Stephen Meyer’s Book Ranked #1 in Science/Physics/Cosmology at Amazon

_{scordova
August 3, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over at Amazon in the Physics/Cosmology section, Dr. Meyer’s book got the surprise ranking ahead of Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History in Time.

There is a section on cosmology and the origin of life in Signature in the Cell.

Here are the Amazon Stats:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Hardcover: 624 pages
Publisher: HarperOne (June 23, 2009)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #799 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories:

#1 in Books > Science > Astronomy > Cosmology
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
#1 in Books > Science > Physics > Cosmology

Congratulations Dr. Meyer!

Comments

Mr BA^77, Only a precise measurement based in some type of complex information algorithm would have the wherewithal to calculate an appropriate response in any reasonable amount of time. Incorrect. All you need is a large population size. If DNA miscopies every 10^-9 base, simple mutation will sample every possible choice in the genome eventually. For c. elegans, the genome is 10^8 bases. So you would expect every 10th one to have a mutation somewhere. Collect a billion and you would expect to have a mutation in every location in the genome. A billion c. elegans would weigh less than a pound. That is just considering mutation. Sexual recombination will sample the space even more quickly. Bottom line - there is no need for intelligence. Chance and large numbers are sufficient. GE is still falsified.Nakashima_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Joseph: Yes, I understand the difference between hardware and software. If you are implying that the software in computers would not function as it should without the correct hardware, then you are correct. But the cell is not like a computer in this regard because the cell reproduces itself. Computers do not. Each individual computer must be programed so that its hardware and software are compatible. Cells on the other hand must have all the information to go from a single cell all the way to an adult organism, and then do it again the next generation, all without intelligent input. Proteins degrade in situ and must be continually replaced. There are no permanent biological structures which are designed to last the entire lifetime of the software (DNA). Every molecule in your body, including DNA, has probably been replaced several times since you were born. There are estimates of this but I don't remember what they are. That doesn't happen with computer hardware, although it can happen for software, so I can see where the confusion is coming from. The cell must generate and regenerate, quite literally, everything. Therefore all the information must be in the DNA, because DNA is the only chemical that replicates itself. It needs proteins of course, but where do those proteins come from? Invariably, from the DNA. jerry: Well ok. You can continue to state your opposition to Sanford's thesis and ignore the point I am making. I suppose that's your right. You and Sanford are both using fitness as a measure of information loss or genetic entropy. I have said that is obviously not an accurate measure, as organisms which lose information can lose fitness, gain it, or remain neutral. My back defect is not going to affect my reproductive success, which is the definition of fitness, yet I know that same back defect is a loss of information. In my mother, it was so bad that it required information input from an intelligence, i.e. surgery, to correct it, yet at the time she had already had all the kids she was going to have. You oppose Sanford's thesis, and you may be right to do so. But the fact of the matter is when ID takes charge of science as opposed to being continually locked in debate with recalcitrant Darwinists, there will be new standards by which we judge whether or not genetic entropy is occurring. The following paper suggests that even neofunctionalization can occur along with degenerative evolution and loosened structural constraints on proteins. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19133069?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum In short, the way we judge whether or not information loss has occurred is not, in the future, going to depend on fitness functions, nor even on whether new functions have arisen. Just because Notre Dame has the most fans and broke their own records for losing seasons doesn't mean they are the best football team.tragic mishap_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Dave, But what is telling the detrimental mutation(s) to "recover"?,,,Surely the brute force of the material at the molecular level (prior to selection I might add) is neither aware, nor concerned, with the state of the mutation. Only a precise measurement based in some type of complex information algorithm would have the wherewithal to calculate an appropriate response in any reasonable amount of time. As well the experiment you are relying on so heavily to make your case to falsify GE has not even conclusively demonstrated a gain in functional information that was not known to be present before. Which brings us to the exact same problem which is crushing to OOL research, (Meyer; Signature), You have yet to conclusively demonstrate that functional information can arise outside of intelligence(Trevors; Abel). As well, in my assertion that the ancestral bacteria is optimal in information content and cannot be surpassed, I appeal to the fact that physicists have found many machines and processes in the cell operate at the "near optimal" capacities allowed by the law of physics... Which clearly ties very strongly into the anthropic principle and argues very strongly against the evolutionary assumption of life being an "accident" of physics.i.e. we would expect a lot more "slop" if life were truly an accident. William Bialek - Professor Of Physics - Princeton University: Excerpt: "A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things “work” in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks." http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.htmlbornagain77_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

