Occam's Aftershave
Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Over at TWeb where this started I asked the same question; why haven't all the fast reproducing mammal species died out from genetic meltdown yet? The topic of mice was raised, because while mice have a genome roughly the size of humans (approx. 3 GB), they have a generation time some 170x faster (6 weeks vs. 20 years). So why haven't all the mice gone extinct by now?
I made the statement ""All other things being equal, the population that breeds faster will accumulate mutations faster."
Jorge Fernandez (a YEC who was acting as a go between to Sanford) supposedly forwarded my questions to Sanford and got this reply:
Sanford: " No, it is just the opposite, short generation times means more frequent and better selective filtering."
Which makes zero sense and is trivially easy to refute with their own program:
Run Mendel with two populations that are identical in every way (i.e genome size, mutation rate, selection pressure, etc.) except make one generation time 2x the other, say two per year year vs. one per year.
If you run them both for 1000 generations, both will end up with the same (lower) fitness level, but the two per year will only take 500 years to get there.
If you run them both for 1000 years, the once per year will end up in the exact same fitness as the first trial, but the two per year will have 2000 generations and end up with an even lower fitness level, if it doesn't just go extinct first.
These guys are busted, and they know they're busted. Now it's just a question of how far they can push this shit and how much money they can make before the errors become well known.
--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."
- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
|
