Inevitable Genomic Deterioration

[KL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsu94HQrL0&feature=related

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration.
Dr. John C. Sanford, well-known scientist, Associate Professor of at Cornell
University, plant geneticist, and inventor of the "gene gun", recently gave a
talk at Loma Linda University (as part of Dr. Paul Giem's Creation lecture
series) on "Genomic Entropy" or the inevitable genetic deterioration and eventual
extinction of humans within a relatively short period of time (hence the title of
his talk "Down, Not Up"). In other words, random detrimental mutations build up
in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster
than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of
modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved,
from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared
to our current rapidly degenerating condition. We are all heading downhill,
genetically, very rapidly in fact, toward complete genetic meltdown - toward the
extinction of life on this planet from the build-up of deleterious mutations
alone. The only solution to this problem is the direct intervention of the
Creator of life. It is for this reason that Dr. Sanford likes to call himself a
"Supernaturalist".

Dr. Sandford's current position as a believer in God as the original Creator of
life was not always his position. He was once an atheist. He then evolved, if
you will, into a theistic position, and then, finally, was convinced of the
superior explanatory value of the creationist position - of a belief in the
scientific credibility of the Biblical account of origins and the current
degenerated and degenerating condition of mankind.
--------------------
x-postet

[Martin Andersen]

On 10-05-2012 21:38, KL wrote:
> was convinced of the
> superior explanatory value of the creationist position - of a belief in the
> scientific credibility of the Biblical account of origins

LOL.

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Likewise.

Har de automater i USA, hvor man kan trække
en doktorgrad?

--

Med venlig hilsen
Jørgen Farum Jensen

[Lars Kongshøj]

Undlad irrevant x-post.

[Lars Kongshøj]

Undlad at besvare irrevant x-post.

[Lars Kongshøj]

Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
> Har de automater i USA, hvor man kan trække
> en doktorgrad?

Ja.

[KL]

"Lars Kongshøj" <lars_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4facb508$0$284$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

Tak for det. Det er da en interessant modtagelse, indeed.
Du må også gerne se foredraget, ikke bare holde fingrene for øjne og ører. Det er
ingenting at være bange for?

Og du kan følge op på den hvor du ønsker det.

[Lars Kongshøj]

Plonk

[Herluf Holdt, 3140]

Lars Kongshøj fuldciterede:
> KL wrote:

>> [klip fuldcitat]

Undlad venligst fuldcitater af x-postet crap.

> Undlad irrevant x-post.

Ja, irrelevant gruppe erstattet med dk.videnskab.

--
Herluf :·)

[KL]

"Herluf Holdt, 3140" <herlufho...@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:4fad454a$0$291$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

hej Herluf.

Har du set på evidensen? Eller har du også af sikkerhedsgrunde lukket for
tilførsel? Synd!
(Jeg tror nok du har plonket mig så denne besked kommer ikke gennem,
medmindre...)

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Den 11-05-2012 19:37, KL skrev:
> "Herluf Holdt, 3140" <herlufho...@privat.dk> wrote in
> message
> news:4fad454a$0$291$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>> Lars Kongshøj fuldciterede:
>>> KL wrote:
>>
>>>> [klip fuldcitat]
>>
>> Undlad venligst fuldcitater af x-postet crap.
>>
>>> Undlad irrevant x-post.
>>
>> Ja, irrelevant gruppe erstattet med dk.videnskab.
>>
> hej Herluf.
>
> Har du set på evidensen?

Hvilken evidens?

Vi har her en udtalelse fra en erklæret
kreationist, der citeres for noget åbenlyst
vrøvl, for eks.:

"In other words, random detrimental mutations

build upin the gene pools of living things with

a low reproductive rate far far faster
than natural selection can get rid of them."

Hvor er "evidensen" for at dette er korrekt?

Hvis det var korrekt, ville mange nulevende arter
forlængst være uddøde. Undtaget, naturligvis,
hvis man tror på at alle nulevende arter blev skabt
i en perfekt form for nogle tusinde år siden, og
at det eneste der siden er sket er forandringer
i det dengang "perfekte" genom.

