There are so many “and I’d like…” cracks one could make here.
But I’ll behave myself and say nobody, not Jeanson, not Carter, not any of the keyboard warriors who crib from the “professionals” have even accurately stated this objection. Jeanson strawman’s the stuffing out of it in “Replacing Darwin”. Just egregiously misrepresenting what the objection to his math is.
So yeah, I’d like to see an explanation, too. And I’d like…
An explanation for why he says “you assume constant rates of geology and astronomy so why cant I do it with genetics?”
Because 1) we dont assume that, take it up with the physicists since radioactivity is their domain, and 2) it isn’t justification for assuming the same in an unrelated field.
Yeah. I’d like that too. It’s a major nuisance.
No. Actually I know two couples that have had trouble conceiving with no biological children. I know one couple that had a dozen or more miscarriages and 1 biological child, and one friend that had cancer as a teenager and endometriosis and is pregnant with her second biological child. Humans are persistent if they want children. We can’t select this away.
We’re talking about slightly damaging mutations that accumulate over time. They aren’t lethal. I’ve wondered why the rate of autism is going up. I assume it’s more readily identified. That could be true, but it could also be true we’re accumulating more mutations and we’re seeing it more. There is a genetic component to it, so it is an example I wonder about.
But Sanford is arguing that there are many, many insignificant deleterious mutations that cannot be lost to natural selection.
You’re basically saying - my theory on evolution is right so yours has to be wrong. Not a good argument.
Honestly, the way mainstream science interprets genetic and evolutionary changes, to me it looks like arguing for miraculous patterns in the Bible or the Quran. You can do it in ANY book if you try hard enough.
There’s so much time and genetic changes to play with, scientists can make it look really good, when there’s nothing there.
All Jeanson has to do is show the y-choromosome rate invalidates the evolutionary model and his testable predictions validate his.
I state that impediment to child bearing is selectable, and you reply no? That is exactly what natural selection selects away. Not passing on one’s genes is the definition of what selection is. It does not matter your life story, either you passed on your genes or you did not, mutations and all, whether they be slightly deleterious or severe. You cannot pass on sterility to the children you do not have.
It’s not an argument at all. It is a logical necessity as @Rumraket explained.
I explained that there are serious problems with conception but people still have babies, and as many as others do who could conceive more.
I’m explaining why insignificant deleterious mutations over time adding up makes sense to me when I look at the health problems around me, and that that effect is more powerful than natural selection. If we continue to see infertility problems, but not sterility; if we continue to see rates of autism go up, these things may indicate we are slowly degrading.
He’s giving natural selection more power than he can prove it actually has, and saying that’s why creationism doesn’t work.
“… he says …”.
Does he provide anything else, or is it just “… he says …”? If not, why do you believe him, and only him?
As many as some others do. Not as many as all others do.
Do people who have serious problems with conception have, on average, less babies than people who don’t have serious problems with conception? If they do, your argument fails.
That’s confused. Yes, though it isn’t always successful (some couples with fertility problems never have children of their own) humans today have medical science to help them conceive a child if one or both of the parents have fertility issues. Even so, on average they have fewer than those without fertility problems.
That is one reason why the efficacy of natural selection in the human population is currently reduced, because we have become extremely good at helping people survive and reproduce where they would not have been able to “in the wild”. This is due to advances in technology and medicine. As little as 100 years ago, many of these recent advances didn’t even exist.
So for any organism “in the wild”, on average the couples who have fertility problems have fewer offspring. That means as a proportion of the population, they will decrease over time, until eventually they disappear entirely. This phenomenon contributes to the time-dependency of the mutation rate.
And it’s not us that is “selecting away” anything. The effect follows from the differential reproductive rates of different couples. Over time, if couples with some mutation A have more offspring than couples with another mutation B, the fraction of the population made up of A mutants will increase while B decreases.
I know. Even if that is true(it isn’t), there are also many significant deleterious mutations that are lost to natural selection. Those with the most strongly deleterious effects, such as lethal mutations or infertility mutations, are lost more quickly.
