|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: J.C.Sanford: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Brad writes: given a few minutes one can stop in an instant. Perfect. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'll tell you what's sophomoric: trying to pretend this is anything other than disagreement. I'm not fooled, how 'bout the rest? Anyone fooled by this stinking, rotten garbage? Does anyone believe for one instant that Jar does not disagree with my statement? Who is "pretending" that jar is not disagreeing with you?
Come on! One of you known, habitual liars please claim that you are. Isn't that exactly what you're here for? I'm talking about you cats that anything you say on any topic, I don't even have to bother looking it up to know it's false. One of you slimes make Jar feel better and say you're deceived. By what?
I could pity those here who are fighting for a lost cause... I prefer to mock them, maybe it's just me.
Honestly, any child who gives a few minutes of thought to the issue can see that entropy's going to outpace natural selection. I suppose a child might think that, if an adult told him this particular lie and he didn't know what "entropy" meant.
Dr. Sanford's done the math now... Which, for some reason, you do not cite.
...using evolutionist's own formulas I think you'll find that "evoutionist's own formulas" do not include any quantity measurable in joules per kelvin.
Men of character don't deal with such things by changing the subject or spouting lies. The irony is strong with this one.
I know you folks and probabilities. Any odds can be overcome just by wishing hard enough, right? Obviously none of us thinks that. Whom are you trying to fool?
I think I'll go now. Maybe check those links. Judging by Dr. A's denials, it's a safe bet what they said. "You just made that up" is not what most folks use as a synonym for "That's the fact, Jack!" or "Amen brother, tell it like it is!" But we're all individuals. I try to adjust. This is barely coherent, but I believe that you're upset at the way I point out that made-up stuff is made up. I'm glad you're trying to adjust to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Brad McFall wrote: Well, this is why it somewhat matters what kind of entropy one has given to thought. Indeed! Physical entropy and informational entropy are two different things. I almost wish the term "degradation" would just replace "entropy". Information is usually thought of as being lost due to copying errors. It can also be lost when the medium is damaged or destroyed (as when a book burns). Information is real, but it is not physical, and never can be. Perhaps I should not have said entropy is going to outpace selection. It would be better to say it is outpacing it. We have more defects than we can count, and they're continually increasing. On the other hand, we see no evolution among humans or any other living things. The race is so lopsided it's no contest. Evolutionists (the less truth-averse variety, at any rate) are always saying the reason we can't see evolution is because it works so slowly. Our genes aren't deteriorating slowly; it can be seen from one generation to the next. It has been seen, and measured. (The rate is much higher than the speculations or "educated guesses" of decades past.) The only way around it is blind faith that some undetected force will somehow dictate that evolution wins the race. I lack such faith. I got a particular kick out of that one clown "faulting" Dr. Sanford for not taking into account (imaginary) long eons. Let's see... if we launch one rocket out into space at 18,000 MPH, and launch another one on the same vector at 17,000 MPH... does it matter how many years or millions of years we calculate their travel? The slower rocket will never catch up no matter how much time we allow. No person with a lick of sense would even bother to ask. But those who'd like to change the subject, maybe they'd have a motive to ask. And pray to their gods of nothingness and untruth that folks are too stupid to catch on... Don't hold your breath waiting for them to actually get around to Dr. Sanford's science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Don't hold your breath waiting for them to actually get around to Dr. Sanford's science. This despite the fact that you will not actually post any of Sanford's science due to concerns about copyright. What do you want us to do, all go out and buy the book? Does that really seem likely? Why notsuggest to Dr. Sanford instead that he get his science published somewhere scientific.
Evolutionists (the less truth-averse variety, at any rate) are always saying the reason we can't see evolution is because it works so slowly. So when you say 'evolution' presumably what you mean is cats giving birth to dogs. Otherwise your statement makes no sense since we see many of the processes of evolution observable in a tenable time frame occurring.
Our genes aren't deteriorating slowly; it can be seen from one generation to the next. Only if you start from the a priori assumption that any change from the parental genome is degradation, which is kind of assuming the answer you want to get. If you are claiming that every offspring has clear functional differences which make them less fit than their parents then you are going to need more than a book and some blather, this is the sort of claim that should be substantiated by research if there is any substantiation for it at all. You certainly can't expect a mathematical model to be a substitute for actual evidence.
It has been seen, and measured. (The rate is much higher than the speculations or "educated guesses" of decades past.) This seems especially hypocritical when the researchers suggesting a high rate of deleterious mutations are basing their estimates on divergence between human and other primates genomes, particularly those of chimps. Surely this isn't considered a viable basis for such measurements by anyone who denies common ancestry and an posits an age for the Earth of no greater than 100,000 years, as Sanford testified at the Kansas evolution hearings. Such changes in the time scales involved or denial of the descent of humans and chimps from a common ancestor is going to radically change the interpretation of the data that current estimates of deleterious mutation are based on (Keightley et al, 2005; Nachman and Cromwell, 2000, Gianelli et al., 1999) and certainly would render those rates invalid. Interestingly the Gianelli et al. paper which takes a mutation rate estimate most directly from human clinical data gives the lowest estimate for the deletrious mutation rate. Crow's paper, which you mentioned earlier and dismissed despite not having actually bothered to read, is primarily discussing the increase in mutation due to parental age, particularly paternal age. He notes a number of differences in modern culture which are the result of new medical technologies and attitudes such as the hugely improved rates of survival for mothers and children in childbirth which radically affect the operation of natural selection on the population and argues that these factors are allowing an increased accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations which might otherwise be being removed from the population through his hypothesised quasi-truncation selection model. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Information is usually thought of as being lost due to copying errors. No. Genetic information is changed by copying errors.
