No, that’s an objectively false statement.
2 Likes
Okay, so this is as basic as I could possibly find it:
And here’s a slightly more advanced, but still entirely comprehensible one(the concept of fitness and relative fitness comes up later in the video):
3 Likes
Thanks.
But wow that first video already I have a lot of problems with. It seems like a very confused version of Medelian genetics. Can we have an example of a trait natural selection actually acts on?
I’ll take a look at the other tonight. The more questions I ask the less I understand the mainstream view of evolution. It makes me all the more frustrated by it and why you all think it explains anything of reality. But I’m in a bad mood right now. What I understand from Sanford so far is straightforward and a 13-year-old could get it.
Here is a great example we discussed last year.
1 Like
You might understand what Sanford claims. What you seem to be doing your best to not understand is all the scientific evidence you’ve been shown conclusively demonstrating Sanford’s GE claim is dead wrong.
2 Likes
Why?
No, not even remotely.
ROFL. I recommend that you look inward to find the reason for that.
An 8 year old can understand the concept of natural selection.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Cystic Fibrosis
2 Likes
Sickle-cell anemia. The relative fitnesses of the genotypes are entirely dependent on the presence or absence of malaria.
2 Likes
I like the title of the video series. 
Natural selection doesn’t act because of this mutation though - unless the environment changes? Unless I’m really misunderstanding the basics…
Ok - so far I understand that we do have entropy, but it’s not called that by mainstream science, and there are “up” powers of evolution to negate it that must be there because this is how we got here. And you can invoke unobserved “up” processes on complex organisms because that’s how we got here, but he cannot invoke unobserved stabilization processes on simple organisms because that’s not how we got here. And evolution works on complex organisms the same way it does on simple organisms like pathogens because, again, that’s how we got here. And none of this is a circular argument.
Did I miss something? But really if there is a particular thread you remember where the data conclusively shows genetic entropy is dead wrong, please link me. I don’t want to look stupid by continuing to be interested in something dead wrong. And I’m serious about that part.
Something the size of a battleship. Sanford’s claim is based on the YEC premise all species were created de novo only 6000 years ago and all have been degrading ever since. That premise was falsified over two centuries ago. We have tons of evidence life has been on the planet and not going extinct for over 3.5 BILLION years. I showed you DNA recovered from a fossil horse dating to 700,000 years ago, remember? Since life has been here that long without all going extinct from GE that means SANFORD IS WRONG. I really don’t know how to make it any simpler than that.
2 Likes
Did you bother to look at the evidence presented on the rock pocket mice? Or the evidence of the peppered moth? It’s aggravating when you ask for help then ignore it when it is provided. You do it on a regular basis too.
2 Likes
#headdesk
Again, that’s “it’s wrong because that’s not how we got here”
Find a better rebuttal. Perhaps aliens created us 20,000 years ago. Creationism doesn’t have to be true for it to be correct.
We don’t need a better rebuttal. That one kills Sanford’s YECkery deader than fried chicken. You need to work on finding some intellectual honesty. It’s pointless trying to educate someone determined not to learn.
1 Like
No, Sanford’s GE is wrong because all the physical evidence shows it is wrong. You don’t get to ignore evidence in science just because you personally don’t like it.
1 Like
My kids bedtime interrupted me looking back through the thread - and so I had forgotten about your reply so thanks for the reminder. I had watched the moth video. And I just read through the mouse thread. Those are both interesting examples of evolution and natural selection but that data doesn’t show genetic entropy to be false.
Sorry if I miss things. I try to get to as much if what people share as I can.
That’s what I’m asking for - which thread should I look at?
(facepalm) You didn’t ask for evidence GE is false. You specifically asked for real world instances of natural selection. Can you understand why it gets so frustrating to teach you science?
Almost every thread at PS ends up with evidence life wasn’t created only 6000 years ago. You can also easily find such evidence with a 10 second Google search. You claim a 13 year old can understand Sanford yet you can’t figure out how to work a search engine?
Your demands to be spoon fed are getting more over the top all the time. When we show you evidence you ignore it with some silly rationalization “maybe space aliens did it 20,000 years ago”.
Here’s a thread with the evidence for the sequenced 700,000 year old horse genome. There’s also a link to the oldest sequenced human genome at 430,000 years old.
Do you think Sanford can tell us why horses haven’t gone extinct from GE in 700,000 years?
2 Likes
Different environments change the fitnesses of the genotypes. Some places have malaria, some don’t. Some places have much more virulent malaria, other places don’t. Fitnesses will be different between them too.
You’re really, really misunderstanding the basics.
That was a terrible bit of sleight-of-hand.
1 Like
Thanks. I definitely need to watch the whole series. He barely spent anytime on fitness there unfortunately. I noticed he had survival/reproduction up on the screen once as well without calling that fitness. But survival is only important through reproductive age because if you had more kids then died early you’d still be considered more fit. So it is not a very clear concept. I’m curious to see how he covers natural selection in later videos also.
That’s what I was saying…
You need genetic data to show Genetic Entropy to be false, and then you have more ground to stand on regarding dating of human and other fossils.
We have it; Tim linked to the horse data. Why don’t you examine the data for yourself?
3 Likes