Det har intet med videnskab at gøre, og alt
at gøre med en forskruet kreationistisk
religiøsitet.

[KL]

"Jørgen Farum Jensen" <jfje...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:4fad6dcd$0$281$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

>>>
>> hej Herluf.
>>
>> Har du set på evidensen?
>
> Hvilken evidens?
>
> Vi har her en udtalelse fra en erklæret
> kreationist, der citeres for noget åbenlyst
> vrøvl, for eks.:
>
> "In other words, random detrimental mutations
> build upin the gene pools of living things with
> a low reproductive rate far far faster
> than natural selection can get rid of them."
>
> Hvor er "evidensen" for at dette er korrekt?
>

Hør lige på foredraget.

> Hvis det var korrekt, ville mange nulevende arter
> forlængst være uddøde. Undtaget, naturligvis,
> hvis man tror på at alle nulevende arter blev skabt
> i en perfekt form for nogle tusinde år siden, og
> at det eneste der siden er sket er forandringer
> i det dengang "perfekte" genom.
>

Ja, når du siger det, det er en mulighed, som ikke er helt ved siden af.

> Det har intet med videnskab at gøre, og alt
> at gøre med en forskruet kreationistisk
> religiøsitet.
>

Prøv at høre hvad han ellers har at sige...

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Den 11-05-2012 23:29, KL skrev:
> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" <jfje...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:4fad6dcd$0$281$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>>>>
>>> hej Herluf.
>>>
>>> Har du set på evidensen?
>>
>> Hvilken evidens?
>>
>> Vi har her en udtalelse fra en erklæret
>> kreationist, der citeres for noget åbenlyst
>> vrøvl, for eks.:
>>
>> "In other words, random detrimental mutations
>> build upin the gene pools of living things with
>> a low reproductive rate far far faster
>> than natural selection can get rid of them."
>>
>> Hvor er "evidensen" for at dette er korrekt?
>>
> Hør lige på foredraget.
>
>> Hvis det var korrekt, ville mange nulevende arter
>> forlængst være uddøde. Undtaget, naturligvis,
>> hvis man tror på at alle nulevende arter blev skabt
>> i en perfekt form for nogle tusinde år siden, og
>> at det eneste der siden er sket er forandringer
>> i det dengang "perfekte" genom.
>>
> Ja, når du siger det, det er en mulighed, som ikke er helt
> ved siden af.

Jo, det er netop helt ved siden af.

>> Det har intet med videnskab at gøre, og alt
>> at gøre med en forskruet kreationistisk
>> religiøsitet.
>>
> Prøv at høre hvad han ellers har at sige...
>
>

Er det, du citerer i den oprindelige meddelelse
ikke repræsentativt?

En person, der iflg. citatet ser

"superior explanatory value of the creationist position"

er ikke en person hvis meninger hører hjemme i
dk.videnskab.

[Vidal]

Den 11-05-2012 23:29, KL skrev:

There are two main reasons John Sanford's Genetic Entropy argument is completely
off base:

1. It is based on a simplistic computer model with no empirical evidence to
support it. In science, you get the evidence then you make the model. He made
the model without any evidence, he made it instead assuming all mutations are
bad and of course it shows that evolution is not possible.

2. Sanford's definition of fitness is flawed. He seems to think that "full
fitness" equals 1. He's assuming that there is a such thing as ideal fitness and
that's completely wrong. Some genotypes are favorable in some environments,
others are favorable in other environments. For example, dark skin is favorable
in areas near the equator (prevents melanoma/skin cancers) but unfavorable away
from the equator (leads to other cancers and rickets). Light skin is the
opposite, near the equator whites will get melonoma, but away from the equator
they'll have lower incidences of other cancers and rickets. The same is true for
every single attribute in every organism. Besides null mutations (those
destroying the reproductive system or killing the animal), there are no
mutations that cannot be beneficial in some circumstances.

There are other problems. He doesn't factor in environmental influence in his
model because he considers it noise. What? Does he know what natural selection
is? He also does not factor in things like hybridization and genetic drift--all
of which are instrumental in speciation.

