A vacuous assertion, devoid of evidence and even what might pass for common sense. Did you read my post I referenced?
You have hundreds of thousands of fossils, the world over, which are segregated by epoch. Limestone, chalk and dolomite formations which are kilometres deep and extend for hundreds of kilometres. There is the KT boundary found around the world. The geological and fossil evidence is incompatible with the chaos of any flood, local or global. Surely you have seen the mess a flood makes, you are denying your own eyes to suit your world building exercise.
Specifics are the easy part. The hard part â always â with evolutionists is getting them to admit the failure of their paradigm. We havenât yet established that you believe I am correct about this. Why should I move on until you admit I am correct?
There was no explanation of how a flood is compatible with the observations I mentioned, only a proclamation of ignorance, which you attempted to extend to standard science.
And yet you refuse to explain anything. You only speak in vague generalities. You have no explanation for the simplest and most obvious features of the fossil record, the grossest example being faunal succession. You merely retreat into ignorance. But standard science doesnât retreat at all; again, there are simple explanations of all this, and those explanations fit all the data.
I disagree. I think the best way to make progress is for you to simply answer the questions that were just posed. You have stated that âmost biologists disagreeâ, but have actually not substantiated the idea that most biologists have even considered the question properly. You certainly havenât explained why you think they disagree. It appears you have no intention of doing so?
Local floods produce chaos. Now think of a global flooding event and the stratification effects and the sorting of dead animals due to a slow kill as the flood waters increase. Only then will you begin to see that what you think you know about a global flooding event has no precedent in your study of local floods.
One, a slow kill would not segregate the animals. Two, YEC holds that the flood reshaped the planet, which is surely a chaotic affair, far beyond the effect of anything local. The water had to come from somewhere, and subside to somewhere, and the only way to really do that is to redistribute it by altering the profile of the earth.
Thatâs not really correct, at least not entirely. Sure, thereâs a chaotic and unpredictable element, but even small floods do produce stratification. There are articles about this on creation.com.
Ignoring the fact that the bit you quoted didnât answer the question askedâŚ
Neither the portion you quoted, nor the one I quoted, were conclusions of the paper.
The question was:
Which you attempted (but failed) to address by noting that deleterious mutations are more common than beneficial. This notably does not address whether or not that ratio changes. My quotation addresses the topic of the thread, and not the your non-response to Danâs question. If I wanted a quote from the paper to support Dan, I would go with:
This directly addresses the question of whether or not the ratio of deleterious and beneficial mutations is constant over time. If you are confused as to why, merely reverse the direction: A perfectly adapted population in a static environment has a limited, non-renewable supply of available deleterious mutations (that being the number of loci that can mutate). As deleterious mutations accumulate, the supply of deleterious mutations is slowly depleted (because back mutations become possible, and increasingly likely).
This works under your stated assumptions (which are wrong), but works better in reality where populations are never perfectly adapted, and fitness values change according to changing environmental factors.
Hope that clears everything up.
This makes the problem worse for Dr. Sanford. If we assume an optimal state where every one of the three potential outcomes of mutations is harmful (and Dr. Sanford assumes an optimal or near-optimal starting state), then a single deleterious mutation removes at least one, and up to three, potential harmful mutation from the future possibilities. Consider a scenario where A is best, and T, C, and G are equally worse. An Aâ>G mutation goes from a site have 0 beneficial, 0 neutral, and 3 harmful options to a site have 1 beneficial, 2 neutral, and 0 harmful options.
This is all in that long reddit post I linked earlier, if anyone wants a longer treatment of this problem.
In terms of âlightning striking twiceâ, thatâs irrelevant, since weâre only considering genome-wide probabilities here.
Once you can explain how this problem isnât actually a problem for the idea of genetic entropy, we can get into the more granular questions of mutational biases and epistatic interactions, if you want.
That the fossils are segregated is not due to preconceived ideas or interpretive frameworks. You can believe YEC, aliens built the pyramids, yogic levitation, or Dawkins might be your hero, the fossil record is still there. Nobody asked for it. Evolutionists did not invent it. There it stands regardless.
The segregation of the fossils fits just fine with science, however. Exactly as expected. Displaying segregation, showing progression. Answering questions. Resolving anomalies.
Agreed, the question is âwhy canât you explain anything about the fossil record?â
I doubt it. It is impossible for desert sands to be deposited during a flood. It is impossible for vertical strata to be deposited during a flood. It is impossible for incised meanders, raindrop impressions, dessication cracks, multi-level burrows, extremely fine silt, stacked forests, scree slopes, salt flats, subaerial lava flows, inverted footprints, block faults, stalactites/stalagmites, coprolites, hardgrounds, coral mounts, annual varves, unconformities, or the remains of more organisms than the planet could support simultaneously to be deposited during a flood.
If you want to claim otherwise, then explain how it is possible for these rocks to have been deposited during a flood.
There are thousands more examples of formations that could not be deposited by a single flood.
I say it would. It would do exactly what you claim it wouldnât based on animal size, agility, speed, eco systems, internal clocks (like hibernation to name one) and internal biological thermal mechanisms.
There is no âsupply of deleterious mutationsâ, just as there is no âsupply of typosâ. Back mutations are extremely rare and are inherently unlikely to happen (even as more and more of the genome gets mutated), since mutations are not random. The more mutations that accumulate, the more the information in the genome gets garbled. Since information content relies on context, not just individual letters, if you have so thoroughly mutated the genome that back mutations start to become probable in any sense, youâve already killed the population.
Since you refuse to discuss Genetic Entropy and are more interested in Noahâs Flood, please explain how the Flood produced this:
Here is a site in Bolivia with a 300â tall almost vertical limestone wall covered with dinosaur tracks. Over 5000 footprints total in over 400 distinct tracks from at least 8 different species. The area was a flat tidal basin 68 MYA when the dinos trod there. Over time it was covered under additional sediment and lithified, then plate tectonics lifted and tilted the whole slab and which was recently exposed by a combination of erosion and quarrying in the area.
Notice the excuse âthe dinos were running from the rising watersâ doesnât work because the tracks go indifferent directions, including some pointing straight down.
Well PD, can you please provide your Flood explanation?
More specifically, they tend to produce graded beds, upward-fining. But in the stratigraphic record, we see this sort of thing only locally in both horizontal and vertical space. I could show you places in which there are dozens of layered, upward-fining turbidites, each of them truncating the prior turbidite. But I canât show you any place where thereâs only one such sequence covering nearly the entire Phanerozoic.
Of course small floods produce stratification. But my point is that the continued portrayal of a global flood as violent and chaotic has more hurt our side than helped. Flood waters globally would have gradually rose and produced a slow kill of animals, sorting them by eco system, by internal clocks and internal thermal mechanisms.
to have been deposited during a flood.
