But that is a blatant oversimplification of what really occurs. What you appear to be ignoring here is that the deleterious mutation has to be visible to natural selection and the vast majority of deleterious mutations are simply NOT visible to natural selection, hence they have absolutely zero possibility of being eliminated!
Thus, what you are effectively saying is that an encyclopaedia that has millions of typos that don’t get removed will still have just as much useful coded information in it.
It would be useful if we could analyse the “bunch of empirical data” you claim falsifies Sanford’s genetic entropy, that I would expect has been observed within the evolutionary paradigm assumptions, to see if what you claim is valid.
What evidence?
I suggest that if what you claim to be evidence is analysed from a Biblical, Creation world view, the claim of falsification of Sanford’s genetic entropy disappears.
Ultimately, this whole conflict is one of biases and worldviews. The question we should all be asking is what is the best bias to be biassed by. We are subject to preconceived notions and I’m certainly no different to anyone else in that regard.
When we start with the Bible and accept the profound truths provided therein, we can practice science very well without having to read in secular myths that are designed to explain origins without God.
What isn’t the case, Adam? Everything you quoted from James was about people (especially those claiming some scientific expertise) actually be honest, and should be expected to know some of these basic principles of science. Are you against honesty then? Or are you just saying that YECs are unable to live up to those expectations and that it’s unreasonable to expect them to?
I haven’t read @jammycakes entire post - but I’ll bet dollars to donuts he isn’t claiming that scientists are free of all presuppositions. What he (and all of us are objecting against) is when young-earthers wish to use the “everybody’s got presuppositions” card as a free pass for themselves to pretend that their opinions then have equal status to those of experts in the relevant fields.
And that just simply isn’t so, Adam. Some opinions are much less informed than others. I’ll continue to place MUCH greater weight on opinions from someone who’s aware of their own presuppositions and how easily they can be fooled and therefore they attend to data and testing, and even changing their mind when they need to because of that data! That is the opinion worth following rather than the relatively more worthless opinion from someone who’s made themselves deaf to any contrary evidence as YECers have.
I didn’t say that they don’t. I said that the fact that some of them do is not a free pass to let you reject anything and everything about science that you don’t like.
I didn’t say that they don’t. I said that the fact that some of them do is not a free pass to let you reject anything and everything about science that you don’t like.
I didn’t say that scientists don’t have biases. I said that the fact that some of them do is not a free pass to let you reject anything and everything about science that you don’t like.
You’re arguing that eight different lines of evidence for evolution are incorrect or fraudulent. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that your assessment of them is correct. (I’ll leave it to others to argue that point.) But now you have to show that another 999,992 lines of evidence at least were also fraudulent. Moreover, you have to show how many of them could have been falsified in such a way as to give the same wrong answers as each other.
Good luck with that. It’s one thing to show casual fraud being carried out by individual researchers acting independently of each other. It’s a completely different matter to show wholescale, tightly coordinated fraud being carried out on an industrial scale, right across the board, by millions of different researchers, over a period of more than two hundred years.
In any case, scientists are fully aware of their biases. There’s a lot of research that goes into finding ways to counteract the effect of cognitive biases in science. That’s why double blind studies are a thing. There are also statistical methods to detect fraud in scientific datasets. In some studies, different teams work on different parts of the study, with one team designing the study, a second team carrying out the experiment, a third team processing the data, and a fourth team adding secret offsets to the data before it gets processed then removing the offsets from the results, in order to prevent either the data collection team or the data processing team from “anchoring” the results to give them the conclusions that they want.
To be clear here, Deleterious Mutation in the sense that information that was previously present that coded for something useful, but not essential for survival or reproduction.
Things such as cleft palate, hair lip and other birth defects come to mind as obvious examples that everyone knows about but of course there are also a myriad of other less known defects and immunodeficiency errors in the genome and doubtless many more not discovered but relentlessly accumulating. If the individual can reproduce and the other parent has the same error, how can the deleterious mutation be eliminated?
As I recall one was Maimonides, but he wasn’t alone, just the most prominent. He was 12th century, but I vaguely recall there was someone in the late 9th as well.
The one I had in mind who said millions of years came up with that because he concluded that if a thousand years was an “age” for humans, then it would be a thousand thousand for God, and since God is called “the ancient of days” then the universe must have been around for at least a few ages. It’s a strange sort of thinking to us, but useful to now if only to illustrate how much our understandings of scripture are worldview-dependent, plus how ludicrous it is to assert that everyone must have read Genesis the way the YECists do.
