Genetic Entropy

Well, here's where your argument falls down, isn't it? The human race cannot sustains its "present" mutation rate and that projecting "present" conditions into the past, Sanford has shown that our race cannot be more than a thousand generations old.

Surely, you of all people can see the error in Sanford's logic there? Or do I need to spell it out for you?

It's no surprise that most mutations are neutral or detrimental. Scientists know this already: Marianne Imhof and Christian Schlotterer, Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations, PNAS January 30, 2001 vol. 98 no. 3 1113-1117

What scientists are arguing are that beneficial mutations are selected for. Are you saying this does not happen? Lenski has proved you otherwise with his E. coli. Or are you saying that the beneficial mutations are far too low?

Well, how low? Can you provide us with evidence to show us how low it really is? Actual evidence and not a book cover?

Not to mention this Sanford's argument seems to be nothing more than a rejuvenated 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument, which is a rather tired old argument that has been shown to have no merit before.

I'll need more time, however, to come up with a proper reply. Unlike Creationists, I don't accept any old crap that's presented to me and actually go find the actual research papers.

EDIT: Well, that took me less time than I originally thought. At first, I thought you'd actually found some obscure point that scientists had actually overlooked. But a quick search proved me wrong.

Let me give you the URL for a research paper that directly refutes Sanford's claims:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794

In it, one Dr. Thomas Schneider details that genomes deteriorate in the absence of a selection process, but that when the genomes are subject to a selection process, the information content - defined in terms of Shannon information as described in that paper- tends to a maximum.

So yes, Sanford is correct, if we can assume that for entire history of humankind, there have been no selection pressures on the human race. For all of human history. That is, of course, pure bunkum.

I haven't noticed any mutations in the human race.

What exactly do you have in mind? I hope it isn't having different types of curtains or hem lengths.

There's a whole chapter in the book which explains why natural selection cannot solve the problem.

Yes, that's why Evolution also includes the process of genetic drift. Your point being?

And it's very telling that you provide no arguments for any of your positions. Instead, you ask us to go buy a book. Whereas I and others tend to state our arguments right here and provide sources that if aren't free, at least allow you to view the abstract for free.

You do neither.

The biggest part of the problem is probably the phenotype/genotype thing...

Basically nucleotides and genes and chromosomes don't get engaged and marry each other; people do. Sanford notes that it's all of the little minuscule mutations which nobody notices which are in the process of sending the genome over some sort of a cliff.

One scene which you will never see in a movie would be this:




Within my experience, women do not think like that.

In your case, it couldn't hurt anything.

It would be a waste of money buying a book that contains unpublished and therefore baseless "science". Can you prove that anything Sanford says is anchored in reality?

I've already provided you with one research paper that trashes Sanford's claims and one that shows you that scientists know that most mutations aren't beneficial. Can you actually provide anything to support you or Sanford's claims?

No? I didn't think so.

Every book ever written was "unpublished" before the author wrote it (or was born)....

Sanford has been to the GSA meetings as a proponent of a YEC. His areas of expertise do not include geochronology or sedimentology/stratigraphy. However he doesnt let mere ignorance stop him.
He states unambiguously that the earth is no older than 100000 years. What else can he be all wet on?

fm continually writes, when he's not shitting on me-



What about the Federal Reserve Board fm?

what about it? Is there a question you wish answered?

That would be towards the lower end of what I'd view as possible. My own GUESS would be somewhere from about 200,000 to about 20,000,000. That is, viewing the planet as a collection of rocks. Our living world, I'd guess more llike 20,000 to about 50,000.

The standard dating schemes we read about have been adequately shown to be FUBAR and I'd discount them along with blowhard apologists for them like farmerman here.

who,...(gunga forgets to state)... is involved in various geochronology schema for his daily bread . What expertise does gunga bring to the table?
None but a solid worldview that is unusable for any technology. If youre such a genius in age dating gunga, give us some direction. Heaven knows you can set straight all these folks who are laboring under the misapprehension that the passage of time can be discerned from the layers of rock and their different environmnets represented.


Ignorance may be bliss gunga, just dont rush out into traffic, youll lose.

gungas "data "

So you disagree with the very fellow that you are holding up to the light as a paragon of the perfect scientist. At least you admit that hes fdulla **** about age dating , because you seem to disagree a few orders of magnitude from his "calculations". Where else is he out on a limb??

I see that you seem to blend in with lord Kelvins estimates because of heat dissipation. Lord Kelvin was pretty much ignorant of rad decay . However you, several generations beyond Kelvin, are still locked in his ignorance. HMMMM.

Sometimes science advances .

I made a polite request of fm asking him-



in relation to a signature which he has now removed in which he admonished us to-



when we are told it already has a majority of Catholics and the other four members are unlikely to be lefties and all he can come up with is a limpy,wimpy-



Well--yes-- there was actually fm.

Do you answer your student's questions in this woeful manner as a general rule or was it a one off aberration?

It was your signature we began with if you can remember that far back.

We are all suffering from this sub-prime thing and keeping the Fed's rediscount rate low enough to fuel speculative lending in the mortgage market is a rightish policy isn't it?

And a policy of significantly more importance to your friends and allies than anything the USSC has come up with. We lost a bank.

But let it pass old boy if you don't know anything about anything you don't know about.

I suppose that there was a question in there somewhere. However, I dont know how youve arrived at your latest digression point. I certainly dont have the capability nor the interest in clawing through the fudge.

Why dont you just ask one of your bar buddies to translate whatever you say into English and Ill try my best to answer them. Youre just a pitiable old clown whose into mostly meaningless verbal masturbation.

Once again, if you wish questions to be answered, try sticking to the point of the query and drop all your fantasies about bow legged women, Her MAjesty the Queen, ladies undergarmensts, or other peoples sig lines. Oh yeh, while Im at it, why not try and refrain from your acres of meaningless insertions that you load into your dimbulb posts so that the rest of us will be suitablyimpressed with your cerebral schlong.

Well fm- you are not suitably impressed it seems so what makes you think others might be.

I don't respond to questions by declaring them "fudge" and then saying that I have neither the capability nor interest in clawing through it.

If the Federal Reserve Board is to the right then the USSC is likely to be as it's members will be beneficiaries of the FRB's policies. So how do you prevent the USSC being to the right if the FRB is to the right.

I'm sorry, but was that the best argument you can come up with, Gunga? An ad hominem attack pared with a bit of semantic apologetics? No real evidence for your position or for anything Sanford actually says?

I thought so.

When you publish a book about science, it's usual to base the comments on actual published scientific findings. So if Sanford makes all these claims, where's the evidence to back him up?

How come I can provide one piece of evidence that contradicts him whereas you can't provide anything to back up his comments?

Corellation same as causation, fm?

Recognizing that 'when we find A, we usually find B' is not the same as 'A caused B' nor 'B caused A'.

You're very good at locating minerals or oil or whatever it is you're hunting, I'm sure. Congrats.

That doesn't mean that inferences drawn about their age (nor about how they got there) are correct.

Wildcatters have been finding oil for 100 years and not all of them shared your view on how old it must be.