My suspicion is that no answer is forthcoming from Sanford because he hopes his idea will be taken seriously by legitimate scientists, who will then be forced by logic to conclude that life could not have existed for more than a few thousand years. If so, he likely realizes his work will rightly be dismissed out of hand if he states his beliefs about the age of the earth up front.
Of course, his work is dismissed anyway, for other reasons that are by now very apparent.
Earlier, you were chiding us for supposedly ignoring conclusions from a peer reviewed paper, were you not?
You would first need to demonstrate that they are faulty, and also demonstrate that what you have are the words of God.
Actually, they aren’t. If constants and laws were different in the past then it should show up in observations of distant stars and in the rocks on Earth. We don’t assume constants and laws were the same in the past, we conclude they were the same in the past because of the evidence.
No I don’t, but since we know (again, I’m forced to become a broken record on this) that the vast majority of mutations large enough to be selectable are deleterious, the role of selection must be mostly relegated to the process of weeding out the worst of the deleterious mutants. That means it has little to do with the alleged beneficial mutations, most of which would have to be effectively neutral (like Dr Schaffner has implied).
Yep, I would. But as I’ve explained numerous times, using the word “neutral” with no qualifier is inherently misleading people, over and over. The word neutral implies there is no fitness impact, but the experts manifestly do not mean that when they are using that term.
Then you would need to show us how you determine the impact a mutation has on fitness. Ultimately, you are saying that these mutations lower fitness to the point of the species being unable to reproduce and survive. Those sound like very deleterious mutations, don’t they? Those don’t sound like nearly neutral mutations.
The problem is you are unable to explain why the frog would die from hyperthermia if we gradually increased the water to boiling, but not of hypothermia if we gradually lower it to freezing, which is what your scenario amounts to.
Another reason that your entire argument here is a string of bad jokes.
During the 19th century, several experiments were performed to observe the reaction of frogs to slowly heated water. In 1869, while doing experiments searching for the location of the soul, German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated that a frog that has had its brain removed will remain in slowly heated water