KF-san, I agree that basic statistics can lead to pessimism about OOL. We must appeal to the reality of chemistry and physics to overcome that pessimism. An example I have referenced several times, though not quite to the Lewontonian degree, is Sayama-sensei's Evoloops. In the Evoloops CA, the laws of physics and chemistry cause life to be created quite spontaneously. Is our universe in the same category? It is the diligent study, such as this research on ribose and dissolved minerals, that will help decide that. Lack of results such as these would confirm Shapiro's pessimism.Nakashima_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

kf, Informational and thermodynamic entropy are analogous, not identical, which was my point.Dave Wisker_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

born, Off the top of my head, I'd say recombination is one way (and not necesarrily the only way) "recovery" of information can occur. Consider an indvidual with two different detrimental mutations that reduce activity levels of the proteins they code for. In addition, they reside on different but homologous chromosomes (think of a female with one mutation on one X chromsome, and one on the other X chromosome). This individual's genome has lost some functional information because neither X exists in a pre-mutational state. If nothing else happens, all of its offspring will carry a chromosome with one less-than-fully functional gene. . However, in meiosis, recombination can produce a chromosome that has neither detrimental mutation. In other words, recombination has recovered the pre-mutation state of one of the chromosomes. .Dave Wisker_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

PS: As for reducing the imagined evolutionary materialistic origin of life process to a simple one of energy at work through chance and necessity in whatever still warm pond or undersea vent or icy comet etc one wishes to dream up, I think Shapiro has long since laid the dead horse to rest in his remarks on genes first OOL chemistry research (which also inadvertently extends to his own metabolism first model): __________ >>The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck. >> ______________ Next time someone pushes the latest scenario, ask about what specific empirical work backs it up, how far; and what he evidence is that the same could -- or did -- happen in the prebiotic world without Chem labs and Chemists to take us over many active information steps with boosts form Le Chetalier's principle of pushing reactions in directions that relieve constraints imposed on a mix of reactants.kairosfocus_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Footnote on Information and thermodynamics: Re: DW at 207 . . . Before trotting out well-worn talking points, kindly note that from Szillard, Brillouin and Jaynes et al [and as one may read in Harry Robertson's Statistical Thermophysics in details], there is a school of thought in Physics that does in fact see a significant link form information to entropy in both the informational and thermodynamic senses. (I note, too, that the names just listed are not exactly lightweights in Physics.) A dismissive talking point is not good enough. (Cf my discussion of thermodynamics in App 1 the always linked, points 3 - 5] Excerpting Robertson: _____________ >> . . . It has long been recognized that the assignment of probabilities to a set represents information, and that some probability sets represent more information than others . . . if one of the probabilities say p2 is unity and therefore the others are zero, then we know that the outcome of the experiment . . . will give [event] y2. Thus we have [key operative term -- we possess the information already, so that further transmission will not be a surprise] complete information . . . if we have no basis . . . for believing that event yi is more or less likely than any other [we] have the least possible information about the outcome of the experiment . . . . A remarkably simple and clear analysis by Shannon [1948] has provided us with a quantitative measure of the uncertainty, or missing pertinent information, inherent in a set of probabilities [NB: i.e. a probability should be seen as, in part, an index of ignorance] . . . . S({pi}) = - C [SUM over i] pi*ln pi, [where [SUM over i] pi = 1, and we can define also parameters alpha and beta such that: (1) pi = e^-[alpha + beta*yi]; (2) exp [alpha] = [SUM over i](exp - beta*yi) = Z [Z being in effect the partition function across microstates, the "Holy Grail" of statistical thermodynamics]. . . .[pp.3 - 6] S, called the information entropy, . . . correspond[s] to the thermodynamic entropy, with C = k, the Boltzmann constant, and yi an energy level, usually ei, while [BETA] becomes 1/kT, with T the thermodynamic temperature . . . A thermodynamic system is characterized by a microscopic structure that is not observed in detail . . . We attempt to develop a theoretical description of the macroscopic properties in terms of its underlying microscopic properties, which are not precisely known. We attempt to assign probabilities to the various microscopic states . . . based on a few . . . macroscopic observations that can be related to averages of microscopic parameters. Evidently the problem that we attempt to solve in statistical thermophysics is exactly the one just treated in terms of information theory. It should not be surprising, then, that the uncertainty of information theory becomes a thermodynamic variable when used in proper context [p. 7] . . . . Jayne's [summary rebuttal to a typical objection] is ". . . The entropy of a thermodynamic system is a measure of the degree of ignorance of a person whose sole knowledge about its microstate consists of the values of the macroscopic quantities . . . which define its thermodynamic state. This is a perfectly 'objective' quantity . . . it is a function of [those variables] and does not depend on anybody's personality. There is no reason why it cannot be measured in the laboratory." . . . . [p. 36.] >> ______________ Mr Wisker, you may disagree if you please on this view on statistical thermodynamics; but kindly provide substantiation for the disagreement, not rhetorically dismissive talking points. And then, explain how lucky noise plus blind mechanical necessity somehow spontaneously rearranged dilute racemic organic molecules in a plausible prebiotic soup into a homochiral, functional information storing and processing system. Including inventing along the way: digital information stored in codes [thus also, computer language -- which thus precedes speech, perhaps by 3.8 BY on the conventional timelines], algorithms, data structures, programs, and the executing machinery to implement the hard and software system. Talking points will not be good enough for that, too. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Dave, I was just asking what entity outside of information has the ability to "recover" information?,,I felt I was rather straight forward in the question.bornagain77_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Born, Do not confuse thermodynamic entropy with informational entropy.Dave Wisker_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Dave you stated: "You could also look at life as a means of locally reducing entropy" And to which basis of "reality" are you going to appeal to reduce informational entropy? Energy? A dead horse as Kariofocus can well testify. Exactly from what basis of "material reality", or combination thereof, do you presuppose that optimal Functional Information has the ability to be restored (compensated) outside of functional information's own resources for such "data recovery"? If you appeal to some self-organization principle of material reality, Please clarify in detail. i.e. Exactly what basis of "material" reality do you tie this "entropy reducing, information restoring" ability to since information is now shown to be foundational to reality and the only known entity that can exercise such precise "compensation"? It seems you have appealed to some phantom ability that does not exist for brute "material" forces. Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM further reference presented earlier.bornagain77_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker:
The point is, populations can come up with different ways to counteract lowered fitness due to mutational load– genetic entropy is not an inevitable cause of mutaional meltdown.
Yes due to "built-in responses to environmental cues." I believe Sanford was referring to life in a non-telic scenario. But as we know design can counter entropy.Joseph_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

