BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[pocaracas]

I read the whole thing!!!!
Do I get a cookie?

Yes sir.

nom nom nom!!!

I always get that.... "you need to be more aggressive", they say...

There are enough people like that on here and not enough like you.

Need. more. portuguese!

Well... dogs, cats and quite a lot of mammals can breed at one year of age... do those count as "higher organisms", to you?

Well Sanford’s work deals with primarily humans but I am not sure how you’d observe 80 years of the genetics of dogs and cats.

Ever heard of the project to domesticate foxes in Siberia?
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/18/148758624/...est-friend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1G2yZMUNUQ

But that 2400 year number comes from humans and a historically high estimate for the age at which people have kids.... 30.

A lower generational number only confounds the problem for the deep time model.

Why?
It makes 80 generations go by much faster, thus eliminating deleterious genetic mutations chronologically faster.

I haven't gone back to read the study and it is possible that he measured it well...
But did he take into account the self-correcting mechanism on the genes that became faulty over the last generation?
1% of the genetic makeup may degenerate every generation (ughh... bad word choice), but what is degenerated in one generation gets corrected over the course of the next few generations... if it is indeed deleterious.

Are you saying that all deleterious mutations are selectable?

Considering that you're working your way to near-neutral mutations, then I'd have to say no.
Sometimes, what seems like deleterious is really not.
Like color blindness... not really impairing the ability to survive and breed, is it?

There are animals which adapt to life in near darkness... and lose the ability to see.... some even lose their eyes altogether.
Apparently deleterious, right?.... but didn't affect their ability to survive and breed, so it's good.

The concept of deleterious should pertain only to mutations that actually impair the ability to survive and breed.

But if that condition arose in a woman, it could be fatal.
That's why it hasn't filtered out of the male population... no pressure.

That’s the whole point though, it’s a deleterious mutation that reduces the functionality of the genome and yet it was never filtered out. You compile too many of those and you’re gone. I would also disagree that it has been filtered out in women, it’s simply rarer but it still exists (color blind father and a mother who is a carrier).

Yes, it does exist... like cancer exists...
Compile enough of these mutations?... and you may become a different species! like those cave animals I was telling you above.
You only die when you get an actual deleterious mutation.

Ah.... all your numbers pertain to "near-neutral deleterious mutations... ah... that makes more sense.
Why were you making a case for deleterious mutations as a whole when your source pertains only (or mostly) to "near-neutral" ones?

Near-neutral deleterious mutations are still considered to be deleterious mutations. Forgive me for not being clear.

Thou art forgiven.

Like I said above, these near-neutrals are only seemingly deleterious. And, if they accumulate enough to become actual deleterious, then the 80 generations rule takes over.... is the species can survive for 80 generations with that mutation...
If not, then yes... it's goodbye time.

Why do you think that the bible is "the word of god"? The god which is infallible?

When I start there I get a far more internally consistent conceptual scheme that can make sense of reality where others cannot.

Could it be because it was purposefully constructed to be internally consistent? You ever considered that?
The problem with that starting point is the initial connection with the observable reality... the actual existence of a divine entity.

It seems to be a collection of texts written by men who believed in the existence of some sort of god... sometimes it even sounds like they believed there could be more than one.

You’d have to be more specific for me to address this.

Sorry, I can't. My biblical knowledge only concerns itself with generalities... possibly watered down or biased by the people who mention them... but hey... the same thing goes for the qur'an, the vedas and other similarly holy compilations.

If the contents of the bible were written by men, is it not to be expected that some parts are as fallible as any other text?

The Bible does not claim to be merely written by men. Its divinely inspired; meaning every pen stroke was ordained by God which would make it infallible if that were true.

Mighty big IF you got there, don't you think?
Besides, why do you accept the claims of what those people wrote?
- The claim that they ware divinely inspired when writing...
- The claim that every pen stroke was ordained by god...
- The claim that it is infallible...

Why have faith in the contents of these writings... why accept them at face value?

If it was written by men, and the Vedas were also written by men, and the Buddhavacana were written by men, and many other accounts claimed to be from some greater spiritual entity were written by men.... how do come to the conclusion that the bible is correct, while the others must be incorrect? What is your criterion?

The others espouse conceptual schemes that are internally self-refuting while the Bible does not. If not “Not A” then “A”.

The people who follow the others will claim the same about all schemes that are not theirs...
Are they wrong?