What exactly is ID?

After reading those questions, I will remind you of two things. There isn't a scientific consensus of the origin of life. That came from oh, (who is that famous lady who has debated Stephen Meyer a few times?)So what does that mean? This means there aren't any definitive answers as to the process or the mechanisms involved. Even when a hypothesis is formulated, it doesn't account for the information necessary for the parts within the cell to work together coherently. No biologist thinks they can make a new cell by throwing all the right ingredients into a test tubes or a sterile tank.So who created the creator? This is a short example of infinite regression. Who created you Nuggin? Who created the creator who created Nuggin? Who created that creator as well? You eventually get to a place where you cannot answer so, does that mean you do not exist?

You are being disingenuous. You know that the "designer" you are talking about is "God".You can NOT claim that the designer was an "alien" with an honest face. Firstly because obviously ID is a religious movement founded by religion fanatics pushing a religious agenda.Secondly, because there is no rational way to explain the existence of an intelligent alien life form if you rule out the possibility of evolution occurring. If WE are intelligently designed, then any alien must ALSO have been intelligently designed. You follow that path back and it is ALWAYS going to lead to "Jew Wizard". Are you actually this unfamiliar with your own religion. The Bible is FULL of God demanding belief - it's the FIRST COMMANDMENT. A zippo lighter leaves a Amazonian tribesman speechless, that doesn't mean it's magic.Just because YOU don't understand something with your clearly subpar understanding of science doesn't mean it is the work of demons or pixies or whatever else you claim is pulling the strings.

There absolutely IS a consensus on the origin of life. It had one. Life exists. It is on Earth. That is ALL evolution assumes.If you have EVIDENCE that indicates that life doesn't exist on Earth, I'd like to see it.Do you? Or are you just trying to deflect? Again? Obviously I exist. Do you have evidence that I don't? I'd like to see it.I am not the one making the extraordinary claim. You are.You are claiming (I'm paraphrasing here) that somewhere out there, unseen, is an invisible Jewish Wizard floating on a cloud of Unicorn snot shooting magic Jew beams from his eyes. You are claiming that our existence is IMPOSSIBLE to explain without this invisible Jewish Wizard and his magic Jew beams and therefore he must exist. However, you DON'T seem to have a problem with your not being about to explain HIS existence.Why is that?

quote:

---

It doesn't matter where they are. They are doing their job soemhow and are providing power to the flagellum.

---

That doesn't even make sense. The proteins that make up the whip don't have the job of providing power to the flagellum, any more than the blades of a propellor have the job of providing power to the propellor.

quote:

---

So, what's the answer. Please do clarify.

---

The answer is that the information content is described by possible origins, not by the structure of the thing itself. Anything with the same set of possible origins, with the same probabilities for each has the same information.

quote:

---

Than that would be log2p(10^2954) for the whole flagellum. And if we include Axe's work, than we have log2p(10^2363).

---

Wrong on both counts. Even if you have mathematically calculated the correct probability of the gene sequences forming by pure chance then it still isn't the correct probability even for those genes forming. Nor do you have a valid specification (it's an obvious "fabrication" in Dembksi's terminology). And you've misapplied Axe's figures, too.

quote:

---

Can you specify that structure without observing the event that forms the structure? If not, than it's not a specification.

---

Obviously we can. Any regular geometric structure can be described without reference to an object actually having that structure. (Try looking for "face-centred cubic lattice" for a start).

quote:

---

Yes, and we do. And that is why salt crystals are not designed.

---

Exactly my point.

quote:

---

LOL, no, you ASSUME it's been here for a long time. Care to show me any evidence for that? And even if it was. It would just mean that it takes longer for the meltdown to occur.

---

No, we have evidence that life has been around a long time. You may have heard of fossils. And if meltdown takes that long it isn't much of a problem.

quote:

---

Name me ONE assumption.

---

One obviously silly one is that the effects of beneficial mutations can't counter the effects of detrimental mutations. (By definition they can, and often will).

quote:

---

Which number exactly do you have problems with?

---

The number of detrimental mutations per generation. It looks way too high.

quote:

---

LOL! How in God's name would that help you? For God's sake, it doesn't matter if you evolve wings or infra red vision, or you evolve te ability to run 200 km/h, if you are sterile or still born!!!
Obviously those beneficial mutations will be useles if you're dead or you can't pass on your great evolved traits! Please think before you speak!

