For all concerned: please go see my many posts where I have clearly stated that Mercer’s claims re: C&S paper are 100% false (and explained how). He does not appear to understand C&S research paper in the least, I’m sad to say. This is my final word on this matter because it’s already taken up too much time all over the place.
So the car is now more fit for the particular environment it is now functioning.
Your example shows the opposite of what you intended. Sorry.
1 Like
This is your final word on this matter because you have no place to go after backing yourself into a corner of deception.
1 Like
Sadly for you “PDPrice stated” does not rise to the level of acceptable evidence. Especially since so many of your previous claims have proven to be, er, “orthogonal to reality”.
How about that equine genetic history and the GE effects on the Ark pairs? Are you going to dodge them like you dodged all the previous geologic evidence?
Like it or not, this analogy captures very well what is happening with Lenski’s LTEE. The fact that you are laughing at it shows that you do not understand the science behind.
No, just when you misrepresent C&S paper and the creation.com articles.
Yeah I believe that would be correct. But you are misrepresenting C&S by claiming they are saying that the entire subtype H1N1 has gone extinct, and that is not their thesis.
So Lenski’s LTEE had little people deliberately throwing out genetic sequences knowing it would make the E coli perform better in the particular environment? Does Dr. Lenski know that amazing fact? 
Why did the little people only throw out the “bad” genes in 1 of the 12 lineages?
The original H1N1 went extinct, because of mutation. The H1N1 still with us is not the real deal because it is a mutation. Between Price and Mercer, PDPrice is the one with coherence issues.
Please go read the paper for yourself. This is not an accurate summary of it.
I read the paper and have referred to it extensively in other posts. The flaws in the paper are fundamental, extensive, irremediable, and have been accurately summarized.
1 Like
No GE in the real world equine genetic history data.
No GE for the pairs on the Ark.
No way to get PDPrice to deal with evidence he can’t explain.
Sad.
1 Like
Wrong. The car is more fit in this race situation because some parts of it have been destroyed. In the same way, the fitness of an organism in a particular environment can increase by mean of genetic deteriorations, ie., by GE.
1 Like
Give a real world example please. Things like loss of sight in blind cave fish were not caused by what Sanford defines as “genetic entropy.”
2 Likes
I’ve had a rapid look at your paper on equine genetic history and found nothing in it that substantiates your claim.
Show me in the paper the effects of genetic entropy. Show me the data indicating the horse genome deteriorating due to GE in the last 5000 years. Be specific.
I will give you credit for being braver than a certain YEC who’s too afraid to even mention the topic.
2 Likes
I’ve already given you one: Lenski’s LTEE
You claimed it, you didn’t show it. Talk is cheap for Creationists.
Lenski’s LTEE does not show what Sanford calls genetic entropy.
Why did only 1 lineage of the 12 show the effects? You forgot to explain that too.
1 Like
You are contradicting GE. GE says that fitness cannot be increased. It says the burglars must always be caught by the police.
Oddly, it also says the police must degenerate to the point that the burglars must get away.
GE is an incoherent mess, IOW.
1 Like
Then quote some of these alleged misrepresentations; no inaccurate paraphrasing as you do below. I also think that you need to formally retract the following claim in each of its respects, then:
You have not gone into that 2012 paper. You’ve just waved it around like some sort of magic talisman, when I’m pointing out that you are misleading innocent laypeople, today, on the Creation Ministries International web site.
You seem to be very, very confused (or trying very hard to obfuscate).
I haven’t made many claims about that paper, just quoted from the figure legend to illustrate the web articles’ misrepresentations of it and pointed out that its claim that H1N1 (which they clearly meant to include H1N1pdm09, as they circled its data points in the graph for emphasis) is “apparently extinct” is now clearly wrong. It was sketchy when they made the claim in 2012, but there’s simply no basis for it now.
That’s quite a claim. That would mean that I can demonstrate my understanding of any aspect in the 2012 paper for a libel action. Great! And it’s clear that @PDPrice is representing Creation Ministries International here.
Paul, please note that I’m not claiming that any part of that 2012 paper is clearly deliberately deceptive or necessarily must be retracted. It’s just bad. Very, very bad.
I am, however, very clearly pointing out that any claim that H1N1 is extinct or “disappeared from databases” in 2014 or 2018, as currently appearing on the Creation Ministries International web site under your name, or in 2019, is objectively false.
Your frantic attempt to make this about the published paper, instead of the misrepresentations on the Creation Ministries International web site (some under your name), is just silly.
Since my claim was correct, your 100% claim was false. Please retract it.
I have never done anything of the sort. They did not write that it has “gone extinct,” they wrote that in 2011 or 2012, it was “apparently extinct.” It is now apparent that it is not extinct.
I would ask you, as a Christian, not to put words in my mouth that I did not write or say.
Oh, and you just falsified your two claims that 1) you had put me on mute and 2) you had offered your last words on this matter. My, that was predictable!
@moderators I honestly believe this thread is becoming toxic (or it did a while back). My suggestion is close it, because I don’t see anything productive happening here. Just a lot of mudslinging. This is not the kind of dialogue that I believe this forum was created for.
1 Like