No, you have to give actual evidence or an actual argument.
No it isn’t. This is basic population genetics.
You seriously don’t know what you’re talking about. This is well understood.
Check this out: Ogata M., Ohtani H., Igarashi T., Hasegawa Y., Ichikawa Y., Miura I. Change of the heterogametic sex from male to female in the frog. Genetics 2003; 164:613-620.
It’s the former.
Well, this data, for starts. I don’t know how you could have forgotten about it, it’s been shown to you many times already.
That’s Lenski’s LTEE. Can you please explain to me exactly how these data are supposed to represent a refutation of GE?
But then not every mutation would be any degree of deleterious, would it?
Seriously? You honestly don’t understand how a curve that represents an actual empirical measurement of the fitness of a population and which goes up and up and up for over 50,000 generations refutes the claim that the fitness of a population can only go down, down, down until it is extinct?
Perhaps you understand nothing at all about GE? If so, maybe Sanford and Carter should come here and try defend it themselves, rather than leaving you to fend for yourself.
Under Sanford’s GE scenario all strains of the Lenski LTEE should have "degraded’ and gone extinct from decreased fitness. Yet this strain had a measurable increase in fitness over 50,000+ generations. GE is simply wrong, end of story.
Do you not understand the difference between decrease and increase?
At no point did we argue that fitness must always be measured to go down. Have you read https://creation.com/fitness?
On top of that, this is dealing with bacteria–the one living thing that Dr Carter agrees may not be subject to GE. For the reasons listed at https://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms
Don’t forget mice. You can’t explain why mice haven’t gone extinct from GE by now either. You can’t show how horses, and elephants, and whales, and giraffes, etc. have “degraded” genomes. Oh, and you still owe us your method for determining the “information content” of a genome to tell if mutations made it increase or decrease.
Seems like you don’t understand GE at all yourself and just blindly repeat Sanford and Carter’s talking points you can’t defend.
You argued that Mendel’s Accountant is a useful simulation. Can it replicate Lenski’s work?
False. Remember the rock pocket mice?
https://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268
In the light brown desert the black fur allele is deleterious and the light brown fur color is beneficial. In regions with lots of black lava rocks, the black allele is beneficial and the light brown allele is deleterious. Can you tell us what function is lost here?
Yeah that’s where you do the bait and switch and complain about fitness as the wrong measure of… fitness.
Well if only Carter and Sanford could agree amongst themselves then.
It’s hilarious whenever PDPrice is asked to back up one of his many unsupported claims he almost always posts a link back to his Creation.com employer where he has merely repeated the same unsupported claim. 
Maybe we should set up an altar to worship the E.coli lines. They have shown their might against GE 
Uh huh. Problem is, your employers have been unable to provide any real-life examples of populations that ARE subject to GE. Maybe ask them when we can expect to see that. We know you’re not up to the job. All you can do is say “You should read their book.”
No. What you said is not GE at all. Again, please provide the research on natural selection that shows what you said.
His book has an update that covers soft selection. I had just read it, but I didn’t quite understand it. So I will have to read that again, and read through what you wrote again. But thanks for the explanation. It will help me understand the concept better.
This fits with a model of created diversity for the purpose of variety and adaptation.
You do realize they have considered this experiment? https://250069c0-1b5d-4b2c-8449-0eae31a955b3.filesusr.com/ugd/a704d4_78d07f059b344335914ab35344359b23.pdf
In a created model, again there’s no reason why all organisms should evolve like bacteria does.
That response is word salad. If you were at all concerned with actually determining whether they were correct, as opposed to whether they agree with your predetermined conclusions, you would see that.
Doesn’t change the fact that a single mutation can be beneficial in one environment and deleterious in a different environment.
Yes, it is. It is all over Sanford’s writing on the subject. He tries to run away from it at points, mostly by appeal to Mendel’s Accountant’s hilariously inaccurate simulations, but saying it isn’t there is only possible if you haven’t read or haven’t understood his work. Further, GE only works in nearly-neutral frameworks, which must consider population size. So if there is no correlation between selection efficiency and population size, GE is impossible, because it forces larger populations with shorter generation times to degrade faster, which would be easily observed but isn’t.
Then again, if there is a correlation between selection efficiency and population size, GE is also impossible, because even modestly sized populations push the threshold low enough to be a non-issue. So basically, GE is impossible no matter what. Which is what we’ve been trying to tell you. Sanford is wrong.
There’s nothing there that substantiates Genetic Entropy, which is the idea that fitness should be declining. All of that is just excuses to make it seem like it’s still GE, even though fitness is going up.
Please wake up and realized you’re being fooled.
But they don’t say that for bacteria at all it seems to me - just that the mutations are still reductive evolution. Bacteria have evolutionary “options” that means GE doesn’t work as it does in other organisms.
Again, this seems to me to be the exact opposite of what they say. I’ll look a the papers later.
How do you know that?
Does anyone know which pharmaceuticals Sanford is talking about here?
A strong case can be made for natural attenuation (an example of genetic entropy). Several current COVID-19 treatments now employ pharmaceuticals that accelerate RNA mutation rates, which is essentially accelerated genetic entropy.
It’s just before “Concluding Remarks” if you need to see the article again. https://creation.com/genetic-entropy-defense