---

In other words you are not considering ALL detrimental mutations (which is ANY mutation that reduces fitness) rather you are considering a small subset, so that an accumulation of 30 (or whatever) produces a fitness of zero which cannot be countered by any beneficial mutations. So, you seem to have your own idea of genetic entropy, and you are going to have to significantly reduce the number of detrimental mutations per generation to fit your model to reality.Let us try it more simply. A detrimental mutation is any mutation that reduces fitness. A beneficial mutation i any mutation that increases fitness. (Where "fitness" is defined as reproductive success). Obviously an increase can offset a decrease.

quote:

---

You see? This is the effect of genetic entropy on you. You can't say anything that has any grounding in reason. Of course they are made up! I even said so at the start. I made them like that to demonstrate how genetic entropy leads to genetic meltdown. Did you expect me to make a picture representing 10.000.000 generations?

---

If you are talking about what happens in large populations, with lower mutation rates over longer timespans then you are going to have to take account of those things somehow. Saying that you can't put them in your diagram is just a cop-out.

quote:

---

And the best aprt is, you did not explain how a larger population will fix this. Please do. Make a picture or explan how by increasing the population will you make the genetic entropy go away. Go on, do it, or shut up already.

---

Actually, I did. In large populations, over a long timescale - especially in sexually reproducing species - we can look at the fate of individual alleles, without worrying too much about the individuals that carry them. Those alleles which cary detrimental mutations will tend to decline and disappear. Those that carry beneficial mutations will tend to spread and replace mutated and unmated versions of the gene.
The whole idea of genetic meltdown relies on detrimental mutations accumulating faster than natural selection can remove them. In small populations, because chance effects are more significant this situation is far more likely to occur. In larger problems statistics favour selection over chance.

quote:

---

Again... SO THE HELL WHAT!?
How does that help you? How does that FULLY STOP genetic entropy? It doesn't! It just slows it down, but it doesn't stop it! Even the best offspring have deleterious mutations and they pass them on to their offspring, and the deleterious mutations still accumulate. Which means that the geentic entropy still exists, and at aslower pace is still leading to a genetic meltdown.

---

Because natural selection will remove deleterious mutations, genetic entropy will be stopped whenever the rate of removal equals the rate at which new detrimental mutations are introduced to the population.You might like to consider the fact that the best offspring will typically have FEWER deleterious mutations than their parents, for a start. How does that fit with your idea of inevitable accumulation ?

And why he faked all the evidence for evolution. And yet it seems to scientists that they've found the exact opposite. An ... interesting ... statement. If the information had turned out to be analog, would creationists have all given up and gone home?No? Then what's your point?

How many generations do you think it needs? E.coli can divide every 20 minutes under ideal conditions, how many twenty minutes are there in the last six thousand years? Even if we drop it to one generation a day to account for variations in generational rates, that's over two million generations.Why hasn't genetic entropy shown its head in E. coli?

But it isn't 6,000 years--it is more like 3.5 billion years. And it isn't just E. coli--it is all of life.And guess what? No genetic entropy! "Genetic entropy" has been shown the door! It is a failed concept.But like many of the concepts being pushed as science by IDers and fundamentalists, this nonsense can be traced back to the bible--in this particular case their belief in a "Fall."How else do you think folks come up with geocentrism, kinds, young earth, and all the other nonsense we see in these threads? Those ideas certainly are not supported by science--as some claim; science has shown the exact opposite!And ID is right up there with the rest, but with the serial numbers filed off in an attempt to sneak it back into the public schools under the false guise of "science."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The reason this point never seems to get home is because SO believes that creatures where created ready made to be fit for the environment. These animals don't need to be 'refined' by natural selection because they were already fit for purpose.If they are not fit for purpose the 'creator' is not all it cracked up to be, right?Therefore the idea of the origin is vitally important because if things evolve it means they are not fit for purpose and were not created.The 'genetic entropy' simply shows why 'fit for purpose' organisms have been shown to change over time; a neat side step of ToE.Don't bother trying to get SO to look at ToE as separate from abiogenesis because in his mind if ToE is true, creation and therefore ID are wrong.I don't see it that way and chances are nor do you, but I believe SO has a creation event to justify.

Indeed, but I was pointing out that even the Creationists' silly date for the creation of the earth is not free from their problem.

quote:

---

I will happily go into great detail about ERVs in a different thread. It would unfortunately take up a lot of space and be deemed off topic here.

​

If you want info, I suggest you search for existing ERVs threads or start a new one and I'll join you over there.

---

No problem. We'll deal with it later on.

quote:

---

Because proto-avians in the fossil record have teeth, not beaks.

