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

[AlanFox]

@PDPrice

His argument has nothing to do with the alleged evidence for deep time, which is why he doesn’t attempt to deal with that (others have). The interpretation of deep time is made via uniformitarian assumptions–assumptions that biblical history would largely invalidate. If GE is a valid observation, it seriously calls into question these other interpretations of deep time, independently.

But this is backwards. The stories in the bible are not history and can be stretched and folded in more than one way to suit a point of view. The geology of the Earth, radioactive decay, plate tectonics all are consilient in the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@swamidass

Doesn’t the conflict go away if you allow for God’s guidance?

Which conflict? The conflict between Scripture and evolution certainly doesn’t go away. The conflict between GE and deep time is based upon how mutations affect life in general. What does God’s guidance have to do with that?

@Giltil

John Sanford defines ‘The Primary Axiom’ as ‘man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection

I would say that the Primary Axiom is “unguided universal common descent”. Sometimes people would omit that “unguided” part and say it could possibly be God-guided (but they don’t explain what it means for God to “guide” mutations).

We should not say “random mutations” because mutations are not random. We should not say “natural selection” since neutral theory shows us that natural selection only has the power to weed out large mutations, and of these almost none are beneficial. Therefore you should say “Man is merely the product of the accumulation of tiny haphazard mistakes.”

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@AlanFox

So genetic entropy (if one is convinced it is a thing) refutes an old Earth and the mainstream consensus on fossil distribution and geology. Or…

I’ll go with “Or”.

You’re welcome to do that. That doesn’t mean you’ve refuted GE, it just means your faith commitment to deep time prevents you from even considering the issue.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@AlanFox

The stories in the bible are not history

Yes they are.

@AlanFox

and can be stretched and folded in more than one way to suit a point of view.

All history can be twisted to suit a point of view.

@AlanFox

The geology of the Earth, radioactive decay, plate tectonics all are consilient in the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth

Again, these are all evidences that are being interpreted in a uniformitarian way. If you jettison the assumption of uniformitarianism, then none of them need indicate deep time at all. And all of these are in conflict with other uniformitarian methods that fail to agree with them.

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

The conflict between GE and deep time is based upon how mutations affect life in general.

Since we have a huge amount of empirical data GE can’t explain but evolution over deep time can, GE is refuted and evolution over deep time wins. In science you don’t get to ignore contradictory data just because you don’t like it.

[T_aquaticus]

@PDPrice

He acknowledges that GE is incompatible with deep time in his book.

There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers which conclude Earth and life are quite old. Given your insistence that we shouldn’t ignore the peer reviewed papers you reference, shouldn’t you treat these papers the same?

@PDPrice

The interpretation of deep time is made via uniformitarian assumptions–assumptions that biblical history would largely invalidate.

Books don’t invalidate observations. We observe consistent and constant natural laws and constants through both space and time, they aren’t assumed. For example, we see stars operating exactly the same throughout the universe which couldn’t happen if physical constants were different in the past.

It is also interesting to see creationists argue against the conclusion of consistent laws and constants. We have heard creationists argue endlessly about fine tuning where even a small change to any of these laws and constants would make the existence of life impossible.

[John_Harshman]

@PDPrice

Again, these are all evidences that are being interpreted in a uniformitarian way. If you jettison the assumption of uniformitarianism, then none of them need indicate deep time at all.

Of course, if you allow all those processes to happen fast enough to fit your notion of history, the earth vaporizes, continents smash into dust, melt, and vaporize, violent flooding vaporizes the oceans, and so on. You can’t make things run millions of times faster than they’re observed to do without serious consequences. Uniformitarianism in each of these cases is not just an assumption but a necessary conclusion.

[AlanFox]

@PDPrice

We should not say “natural selection” since neutral theory shows us that natural selection only has the power to weed out large mutations, and of these almost none are beneficial.

We agree on something. That neutral theory would not explain evolution if there were not biological selection and adaptation to the niche.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@T_aquaticus

There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers which conclude Earth and life are quite old. Given your insistence that we shouldn’t ignore the peer reviewed papers you reference, shouldn’t you treat these papers the same?

