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

You’re not paying attention. I can’t help you figure out what’s been stated, or what the literature states, which I have now extensively quoted for you.

Would you agree that neutral drift exists alongside positive and negative selection?

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.

2 Likes

But that’s a false claim, as there was a very obvious qualifier.

1 Like

@PDPrice

Doesn’t the software simulation discussed in the thread (linked to below) go a long way to showing that even random improvements in the architecture of a “mind” can lead to positive results?

Go to the thread link below to see image chain!

image

This is the difference between making a large change all at once, versus very gradually in tiny increments. Very much the frog-in-the-boiling-water scenario.

Evidence demonstrates otherwise.

The effect isn’t linear.

3 Likes

Please show your calculations. Different alleles have different magnitudes of effects on fitness. Do you not know this?

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.

1 Like

I for one am enjoying the constant flow of poorly thought out inappropriate analogies that pass for “scientific” evidence in YEC-land. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Apparently people (in the 19th Century, we are no longer savages) checked out the hypothesis.

2 Likes

Experiments and analysis[edit]

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

What the actual fork?

1 Like

Everyone knows if you train a frog to hop on verbal command then cut off its legs, the frog becomes deaf. :wink:

3 Likes

@PDPrice

How about a small series of changes that only happen because changes are inevitable?

2 Likes

Better than Lenski!

1 Like

I’ve already answered this question. Let me repeat myself : there is no logical link between GE and deep time. But there is one with the primary axiom ¶ as defined by Sanford above. Indeed, it is not GE therefore young earth , or deep time therefore no GE but rather GE therefore no PA , or PA therefore no GE.

Let’s be clear on what Sanford says, and about what GE implies. It’s true that GE has nothing to do with the age of life directly, but it does have strong implications, (applying uniformitarian thinking), on the overall age of life. Mutation rates are too high to support the idea of deep time. Everything should be dead by now. Many people’s commitment to deep time therefore (in their minds) gives them justification to simply ignore GE as if it didn’t exist. This, in fact, was Dr Garret’s tactic in our debate.

It’s what you do best. Still, when asked for explanation, simply repeating yourself is not helpful.

Why not? Sanford himself admitted that there is.

Or perhaps your commitment to creationism requires you to ignore deep time and all the evidence for it. Yet there seems very little evidence for GE, if any.

2 Likes

That’s an interesting way of distorting your interpretation of the data to conform to your religious ideology.

Reality based version:

If Sanford’s claims were correct, everything should be dead by now.

Observation: Everything is not dead by now, including Sanford himself.

Conclusion…?

2 Likes