Doesn’t the fact there are so very many scientific “next things” I can stump your YLC claims with give you pause to think?
1 Like
Let’s try to keep this thread about the fundamentals of Genetic Entropy guys.
Apologies for the diversion. Good idea.
Then explain why the equine genetic data shows no signs of your claimed genetic entropy. Do only humans suffer GE and not all large animals species?
Explain why your pairs of animals on the Ark didn’t rapidly die out from GE.
1 Like
But wait. You surely know it works the other way around too? Right?
No, it doesn’t. I can counter every one of your YLC claims with solid scientific refuting evidence. All you can do is wave your hands. 
2 Likes
Ok, from a non-expert. I like Carter and Sanders? (who is it?). I think their idea of genetic entropy is fascinating. I must admit that I stand at arms length however regarding the data. Yes, of course life is young and yes of course human age has been declining from the time of the patriarchs, and yes it would fit in a prophetic kind of scenario if genetic information was declining. I like that they are working at this, however, I think several more hard looks at the data and evidence is warranted before I will be able to jump on board.
[Sandford]
Just remember, my recent hand-waving might have slapped you in the face :). No avarice intended. Just pun. How soon you forget.
[Avarice? wow, where did that come from? LOL. I mean malice]
I’ll accept your admission the data presented cannot be explained under the GE scenario. That makes the GE scenario wrong.
2 Likes
Whoa. No gloating.
OK, so based on discussion so far, these appear to be the fundamentals of Genetic Entropy:
-
It is impossible for fitness of a species to increase. Extinction is inevitable.
-
Increase in fitness of species, however, is an empirically demonstrated fact.
-
So when we say “fitness”, we actually mean something to do with information, or devolultion, or something like that. And we don’t really know how to measure that. It’s hard.
-
Also, we’re going to find Noah’s Ark some day, maybe.
Anything else?
4 Likes
ROFL.
That last one is my fault. But yeah, I will be excited about that.
Entropy didn’t exist until they sinned?
1 Like
Apparently genomic entropy will degrade all species to extinction except horses.
I for one welcome our new equine overlords!
2 Likes
Yawn.
You really should learn some biochemistry before pontificating. You’re wrong again.
The most common type of mutation is a transition:
A<–>G and C<->T
This is covered in basic biochemistry. Note that each base has only one way to go.
Transversions are >2x less common than transitions, despite having 2 different ways to go.
Therefore, it is painfully obvious that the most common mutation that can happen to a base that has been changed by the most common mutational mechanism is a reversion.
1 Like
It’s also worth noting that the published paper claimed that H1N1 was apparently extinct. It was published in 2012. They were wrong, but the “apparently” is an excuse, albeit weak.
@PDPrice, however, is trying to claim in 2018:
“It took the human H1N1 virus 90 years to go extinct (see below).”
There’s no evidence presented below that to even suggest that H1N1 is extinct. That is an objectively false, highly misleading, and literally dangerous claim.
So there’s no reason to bother with refuting the paper, which has been forgotten and was simply wrong.
The problem is that @PDPrice is trying to defend misinformation that is not supported by that 2012 paper today.
Yeah, what I said was an oversimplification (because not every base is equally likely), but as usual you’re nitpicking the details without doing anything to overturn the main point I was making, which was that back mutations are highly uncommon and do not really make much of a difference at all in the overall fitness distribution. It’s still overwhelmingly unlikely to hit the same spot twice at random.
1 Like