Let me understand you: you are arguing that if somebody agrees with anything written in any peer-reviewed source, that they should, in turn, agree with everything written in every peer reviewed source? You just confirmed that you treat scientists exactly how Christians treat God. Good for you, you’re a scientist!

@T_aquaticus

Books don’t invalidate observations.

True. But the words of God do invalidate faulty speculations about the past.

@T_aquaticus

We observe consistent and constant natural laws and constants through both space and time, they aren’t assumed.

Actually, they are, in essence, assumed. We can observe things, but we must assume that what we observe happening today will continue to happen in the future. This can never be proved. If we believe in God, we have a grounding for this assumption: God, the creator, is also the sustainer.

[AlanFox]

@PDPrice

That doesn’t mean you’ve refuted GE, it just means your faith commitment to deep time prevents you from even considering the issue.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Have you heard of William Smith?

Britain’s First Geological Map

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

Again, these are all evidences that are being interpreted in a uniformitarian way. If you jettison the assumption of uniformitarianism, then none of them need indicate deep time at all. And all of these are in conflict with other uniformitarian methods that fail to agree with them.

LOL! The usual YEC empty rhetoric right from the pre-canned script. Seems to me we’ve have numerous threads on deep time topics (like C14 calibration which conclusively disproves a 6000 year old Earth) and you’ve bailed on every one.

This latest GE nonsense reminds me of how YECs glommed onto Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s work on permineralized traces of original organics in dino fossils to “disprove” ALL science supporting deep time. One explainable data point twisted beyond recognition by YECs somehow invalidates 160+ years of positive evidence from dozens of independent scientific disciplines.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@AlanFox

We agree on something. That neutral theory would not explain evolution if there were not biological selection and adaptation to the niche.

So you’re saying you disagree with the population geneticists on neutral theory? I am under the impression that the majority of them have accepted it now.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I just want to note how off topic this thread has become. It does not look like this simple task is feasible for this set of interlocures.

[AlanFox]

@swamidass

I just want to note how off topic this thread has become.

Sorry!

[AlanFox]

@PDPrice

So you’re saying you disagree with the population geneticists on neutral theory? I am under the impression that the majority of them have accepted it now.

No, I think you are misinterpreting neutral theory. I do have reservations though and am planning to post a couple of questions hoping to clear that up. As Dr Swamidass is suggesting we are off topic maybe you can pick up on that thread which may be a few days in appearing.

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

This is why I asked (and was never answered) the question “What is the oldest that life could be and still be compatible with GE?” I really can’t see even 100,000 years fitting as an answer to that. Surely everything should be extinct by now if it were that old. Fruit flies and mice can only last so long if there’s noticeable (supposedly) decay in humans. But to be sure we really do need an answer to that question from Sanford or, failing that, at least from @PDPrice.

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.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@AlanFox

@PDPrice

So you’re saying you disagree with the population geneticists on neutral theory? I am under the impression that the majority of them have accepted it now.

No, I think you are misinterpreting neutral theory.

Yes, he is misunderstanding neutral theory, quite badly.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PDPrice

So you’re saying you disagree with the population geneticists on neutral theory? I am under the impression that the majority of them have accepted it now.

Do you think neutral theory rejects the existence of selection? If so you’re badly misinformed.

[T_aquaticus]

@PDPrice

Let me understand you: you are arguing that if somebody agrees with anything written in any peer-reviewed source, that they should, in turn, agree with everything written in every peer reviewed source?

Earlier, you were chiding us for supposedly ignoring conclusions from a peer reviewed paper, were you not?

@PDPrice

But the words of God do invalidate faulty speculations about the past.

You would first need to demonstrate that they are faulty, and also demonstrate that what you have are the words of God.

@PDPrice

Actually, they are, in essence, assumed.

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.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@evograd

Do you think neutral theory rejects the existence of selection? If so you’re badly misinformed.

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).