Side comments: Genetic Entropy will be debated once again

[Tim]

Hi Paul.

My core question was:

@Tim

Could someone please explain to me how Kondrashov’s paradox buttresses GE?

1. That question wasn’t directed at you specifically (“Could someone” not “Could Paul”).

2. Your reply did not respond to that question.

I would therefore regard your reply as largely irrelevant.

@UncensoredPilgrims

No, you do not understand it at all.

And I should take the bald assertion of somebody lacking expertise on the subject of population genetics, credibility, or humility, on that?

@UncensoredPilgrims

Why have you not watched the debate if you’re here commenting at this point?

I already answered that (repetitious) question Paul:

@Tim

1. Because watching a 138 minute video for this small amount of information would appear be very inefficient.
2. Because many people find it easier to assimilate information that is read, rather than listened to.
3. There is no guarantee that your description of [Kondrashov’s paradox] in the debate contains all the information that people might need to evaluate it.

I would add that, on the specific point of understanding Kondrashov’s paradox, the ‘horse’s mouth’ is not a debate on some low-rent Youtube apologetics channel, but Kondrashov’s own paper, which asks, in its title, the question “why have we not died 100 times over?”:

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have...

I would suggest that any suggestion that I am misunderstanding his paradox, should have its basis in that paper, not in discussion of it in some debate.

@UncensoredPilgrims

The problem is indeed that NS is unable to purge the majority of mutations.

Then Paul, you need to provide empirical evidence “that NS is unable to purge the majority of mutations.”

@UncensoredPilgrims

And Darwin was a theologian …

No Paul

Darwin was not a theologian. Yes, his undergraduate degree was in theology, but he abandoned the field after he graduated.

Darwin was a biologist because (i) he devoted his life to the field of biology, and (ii) his work was foundational in biology becoming a coherent subject. His work is in fact a significant part of the reason that biologists after him are able to take it as an undergraduate course.

Your situation, and Sanford’s, are nothing like Darwin’s.

These sorts of confidently-stated, blatantly-untrue claims are part of the reason why apologists have all the credibility of a crack-addicted, schizophrenic used-car salesman.

Yes, it is possible, and not uncommon, for people to develop expertise in a subject other than that of their undergraduate degree. But it typically takes decades of deep immersion (far beyond reading up on it, and creating a few theoretical models, in order to make apologetic arguments about the subject). This will almost-certainly involve the field being their full-time profession.

@UncensoredPilgrims

I would say I know enough to be considered an expert on the very narrow specialized topic of genetic entropy & mutation load.

And “I would say” that you appear to lack sufficient of a deep and broad understanding of population genetics to provide a proper foundation on that narrow subject, let alone for you to be a legitimate “expert” on it.

@UncensoredPilgrims

But naturally you only want to hear from experts that are going to tell you everything’s OK and evolution is not in doubt, right?

My reasons for doubting GE go well beyond what genuine population geneticists tell me:

1. The lack of empirical evidence for GE.
2. The empirical evidence against it, and GE-proponents ad hoc hand waving to dismiss that evidence – giving the appearance that GE is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific.
3. The fact that (2) suggests that GE lacks the rigor and precision to be considered a serious hypoothesis, rather than one that is ‘not even wrong’.
4. The fact that as somebody, whilst lacking a background in population genetics, has a strong background in statistics, GE doesn’t seem intuitively plausible to me.
5. My impression that Sanford misinterprets Kimura.

This is all before we even address GE’s ubiquitous lack of scientific acceptance.

Paul in your OP of this thread you whined piteously about “a one-sided echo chamber”. The “echo chamber” opposing GE includes the vast majority of the scientific community, many of whom know vastly more about population genetics, and the correct usage, and known limitations, of theoretical pop gen models, than you do.

Ask yourself why I should take your word over theirs, and why I should watch your debate rather than read Kondrashov’s own paper?