Yes, the timeline of GE does not match up with the old-earth timescale. That’s why some population geneticists like Kondrashov have been asking, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”
Technical quibble: since modern humans are primates, there is no move needed. On the other hand, given that every living species traces its ancestry back to the LUCA, somewhere close to 4 billion years ago, shouldn’t all life be basically non-existent?
1 Like
What # would you like? Once we get that high it all gets ridiculous, so I stop paying attention anyway.
So, what number do you like?
I asked you. What led you to conclude that the evolution of humans from non human primates took place over two million years
1 Like
The answer is simple: GE isn’t true. Given that the old-earth timescale is correct, and all the data show that it is, GE is impossible.
3 Likes
Well excuse me. I got my evolution science wrong. Well I guess I can be excused because personally it is all nonsense. But my question was sincere and @PDPrice gave a good answer and he even added a name of a geneticist I would like to look up and research.
Yes, that’s true: when you ignore all conflicting data (like GE, for example).
This is more of an argument from authority than what you accused @swamidass of earlier.
Kondrashov is mentioned in Sanford’s book, Genetic Entropy. If you haven’t read it, I really suggest you do. It’s great.
Sorry, I just don’t care enough to answer.
That the whole issue. Genetic entropy hinges on the constant accumulation of harmful mutations. That’s why Sanford picked the word “entropy”. He’s very explicit about drawing a parallel to the inevitable nature of thermodynamic entropy. If such mutations are constantly reversed (and reversion becomes more frequent over time, as harmful mutations accumulate), then genetic entropy is wrong.
And since we agree that that is what happens, as your own example demonstrates, well…
Are you deliberately trying to melt every Irony-Meter in the hemisphere? You’ve ignored every last piece of data contradicting your YEC / GE claims shown. Every. last. One.
1 Like
You cannot be excused.
Aren’t you ignoring all conflicting data when you reject the “old-earth timescale”? Given GE, shouldn’t species with much faster generation times than humans all be dead by now? Why are there still mice, fruit flies, paramecia, and such?
2 Likes
…but they aren’t. Back mutations are overwhelmingly unlikely, and exceedingly rare. The vast majority of mutations are never reversed by back mutations. The genome is huge, meaning the difference in probability you’re talking about here is minimal, unless you have an extremely, unrealistically high load of mutations already in place.
What did I miss. I thought the reversions were gibberish? How do they help?
Incidentally, did Kondrashov answer his question?
See: https://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms
The same questions keep getting asked (this was asked last time there was a GE thread here). And I answered it then, too.
The probability of any specific back mutation is very low. But as mutations occur, the probability of back mutations, in general, increases.
Do you dispute that statement?
Which is why GE is wrong. We have literally millions of pieces of evidence and scientific research papers showing life has been on the planet for at least 3.8 billion years. You’ve dodged and evaded every one shown to you.
Of course you ignore the fact Kondrashov answered his own hypothetical question immediately after.
2 Likes
I dispute that this tautology has anything to do with GE in real life. See my previous responses here.