Youâre not paying attention. I canât help you figure out whatâs been stated, or what the literature states, which I have now extensively quoted for you.
Yep, I would. But as Iâve explained numerous times, using the word âneutralâ 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, donât they? Those donât sound like nearly neutral mutations.
Doesnât 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 âmindâ can lead to positive results?
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.
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
Iâve 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.
Letâs be clear on what Sanford says, and about what GE implies. Itâs 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 peopleâs commitment to deep time therefore (in their minds) gives them justification to simply ignore GE as if it didnât exist. This, in fact, was Dr Garretâs tactic in our debate.