Perhaps I should not have said entropy is going to outpace selection. It would be better to say it is outpacing it. No, this is no better. The word "entropy" has a meaning, and it does not mean "a magic word which makes creationists right".
We have more defects than we can count, and they're continually increasing. Evidence?
On the other hand, we see no evolution among humans or any other living things. Er ... yes we do.
Evolutionists (the less truth-averse variety, at any rate) are always saying the reason we can't see evolution is because it works so slowly. No. This is why you cannot quote any evolutionist saying that "we can't see evolution".
Our genes aren't deteriorating slowly; it can be seen from one generation to the next. It has been seen, and measured. By whom? Where is this published? What are the units in which "deterioration" is measured?
The only way around it is blind faith that some undetected force will somehow dictate that evolution wins the race. The only way around what? You've produced no evidence for your barely-coherent assertions, you've just said a lot of stuff. You would also notice, if you weren't so fond of lying about your opponents, that none of us has blind faith, nor even well founded belief, in some "undiscovered force" that makes evolution work. We know how evolution works.
Don't hold your breath waiting for them to actually get around to Dr. Sanford's science. I'm still holding my breath waiting for you to post some of Dr Sandford's science. Or any science. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dr. Sanford's argument is not that there are no beneficial mutations. He mentions this ...
Ricardo Azevedo (from the link): At the end of the previous installment I began examining Sanford's arguments as to why "random mutations are never good". Are his own words sufficient evidence that he did indeed say that? We'll see. Presumably, when Azevedo quotes Sandford as saying that "random mutations are never good", he is quoting the part where, as you admit, Sandford "mentions" that there are no beneficial mutations.
The arguments are mischaracterized further, and the author seems content to resort to the familiar "straw man" theme. If Sandford says, as you have admitted, that there are no beneficial mutations, then disagreeing with this is not attacking a straw man.
Even if I were setting out to deceive someone, I'd try to do a quality job of it. Not on your present showing. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: I must admit that I do not have a clear sense of what this “rate” is or must be(not that I didn’t try to get a job working on it however). Such an intuition seems pregnant in Gould’s writing but I fear that he simply had the time differentiation of any arbitrary variable in mind when assessing its valuation. He seems to have constructed a system of concepts around a general idea that whatever this “rate” is it is not in line withACMI - Page not found | ACMI: Your museum of screen culture Kelvin Thompson’s thought process (unless there IS direct imposition of force which Gould also doubts is to be a centerpiece of the hierarchic expansion of evolutionary theory). Yet to distinguish which comes first the white patch or the patch of white seems like no matter the evolution is it has to deal with this thought process at least phenomenologically. Gould’s ideation (as a foil to compare from) which rejects both Fisher’s and Thompson’s views directly bearing on thermodynamics and fitness or geological time seems to explain to me why Gould’s science is not able to get where I am going with this distinction of entropy. Of course I am not “going” anywhere but it is not the Red Queen viewpoint. That’s the biological part.
quote: Besides what can be either deterministically or logically determined there is “the” extant statistical problem. A topic may be fairly well reflected on but lack the proper statistical test of or for its reality. When one makes the lopsided observation, which is easy enough, this is, (in addition to your narration seems to me), in part because the statistical test to extract selection from other causes has not been made. Look simply at the difference of opinion between Fisher and Wright and it is easy to see how this tension can be increased by more sophisticated statistical approaches to data synthesis. If or when some new stat system is created entropy turns to mud not matter how many years it had been outpacing prior. The work of Bill Shipley has not been applied to Sanford’s vs. Gladyshev’s approach to the same organ under entropy, no matter how formally. analyzed. My preference is with Wright but there may be Brits more interested in Fisher’s approach. Dawkins’ is always going to disagree with me on this point, no matter how much physics is brought into the praxis. The difficulty DOES come down with the word “copy”, while you spelled ,quote:as Bertrand Russell has referred to something he called “faint copies” . I could get into this in this thread but I DO understand your point. To know whether something is damaged or deteriorated one needs to know the difference of the “utility” vs. “adaptation” of the thing. It is not clear to me that information entropy is able to encompass any permutation of the relation to terms to these concepts while phenomenological thermodynamic entropy may. The adaptation of an object need not have the end of being *possibly* asymptotically fully utililized while the use of the same object indicates a limit otherwise. Information entropy only seems to apply to this difference if there was absolute place and science can indeed be done without that. Otherwise information entropy must be restricted to the form of the communication channel as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
I see it may bear repeating that Dr. Sanford gives evolution every benefit of the doubt in his models.
It's pointless to quibble over mutation rates when he's using a very low rate (bordering on unrealistic). He's generous with the mythical "beneficial mutations", whether he believes in them or not. Let no reader be misled by whiners or liars. There's a lot of hard work behind this book, and it's solid. One who prefers evolutionism to truth will probably not enjoy reading it; but for others I recommend it without reservation. The purpose here was to review the book. I think that's been accomplished.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
CTD writes: We have more defects than we can count, and they're continually increasing. Our genes aren't deteriorating slowly; it can be seen from one generation to the next How many generations have there been since Adam and Eve first screwed it all up for the rest of us? If each generation has more and more defects to the point we cannot even count them... I would like to see your evidence. With what you have said so far I am amazed that humans are still capable of live birth.
And pray to their gods of nothingness and untruth that folks are too stupid to catch on... What I hope for is they continue to restrict people from enrolling in university before filling out the "are you a Godless sinner" application first. What would we do if real people could become scientists? Suddenly all truth breaks loose and science might actualy progress for a change, we havent seen progress yet - why start now, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I see it may bear repeating that Dr. Sanford gives evolution every benefit of the doubt in his models. Which you still refuse to share with us for some mysterious reason.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024