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

Boom.

Just like people’s commitment to a spherical Earth gives them justification to simply ignore Flat Earth claims as if they didn’t exist. :laughing:

4 Likes

It’s not even an interpretation. As I noted above with influenza, it’s misrepresenting the actual data, clearly a tacit, possibly unconscious, recognition that their hypothesis is incompatible with the data.

1 Like

Well, if they are already saying the earth is 6000 years old in order to accommodate their believe, why not just go on and say it’s 3 weeks old, or whatever they need to account for the date with influenza? They’re missing a great opportunity here.

OK folks, let’s slow the discussion down and get back to more substantive comments, and check those comments about the beliefs others hold.

It may be time to summarize positions so we can wrap this up.

1 Like

Stopwatches and Time has been moved to a new thread. I suggested the inability to measure past time is neither a critique of GE or evolution, but a critique of physics.

Sure. The great age of life falsifies genetic entropy. The evidence for that great age is overwhelming and diverse, and this is the most telling argument against GE. One can save GE by supposing that it was in some way not allowed to operate until quite recently, as you seem to point out, but there is no evidence of any such thing, and the proponents of GE do not propose any such thing.

That is a substantive critique for you.

1 Like

Wrong. GE affirms that given what we know about the mutation/selection process, deep time is impossible. Therefore, either deep time is wrong or there are unknown factors that allow to overcome GE.

Given the vast amount of evidence I’ve already mentioned, your first option is not available. Now, if there were unknown factors that allow GE to be overcome, there would be no evidence for GE and it would be a purely theoretical construct. Is that what you want? Of course you fail to note the third possibility: GE is simply wrong. That seems the simplest solution.

1 Like

It does affirm that. Since deep time is a reality, that means that what GE claims we know about the mutation/selection process is wrong. This is not surprising, since it turns out that GE relies not on something we know about mutation and selection, but on something that somebody made up based on zero evidence.

8 Likes

You also have to allow that GE, as framed by Sanford and his school, might not faithfully reflect what we know about the mutation/selection process. In that case, no unknown factors are necessary.

1 Like

Just like this map affirms that California is an island which means it is impossible for California to be part of the continental United States.

image

3 Likes

Yes, I think GE is mostly a theoretical construct, although not completely devoid of evidences. Note also that it would not be the first time in science where a theoretical construct predicted the existence of some unknown factor whose existence was proven years later.

There’s three options when you have an ostensible conflict between two ideas A and B.
Either

  1. A has to give, or
  2. B has to give, or
  3. There’s a third option C that makes A and B compatible.

Some times there’s an imbalance of evidence in favor of A and B, such that even though A and B are contradictory, A has so much more evidence in favor of it that B(or the reverse), while appearing to have evidence for it too, just is much less well supported, and as such appears to be unlikely to be true.
In that case A would win. I would say the case for deep time is so overwhelming that Genetic Entropy is unlikely to be true, and I don’t even think there’s any good evidence for genetic entropy, could stipulate there is some here for the sake of illustrating this point about balance of evidence.

Your solution seems to be that there’s a third option C that allows both A and B to be true, in that some other force (is it Jesus? I guess you think that) has counterbalanced the effect of GE throughout deep time up until recently. That seems rather unlikely to me too. No, I think the balance of evidence should cause us to be extremely skeptical of the GE idea.

1 Like

If there’s were an unknown factor, wouldn’t it be completely devoid of evidence? Given this supposed unknown factor, GE doesn’t actually happen. (Of course a simpler explanation is that GE is flawed, and no unknown factor is necessary.)

So you now agree that life is very old and GE is no evidence against that concusion?

1 Like

While GE is incompatible with the consilience of science including the age of the earth, another more direct argument against GE is the extensive presence of deleterious mutation in the human genome.

Uh, isn’t that basic to the premise of GE?

Not fully - GE posits a absolutely fit, in their sense of platonic ideal, creation as a starting point. This is as important to Sanford as the opposite bookend of extinction.

Among the many deleterious mutations in humans is the common example of the broken gene for vitamin C, affecting the exact same dysfunctional exons as are mutated in apes.

The GLO gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate GLO genes
The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates

So the common presence of deleterious mutation here is evidence against ideal fitness, it is in fact evidence of common ancestry, which is definitely not in Sanford’s mind as concerns GE.

But vitamin C is far from the only deleterious mutation we share with apes. Our sense of smell, (mine in particular) is highly impaired compared with most other mammals. This is due to many dozens of identified olfactory receptor mutations, many in common with other closely related primates, which have not been selected for. The human decline is the most advanced, but there is a clear progression.

Human specific loss of olfactory receptor genes

So deleterious mutation is evidence of common ancestry. It also is evidence of fitness being defined by the relationship of organism and environment, and not some static ideal.

2 Likes

I agree that GE doesn’t refute deep time. However, although I think deep age is a reasonable conclusion, I also think that GE can be constructed as evidence of young age.

So Sanford is ignoring all those other evolutionary processes.

No, he is not. But he understand that in the final analysis, all evolutionary processes converge towards the mutation/selection magic martingale.

What is your basis for this statement? Please supply statements by Sanford which indicate an up to date understanding of contemporary theory. Otherwise, it is justified to characterize his position as ignoring other processes.

1 Like