The idea of the universe being tiny then rapidly huge comes from an approach to passages where the first word is broken down by letter and the letters have their own meanings. It’s something I never really got into but has been perfectly acceptable during several periods of history. As I recall it relies on the shape of the first letter, which when properly done has a very tiny fine point on the right then expands almost immediately to be much larger – ב – read of course from right to left. The letter’s name means “house” in at least four ancient languages, for example Akkadian, besides Hebrew. So the meaning is that God was making a house for Himself that started tiny and grew to be vast. The second letter – ר – means “head”, and the third – א – indicates a beginning, so taken together it’s God’s house where God is the head of the beginning.
But so far you have rejected doing that: you are starting with a modern worldview’s assumptions about the Bible that ignore the fact that it was written in ancient languages in ancient literary forms under ancient worldviews. You thus violate an extremely basic rule for interpreting any ancient literature, which is not to add anything to it, especially anything from outside the worldview under which it was written.
The irony being that conservatives have long derided liberals for doing that very thing.
It’s why when in geology courses we were given rock samples to date we weren’t told anything about them ahead of time, not location or when they were collected or who collected them.
That’s what I thought but I figured I should let a biologist respond to that.
No, I’m not ignoring that – it’s exactly the concept I raise in the next bit you quote. The main problem is that what you have just typed is completely wrong. Note, by the way, that you’re correcting me without any firsthand knowledge at all of population genetics, based entirely on what you’ve read from creationist sources, none of whom have any competence in the field either. Whereas population genetics is a large part of what I do for a living. Sanford’s claims are not sophisticated scientific these; they are genuinely stupid arguments.
No, I’m saying that a genome that has millions of changes in it will still have just as much useful coded information in it. A genome is not an encyclopedia. Trying to reason by analogy (in this case, by bad analogy) is not going to lead you anywhere good.
No. I already gave you evidence the last time you asked for it. You gave an incorrect response and then ignored the evidence, likely because there’s no packaged answer available from a creationist site. So far, you’ve given no one any reason to think you’re at all interested in engaging with real data.
But you most definitely are doing precisely that!
Firstly, how/why do you claim to know what I do and don’t know? We have never met or corresponded as far as I am aware except on this forum. I can only conclude, fishing at best or an attempt at brow beating.
The whole point that I stated in my post is that ones presuppositions, biases or worldview, call it what you will, will greatly affect the conclusions that you draw.
Of course a genome is not an encyclopaedia, it is a poor comparison granted, but it serves the purpose I intended quite well.
But don’t you see, that regardless of the number of changes that damage the information in a finite system as in the genome, and it would be in the millions and quite possibly billions, the genome will certainly NOT have as much useful coded information in it at any point along the way as each generation is less fit than the previous because those changes have accumulated from mutations such as transpositions, deletions and insertions, typos if you will and of course have compounded to the point we are at right now in the present.
If you start with a near ‘perfect’ genome as I suggest Adam would have had, (hence the long lifespans), and entropy has been incessantly working on the genomes of all generations since then to the point now that many, many thousands of genetic diseases are a real empirical fact in the human population, it is not difficult to see that there will NOT be as much useful coded information in it as you so confidently claim, that’s just plain obvious! At least it is obvious to me with my Biblical worldview of the world we see around us in the present.
To make that claim as you have that the amount of useful information remains constant when it clearly cannot possibly be, I think that I would be fairly safe in assuming that your belief is based on evidence interpreted within an evolutionary framework; evidence which you are it seems, unwilling to provide.
So you work in the field, so what! That doesn’t mean for a millisecond the evolutionary framework within which you work and through which you draw your conclusions is correct.
God Bless
Your brother in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus,
jon
You are confused. Just because an individual is encumbered with survivable condition does not mean it isn’t a selectable trait. They can still on average be out competed for resources and mates. Thus, deleterious mutations, whether caused by single or multiple mutations, tend to clear from the gene pool by natural and sexual selection, depending on other scaling factors.
It is clear from your posts that you know virtually nothing of population genetics and are in no position to lecture others. If you want to improve your grasp of the subject, you could begin by taking direction from Steve. If you rather think you have a coherent grasp of the subject, please inform us as to why rodents and flies are still with us, or did you read my post?