---

What does thatz have to do with chickens? Are you by any chance claiming that these supposed "proto-avians" are related to modern day chickens? Do you have any evidence for that?

quote:

---

Please don't ask me to explain chronological time to you. If you don't understand "before" and "after", I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you.

---

I'm sorry but we must go into full detail because your whole theory is built on assumptions and logical fallacies right at it's foundations. And I just want you to realize that.

quote:

---

Can you think of a SINGLE example which could NOT be explained by "it was designed that way"?

---

Yes, those that are produced by genetic duplication.

quote:

---

Can "It was designed that way" ever be applied as a predictive model? Or is it ONLY usable to explain evidence after the fact? Do you have a predictive example we can test?

---

ID predicts that if the genomes are designed, that it will contain high amount of CSI.

quote:

---

And they also have pixie levers which the minions of the Jew Wizard can twist when they need to activate the Magic Jew Beam receptors.

​

You can invent as many magical functions as you want to explain natural things. However, until you can start DEMONSTRATING their existence, they are nothing more than make believe.

---

You seem to be incredibly clueless about genetics. Here, take a look, the mechanisms is a very well known one. It's called a transposon. Why do you think you have any right to even address me if you are clueless about such basic stuff?Transposable element - Wikipedia

quote:

---

And "the Jew Wizard designed it that way" is useful how?

---

Who claimed that?

quote:

---

No, that's not how evolution works. Chickens could not spontaneously gain an exoskeleton. If that were to occur that would be unexplainable using the evolutionary model.

---

I didn't say spontaneously. With time, it could have gained and lost, and gained, and lost, and gaine, and lost and gaine, and lost ... ... an exoskeleton. And there would be no problem for evolution to account for that, because it can account for everything.

quote:

---

Likewise, if a donkey suddenly sprouted fully formed wings, it would be unexplainable using our model.

---

Again, you are building a strawman. I never said suddenly. I said, through time.

quote:

---

Our model is falsifiable.

---

Really? Well, name one possible falsification.

quote:

---

"Jew Magic" after the fact is NOT falsifiable because it is make believe and make believe can encompass anything.

---

That's true. And that's why I'm not arguing for that.

quote:

---

Re-read your quote. You are drawing a conclusion from a sentence which contains the word "suggests".

---

It suggests because we already know, for a fact that it has already happened that way in another experiment. Therefore, the best explanation is that it happened that way here also.

quote:

---

Again, if you don't understand the concept of a linear timeline, there is very little I can explain to you. This is sort of a fundamental part of your existence. Denying it really makes this conversation impossible since you can't sort out the sequence of questions and answers.

---

I'm waiting. Please start explaining the fossil record.

quote:

---

You are claiming that Dembski is not stating who the "intelligence" is. That's a lie. Either you are ignorant and therefore being honestly dishonest, or you are being intentionally dishonest.

​

Since I've pointed out that he's admitted that it's the Jew Wizard that's doing the designing, you can no longer honestly claim to not know that.

---

I tend to think that you are the liar here. Since I do not think you have read any of his books. I on the other hand did, and I don't remember him saying that God is the designer. Unless he was asked in an interview of who he believes the designer is, he would state that he believes it's God. But he would also point out that that's just his own belief, that has nothing to do with ID itself.

quote:

---

Clearly it isn't, since your team has failed to apply it to thing which have been demonstrated to be evolved and not designed.

---

Oh, really? Why don't you start reading NFL, you would be surprised.

quote:

---

Because they aren't negative if they aren't having a negative effect.

---

Tautology anyone?

quote:

---

There are tree rats in my back yard. They may or may not have a working GULO gene. However, since every single house on my block has lemon trees in the yard, whether or not this gene exists in these rats is moot.

---

Well if that is so you have just blured the line between beneficial and deleterious mutations. Which means that even if mutations are beenficial they still destroy biologic functions. Not only that, but since they are beneficial, they will get passed on to the next geenration, and this will only speed up the process of genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Your claim is that the mutation rate is high enough that all individuals will spontaneously be unable to reproduce with one another. You've provide NO evidence to support this claim.

---

Why are you such a filthy liar? I never claimed that. I said with time, populations will deteriorate. Did my picture show a sudden genetic meltdown, or did it happen gradually? Obviously it happened gradually. And the evidence for that exists. Populations die out pecause of genetic meltdown.

quote:

---

No, because you failed to include genetic material from both parents.