He claims his model, called Mendel's Accountant is the most complex and
comprehensive computer simulation for genetic evolution ever created. Fine, but
it's still too simplistic in comparison to the real world. He makes assumptions
like the beneficial mutation rate and the selection rate--both of which are
arbitrarily drawn up by him.

-------
Q: "You don't know all the factors interacting with this mutation, so to say
something is slightly negative is an assumption. I guess what I'm getting at, is
do you have an example of a slightly deleterious mutation?"

A (Sandford):"There have been many experiments done where we expose--for example
plants to radiation and most of them die and you get all sorts of weird stuff.
But these things usually die or can't reproduce. You don't want mutations in
your genome because it's bad--give me a show of hands how many people want
mutations in their genomes?"
--------

Of course no one wants mutations in their genomes, but we're not talking about
mutations in living animals, we're talking about mutations in germ lines. You
can't get evolution from mutations in a living organism.

[KL]

"Jørgen Farum Jensen" <jfje...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message

news:4fae2c1b$0$294$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

Det er det nok, men du får ikke det hele med. Eller tør du ikke høre det, måske?

> En person, der iflg. citatet ser
> "superior explanatory value of the creationist position"
> er ikke en person hvis meninger hører hjemme i
> dk.videnskab.
>

Hvorfor ikke bare se foredraget?

[KL]

"Vidal" <vi...@webspeed.dk> wrote in message
news:4fae4253$0$296$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

Villy, så du foredraget? Og hvor har du hentet denne tekst fra?

> There are two main reasons John Sanford's Genetic Entropy argument is
> completely off base:
>
> 1. It is based on a simplistic computer model with no empirical evidence to
> support it.
>

His models aligns with what is observed.

Og hvis du vil snakke om 'empirical evidence'. så gerne for mig.
Kan du fortælle hvad er 'empirical evidence' i darwinistisk evolutionsteori?

> In science, you get the evidence then you make the model.
>

Interpretation of the data, yes. Which is what he did.

> He made the model without any evidence, he made it instead assuming all
> mutations are bad and of course it shows that evolution is not possible.
>
> 2. Sanford's definition of fitness is flawed. He seems to think that "full
> fitness" equals 1. He's assuming that there is a such thing as ideal fitness
> and that's completely wrong. Some genotypes are favorable in some environments,
> others are favorable in other environments. For example, dark skin is favorable
> in areas near the equator (prevents melanoma/skin cancers) but unfavorable away
> from the equator (leads to other cancers and rickets). Light skin is the
> opposite, near the equator whites will get melonoma, but away from the equator
> they'll have lower incidences of other cancers and rickets. The same is true
> for every single attribute in every organism. Besides null mutations (those
> destroying the reproductive system or killing the animal), there are no
> mutations that cannot be beneficial in some circumstances.
>
> There are other problems. He doesn't factor in environmental influence in his
> model because he considers it noise. What? Does he know what natural selection
> is? He also does not factor in things like hybridization and genetic drift--all
> of which are instrumental in speciation.
>

Alt andet lige, når det grundliggende er et spørgsmål om at indkøbe dyrt og sælge
billigt, så kan hverken kvantitet eller andre tricks gøre nogen forskel.

> He claims his model, called Mendel's Accountant is the most complex and
> comprehensive computer simulation for genetic evolution ever created.
>

Hvor gør han det?

> Fine, but it's still too simplistic in comparison to the real world. He makes
> assumptions like the beneficial mutation rate and the selection rate--both of
> which are arbitrarily drawn up by him.
>
> -------
> Q: "You don't know all the factors interacting with this mutation, so to say
> something is slightly negative is an assumption. I guess what I'm getting at,
> is do you have an example of a slightly deleterious mutation?"
>
> A (Sandford):"There have been many experiments done where we expose--for
> example plants to radiation and most of them die and you get all sorts of weird
> stuff. But these things usually die or can't reproduce. You don't want
> mutations in your genome because it's bad--give me a show of hands how many
> people want mutations in their genomes?"
> --------
>
> Of course no one wants mutations in their genomes, but we're not talking about
> mutations in living animals, we're talking about mutations in germ lines. You
> can't get evolution from mutations in a living organism.
>

Ja selvfølgelig, ikke darwinistisk evolution. Heller ikke i bakterier, men for
argumentets skyld, hvordan skulle det alene kunne give den evolution du ønsker?

