LOL! Except for the empirical experimental results he posted multiple times which completely destroy your silly Creationist claim. But don’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good sob story. 
1 Like
Wrong again Paul. Biologic life forms aren’t tight tolerance machines. They have extremely sloppy tolerances and can still function effectively over a wide range of changes. That’s why the evidence shows the large majority of mutations are neutral WRT reproductive fitness. Does every human look exactly alike or are there wide differences in height, weight, coloring, blood types, etc.
3 Likes
Other than, you know, all of the logical and evidence-based support I offered, and that you squirmed all over the place not to understand.
As a matter of interest, is there any subject you know anything about? Because you seem to be completely unfamiliar with the concept of tolerances in engineering, and are under the impression that any change at all, no matter how small, to a functional machine will be for the worse. Since this is so patently not true, I really have to wonder – do you actually think about the arguments you make here? Can even you believe them?
7 Likes
By the way, did you ever retract those false claims you made about me? Leaving them up now amounts to bald-faced lying.
7 Likes
Well, of course many people here have already done that. But your premise is wrong too. If there is deep time, GE can’t be true, because life would be extinct. GE’s model of evolution must be wrong. It’s possible that all neo-Darwinian models are wrong too, but not necessarily so, and even if so, some non-Darwinian model must be true, with some factor that prevents GE.
Because it creates a false premise 1; a true premise 1 would make B “Sanford’s model of evolution is incorrect”.
2 Likes
You’ve got a sudden case of amnesia whereby you’ve forgotten that GE is about the gradual accumulation of changes, not individual changes viewed in isolation.
No false claims were made about you. I addressed that as well. Those 6 synopses were about general classes of objections. The article was not just about you. To prevent any misrepresentations, we quoted everybody, yourself included, word-for-word in the footnotes.
In the Carter article I just quoted above Carter says short generation time species can remove accumulated deleterious mutations thus greatly reducing GE. By what mechanism does that removal happen? Why doesn’t the same mechanism work with other species?
4 Likes
This is a very good question for @PDPrice . Just what does the amount of time a generation lasts have to do with whether GE occurs or not?
2 Likes
Here is some common sense to ignore.
The only examples we have of genetic meltdown we have in nature are from the long understood inbreeding, where the concentration of strongly deleterious mutations are at root. If Sanford had a good example of the phenomena in large populations, he would not continue to harp on his worthless H1N1 paper. Common sense dictates that there cannot be some universal principle which does not operate on a given virus for six thousand years, which is only then driven to extinction in the course of less than a century. There are no examples in nature which validate Sanford.
You wish to talk common sense? If Sanford’s GE is true then we should indeed find extinction in fast turnover populations such as flies and mice. Sanford acknowledges the problem, and then immediately speaks gibberish. But what else can he do? Either he admits that his model is incoherent and withdraws the whole idea, or he denies empirical reality and common sense, and of course he opts for the latter.
4 Likes
The only relevance I can think of is that organisms with longer generation times often have a higher mutation rate per generation, which means that natural selection we be less able to remove all the mutations that happen per generation. That carries relevance to the question of why bacteria are still around and haven’t succumbed to GE by now.
That’s easy. Nobody says extinctions can’t happen, nor even that they can’t happen due to a reduction in fitness.
What they’re saying is that fitness decrease is not an inevitable result of the mutation and selection process.
And of course, extinction can happen for many other reasons than accumulating reductions in fitness due to VSD mutation accumulation. For example, that the environment changes radically and quickly due to pollution, climate, asteroid impacts, a novel and very deadly pathogen, or what have you.
4 Likes
Why would it mean that? Further, isn’t mutation rate per year much more relevant to GE than per generation? Anyway, isn’t this an admission that generation time itself is not relevant, and therefore that Carter was wrong about that bit?
Does it? I doubt you could explain the relevance. If there were any valid reason bacteria haven’t experienced GE in your scenario it would actually be their large population sizes, which make smaller values of s visible to selection.
4 Likes
But then the generation time is not the relevant factor, it’s the mutation rate/generation alone. It doesn’t make sense to even mention the time between generations. After all RNA viruses have incredibly short generation times, and yet you claim these are succumbing to GE.
3 Likes
And yet for some reason almost all of these changes for the worse – so no, you don’t understand tolerances.
You addressed it by saying various other things that were wrong, and then challenging me to repudiate the claim you said I’d made. I did. So … you’re still saying I made a claim I never did. You said I refused to explain my position. When someone pointed out a lengthy exchange in which I tried to explain it to you, over and over … you ignored it.
I see no point in further communication with you, and to be honest, I’m not seeing a lot of point to this site. It seems to have turned into just one more place for creationists to repeat falsehoods and ignore correction.
5 Likes
RNA is unstable. RNA viruses have much higher mutation rates compared to bacteria, despite having short generation times.
So the relevant factor is mutation rate, not the duration of a generation. Right?
1 Like
I would think it’s also population sizes @PDPrice? Bacteria, mice, etc the generation time creates a larger population size which allows for more natural selection of the worst deleterious mutations. It’s not the case in humans.
Mice have a germline mutation rate of 5.4 × 10e−9, about half that of humans at 1.2 × 10e−8. But mice time per generation is approx. 60x faster than humans. So why haven’t mice gone extinct from GE now?
3 Likes
I certainly understand tolerances. I understand that discussing tolerances is a red herring, since there’s no limit in the long run to the amount of damage that mutations can cause. There’s nobody at the controls saying, “We’ve reached the tolerance limit. No more mutations.”
The exchange you’re claiming is an explanation, doesn’t explain it. But if you feel you’ve been misrepresented, [edit] please contact us via email through the website with your complaint.
Both are relevant. They both factor into the mutation rate per generation.
Yes. Dr Carter explains that at https://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms
Explain how.
There’s an organism A, it has a genome of some size l, this mutates at a rate of u/generation. One generation lasts t time.
There’s an organism B, it has a genome equivalent to A’s in size l, this mutates at the same rate u/generation. One generations lasts t/2. This shorter generation time helps it against GE how?
1 Like