whether or not a genome is “much better than random” depends upon the fraction that is subject to purifying selection. Neutral theory is perfectly compatible with widespread purifying selection. Therefore, a “random” genome is not an expectation of neutral theory. Edit: “subject” not “subjective”

This was followed by crickets from you. Feel free to correct your misstatement now to demonstrate your intellectual honesty, but again I’m not interested in a dialogue.