[Dieter Britz]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:23:40 +0200, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
[...]

> En person, der iflg. citatet ser "superior explanatory value of the
> creationist position"
> er ikke en person hvis meninger hører hjemme i dk.videnskab.

Korrekt, og det nytter ikke at prøve at argumentere med dem. Det
bedste er at bare ignorere KL og ham Kall.

--
Dieter Britz

[Patruljen]

On 11 Maj, 09:01, "KL" <bfod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Lars Kongshøj" <lars_kongs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Sømand. Nu må du se at komme videre. Det kan ikke passe, at du hænger
fast i de-der konspirations-forestillinger i årevis.

Gør noget - godt for dig selv. Tag et kursus - e.g. HF, hvor du får
noget undervisning i biologi. Det er en oplagt mulighed.
Kan du udmatte din underviser med alle de spørgsmål du kan finde på.
Og frem for alt - få realitetstestet dine ideer.

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Den 12-05-2012 13:31, KL skrev:

>> Er det, du citerer i den oprindelige meddelelse
>> ikke repræsentativt?
>>
> Det er det nok, men du får ikke det hele med. Eller tør du ikke høre
> det, måske?

Hvad skulle jeg være bange for?

>> En person, der iflg. citatet ser
>> "superior explanatory value of the creationist position"
>> er ikke en person hvis meninger hører hjemme i
>> dk.videnskab.
>>
> Hvorfor ikke bare se foredraget?

Fordi kreationisme /intet/ har at bidrage
med, når det drejer sig om at forklare
naturens verden.

Hvorfor skulle jeg spilde min tid med at
se en video, når hele grundlaget iflg.
dit eget citat er falsk. Medmindre man, som
du, går ind på den præmis, jeg citerer.

--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
http://webdesign101.dk

[KL]

"Jørgen Farum Jensen" <farum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4faebac2$0$284$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

> Den 12-05-2012 13:31, KL skrev:
>
>>> Er det, du citerer i den oprindelige meddelelse
>>> ikke repræsentativt?
>>>
>> Det er det nok, men du får ikke det hele med. Eller tør du ikke høre
>> det, måske?
>
> Hvad skulle jeg være bange for?
>

Det ved jeg ikke... Bare en tanke.

>>> En person, der iflg. citatet ser
>>> "superior explanatory value of the creationist position"
>>> er ikke en person hvis meninger hører hjemme i
>>> dk.videnskab.
>>>
>> Hvorfor ikke bare se foredraget?
>
> Fordi kreationisme /intet/ har at bidrage
> med, når det drejer sig om at forklare
> naturens verden.
>

Det handler ikke om kreationisme. Det handler om mutationer m.m.

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Den 12-05-2012 13:33, KL skrev:

>> A (Sandford):"There have been many experiments done where
>> we expose--for
>> example plants to radiation and most of them die and you
>> get all sorts of weird
>> stuff. But these things usually die or can't reproduce.

Og den ene mutation ud af tusinder bestrålede
riskorn, der lykkedes giver os en rissort, der
kan vokse i saltholdigt vand. (The Economist. 5. maj 2012).

>> You don't want
>> mutations in your genome because it's bad--give me a show
>> of hands how many
>> people want mutations in their genomes?"
>> --------

Kan man i dybt alvor stille det spørgsmål? Man ku'
lige så godt spørge: Hvor mange ønsker ikke at få
kræft?

>> Of course no one wants mutations in their genomes, but
>> we're not talking about
>> mutations in living animals, we're talking about mutations
>> in germ lines. You
>> can't get evolution from mutations in a living organism.
>>
> Ja selvfølgelig, ikke darwinistisk evolution.