---

Again, that doesn't change the picture. Yes, sexual recombination is helpful. I mean that's obvious. But so what? It doesn't stop the degradation in any way! Yes, it does slow it down, becasue for instance, one parent can have a deleterious mutation, and the other parent not. When they have children, the child can inherit the gene that does not have the deleterious mutation. And yes, that helps.But thell me, how the hell is that going to help you when ALL individuals have this mutation? You do understand that the child will inherit teh gene from either parent, but it will still inherit the non-functional gene since both parent's genes are defective. Like in teh case of the GULO gene in humans. No amount of sexual recombination is going to help you here because whichever gene the child inherits is defective. 100% of people on Earth have this defective gene.So to conclude this part. Yes, sexual recombination slows down genetic entropy, but it does not stop it.

quote:

---

Okay, let's simplify:

​

You are claiming that in a made up world of your made up animals reproducing in a made up way using made up mutation rates and a made up effect of natural selection, your population will do something different than what happens in the real world under real conditions.

​

You're right. Your make believe world is different than our real world. Congrats.

---

So you are saying that in real world, ALL deleterious mutations from parents magicaly get weeded out before they are passed on to their children? Explain how.

quote:

---

Now I know you are deliberately being dishonest.

​

Is that because you think that the Jew Wizard rewards lying more than truth?

---

I could ask you teh same thing. Do you pray to Darwin every night?

quote:

---

You might as well complain that since the theory of gravity explains both why the book I just dropped fell to the ground and why the Moon doesn't, it's "useless" and a "cop-out".

---

Nope, because the Moon and the book are different objects.If somebody said that gravity explained why books fall down, and why sometimes books would not fall down if released, witht eh same mechanism, now that would be a cop out.

quote:

---

If you really don't understand what the theory of evolution has to say about vestigial genes, then have a look for my recent posts on the subject. It's off-topic here though.

---

I do understand it, thank you for your concern anyway.

quote:

---

Because they only make sense in the light of the evolutionary history of the organisms (as inferred from the other evidence). Or a designer who's deliberately trying to mess with our heads (see my post on actualism, above).

---

Fine. Start explaining. How do they only make sense in light of evolution.

quote:

---

You've made how many posts on the topic and you still need evolution defining for you? It's heritable changes in a lineage.

---

I do need a definition from everyone because everyone has a different definition.

quote:

---

Those words did not actually appear in the post to which I was replying. But in answer to your question, a population is called small if it is small. I really don't know how to make this concept any simpler.

---

A population is small if it is small? Wow, Einstein, did you graduate at the University of Tautology?

quote:

---

If you wish to know at what point we might expect small size to lead to genetic catastrophe, then in order to answer that, I should require a histogram relating the effect on fitness of mutations to their probability.

​

Ecologists generally use the "50/500 rule" --- an effective (i.e. breeding) population of 50 is needed to avert genetic disaster in the short run, 500 in the long run. But this is just a rule of thumb and varies from species to species.

---

Okay, now tell me, why do you think this will have any effect of stoping the genetic meltdown at any future point in time when we know that all individuals are mutants?

quote:

---

First, his opposition of "design" to "chance". Does he really know no better? Has he never heard of evolution, or is he ruling it out a priori?

---

Evolution is an algorithm. It does not produce any CSI. It only transmits it. Let me show you a mathematical proof for that, right out of NFL.First we have a CSI j, and a detrministic natural law denoted by f. Natural laws are described as functions. Simply because they act on a certain variable, and than give the same result every time.Just like 2X + 10 = 20. X will always be 5. In the same way, when you put water under 0C, you will always get ice.So now, you are claiming that this natural law "f", brought about CSI "j", without intelligent cause. That means that there was some element "i" in the domain of "f", that was acted upon by "f" and it brought upon "j".This is represented by the equation => "f(i) = j"This actually does not create new information, since "i" will always produce "j" when acted upon by "f". This simply means that the natural law has shifted the same amount of information from "i" to "j". The problem of where did the CSI come from is not resolved by this. Simply because we have to ask where did CSI in "i" come from? Because that is the same CSI as in "j". It just got shifted around by "f" acting upon it.Now we have this equation: "I(A&B) = I(A) + I(B|A)", let's call it "*". It explains that information in an event A and B equal information in the event A together with information B given that A is certain. Which basicly means that if A happens, B is sure to happen. Therefore, if we see that A happened, that means B happened too.Let us now use this equation in our example. Since we already know that "i" fully determines "j", with respect to "f", that means that "I(j|i) = 0". This means that if know all the information in "i", we will also know all the information in "j", when "f" acts upon "i". Which means that if "i" happens, "j" also happens, and whatever we learn from "i" we also learn from "j". And this means that we can learn nothing more from "j" than from "i". Meaning, information gained is equal to zero.Which means that CSI that was generated is not created by a natural law, it was simply shifted from some other place. All natural laws act like this. Therefore natural laws are precluded from creating CSI. They can only shift them around.

quote:

---

There are subtler blunders, but that's the most obvious one. In order to detect design, we need a way of distinguishing things that were designed from the product of evolutionary algorithms (and other mechanisms, such as the random search that tailors our lymphocytes to the pathogens from which they defend us.)