No, it is not I that am confused here!
You mean that’s what you think or perhaps more succinctly ‘guess’ must be the case because you interpret what you see within an evolutionary framework. Try interpreting the facts from a traditional Biblical framework and see what you come up with.
But if the many thousands of genetic errors are truly all selectable and of sufficient deleterious effect to be visible to natural selection, then why do we have such inordinately massive numbers of people who have these genetically transmitted diseases and biological construction errors if they are as you suggest, “deleterious mutations, whether caused by single or multiple mutations, tend to clear from the gene pool by natural and sexual selection, depending on other scaling factors.”
Well that’s a nice story with more than a bit of wishful thinking thrown in, but the reality is that the majority of people with these genetically caused diseases etc. pass them on to the next generation.
It is a falsehood to say that they are eliminated! Sure a tiny fraction of the most severe mutational genetic damage will certainly be eliminated, but by and large it is NOT survival of the fittest, it is reproduction of the luckiest, or the richest, or the biggest ego or any number of other factors that simply don’t fit into the nicely packaged evolution fairy tale.
It appears that you are just not hearing what I’m talking about! The vast majority of genetic mutations that as far as I know don’t prevent survival or reproductive ability of the individual and have become established in the population. They may be minor or they may be severe genetically transmitted diseases that may cause difficulties for the individual in many cases, but don’t prevent the person from parenting children.
Hence they are not lost from the gene pool at all, in fact as time progresses and more and more generations are born, the number of genetically transmitted diseases increases.
Remember, genetic entropy is real, but junk DNA is not. Somehow.
So, if GE is real, why are rodents, flies, and zebra fish still with us, let alone microbes such as bacteria?
That is drift, and occupies a great deal of attention by population geneticists. Evolutionary theory is developed to reflect nature, not to be imposed on nature.
The reality is that evolution itself is a well and truly falsified theory that just doesn’t qualify as real empirical science. It simply doesn’t!
The things that can be tested in the lab in the here and now, as far as I am concerned do not show even the slightest hint of evidence for molecules to man evolution.
Natural selection within a created Biblical kind yes, no problem whatsoever, that is happening all the time, but the blatant equivocation to use natural selection that does occur as proof of evolution is really too much.
If evolution was a real mechanism then we would be able to show very quickly where increased complexity and types of change has occurred such that we can see in the undoubtedly billions of trillions of intermediates between stages such as the change from dinosaur to birds or from primate to human.
But all we have are a bunch of frauds most of which have been exposed and a mere handful of disputed candidates for intermediate forms, let alone any evidentially backed explanation of how the irreducibly complex structures such as new organs, limbs, senses and control systems etc… came about through slow and gradual evolution.
I’m sorry but the evidence is truly stacked up high against the whole evolution edifice.
The theory is a mess, is an understatement and the fact that it has proven itself time and again to be utterly unfalsifiable precludes it from being called science, even though there are plenty of people around the world who are taking home tidy salaries each year whilst they conduct ‘research’ that supports evolution.
The sad irony of all this is not lost on me, but I do tire of the bashing of Christian Creation apologists, by other Christians when in many parts of the world over the past few decades and right now, our Christian brothers and sisters are being slaughtered en masse by religious zealots whose only desire is to murder as many Christians as they can, and they’re proud of it!
They must be watching this website forum and laughing their heads off at the inane idiocy that is transpiring.
Ladies and gentlemen, imagine, for a moment, that you are the head of HR at a biotech company looking to recruit a population geneticist. You are presented with two candidates, both of whom have been given an initial phone screen.
One candidate is an experienced population geneticist working for a world renowned research institute founded by two top universities. He has published in top scientific journals on the subject, and in both his CV and his phone screen, he clearly described the projects that he has been working on right up to the present day. A quick background check confirms that his claims about his skills and experience are correct.
The other candidate claims to have worked in an unrelated scientific field back in the 1970s. His CV gives no indication of the level of seniority that he achieved in that role, and for all you know he could have been a lab technician, an accountant, a secretary, or a janitor. He could have been a senior researcher, but although he claims to understand how the scientific method works, in support of this claim he makes a number of statements that are inconsistent with even a rudimentary understanding of some very basic principles of school-level science, such as the nature of measurement and how sources of error are accounted for. Neither his CV nor his phone screen contain sufficient information for you to conduct any meaningful background checks.
as usual…you guys go to great lengths in not addressing the real dilemma here. You run all around it…
It is your side who claim that YEC scientists arent really scientists, and/or that they seek only evidence to support their views…and that is exactly what i have responded to with a lot of very significant evidence where naturalism has attempted to distort the truth.
