That’s not reality. That is something creationists made up.
There is no evidence that any genome was originally perfect. You are also forgetting about natural selection which removes deleterious mutations. Evolution isn’t random. Evolution proceeds through selection which is the opposite of random. Buildings don’t reproduce, nor are the subject to natural selection, so they are not a valid analogy for biology.
There is no 100% thermodynamically efficient system in any biological organism.
The irony being AI are developed through evolutionary processes where random changes to their matrices are filtered through a selection step so that their predictions improve over time.
I’d forgotten I’d written that much to Sanford. I was more ambitious back in the day. In summary: Sanford’s model has zero theoretical justification, zero empirical support, and a large body of evidence contradicting it.
Much better would be for you to demonstrate that an open system of high genetic fidelity could operate under perfect steady-state equilibrium (whatever exactly you mean by that phrase). With appropriate calculations of, for example, the efficiency and entropy gain of a select set of chemical reactions you are postulating to have occurred in that system. It is the responsibility of the person proposing a radical new theory to provide the calculations and the evidence that support it, at least if they want anyone else to pay attention to it.
One can indeed postulate an infinite number of ways the universe could have operated at some point in the past. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, none of them warrants more than an infinitesimal amount of attention unless there’s some kind of evidence to suggest it has some validity.
That’s not a law – it’s a set of contradictory claims invented by a creationist and supported by no evidence.
A completely useless concept. There is no objective way of determining whether an system is specified in Dembski’s sense, and it is equally impossible to tell whether it is complex in his sense, i.e. that it is too improbable to have happened without intelligent guidance. The concept boils down to, ‘If it couldn’t have occurred without guidance, it didn’t occur without guidance’, which hardly advances our knowledge of biological systems and design.
More precisely, it demonstrate that one biochemical process operates with high efficiency thanks to quantum effects. The vast majority do not.
I don’t know if you’re talking about protein folding or the evolution of protein sequence, but in either case your statement is wrong.
This is also quite wrong. Modern population genetics says nothing of the sort. (And of the two of us, I’m pretty sure I’m the only one who is a population geneticist.)
That’s a little high but in the right ballpark.
True.
False. Your statement contradicts everything we know about human genetics.
I received my PhD in physics long after the 19th century. What you are proposing is simply not consistent with current understanding of either physics or genetics.
It is revealing that, faced with the impossibility of offering a technical response to the reality of Genetic Entropy or Kondrashov’s Paradox, the debate has shifted toward the nature of linguistic tools. Attempting to invalidate an argument based on the use of AI for translation is the definitive proof that the technical ground of your position has collapsed. If the precision of my arguments seems “artificial” to you, it is because you have grown accustomed to a dialogue that avoids the laws of information and high-fidelity biophysics.
Withdrawing under the excuse of AI or using acronyms like PRATT is not an act of rigor, but an intellectual capitulation. You have failed to explain why life persists in the face of a degrading mutational load, nor have you been able to theologically reconcile a God of life with an original design of death. My thesis remains bulletproof because it integrates cutting-edge science with Revelation, while your position takes refuge in reductionism and personal disqualification.
I have presented the facts: Biological Inertia, 99.9% Genomic Fidelity, and Luciferian Manipulation. If you prefer to ignore these pillars to focus on translation software, it is a choice that confirms your argumentative defeat. Truth does not depend on language or the tool, but on its coherence with reality. The debate ends here, not due to a lack of substance on my part, but due to the absence of rebuttals on yours.
It is fascinating, though predictable, to observe how this panel of supposed experts retreats into semantic noise when faced with a logical architecture they cannot corrupt. Your obsession with translation tools or worn-out acronyms is the definitive symptom of an intellectual pathology: when you cannot stifle the truth, you attempt to disqualify the language in which it is delivered. If you require a doctorate to ignore the evidence of systemic degradation, then your titles are not tools of knowledge, but shields against reality.
To the “physicist” who pretends that entropy is a negotiable law: your appeal to the “normality” of thermal dissipation only reveals your myopia. To ignore the quantum efficiency of lossless transport that persists today in residual form within biology is like denying the existence of engines by observing only the exhaust smoke. You study the residue, the friction, and the failure, and you have the audacity to call that “original design.” A high-fidelity living system is not a chemical impossibility; it is the gold standard of which you are merely a blurred and decaying copy.
To the “geneticist” who plays with statistics to hide the collapse: your defense based on rodents is an insult to serious population genetics. To pretend that purifying selection can halt the flood of 100 micro-deleterious mutations per generation in the human genome is pure magical thinking. You observe the inertia of an airplane that is still gliding and conclude that it never needed engines. The only reason humanity has not collapsed under the weight of its own mutational load is because the initial anchor was a Genome of Total Perfection (99.9%). Without that high-fidelity origin, your models of evolution would not be science; they would be obituaries.
Death is not a “natural” process or a population management tool; it is the signature of Luciferian Manipulation in a system that has lost its original coherence. Your arguments regarding overpopulation or the utility of extinction are the rationalizations of a slave who has learned to love his chains. I have integrated quantum biophysics, information thermodynamics, and Revelation into a monolithic block. You have offered only pedantry and evasiveness. I do not expect you to respond with science, for you have already demonstrated that your only defense is silence or sarcasm. Truth does not seek your consensus; it simply leaves you behind.