---

Well we do have that. It's called the Explanatory Filter. And we also have a reliable mark of intelligence which is CSI, which can not be produced by an evolutionary algorithm.

quote:

---

Whereas observation of reality shows that they don't; and reality trumps what people write down on bits of paper. I know that this flies in the face of the fundamental dogma of creationsism, but such is the case.

---

Than how do you explain this.Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMC
Just a moment...
Just a moment...

quote:

---

I can't believe I'm going to have to go over this again.

---

Believe it.

quote:

---

Evolution makes a claim about how speciation occurs and offers mechanics through which this happens.

---

Great. And I'm not asking that evolution should produce anything else. If that is the theory of evolution, than that's fine by me. In the same way, ID offers to detect design in patterns we observe in nature. For that it has a method called an explanatory filter, and a measure of the pattern that we should find if a pattern is designed called CSI. And it offeres the source for those patterns to be an intelligence.

quote:

---

It does not need to explain the origins of life for two reasons. First, it doesn't claim to try and explain the origins of life. Second, it works off the assumption that life exists.

---

Great! I agree with that. The same goes for ID. It does not have to explain the mechanism of design because:1.) It claims that design is detectable without knowing the mechanism.
2.) That mechanism can not be reliably infered just by detecting design.

quote:

---

A person describing an internal combustion motor does not need to prove that fire exists. They start with the assumption that fire exists and proceed to describe the mechanisms which utilize fire to power their motor.

---

I agreee. In the same way, since design has for a logical neccessity a designer, and a mechanism that implemented that design, ID does not try to name the identity of the designer, or the mechanism.

quote:

---

ID is offered as a cancellation/replacement of evolution.

---

Wrong. ID can not be in any way, shape or form the replacement for evolution. If evolution is concerned with change of species over time, than ID has nothing to say about that. ID is the science of design detection only. And is not supposed to replace evolution. ID and evolution can coexist.

quote:

---

Therefore, it is being offered as an ALTERNATIVE explanation for how speciation occurs.

---

Wrong, again it's not. It has nothing to do with how speciation occures. People can accept both evolution and ID liek Michael Behe does. You are building a strawman argument here.

quote:

---

Therefore it _MUST_ offer mechanisms which are _BETTER_ at explaining the observable testable data than those seen in evolution.

---

Which it doesn't have to offer because a.) I already explain why it doesn't have to offer that. And b.) You only assumed it is trying to replace evolution. Which is where you were wrong, and this conclusion is likewise wrong.

quote:

---

So far, ID supporters have NEVER even attempted to do this.

---

Becasue they are not supposed to.

quote:

---

Until they do, there's really nothing to discuss. It's simply a bunch of cry babies whining that real scientists aren't taking their LACK OF EVIDENCE seriously.

---

Ok, so let's turn this stupid argument agains you nce more.Untill evolution offers us an explanation for origin of life, there is nothing to discuss.

quote:

---

Come up with a mechanism. Develop a method through which you can test it. Design an experiment and run it. Collect data. Then publish it. THEN we can START to talk about whether or not ID should be considered legitimately.

---

And untill you have evidence evolution is responsible for the origin of life, that I will simply consider you nothing but a Darwin worshiper.

quote:

---

That doesn't even make sense. The proteins that make up the whip don't have the job of providing power to the flagellum, any more than the blades of a propellor have the job of providing power to the propellor.

---

I never said they do. But the flagellum is powered by something.

quote:

---

The answer is that the information content is described by possible origins, not by the structure of the thing itself. Anything with the same set of possible origins, with the same probabilities for each has the same information.

---

That's wrong. So you are saying that If I write a book of 20 pages by hand, or if I write the same book by a computer, and than print it out, that the informational content of those books are not identical?

quote:

---

Wrong on both counts. Even if you have mathematically calculated the correct probability of the gene sequences forming by pure chance then it still isn't the correct probability even for those genes forming.

