In the debate, I was using SLiM. Is that what you’re calling creationist math? I guess I’ll take that as a big compliment.
No no, this kind of sloppy spitballing isn’t going to cut it. Here are all the parameters you’ll need to account for:
Genome size in bp
Per bp germline mutation rate
Recombination rate
Effective population size (inbreeding)
Genome-wide DFE specifically for mus musculus (since DFE varies by species)
For each of these, you’ll need to cite your source.
Then you’ll need to run the simulation in SLiM, and show the exact code you used and the exact output of that code.
This is exactly what I did for humans in the debate! And that’s why it took months and months to prepare for the debate. Just running the simulation will likely take weeks of continuous computation, as it did for me.
First parameter: I’m running into paywalls, but best I can find is ~2.65 billion base pairs. What did you use for human? - I’m seeing ~3.1 billion base pairs.
Could someone please explain to me how Kondrashov’s paradox buttresses GE?
My understanding of the problem that this paradox presents was (is?) not that deleterious mutations are accumulating faster than natural selection can cleanse, but rather that NS is cleansing them faster than existing pop gen theory suggested (suggests?) that it should be able to.
This does not appear to buttress GE.
Admittedly I am not an expert in pop gen, and so could be misunderstanding this – but then neither are Paul Price or John Sanford.
No, you do not understand it at all. Why have you not watched the debate if you’re here commenting at this point? The problem is indeed that NS is unable to purge the majority of mutations.
And Darwin was a theologian, what’s your point? In terms of actual knowledge, I would say I know enough to be considered an expert on the very narrow specialized topic of genetic entropy & mutation load. Just being honest about my knowledge level, not saying that to puff myself up, and not claiming I deserve to be awarded a PhD or a professorship or anything of that kind. Nonetheless, many people on here, including those possessing PhDs, have made very elementary blunders in this area which I have been able to correct. The reason they blunder is that they never take the time to really pay attention to what John Sanford wrote. If they read his book at all, it’s only to trash it and find excuses to disparage him.
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?
GE is completely half-assed. Your version and Sanford’s.
You want something more than estimations based on what you said verbally during a debate? Do the bare minimum to be taken seriously in the scientific community. Publish your shit. Then people might do more than a passing sniff test.
That question wasn’t directed at you specifically (“Could someone” not “Could Paul”).
Your reply did not respond to that question.
I would therefore regard your reply as largely irrelevant.
And I should take the bald assertion of somebody lacking expertise on the subject of population genetics, credibility, or humility, on that?
I already answered that (repetitious) question Paul:
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?”:
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.
Then Paul, you need to provide empirical evidence “that NS is unable to purge the majority of mutations.”
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.
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.
My reasons for doubting GE go well beyond what genuine population geneticists tell me:
The lack of empirical evidence for GE.
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.
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’.
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.
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?
Well, again in reference only to the very narrow topic of genetic entropy and mutation load, I do indeed have decades of deep immersion in it, including having coauthored articles with Dr. John Sanford himself as well as other scientists, and creation apologetics was my full-time profession for six years. If your goal is to learn about genetic entropy, you have the right guy. But unfortunately you’d rather learn about it from people who deliberately refuse to understand it themselves.
This is the only other reply you’re getting from me. I did do exactly that, in the debate you refuse to watch. So your claim that you actually want to know about this proves to be entirely false. What you want is for a fellow evolutionist to give you a short paragraph that will allow you to become convinced that 1) you understand this when you don’t and 2) it’s no problem for evolution.
You shouldn’t be just taking anybody’s word for it. You should be investigating the evidence for yourself. The fact that you thought GE was based on NS purging too quickly proves you haven’t even done the most basic reading for yourself on this topic. You should definitely read both Sanford’s book and Kondrashov’s paper, and watch the debate (the most information-dense part is at the very beginning, so you would not need to watch all the way to the end of the Q&A). That is, if you actually care to know.
As for me, I think now is a very good time for me to take my leave from this forum once again, hopefully never to return. It’s been fun!
Six years (less than a single decade) across the dozens of scientific specialisations that YEC denies makes you a dilettante in each of them, not an expert in any of them.
How many papers on topics within population genetics, how many hours spent on them in total?
If my goal is to find somebody with sufficient background in pop gen to credibly say whether GE has a solid basis in that field, then I would suggest that it is highly questionable whether you are “the right guy”.
So says every disgruntled crank who lacks the depth and breadth in the wider field within which the claims lie, in order to credibly make a case for them to the scientific community.
Then why did @Rumraket, who apparently did watch the debate state:
I would note that “simulation[s]” are not “empirical evidence”. They are models, and like all models, the degree to which they approximate reality (always imperfectly) is dependent on how realistic the model parameters are, not just the modelling system (e.g. SLiM) employed.
Stricken in its entirety as nothing more than worthless and unsubstantiated Creationist projection.
I see the evidence that GE is bullshit every day that I walk through my city’s green belt Paul.
The fact that you believe that I stated that “GE was based on NS purging too quickly” means that you have completely failed to comprehend what I said.
That being so, it’s probably best that you depart – I find trying to hold conversations with people who are responding to a ‘Tim’ that exists only in their head to be both frustrating and unproductive.
Have fun basking in the adoration of your YEC echo chamber – I’m sure the vast majority of them know even less about pop gen than I do.
Indeed it has. While you are away I think you should spend some time pondering why even single genes show diminishing returns epistasis as their functions are improved, if your excuse is that microorganisms only show it because they’re somehow losing information/functionality/complexity in experiments.
That’s a creationist lie spread by charlatans who want to diminish Darwin’s scientific qualifications in the eyes of their fallacy-swallowing followers.
To be fair, faced with the choice of learning about genetics from geneticists and learning about genetics from creation apologists – the people who are embarassingly comfortable calling into question something as rudimentary as the thesis that DNA might have something to do with inheritance and relatedness – I, too, would elect to listen to the former.
This is neither right nor wrong, it is completely anachronistic. The University of London conferred the first Bachelor of Science degrees in 1860, a year after Origin of Species. The whole system of higher education in Britain traces back to theological studies. Most earlier discoveries in chemistry, astronomy, physics, and biology were by landed gentry and distracted clergymen. Credentials in the modern respect were still in utero.
As for your own claim, yes it is difficult but possible to gain expertise as a layperson, but in the absence of the rigor of obtaining a formal degree, the judgment of authority then rests upon the merit and originality of the contribution offered. Shoemaker and Humason were experts. To my recall, the record validates such individuals as having augmented understanding in concert with trained scientists, rather than challenging the consensus. You have put a tremendous amount of work into acquiring familiarity with concepts and tools of population genetics. Whether that qualifies you as an expert I will leave to you to defend and others to decide.
This as well. Background knowledge is important even for narrow and focused areas of investigation. The path to a degree in population genetics runs through general science, biology including organic chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, development, ecology, and general evolutionary mechanics, and these are important contexts for evaluating the application of specialized study or models. There is no being a expert in an particular area while deficient in the broader discipline.
When you go against all the people who work in the field, while having no formal education in it yourself, that’s strong evidence you’re a crank rather than an expert. We’ve already seen plenty of indicationts that Paul doesn’t know population genetics to anything approaching expert level, he just doesn’t want to admit that because it doesn’t look good with respect to his apologetics aims to do that.
