Drs. Sanford and Carter respond to PS Scientists

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

@PDPrice

More empirically, we know generally that most mutations are damaging because we can see what happens in mutagenesis experiments and we can look at mutational load over time. This was addressed in the joint article (OP), as well as at https://creation.com/fitness . Many would like to bait-and-switch, pretending that just because we cannot directly measure individual VSDMs, that somehow we know nothing about the distribution of most mutations in general (we do).

I’m comparing this to your earlier reply here:

@PDPrice

The VSDs outweigh selectable beneficials by weighing more … as in, the mutational deck is stacked very heavily in favor of damaging mutations, with beneficial ones only being found on extremely rare occasion. Mutations are mistakes. Mistakes are usually not good.

…and it just looks like the same post using different words. I do get the idea behind the hypothesis is that the VSDs outweigh the beneficial ones.

I’m aware we can measure the effects of large (selectable) deleterious mutations and we can measure the effects of large beneficial mutations, but if we cannot measure the effects of VSDs, how can we then say VSDs that outweigh the beneficial mutations? I am still not clear on this at all. This is a really specific claim and I’m not sure how we can get there without being able to measure it.

If all that’s being claimed is that most mutations are bad, I can see why Dan Cardinale sees things the way he does, but if the claim is actually that it’s specifically the mutational load of VSDs that will cause extinction, I’m not still understanding what measurements have led to that conclusion.