---

Of course it is, because the structure is what is important.

quote:

---

Nor do you have a valid specification (it's an obvious "fabrication" in Dembksi's terminology).

---

No it's not. A fabrication is something that is just read of the event that exhibits a patternt. A specification is when a pattern can be described without first looking at that event. We can describe a "bi-drectional rotary propeller motor" without looking at the flagellum first. Therefore, it's a specification.

quote:

---

And you've misapplied Axe's figures, too.

---

Explain how.

quote:

---

Obviously we can. Any regular geometric structure can be described without reference to an object actually having that structure. (Try looking for "face-centred cubic lattice" for a start).

---

Than describe the snowflake. What is it's pattern called.

quote:

---

Exactly my point.

---

No, your point is that I was supposed to say that they were designed.

quote:

---

No, we have evidence that life has been around a long time.

---

Show me that evidence.

quote:

---

You may have heard of fossils.

---

Do fossils come with dates attached to them?

quote:

---

And if meltdown takes that long it isn't much of a problem.

---

If it's going to happen than it's a problem.

quote:

---

One obviously silly one is that the effects of beneficial mutations can't counter the effects of detrimental mutations. (By definition they can, and often will).

---

Explain how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn.

quote:

---

The number of detrimental mutations per generation. It looks way too high.

---

I used those numbers to show in as few generations as possible the effects of genetic entropy. Tell me, what would ahve changed if I set the rate of mutations to 5 per generation, and the threshold to genetic meltdown to 5000 deleterious mutations. What would change EXCEPT the numbers of generations that would ahve to pass untill teh geentic meltdown occures?

quote:

---

In other words you are not considering ALL detrimental mutations (which is ANY mutation that reduces fitness) rather you are considering a small subset, so that an accumulation of 30 (or whatever) produces a fitness of zero which cannot be countered by any beneficial mutations.

---

And again, I ask you, how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn.

quote:

---

So, you seem to have your own idea of genetic entropy, and you are going to have to significantly reduce the number of detrimental mutations per generation to fit your model to reality.

---

And once more, what would ahve changed if I set the rate of mutations to 5 per generation, and the threshold to genetic meltdown to 5000 deleterious mutations. What would change EXCEPT the numbers of generations that would ahve to pass untill teh geentic meltdown occures?

quote:

---

Let us try it more simply. A detrimental mutation is any mutation that reduces fitness. A beneficial mutation i any mutation that increases fitness. (Where "fitness" is defined as reproductive success). Obviously an increase can offset a decrease.

---

And for the third time, how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn.

quote:

---

If you are talking about what happens in large populations, with lower mutation rates over longer timespans then you are going to have to take account of those things somehow. Saying that you can't put them in your diagram is just a cop-out.

---

The same thing happens as in my diagram. Only in more generations.

quote:

---

Actually, I did. In large populations, over a long timescale - especially in sexually reproducing species - we can look at the fate of individual alleles, without worrying too much about the individuals that carry them. Those alleles which cary detrimental mutations will tend to decline and disappear.

---

No they won't. You arte simply asserting this. How would they disappear if the parents pass them on to their offspring.

quote:

---

Those that carry beneficial mutations will tend to spread and replace mutated and unmated versions of the gene.

---

No, they wouldn't. Becasue a parent passes on both deleterious and beneficial mutations to it's offspring.

quote:

---

The whole idea of genetic meltdown relies on detrimental mutations accumulating faster than natural selection can remove them.

---

Which is an observed fact.Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMC
Just a moment...
Just a moment...

quote:

---

In small populations, because chance effects are more significant this situation is far more likely to occur. In larger problems statistics favour selection over chance.

---

Where is your evidence for that statement?

quote:

---

Because natural selection will remove deleterious mutations, genetic entropy will be stopped whenever the rate of removal equals the rate at which new detrimental mutations are introduced to the population.

---

Where is the evidence for that?

quote:

---

You might like to consider the fact that the best offspring will typically have FEWER deleterious mutations than their parents, for a start. How does that fit with your idea of inevitable accumulation ?

---

No, becasue they inherit their parent's deleterious mutations and add their own.

quote:

---

How many generations do you think it needs? E.coli can divide every 20 minutes under ideal conditions, how many twenty minutes are there in the last six thousand years? Even if we drop it to one generation a day to account for variations in generational rates, that's over two million generations.

---

I don't know how much it needs. But it's a logical conclusion.

quote:

---

Why hasn't genetic entropy shown its head in E. coli?

---

It has. It affects all life. But like I said, a long time is needed for the actual meltdown to occure.