Darwin - Half Right

[Subduction Zone]

Are you just making this up off the top of your head?

Nope. Why would I?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like I said if you want to read his work there's multiple scientific papers there that he wrote... review them yourself.
I'm just wondering why I should listen to random guy on the internet over someone who actually has knowledge in the genetics field

Because I know something about entropy, and it would seem that anyone creating "genetic entropy" really doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I know something about entropy, and it would seem that anyone creating "genetic entropy" really doesn't.

Those that understand the sciences can support why thermodynamics supports evolution:

Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics - ScienceDirect

 

[SelfSim]

Consider this quote.
...
To the average person in the street it is gibberish.
To a pure mathematician it is an example of a topological manouvere.

Cool!
Don't think I've ever had a good think about that Wiki page until now .. Gives a lot more insight into the term: 'metric expansion of space' as being a concept coming from the topic of Topology.
.. Certainly adds a lot more insight into the terms: dimension, compactness and connectedness.

Thanks for that .. very informative (and I like the quote .. which helps in 'hammering in' the overall concept)!

Very cool!

 

[Shemjaza]

Who said it can't be measured? That sounds like a cop out.

"What is often overlooked is that without a constant supply of new mutations, selection can only increase fitness by reducing genetic variance (i.e., selecting away undesirable alleles, eventually reducing their frequencies to zero). This means that given enough time, selection must reduce genetic variance all the way to zero, apart from new mutations. According to Fisher’s Theorem, at this point effective selection must stop and fitness must become static. This evolutionary scenario only results in a minor increase in fitness followed by terminal stasis. Apart from a constant supply of new mutations, Fisher’s Theorem would actually suggest that “Mendelism has killed Darwinism” (Glick 2009, p. 265), a common view in Fisher’s time. This is precisely the opposite of what Fisher wanted to prove."

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations

None of that is in any way a measure of "genetic information".

How do you measure it?

What do you measure it in?

If those aren't trivially answerable, then it is completely nonsense.

In addition... there has been considerable breakthroughs in the measurement, and analysis of mutation and selection since 1930. Pathetic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you measure it in?

Mega Darwins.

 

[Frank Robert]

Lol, that's hilarious. There can't be any scientific evidence for it because he didn't use the proper method? What matters is whether it's reality. Why would a scientist want to debate him on it if it wasn't scientific?

People here are trying to help you with the basics of science that you appear to lack. The scientific method allows scientists to replicate their peers' hypotheses which can provide supportive evidence or lack of evidence for the hypothesis. Sanford does not provide an operational definition for "genetic information" that allows for measurable outcomes. In other words, he has not formulated a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Frank Robert]

Are you just making this up off the top of your head?

There is nothing to make up. Sanford simply introduced a term "genetic information" but never defined what he means by genetic information leaving his peers that read the book baffled.

 

[AV1611VET]

Steps in the Scientific Method

• Formulate a hypothesis
  • Identify a hypothesis, variables, & an operational definition
• Design a study

You left a part out.

Steps in the Scientific Method

• Formulate a hypothesis
  • Identify a hypothesis, variables, & an operational definition
  • Throw out anything that says otherwise
• Design a study

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Frank Robert]

You left a part out.

Steps in the Scientific Method

• Formulate a hypothesis
  • Identify a hypothesis, variables, & an operational definition
  • Throw out anything that says otherwise
• Design a study

Thanks for the creationists version.

 

[renniks]

Nope. Why would I?

Well, as far as I know, that's what you are doing. I see no references.

 

[renniks]

In addition... there has been considerable breakthroughs in the measurement, and analysis of mutation and selection since 1930. Pathetic.

What is pathetic? Perhaps if you actually read the article, you would see that he addresses the advances.

 

[renniks]

People here are trying to help you with the basics of science that you appear to lack. The scientific method allows scientists to replicate their peers' hypotheses which can provide supportive evidence or lack of evidence for the hypothesis. Sanford does not provide an operational definition for "genetic information" that allows for measurable outcomes. In other words, he has not formulated a scientific hypothesis.

So, since you say he didn't 'do any of this, I assume you studied his books and articles? Or are you just parroting something you read on the internet?

 

[driewerf]

You left a part out.

Steps in the Scientific Method

• Formulate a hypothesis
  • Identify a hypothesis, variables, & an operational definition
  • Throw out anything that says otherwise
• Design a study

That's how creationists pretend to do science:

1. Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record;

What we believe - creation.com
You have been thoroughly brain washed if you believe that the creationist science is how real scientist work.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have been thoroughly brain washed if you believe that the creationist science is how real scientist work.

There is no such thing as "creationist science".

"Creationist science" is a contradiction in terms.

If you disagree, show me science in Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin - Half Right

Which half? upper or lower?

 

[Frank Robert]

So, since you say he didn't 'do any of this, I assume you studied his books and articles? Or are you just parroting something you read on the internet?

You need to look into the mirror before accusing others of your projections. I have read the reviews from experts, participated in several forums on genetic entropy at PS and I provided links to experts in the field. We are still waiting for you to tell us what Sanford operation definitions are for "genetic entropy" and "genetic information." You asserted your own personal or creations opinions on GE as you did not quote or link to any genetic experts. BTW, Sanford fields were horticulture and botany, he is not an expert in population genetics.

 

[renniks]

You need to look into the mirror before accusing others of your projections. I have read the reviews from experts, participated in several forums on genetic entropy at PS and I provided links to experts in the field. We are still waiting for you to tell us what Sanford operation definitions are for "genetic entropy" and "genetic information." You asserted your own personal or creations opinions on GE as you did not quote or link to any genetic experts. BTW, Sanford fields were horticulture and botany, he is not an expert in population genetics.

So, you are just parroting what you read.... thanks !

 

[Frank Robert]

So, you are just parroting what you read.... thanks !

You thinking is quite convoluted, the only saving grace is that it is funny.