??? Mutationer finder sted i levende organismers
gener, enten som af bestråling, miljøpåvirkning
eller kopieringsfejl. Det muterede gen overlever,
hvis det er til gavn for arten, og overlever ikke
hvis det ikke er til gavn for arten.

For så vidt angår nytteplanter og nyttedyr har
menneske grebet ind i den naturlige udvikling i
tusindvis af år. Den eneste forskel på Mendels
og Borlauags metoder og de nu anvendte, er vores
øgede forståelse af de mekanismer, der fremkalder
mutationer.

Salttolerant ris kunne have udviklet sig naturligt,
hvis vi havde haft tålmodighed i nogle hundredtusind
år. Men der er brug for det nu, eftersom 1/5 af alle
risarker er forurenet med havvvand.

Heller ikke i
> bakterier, men for argumentets skyld, hvordan skulle det
> alene kunne give den evolution du ønsker?

??? I naturen sker evolution, uanset hvad vi
ønsker. Evolution er hensigtsløs, medmindre den
er menneskeskabt, som i tilfældet med ris, hvede
og køer.

[KL]

"Jørgen Farum Jensen" <jfje...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message

news:4fafa5a5$0$292$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

> Den 12-05-2012 13:33, KL skrev:
>
>>> A (Sandford):"There have been many experiments done where
>>> we expose--for
>>> example plants to radiation and most of them die and you
>>> get all sorts of weird
>>> stuff. But these things usually die or can't reproduce.
>
> Og den ene mutation ud af tusinder bestrålede
> riskorn, der lykkedes giver os en rissort, der
> kan vokse i saltholdigt vand. (The Economist. 5. maj 2012).
>

Ja variationer og adaptioner er ikke til diskussion.

>>> You don't want
>>> mutations in your genome because it's bad--give me a show
>>> of hands how many
>>> people want mutations in their genomes?"
>>> --------
>
> Kan man i dybt alvor stille det spørgsmål? Man ku'
> lige så godt spørge: Hvor mange ønsker ikke at få
> kræft?
>

ja

Som sagt, adaption (evolution) og variation er ikke til diskussion.

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Den 15-05-2012 11:23, KL skrev:
> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" <jfje...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:4fafa5a5$0$292$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>> Den 12-05-2012 13:33, KL skrev:
>>
>>>> A (Sandford):"There have been many experiments done where
>>>> we expose--for
>>>> example plants to radiation and most of them die and you
>>>> get all sorts of weird
>>>> stuff. But these things usually die or can't reproduce.
>>
>> Og den ene mutation ud af tusinder bestrålede
>> riskorn, der lykkedes giver os en rissort, der
>> kan vokse i saltholdigt vand. (The Economist. 5. maj 2012).
>>
> Ja variationer og adaptioner er ikke til diskussion.

Tja, men så man jo igen igen undre sig over
hvorfor du bringer vildledende artikler og forlanger
at vi skal lægge øjne og ører til noget vrøvl.

>>>> You don't want
>>>> mutations in your genome because it's bad--give me a show
>>>> of hands how many
>>>> people want mutations in their genomes?"
>>>> --------
>>
>> Kan man i dybt alvor stille det spørgsmål? Man ku'
>> lige så godt spørge: Hvor mange ønsker ikke at få
>> kræft?
>>
> ja

Fatter du ikke hvor tåbeligt spørgsmålet er?
Alle og enhver vil selvfølgelig svare nej,
men ingen har kontrol over hvorvidt de får
en kræftsygdom. Ingen har kontrol over om de
passerer et muteret gen til deres afkom.

>>
>>>> Of course no one wants mutations in their genomes, but
>>>> we're not talking about
>>>> mutations in living animals, we're talking about mutations
>>>> in germ lines. You
>>>> can't get evolution from mutations in a living organism.
>>>>
>>> Ja selvfølgelig, ikke darwinistisk evolution.

Du forklarer ikke hvad du mener er så selvfølgeligt:
Er evolution ikke darwinistisk, eller findes
der ikke-darwinistisk evolution?