The examples i provided were significant because they were broadcast worldwide as “proof” and a number of them went on for many decades before being exposed as lies.
These examples were often used as a basis for further evolutionary claims…building blocks whose foundation was fraudulent. So your apparent thousands of supporting claims is founded upon these fraudulent premises and therein lies the huge problem faced.
The point is, reasonable doubt is all that is required in the defense of the creation account and that is because, the bible also has a significant historical narrative that backs up the YEC claims whereas secular evolutionism does not have that narrative dating back at least to the time of king david and there is historical evidence for the bible back further.
The point is, its the internal consistency of the bible which is also supported by the evidence that YEC find that tells me YEC is most likely the correct world view. Add to that the fact that YEC is founded upon Gods own revelation…evolution is most definately not founded on God and most modern scientists its seems argue there is no room for God in evolution.
It is very difficult to read “let us make man in our own image” , and God “formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into his (mans) nostrils”…and conclude that God had an ape in mind!
An ape does not have the capacity to intellectually think like we do…its absurd and devoid of intelligence to attempt to reconcile evolution with Christianity with God creating something like an ape! How anyone can possibly twist Genesis into reading that way is a woeful manipulation of scripture.
So the problem i have as a bible believing christian is that individuals who base their scientific belief on those who do not see that there is room in science for God, those individuals are choosing to believe the ramblings of atheists (like Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye).
I see a conflict of interests in Christians following the lead of such individuals and that is theologically untennable in my view.
The idea that people apparently lose sight of Christianity because they are not following these men is absolute nonsense.
The bible tells us why people leave the church…its because they lack faith. This comes about as a result of unbelief. However, its not unbelief because of what science says, its unbelief in the gospel…that Christ (God incarnate), came down and lived among us, died on the cross to pay the wages of sin is death, so that we may be redeemed and restored back to God and the state of the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve. That is the entire point of the bible!
Hebrews 3 16For who were the ones who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17And with whom was God angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom did He swear that they would never enter His rest? Was it not to those who disobeyed? 19So we see that it was because of their unbelief that they were unable to enter.
The day that faith means proven by science is the day all religion is porkies and pigs begin to fly!
Yes YECist are real scientists, they just are really bad ones who don’t follow the scientific method. They are really ignorant and arrogant or either liars when it comes to the vast majority of science. They are a bit of a cult really. Out of roughly 8,000,000 scientists globally they make up a few thousand. I think under 1%. Maybe even closer to 0.1%. Not really sure how insignificant of a number they make up. They are universally rejected by the scientific community regardless if it’s in America, Europe, Africa, Asia or wherever. The only people that really are sucked into their silliness is the uneducated. That’s why it’s so important to teach science to our kids. To make sure they get real textbooks and learn it in school. It’s why even though many pastors are YECist who are kind well meaning people, you have to teach your kids that they have a very shallow outdated despite being modern reading of the scriptures. They can be very loving, but they also run a risk of making up people whose bad understanding of theology and conspiracy theorist approach to the scientific community and their consensus can result in weaponizing the Bible to push their very toxic pro theocracy that attacks freedom, love and happiness. It does not really grow in communities because it’s convincing, but because two come together and pop out 5+ kids who never get a solid understanding of the world or learn how to understand basic high school education. Often not even basic middle school education.
A lot of stuff yall say is heavily debated it not actually heavily debated. 99.9% will land on a similar consensus and 0.1% disagree and some of yall seem to listen exclusively to them.
How in the world can you even begin to construe such a ridiculous statement.
What I was attempting to communicate was that we all need to take a step back and get some perspective on this issue, me included. Origins is an important issue and that is why so many people are passionate about what they believe which is why I will trust the Bible every time to mean what it so plainly states.
But that aside there are many Christians around the globe who themselves and their entire families are in shocking situations including matters of life and death just because they are followers of our Lord Jesus.
The way you seem to twist peoples words appears to be disingenuous and bordering on plain dishonest, just to score some imaginary gold star point with your forum peers in Biologos.
I sincerely hope you see what you are doing here for what it truly is.