BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[popeyespappy]

There are good reasons Sanford's conclusions on genetic entropy have little support with his peers.

Yes, they want him to be wrong.

What they want have no bearing on the soundness of Sanford’s conclusions. If his premises are false, and the evidence says they are, his conclusions are worthless. Besides it was Sanford who started out with the goal of proving a primary axiom (axioms apply to math not the theory of evolution) of evolution false. He is the one that started with a conclusion then constructed his evidence to fit the conclusion.

Those reasons include unsupported assertions such as the ratios and fixation rates of deleterious versus beneficial mutations and the few beneficial mutations that do occur are nearly neutral. Some of his claims are such as geneticists never see beneficial mutations have just flat out been proven wrong through observation.

I think you’re getting your arguments confused. That is not his point at all, entropy is entropy and something can only undergo a certain amount of it before it’s completely corrupted.

Are you even familiar with Sanford’s work? Because it sure doesn’t sound like it. Sanford’s model Mendel's Accountant is no different than any other model in that if you put shit in you get shit out. The evidence says many of the assumptions that Sanford programed into his model are incorrect. That is what happens when you base your work on the decades old work of someone else. Many of Sanford’s assumptions were based on the 1970s work of Motoo Kimura and Tomoko Ohta. Many parts of their nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution has long since been shown to be false by newer research. Unfortunately for Sanford some of those incorrect conclusions were used as assumptions in his model.

Of course I wouldn't expect the fact that a hypothesis which you see as supporting your position doesn't hold water would stop you from clinging to it even after it was shown to be false.

I have no idea because you have done nothing to even address the idea much less show anything to be false.

I pointed out general areas where assumptions made by Sanford are known to be incorrect. Would you like specific examples? More importantly, if I provide specific examples showing his assumptions to be wrong will you accept that the work is flawed?