You are new here and so probably don’t know the rules of this forum but the moderators @moderators recently have forbidden the simple postings of AI-generated messages (in any language). If English is not your first language and you wish to communicate on this forum, please write a message in your own words in Spanish, and then use a tool like “google translate”.
No one, including Sanford, has demonstrated that all mutations are deleterious or micro-deleterious. That’s the issue here. If you are basing your argument on Sanford’s work then you are building your house on sand, to use a Biblical reference. Genetic entropy is not taught in any science class at any level of education, it is not taken seriously by working scientists, and it is only taken seriously by creationists who have a problem with evolution. It is bad science and bad apologetics.
Okey quieres español. Aquí está mi español. Y voy a dejar de hablar. Tan “técnico” para que me entiendas. Google traductor, es AI. Si prohíben eso, entonces la prohibido usar esa herramienta. Así que si permiten Google traductor. Entonces permiten que yo, como hispano hablante. Use, cualquier AI. Para traducir
It is ironic that you waste so much energy trying to bury Genetic Entropy under labels like “bad science” when the daily clinical reality of each one of you refutes you. If mutational load were not a cumulative and irreversible degradation, why is the first thing any doctor or clinical geneticist does is ask for your family history?
In every medical record, the question about the illnesses of your parents and grandparents is not social curiosity; it is the tacit acknowledgment that we are the result of a copy that loses fidelity generation after generation. Modern medicine is based on tracking degradation (accumulated mutations) because no one expects the genome to improve spontaneously. We expect inherited diabetes, cancer, or heart disease precisely because the system is in an informational freefall. You deny entropy in the forum, but you accept it as an absolute law when you are in a hospital waiting room.
To say that “no one takes this seriously” because it isn’t taught in your classrooms is the ostrich’s argument. Official science often ignores that which it cannot resolve without questioning its own foundations. My thesis is not based on “biblical sand,” but on the observation of a crumbling system. You analyze the broken pieces and pretend the vase was always like that; I point out the fracture and the origin of its perfection. You do not need to accept my model for reality to catch up with you; your own clinical histories already document the defeat of your narrative. Truth does not require your academic consensus to manifest in your own cells.
You misunderstand. Run your own Spanish words through google translate if you wish and post the English text in the forum so we can read it. This is not the same as using AI to generate your messages. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the @moderators
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but as stated, that is not an accurate characterization. Family history is asked about because medicine knows genes for various disease risk factors are inherited, and no one really cares about illnesses past aunts uncles and grandparents, as beyond that the risk factors tend to disappear into the noise of the gene pool. It has nothing to do with tracking degradation.
It is curious that you use a tone of condescension to try to disguise what is, in essence, a capitulation to biological reality. Calling “risk factors” what are actually cumulative genomic copying errors is a semantic juggling act designed to avoid the word that strikes fear into you: Degradation.
If these supposed factors “tend to dissipate,” why does the global burden of genetic diseases and inherited mutations continue to grow with each generation? Medicine does not track the “progress” of the species; it tracks the history of its fall. Your attempt to minimize the inheritance of pathologies as something the gene pool simply “manages” ignores the arrow of entropy, which dictates that copied information always tends toward noise, not perfection.
My thesis on the Genome of Total Perfection (99.9%) and Luciferian Manipulation is not a product of the tool I use to translate, but a necessary conclusion in the face of the informational collapse that you call “normality.” Attacking my means of communication only proves that you have no arguments to defend why a supposedly “ascending” system is so obsessed with documenting its own fractures in every clinical record. You can continue to take refuge in your paper-thin academic superiority, but while you argue over labels, the reality of genetic entropy continues to write the sentence of your model in your very own genes.
It is curious. Since you realize you have misunderstood me, in what other things might you have failed?
There will always be deleterious mutations that are in the process of being selected against. That doesn’t mean they accumulate over time. You have also yet to show that any medical problem is due to mutations whose deleterious affect falls below the level necessary for natural selection to eliminate it.
And yet it does. The mutations that confer lactase persistence are a great example.
Perhaps you should look in a mirror. You are the one denying the overwhelming scientific consensus in biology due to your religious beliefs.
You don’t have any evidence of any perfect human being in history. You have no evidence that modern humans are any worse or better than they were at any point in history.
Where is the evidence of this?
If anything, modern medicine is removing the usual selective forces that would have eliminated them from prior generations.
Your informational collapse is a fantasy.
I have also failed to keep my resolution to avoid senseless discussions. but I will continue to work on that.
I’m quite familiar with the relationship of population genetics and effective population size. That does not support Genetic Entropy, and does not explain away the inescapable self contradiction presented by a robust rodent presence. Anyways, Sanford and Carter used influenza to introduce creationist Genetic Entropy, so high reproductive rate and short generation times are allowed. I could provide fuller replies, but it does not seem you are interested in learning, and it is clear you have much to learn.
For the same reason that pigs fly so well – they don’t and it doesn’t.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.