So what's the data that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents can lead to new protein machinery and new body plans? What's the data that demonstrates non-telic processes can cobble together regulatory networks? The point being is the only "evidence" the anti-IDists have is the complete refusal to accept the design inference.Joseph_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Hi DATCG, personally think from a designers perspective life is designed to counteract mutations, not encourage them. Least, if I’m trying to see through Designer eyes. Interesting. You could also look at life as a means of locally reducing entropy (albeit temporarily) in the face of a Universe ultimately winding down. Do you think the Ozone layer is important? Yes.Dave Wisker_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Dave, Then it remains for the ancient bacteria to clearly differentiate if the "compensation" was truly a full recovery of molecular functionality/information as you (and they) maintain.. A piece of advice Dave,,, I wouldn't bet too much money on the ancient bacteria backing your position if I were you,,, But hey this is why I love science,,,instead of just always having heated debates we can usually find a experiment that will settle the matter and end the disagreement.bornagain77_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

born, Estes and Lynch cite the papers you mention as examples of what basically led them to do the study in the first place. Lynch had also published on the subject before (as Sanford mentions).Dave Wisker_{August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Sorry,
the new ID Timeline project
[at AtBC] should be UD timelineCabal_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

Sal @ 153, I had a transportation issue. My car had a flat and the spare was damaged as well. I really wanted to attend though as Meyer is a cool guy to me and super articulate. I really admire his accuracy, intensity, and breadth when explaining and discussing ID- such as in his new book "Signature In The Cell" and his fabulous presentation on Coast To Coast am- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFM5op8WU5oFrost122585_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Dave, Slow down. First, I'm not saying Dr. Sanford's extrapolations are correct. They are forward looking predictions that could happen if the right events take place which increase mutation rates for any number of critical life resources in a chain of life. I personally think from a designers perspective life is designed to counteract mutations, not encourage them. Least, if I'm trying to see through Designer eyes. Do you think the Ozone layer is important?DATCG_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Dave states:, "fitness need not be inevitably eroded: populations have means of eliminating those mutations and/or compensating for them over time." Well Dave I have severe reservations with your optimism;;; Number 1 I feel the case has been made that fitness recovery was not complete in your paper,,,and though you must "assume" full recovery was made,,,I feel enough question has been raised to make you at least partially unsure that recovery was full equilibrium? Yet to really nail the evidence down a comprehensive study of ancient bacteria must be made (which I believe Sanford is doing),,,Once again you must presuppose that no functionality will be found to be lost, I hold that functionality will be found to be lost,,, From your quote it seems you want to be optimistic that all slightly detrimental mutations are being removed, but once again I appeal directly to the fossil record which shows that gradual deterioration is the norm we witness after the "sudden appearance of the form in the fossil record. “As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould pointed out almost three decades ago, the general pattern for the evolution of diversity (as shown by the fossil record) follows precisely this pattern: a burst of rapid diversity following a major ecological change, and then a gradual decline in diversity over relatively long periods of time.” Allen MacNeill PhD.; 2007 (Evolutionist) Teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. — Quoted right here on UD As well Dave there are many studies that call into question your assertion that natural selection has the delicate touch to reach each and every deleterious mutation: Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov A.S. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/jt/1995/00000175/00000004/art00167 The Frailty of the Darwinian Hypothesis "The net effect of genetic drift in such (vertebrate) populations is “to encourage the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discourage the promotion of beneficial mutations,” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/the_frailty_of_the_darwinian_h.html#more High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids Excerpt: Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically (unusually) low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html Thus dave I feel you are vainly trying against what I feel is consistent empirical evidence for GE, though I appreciate you bringing home the point that it is not nearly as rapid as Sanford first proposed, Yet I also feel once the ancient bacteria studies are completed (hopefully) this will bring the point home for you and you will realize the principle is solid.bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

