Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (JohnW @ June 16 2009,15:47) | | Quote (sledgehammer @ June 16 2009,12:42) | I think it is even worse that that Zach, for three reasons:
<snip> |
I think you're right, sledgehammer. It looks like Sanford thinks the beneficial effect of a mutation is constrained by its "size" relative to the total size of the genome - the bigger the genome, the smaller the effect of a single mutation.
Assuming you and I are not misinterpreting, I think there are two possibilities:
(a) - he really is that dumb (perhaps he thinks giraffes have more neck genes than humans);
(b) - this is yet another silly exercise in apologetics - slosh a lot of sciency talk around, but fix it to make sure you get the answer Jesus wants you to get.
I'm strongly leaning (b). |
He just said it again.
| Quote | | Sanford: A setting of 1.0 means that a single mutation can double fitness - creating as much biological functionality as the entire rest of the genome. |
A doubling in fitness does not imply a doubling of "biological functionality". Resistance to plague doesn't imply a dramatic increase in the size of a genome. It may just mean that fleas think you smell bad.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