There is still a time-dependency to the rate of mutations if Sanford is right and most mutations have “invisibly” small deleterious effects, because Sanford doesn’t say all deleterious mutations have “invisibly” small deleterious effects.
No I didn’t “basically” say that at all. I gave a really good explanation for why there is a time-dependent rate of mutation. I summarized the conclusion that really does follow from what I explained. You even agreed that there must be at least some strongly deleterious mutations that aren’t passed on. Then it does follow logically that these mutations will not persist in the population.
And there are other deleterious mutations, with varying degrees of effect on survival and reproductive success.
I see. And you believe this also applies to fish, rodents, fungi, birds, malaria parasites and all those other millions of species of organisms that don’t have access to the advanced medical reproductive treatments and technologies that we humans have?
Please explain your reasoning.
Please find me somewhere in Sanford’s book where he shows a so-called “distribution of fitness effects of mutations”. There should be a page with a figure that shows what Sanford thinks is a good approximation to selective effects of mutations(which he either lifted or adapted from one of Kimura’s papers). It’s a figure that shows a curve. If you can, take a picture of that curve and post it here. Then I’ll ask you some questions about it.
Here is a repository of identified genetic disorders with the NIH. The list goes on and on, and is not close to exhaustive of many conditions with suspected linkages. Some are tolerable with social and medical support, the outcome of many is certain childhood death. Of course, there is a range of severity, as you have recognized concerning fertility. Some do not make it to birth, some are minimally impairing, and every shade of gradient between.
This is something you seem to be resisting although it is self evident, so I will repeat - the power of natural selection is not simply binary with respect to an given mutation in a population; if relatively fewer reproduce, that will trend to extinguishing the trait. This is pervasively true in nature, where populations are at saturation, competition for resources severe, and there are no participation ribbons. If you cannot accept that much, then that is just being willfully obdurate.
If Sanford now speaks for all creationism, then it is in a sad state indeed.
Since you are now doubting whether natural selection even occurs, could you explain how “genetic entropy” could be true without it?
Let’s wait until I finish the book and I check all the references. Then I’ll post a review and we can discuss. 
See above. You guys are still arguing that your evolutionary theory is right so therefore he’s wrong. Anyway, let’s stop for now and we can enjoy talking past each other when I finish the book. 
No you can’t just run away from this like that. Not necessary at all to finish the book and check all the references for us to look at that curve and try to understand what it shows.
So you’re quite literally saying “only Jeanson’s predictions matter, all those made by the Time-Dependency only look like they succeeded because the scientists are probably subconsciously manipulating their results to confirm the predictions. Bias and all that.”
If that isn’t what you meant, I’d like to know what you did.
No, nobody is arguing that. And you seem to be aware of what is going to happen, so you’re ducking out of the discussion now because you’re afraid of what will happen if you discover your own thoughts.
Is assuming you know what is in her mind is any more helpful than the assumption that atheists really believe that God exists? Just worried we may be hitting double standards?
I’m sorry but it’s just way too convenient to say you are only willing to discuss particular parts of the book (after having already quoted it several times in discussions) when you’ve finished reading it and checked all the references. That can take ages! So then she can just quote endlessly from the book, make countless assertions and declare they haven’t been sufficiently challenged, and then when it comes to analyzing it in detail she can just run away again and say she still needs to finish reading it and it’s references before she wants to discuss it.
Bullshit.
That’s just a painfully obvious excuse to run away when it’s getting tough. No, I’m not going to just shut off my ability to contextually gauge another person’s behavior.
Hey, I’m not saying that she shouldn’t be able to provide the info that you requested and to discuss that, ultimately that is her choice though. I just don’t see the benefit in aggressively asserting your belief that she is just running away, however frustrating her not responding may be (and is, for me as well).
To be fair, actually finishing the book may also give her a better discussion with you than responding now. Not saying it definitely will, but perhaps a delay isn’t always a bad thing
That’s fine, I post mainly for the benefit of other readers and lurkers anyways. 