"I am a YEC as well, so I wouldn’t object to Sanford’s idea on theological grounds as you appear to be doing" I have no theological reasons for rejecting anything. I reject it on common sense. There is no deterioration of genomes going on as far as I can see. The world seems quite healthy out there. As I have said the weeds and bugs are doing just fine in my area nor have I seen any animals deteriorating either. I believe Sanford's thesis is nonsense. It does not reflect reality.jerry_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

DATCG, So there’s no such thing as extinction of different species? Of course not-- extinction can occur for many other reasons not germane to Sanford's general thesis. I’m confused, how many species have gone extinct and are currently going extinct under extreme pressures today? The question is, how much of a mutational load can populations carry and not become extinct due to eroded fitness. Sanford's thesis is that erosion is inevitable due to genetic entropy and that it is irreversible-- he believes there is no "effective selection strategy to stop mutation accumulation". His chart on page 113 shows inevitable fitness decline to zero (i.e., extinction) as mutations build. But--the evidence clearly shows that, even with a high accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, fitness need not be inevitably eroded: populations have means of eliminating those mutations and/or compensating for them over time. Of course, evolution being a statistical property of populations, there will be examples that fall outside one standard deviation below the mean and extinction results. But, as I pointed out above, extinction can occur for a myriad of reasons apart from the accumulation of mutations.Dave Wisker_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Sal, Some of the lines did not show increases in fitness, but considering the random nature of mutations that should be expected. The point is, populations can come up with different ways to counteract lowered fitness due to mutational load-- genetic entropy is not an inevitable cause of mutaional meltdown. You'll remember the Reed and Aquadro paper I mentioned over at ARN which looked further at the human population, pointing out that the human population is increasing both in size and in level of panmixia-- which, as you know, increases the efficiency of natural selection at removing even mildly deleterious mutations. They also point out the role of gametic selection in purging deleterious mutations from populations, and which Sanford doesn't even begin to address. The Estes and Lynch paper is only part of the evidence which contradicts his general thesis.Dave Wisker_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Now compare Sanford’s extrapolation to the hard data laid out by Estes and Lynch. They clearly show populations under very heavy mutational loads actually recovering fitness over time, rather than going extinct as predicted by Sanford’s extrapolation. Something is clearly wrong with the predictions emanating from Sanford’s extrapolation model.
Estes and Lynch highlighed situations where "fitness" was successfully restored, but this should not be extrapolated as a general principle. It was astonishing probably because it was not consistent with behavior of other populations (as noted in the paper). This sort of cherry picking of experiments can be likened to the poisoning a population, and then highlighting only the individuals that survived in order to make the case that this poison doesn't affect individuals. Even in the papers, lynch and estes point to the difficulty in restoring lost function. Some degree of skepticims needs to be in play regarding compensatory mutations: this is like looking at blind cave fish and saying, "wow they developed beneficial compensatory mutations which made them blind but more reproductively successful. Evolution is more capable than we thought in increasing fitness." Or this is like saying in Africa, look at how the sickle cell anemia trait increases fitness! One may not really know what the compensatory mutations may have done in order to succeed at reproductive success. One thing we know is that under the conditions which were used, these creatures were optimized for a particular laboratory environment. Things could be quite different in the wild. What these compensatory mutations may have affected is unknown. That is why I have suggested, once the bioinformatics and DNA sequencing industry come through with their promised products, we may actually be able to see the picture of what is happening more clearly. For now, we see through a glass darkly.scordova_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

NaK, Seems to me You never really defend your position,,you just try to cling to whatever little morsel of deception you can get away with and then claim you have made a comprehensive rebuttal.... I don't know why you say you want to talk about science since all you really want to do is maintain your dogmatic atheism no matter what deception you have to say or solid evidence you have to ignore or obfuscation of smoke you have to blow,,, as I said before why should I even waste my time with you when you can't even be honest with yourself? Maybe one day this will all change,,, and I hope for your sake it does but for now you are fooling nobody except yourself here on UD.bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Your comment is awaiting moderation.Nakashima_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Dave, So there's no such thing as extinction of different species? I'm confused, how many species have gone extinct and are currently going extinct under extreme pressures today? Saying that species can recover is a very good argument for design. A flexible design that allows for stress and recovers. In fact, that is what we see among many different species and ecosystems when variations due to extreme environmental ecozones move back into other or former zones. Please explain dog breeding? BTW, 72yrs is a drop in the bucket compared to at least 4000yrs of known breeding habits in history. Artificial breeding was around long before Darwin. He knew the limitations that where observed at the time. His theory was gradualism, which has failed and is certainly not "common sense" with todays information. Everyone understands variation, not everyone agrees it is an argument for unguided macro evolution.DATCG_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Dave, I totally agree with you that Sanford's extrapolations to a YEC scenario are wrong,,,yet the ancient bacteria I cited, but you seemingly ignored,,,points to the fact that overall,,,even taking in the DNA repair mechanisms,,,the principle holds for life,,,As Well Webster's comprehensive trilobite study adds even more impressive weight to loss of functional information,,hence GE,,, need I mention that it draws in accordance with the second law extremely well? thus does not require a gross violation of physics as evolution does?bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Nak you state this as "proof" for evolution "the discovery of DNA" Do you mind explaining to me how finding coded information in cells, coded information that is far far more complex than anything we have ever programmed,,in spite of tremendously negative mutation rates ,,, serves to bolster your confidence in "God -free" evolution? But of course this has been repeatidly pointed out to you here on UD,,, but you ignore and whistle in the dark and pretend it doesn't matter,,,which makes me realize,,, you really don't care one iota about the evidence Nak? Do you? You just love the fact that evolution has got that whole "God-free" thing to it? I don't know what "strict religion" you are "recovering" from but is it worth living in such obvious deception as you are now doing?bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

On page 112, Sanford displays a figure plotting mutation accumulation in the human population over time. It never levels off. On page 113 takes that data and extrapolates fitness over time. It shows fitness declining to zero. On page 143:
I do not believe the downward trend will ever level off. But even if we do not correct Crow’s model, it still shows genetic decay and declining fitness, rather than evolutionary progress.
Leaving aside the wrongheaded idea of “evolutionary progress”, it should be clear that Sanford’s thesis is increased mutation accumulation leads to mutational meltdown and permanent loss of fitness. Now compare Sanford’s extrapolation to the hard data laid out by Estes and Lynch. They clearly show populations under very heavy mutational loads actually recovering fitness over time, rather than going extinct as predicted by Sanford’s extrapolation. Something is clearly wrong with the predictions emanating from Sanford’s extrapolation model.Dave Wisker_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply