[_ Old Earth _] Dr. John Sanford interview

[spartakis]

The articles you keep repeating are dead links. Seems you just keep repeating yourself. Should I do the same?

This is evidence what are you talking about.
And I will not keep repeating the same stories like you keep doing.
What I had posted was evidence that deterioration is occurring. 3 articles all claiming deterioration.

Do you really not understand what I am talking about or just have to deny it?

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne approximately 10(4), while G approximately 10(9), so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10(-6), an average individual carries approximately 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies too high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Once again, might as well repeat myself since that is what you are doing
And no a beneficial mutation does not prove the genome is improving. Selection works in a limited context. It will select out a very bad gene but a typical deleterious gene is to tiny in its effect. The typical nucleotide in the genome will not be selected. At the mutation rate I posted before, even if selection gets rid of a few percent it will not stop the deterioration of the genome. This is pretty simple to understand .

But a beneficial mutation like I stated is still a copying error, it is rare and needs to be added into the population. At the rate of deterioration I don't think a couple is going to matter or add genes for that matter.


You re posted what I posted about the mutation you claim added a gene, and said there it is a new gene. No it is a mutated protein.
one of the protein's amino acids is replaced with an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group. Somehow, this tiny change enables a handful of Italians to possess low HDL levels and remain free of cardiovascular disease.

 

[Barbarian]

You re posted what I posted about the mutation you claim added a gene, and said there it is a new gene. No it is a mutated protein.
one of the protein's amino acids is replaced with an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group. Somehow, this tiny change enables a handful of Italians to possess low HDL levels and remain free of cardiovascular disease.

You've confused the gene with the protein that it codes for:

Inhibition of Arterial Thrombus Formation by ApoA1 Milano
Dayuan Li; Sharon Weng; Baichun Yang; Dani S. Zander; Tom Saldeen; Wilmer W. Nichols; Saeed Khan; Jawahar L. Mehta
(Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1999;19:378-383.)
All subjects in this family were found to be heterozygous for the mutant allele and had very low levels of HDL cholesterol, high triglyceride levels, and yet no atherosclerosis. The apoA1 Milano has a shortened residence time and causes rapid catabolism of apoA1 in these subjects.12 The substitution of cysteine for arginine appears to alter the amphipathic nature of the α-helical fragment of apoA1, increasing exposure of its hydrophobic residues.13 This structural modification is associated with high affinity of apoA1 Milano for lipids in the lipid-protein complexes and their easy removal. The gene for apoA1 Milano has been cloned by Pharmacia, and the genetically engineered version of the mutant protein has been used in experimental studies. In a study by Ameli et al,14 administration of the genetically engineered apoA1 Milano caused a marked reduction in the magnitude of intimal lesions and regression of preexisting lesions in cholesterol-fed rabbits.

Alleles are different versions of the same gene. If it wasn't a mutated gene, it couldn't have been passed on for all these generations. And sometimes, I have a cite from the literature, that I haven't found on the net. Sorry. But if you really think I'm faking a cite, you could check on it and embarrass me when my dishonesty is revealed. Assuming I faked it. But you already know that would be a waste of your time, no?

And no a beneficial mutation does not prove the genome is improving.

And of course, the cited literature shows over a hundred favorable mutations not yet fixed. So that's out, too.

At the mutation rate I posted before, even if selection gets rid of a few percent it will not stop the deterioration of the genome.

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations. - Motoo Kimura

Kimura, as you might know, was a pioneer in neutralist theory of evolution. Sanford cited his work, but left out the part I highlighted for you in red. Guess why.

 

[spartakis]

You've confused the gene with the protein that it codes for:

Inhibition of Arterial Thrombus Formation by ApoA1 Milano
Dayuan Li; Sharon Weng; Baichun Yang; Dani S. Zander; Tom Saldeen; Wilmer W. Nichols; Saeed Khan; Jawahar L. Mehta
(Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1999;19:378-383.)
All subjects in this family were found to be heterozygous for the mutant allele and had very low levels of HDL cholesterol, high triglyceride levels, and yet no atherosclerosis. The apoA1 Milano has a shortened residence time and causes rapid catabolism of apoA1 in these subjects.12 The substitution of cysteine for arginine appears to alter the amphipathic nature of the α-helical fragment of apoA1, increasing exposure of its hydrophobic residues.13 This structural modification is associated with high affinity of apoA1 Milano for lipids in the lipid-protein complexes and their easy removal. The gene for apoA1 Milano has been cloned by Pharmacia, and the genetically engineered version of the mutant protein has been used in experimental studies. In a study by Ameli et al,14 administration of the genetically engineered apoA1 Milano caused a marked reduction in the magnitude of intimal lesions and regression of preexisting lesions in cholesterol-fed rabbits.

Alleles are different versions of the same gene. If it wasn't a mutated gene, it couldn't have been passed on for all these generations.

Yes it was a dominant allele. Does that mean a gene was added? No

And sometimes, I have a cite from the literature, that I haven't found on the net. Sorry. But if you really think I'm faking a cite, you could check on it and embarrass me when my dishonesty is revealed. Assuming I faked it. But you already know that would be a waste of your time, no?

Well you produced the claim, I would hope you would back it up with a good link. I would like to read it to determine how they know this? What documents do they have of 10,000 years ago about beneficial mutations then? They claim something that goes back 100,000 years which they have no evidence and even state it is speculation. This article seems to be per speculation and just going by different genes from different people in different regions. Seems like they are speculating this because of people coming from genetically distinct populations have genetic differences. Not much evidence if only speculation. You have posted false info before claiming shannon claude was a biologist, when he is not.
I was hopping to read it, you can't produce a link? I would probably stop using it until you could.

I have produced multiple different articles with scientist admitting deterioration. And the links work.

And of course, the cited literature shows over a hundred favorable mutations not yet fixed. So that's out, too.

See above waiting on a link and article seems per speculation. I would go back before to the facts I posted about the 100 nucleotide mutations per generation that are to small for selections to select out, this adds up like rust on a car.
Once again
Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne approximately 10(4), while G approximately 10(9), so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10(-6), an average individual carries approximately 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies too high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations. - Motoo Kimura

Kimura, as you might know, was a pioneer in neutralist theory of evolution. Sanford cited his work, but left out the part I highlighted for you in red. Guess why.

Because that is an assumption.

Is it wrong for Sanford to mention facts and leave out an opinion/assumption? No

Like I stated scientist agree the genome is deteriorating, it is mentioned in many publication I have posted, and you have just posted one that Sanford referenced.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You've confused the gene with the protein that it codes for:

Inhibition of Arterial Thrombus Formation by ApoA1 Milano
Dayuan Li; Sharon Weng; Baichun Yang; Dani S. Zander; Tom Saldeen; Wilmer W. Nichols; Saeed Khan; Jawahar L. Mehta
(Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1999;19:378-383.)
All subjects in this family were found to be heterozygous for the mutant allele and had very low levels of HDL cholesterol, high triglyceride levels, and yet no atherosclerosis. The apoA1 Milano has a shortened residence time and causes rapid catabolism of apoA1 in these subjects.12 The substitution of cysteine for arginine appears to alter the amphipathic nature of the α-helical fragment of apoA1, increasing exposure of its hydrophobic residues.13 This structural modification is associated with high affinity of apoA1 Milano for lipids in the lipid-protein complexes and their easy removal. The gene for apoA1 Milano has been cloned by Pharmacia, and the genetically engineered version of the mutant protein has been used in experimental studies. In a study by Ameli et al,14 administration of the genetically engineered apoA1 Milano caused a marked reduction in the magnitude of intimal lesions and regression of preexisting lesions in cholesterol-fed rabbits.

Alleles are different versions of the same gene. If it wasn't a mutated gene, it couldn't have been passed on for all these generations.

Yes it was a dominant allele. Does that mean a gene was added?

Yes. In fact, they were able to identify the individual who had the mutation that produced the new gene.

Barbarian:
And sometimes, I have a cite from the literature, that I haven't found on the net. Sorry. But if you really think I'm faking a cite, you could check on it and embarrass me when my dishonesty is revealed. Assuming I faked it. But you already know that would be a waste of your time, no?

Well you produced the claim, I would hope you would back it up with a good link.

There isn't always one. But I gave you the cite for the article, which is checkable.

You have posted false info before claiming shannon claude was a biologist, when he is not.

As you learned, Shannon produced an important advance in biological science by showing that information content in living systems could be calculated. The author of the paper quite properly noted that this discovery made Shannon a biologist.

Barbarian observes:
And of course, the cited literature shows over a hundred favorable mutations not yet fixed. So that's out, too.

See above waiting on a link and article seems per speculation. I would go back before to the facts I posted about the 100 nucleotide mutations per generation that are to small for selections to select out, this adds up like rust on a car.

Note that Motoo Kimura (the scientist your guy quoted to make his point) acknowledges that it takes relatively few positive mutations per generation to obviate and issues with persistent, very slightly harmful mutations.

Kimura dismisses Sanford's claim:
Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations. - Motoo Kimura

Kimura, as you might know, was a pioneer in neutralist theory of evolution. Sanford cited his work, but left out the part I highlighted for you in red. Guess why.

Because that is an assumption.

Nope. Kimura's findings from evidence.

Is it wrong for Sanford to mention facts and leave out an opinion/assumption?

In this case, it was not honest to present the part that made it look as though Kimura agreed with him, when Kimura's data and conclusions did not agree with him.

The other paper you cited, showed that the supposed degeneration conclusion did not account for epistasis or for soft selection effects. So that's out, too.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian observes:
You've confused the gene with the protein that it codes for:

Inhibition of Arterial Thrombus Formation by ApoA1 Milano
Dayuan Li; Sharon Weng; Baichun Yang; Dani S. Zander; Tom Saldeen; Wilmer W. Nichols; Saeed Khan; Jawahar L. Mehta
(Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1999;19:378-383.)
All subjects in this family were found to be heterozygous for the mutant allele and had very low levels of HDL cholesterol, high triglyceride levels, and yet no atherosclerosis. The apoA1 Milano has a shortened residence time and causes rapid catabolism of apoA1 in these subjects.12 The substitution of cysteine for arginine appears to alter the amphipathic nature of the α-helical fragment of apoA1, increasing exposure of its hydrophobic residues.13 This structural modification is associated with high affinity of apoA1 Milano for lipids in the lipid-protein complexes and their easy removal. The gene for apoA1 Milano has been cloned by Pharmacia, and the genetically engineered version of the mutant protein has been used in experimental studies. In a study by Ameli et al,14 administration of the genetically engineered apoA1 Milano caused a marked reduction in the magnitude of intimal lesions and regression of preexisting lesions in cholesterol-fed rabbits.

Alleles are different versions of the same gene. If it wasn't a mutated gene, it couldn't have been passed on for all these generations.



Yes. In fact, they were able to identify the individual who had the mutation that produced the new gene.

Barbarian:
And sometimes, I have a cite from the literature, that I haven't found on the net. Sorry. But if you really think I'm faking a cite, you could check on it and embarrass me when my dishonesty is revealed. Assuming I faked it. But you already know that would be a waste of your time, no?



There isn't always one. But I gave you the cite for the article, which is checkable.



As you learned, Shannon produced an important advance in biological science by showing that information content in living systems could be calculated. The author of the paper quite properly noted that this discovery made Shannon a biologist.

Barbarian observes:
And of course, the cited literature shows over a hundred favorable mutations not yet fixed. So that's out, too.



Note that Motoo Kimura (the scientist your guy quoted to make his point) acknowledges that it takes relatively few positive mutations per generation to obviate and issues with persistent, very slightly harmful mutations.

Kimura dismisses Sanford's claim:
Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations. - Motoo Kimura

Kimura, as you might know, was a pioneer in neutralist theory of evolution. Sanford cited his work, but left out the part I highlighted for you in red. Guess why.



Nope. Kimura's findings from evidence.



In this case, it was not honest to present the part that made it look as though Kimura agreed with him, when Kimura's data and conclusions did not agree with him.

The other paper you cited, showed that the supposed degeneration conclusion did not account for epistasis or for soft selection effects. So that's out, too.

So far everything I presented has been evidence from real life research and studies and has been shown to you that many geneticist agree on it. So far you have presented a speculation article and trying to use an assumption of what kimuras thought might happen every 200 generations. Does he know what happened 200 generations ago? Studies to show this. 200 generation ago would put us where? Noahs time. The Bible life span and time lines account for this also. Once agagain science confirms the Bible. You might want to go over all the post again. And if you have evidence of this new gene please show.

 

[Barbarian]

So far everything I presented has been evidence from real life research and studies and has been shown to you that many geneticist agree on it.

No. In fact, as you just discovered. Some of those presented by Sanford as accepting his ideas, actually wrote just the opposite.

So far you have presented a speculation article and trying to use an assumption of what kimuras thought might happen every 200 generations.

The same evidence he uses for genome degradation, also applies to his reasons why it won't be a problem.

There's no point in denying it. And as you learned, only a tiny minority of biologists accept Sanford's concept of evolution. The bandwagon argument is always a loser for creationism.

 

[spartakis]

No. In fact, as you just discovered. Some of those presented by Sanford as accepting his ideas, actually wrote just the opposite.

No they wrote about deteriorating genome. You have an example of one that states we are deteriorating, but he believes in 200 generations we will have a substitution.

The same evidence he uses for genome degradation, also applies to his reasons why it won't be a problem.

No he has evidence that we are deteriorating and he assumes what will happen after 200 generations.

There's no point in denying it.

There is no point for you to deny it. I posted many facts to the matter from different resource. I can't make you accept it but it is pretty cut and dry.

And as you learned, only a tiny minority of biologists accept Sanford's concept of evolution. The bandwagon argument is always a loser for creationism.

Who said anything about biologist. We are talking about geneticist. And you mean devolution. He got most of his info from population geneticist. No one is saying creation has a bandwagon. He even states someone that believes the genome is deteriorating, but believes it couldn't have been like this in the past because the hypothesis of evolution and the time frame.

Like I told you it only takes one scientist to bust a bandwagon. I don't need to go over the examples again. I don't use a bandwagon argument, I am just showing you the facts that are agreed upon, and multiple documents stating this. If I post multiple resources it's a problem if I don't it's a problem. Always a loose loose
Should I point you back to the facts I showed. I have read your assumptions, they are no more than that.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. In fact, as you just discovered. Some of those presented by Sanford as accepting his ideas, actually wrote just the opposite.

You have an example of one that states we are deteriorating, but he believes in 200 generations we will have a substitution.

It's O.K. to disagree with someone, but it's not O.K. to misrepresent what he says. Kimura (who Sandford cites to support his ideas) says that a favorable mutation every 200 years would be enough to obviate any degradation from mostly neutral mutations.

Seems to be right. After all, sports records continue to fall to greater achievement, and it has been necessary to periodically adjust the raw score for a 100 IQ upward. We're getting smarter and stronger.

In his study of IQ tests scores for different populations over the past sixty years, James R. Flynn discovered that IQ scores increased from one generation to the next for all of the countries for which data existed (Flynn, 1994). This interesting phenomena has been called "the Flynn Effect." Many of the questions about why this effect occurs have not yet been answered by researchers. This site attempts to explain the issues involved in a way that will better help you to understand the Flynn Effect. It also provides references for further inquiry.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

Ulric Neisser estimates that using the IQ values of today the average IQ of the US in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior,' but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Some people think that the improvement in intelligence is slowing or ending. But it's totally inconsistent with Sanford's assumption, as is the continuing increase in atheltic achievement.

The same evidence Kimura uses for genome degradation, also applies to his reasons why it won't be a problem.

No he has evidence that we are deteriorating and he assumes what will happen after 200 generations.

No. He uses the same data for both conclusions. If you accept his idea that neutral mutations might cause gemome degeneration, then youi accept the consequent that even one favorable mutation in 200 years would overcome that degradation.

There's no point in denying it.

There is no point for you to deny it. I posted many facts to the matter from different resource. I can't make you accept it but it is pretty cut and dry.

See above. Sanford is between a rock and a hard place if he wants to use Kimura's findings. And, of course, there's the fact that human performance has actually increased over the past 100 years.

Barbarian observes:
And as you learned, only a tiny minority of biologists accept Sanford's concept of evolution. The bandwagon argument is always a loser for creationism.

Who said anything about biologist. We are talking about geneticist.

Here's an idea. Go to one of your "look how many scientists doubt Darwin" lists and count the geneticists. There are tens of thousands of geneticists. Compare your list with that. Reality is a very good thing.

And you mean devolution.

There is no "devolution." You've been taken on that, too.

He got most of his info from population geneticist. No one is saying creation has a bandwagon.

Then it was a bad idea for you to try it. "Look how many scientists agree with me", just points out how little support your ideas have among scientists.

He even states someone that believes the genome is deteriorating, but believes it couldn't have been like this in the past because the hypothesis of evolution and the time frame.

Yep. He wants to borrow some of Kimura's findings, but not all of them. Just the ones he thinks might support his religious beliefs. But they are tied to the same data. Rock and a hard place.

Like I told you it only takes one scientist to bust a bandwagon.

Then it was a bad idea for you to try that argument.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian observes:
No. In fact, as you just discovered. Some of those presented by Sanford as accepting his ideas, actually wrote just the opposite.

No they stated deterioration, they just believed it was possible after 200 generations that it would correct itself, which is an assumption.

It's O.K. to disagree with someone, but it's not O.K. to misrepresent what he says. Kimura (who Sandford cites to support his ideas) says that a favorable mutation every 200 years would be enough to obviate any degradation from mostly neutral mutations.

False he said a couple hundred generations, which he has no proof it could happen. Mutations are copying errors known for destroying things not creating them, sometimes when they destroy something it may be beneficial, but is still an error in the copying of the information.
Once again he left out an assumption that was made and posted the empirical facts.

Seems to be right. After all, sports records continue to fall to greater achievement, and it has been necessary to periodically adjust the raw score for a 100 IQ upward. We're getting smarter and stronger.

In his study of IQ tests scores for different populations over the past sixty years, James R. Flynn discovered that IQ scores increased from one generation to the next for all of the countries for which data existed (Flynn, 1994). This interesting phenomena has been called "the Flynn Effect." Many of the questions about why this effect occurs have not yet been answered by researchers. This site attempts to explain the issues involved in a way that will better help you to understand the Flynn Effect. It also provides references for further inquiry.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

Ulric Neisser estimates that using the IQ values of today the average IQ of the US in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior,' but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Some people think that the improvement in intelligence is slowing or ending. But it's totally inconsistent with Sanford's assumption, as is the continuing increase in atheltic achievement.

The same evidence Kimura uses for genome degradation, also applies to his reasons why it won't be a problem.

Really going by athletic achievements is a good way to tell if the genome is deteriorating. Has nothing to do with drugs and supplements, work out regimes and training improvements.
And genome deteriorating is a problem, just like personal entrophy. You do agree in personal entrophy correct?

No. He uses the same data for both conclusions. If you accept his idea that neutral mutations might cause gemome degeneration, then youi accept the consequent that even one favorable mutation in 200 years would overcome that degradation.

There's no point in denying it.

No he is using empirical evidence for his conclusion of deterioration and an assumption of what might happen in 200 generations.. You are denying empirical evidence.

See above. Sanford is between a rock and a hard place if he wants to use Kimura's findings. And, of course, there's the fact that human performance has actually increased over the past 100 years.

See above no hard spot, just only goes by empirical evidence and not an assumption of something of 200 generations from now. You should use Sanfords Mendels accountant program to see where we may be by then.

Barbarian observes:
And as you learned, only a tiny minority of biologists accept Sanford's concept of evolution. The bandwagon argument is always a loser for creationism.

Here's an idea. Go to one of your "look how many scientists doubt Darwin" lists and count the geneticists. There are tens of thousands of geneticists. Compare your list with that. Reality is a very good thing.

Once again your bandwagon argument don't work for me. I have given examples of busted bandwagons.

Just shows Gods word in action
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Then it was a bad idea for you to try it. "Look how many scientists agree with me", just points out how little support your ideas have among scientists.

Yep. He wants to borrow some of Kimura's findings, but not all of them. Just the ones he thinks might support his religious beliefs. But they are tied to the same data. Rock and a hard place.

Then it was a bad idea for you to try that argument.

Never used it like that, gave you examples of research and you made it out like I made a bandwagon statement.

To end this because I don't have much time to be going back and forth about empirical evidence. Will be traveling again, might actually not have time to post in the next month.

Correct me if I am wrong you disagree with the empirical evidence below. Based on assumptions and speculations you have read.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/human-race-deteriorating-says-genetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

I could post more references I have in books and etc... but can't find online papers and don't a lot of time to look.

So yes or no barbarian. with what empirical evidence we have is the human
genome deteriorating.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. In fact, as you just discovered. Some of those presented by Sanford as accepting his ideas, actually wrote just the opposite.

No

Yes. Kimura, for example, found that the evidence showed many neutral mutations could lead to a decrease in fitness, but the evidence also showed that a single favorable mutation every 200 years would be sufficient to overcome this slight effect.

That's what he wrote. Sanford didn't tell you that, for the obvious reasons.

they stated deterioration, they just believed it was possible after 200 generations that it would correct itself, which is an assumption.

Both conclusions are from the same data. You just don't like what the data say.

Barbarian observes:
It's O.K. to disagree with someone, but it's not O.K. to misrepresent what he says. Kimura (who Sandford cites to support his ideas) says that a favorable mutation every 200 years would be enough to obviate any degradation from mostly neutral mutations.

False

No, that's exactly what he found. No point in denying it.

Barbarian, regarding the evidence that human fitness is increasing:
Seems to be right. After all, sports records continue to fall to greater achievement, and it has been necessary to periodically adjust the raw score for a 100 IQ upward. We're getting smarter and stronger.

In his study of IQ tests scores for different populations over the past sixty years, James R. Flynn discovered that IQ scores increased from one generation to the next for all of the countries for which data existed (Flynn, 1994). This interesting phenomena has been called "the Flynn Effect." Many of the questions about why this effect occurs have not yet been answered by researchers. This site attempts to explain the issues involved in a way that will better help you to understand the Flynn Effect. It also provides references for further inquiry.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

Ulric Neisser estimates that using the IQ values of today the average IQ of the US in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior,' but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Some people think that the improvement in intelligence is slowing or ending. But it's totally inconsistent with Sanford's assumption, as is the continuing increase in atheltic achievement.

The same evidence Kimura uses for genome degradation, also applies to his reasons why it won't be a problem.

Really going by athletic achievements is a good way to tell if the genome is deteriorating. Has nothing to do with drugs and supplements, work out regimes and training improvements.

The argument that "we're deteriorating, but we're getting better because we train better" is obvously a loser. And as you know, Olympic athletes are tested for performance-enhancing drugs, so that's not an excuse for you, either.

And of course, the evidence that we are getting smarter each generation also refutes Sanford's idea. Kimura was right. A few useful mutations ever few hundred years overcomes the tiny effect of neutral mutations.

And genome deteriorating is a problem, just like personal entrophy.

The evidence, like the Flynn effect and the improvement in athletic performance shows you're wrong. We're not just getting stronger, we're getting smarter.

You do agree in personal entrophy correct?

Did you meant "entropy?"

Entropy is a thermodynamic property that can be used to determine the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process, such as in energy conversion devices, engines, or machines. Such devices can only be driven by convertible energy, and have a theoretical maximum efficiency when converting energy to work. During this work, entropy accumulates in the system, which then dissipates in the form of waste heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

In psuedoscience, some people re-define it to "everything gets more disordered over time." But that's not what it means.

Barbarian, regarding Kimura's data:
He uses the same data for both conclusions. If you accept his idea that neutral mutations might cause gemome degeneration, then you accept the consequent that even one favorable mutation in 200 years would overcome that degradation.

There's no point in denying it.

No

Yes. His data very clearly show this to be the case.


See above. Sanford is between a rock and a hard place if he wants to use Kimura's findings. And, of course, there's the fact that human performance has actually increased over the past 100 years. And we're getting smarter:

Ulric Neisser estimates that using the IQ values of today the average IQ of the US in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior,' but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

See above no hard spot,

It's hard for Sanford to explain how, if we're deteriorating, that we're physically and mentally superior to previous generations.

just only goes by empirical evidence and not an assumption of something of 200 generations from now. You should use Sanfords Mendels accountant program to see where we may be by then.

Since Sanford denies the evidence Kimura pointed out, and since the observed performance of humans directly contradicts Sanford's claims, there's no need. We already know he got it backward.

Barbarian observes:
And as you learned, only a tiny minority of biologists accept Sanford's concept of evolution. The bandwagon argument is always a loser for creationism.

Here's an idea. Go to one of your "look how many scientists doubt Darwin" lists and count the geneticists. There are tens of thousands of geneticists. Compare your list with that. Reality is a very good thing.
Once again your bandwagon argument don't work for me. I have given examples of busted bandwagons.

Just shows Gods word in action

God doesn't say "look how many people follow me."

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I'm hoping that Sanford is merely deluded when he denies the documented fact that humans are smarter than previous generations. But that's between him and God.

Barbarian regarding the bandwagon ploy:
Then it was a bad idea for you to try it. "Look how many scientists agree with me", just points out how little support your ideas have among scientists.

Yep. He wants to borrow some of Kimura's findings, but not all of them. Just the ones he thinks might support his religious beliefs. But they are tied to the same data. Rock and a hard place.

(denial)

No point in denying it. Anyone can go back in the thread and look.

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

I could post more references I have in books and etc...

But given the observed fact that human performance is increasing, it would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?

So yes or no barbarian. with what empirical evidence we have is the human genome deteriorating.

Except for the data that shows we are getting physically and mentally better each generation. That's a huge problem for Sanford, and confirms Kimura's conclusion from entirely different data.

Reality trumps anyone's reasoning.

 

[spartakis]

Well you left out a lot of what I said and main points. Like the fact you keep saying 200 years and that is not what kimura says. He says 200 generations which obviously he has no evidence for this and its his assumption. Like I said training regimes and supplements are a big deal in the sports world. I am a power lifter on my down time ( wake up at 5am and train) the study we have put in how your muscle work and grow has giving us some great training regimes, and I am not even talking about performance enhance drugs but supplements. Whey protein pre workout supplement and etc... The technology in this field is growing quick also. Putting that together does have an effect on your performance sorry. And we are getting smarter that is like saying why did't adam have an Ipad. We had to first invent the wheel before the chariot etc.... My son will be in a robotic program in 5th grade, they did not have that when I was in school at all. None of them excuses are good for the genome increasing sorry.

So you are saying you decline empirical evidence correct.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

But given the observed fact that human performance is increasing, it would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?

Is that your final answer? I am assuming thats a no.

 

[Barbarian]

Well you left out a lot of what I said and main points. Like the fact you keep saying 200 years and that is not what kimura says. He says 200 generations which obviously he has no evidence for this

He cites the same data for which he says neutral mutations can degrade fitness. The data say that a few positive mutations can obviate any effect by neutral mutations.

Sanford deleted that part for the obvious reasons.

Like I said training regimes and supplements are a big deal in the sports world. I am a power lifter on my down time ( wake up at 5am and train) the study we have put in how your muscle work and grow has giving us some great training regimes, and I am not even talking about performance enhance drugs but supplements.

Even the guys peddling those things admit they aren't capable of much:

"These products provide a subtle, incremental effect. You can't use a sports supplement for a week and expect to gain pounds of muscle, but if used properly, research shows they can provide a slight, not overwhelming, edge," says Andrew Shoa, PhD, vice president for regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for the dietary supplement industry.

If you eat right, and take care of yourself, you're wasting your money on supplements. Why do you think there are no controlled studies showing any benefit to supplements over a good diet and frequent exercise?

And we are getting smarter that is like saying why did't adam have an Ipad.

No, it's saying that intelligence is increasing every generation. Nothing about iPads. For whatever reason, each generation, for a long time, has been getting smarter.

So the "fitness is decreasing" story collapses due to a collision with reality.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

You deleted the part that predicts soft selection and epistasis is the reason we don't see a decrease in fitness in the population. Sandford would be proud of you.

BTW, Kondrashov's prediction turns out to be correct:

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans
Peter D. Keightley
Genetics February 1, 2012 vol. 190 no. 2 295-304
A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is “hard,†but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis.


Even without the data showing that the supposed degeneration doesn't exist, the observed fact that human performance is increasing, makes contrary claims pointless.

Is that your final answer?

Comes down to evidence. That "E" word that you find so frustrating.

 

[spartakis]

He cites the same data for which he says neutral mutations can degrade fitness. The data say that a few positive mutations can obviate any effect by neutral mutations.

No he don't cite any data for that, just assumes a substitution can happen every 200 generations. What data does he have for 200 generations ago? We have the Bible and that clearly shows deterioration.

Sanford deleted that part for the obvious reasons.

Yes it is an assumption, not facts.

Even the guys peddling those things admit they aren't capable of much:

"These products provide a subtle, incremental effect. You can't use a sports supplement for a week and expect to gain pounds of muscle, but if used properly, research shows they can provide a slight, not overwhelming, edge," says Andrew Shoa, PhD, vice president for regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for the dietary supplement industry.

If you eat right, and take care of yourself, you're wasting your money on supplements. Why do you think there are no controlled studies showing any benefit to supplements over a good diet and frequent exercise?

You really don't understand much about hard training. For the normal person yes they would be a waste of money, but for an athlete or someone training for competition they help a lot. The knowledge we have now of muscle recovery and pre and post workout nutrition helps a lot over time. After a hard workout the proper amino acids and protein and etc... goes a long way in recovery. You can train a lot harder recover faster, it helps in performance, sorry but I see this first hand and do it my self. I have increased my deadlifts quick with the proper training methods and nutrition but when not doing it properly or have the proper nutrition your lifts will drop.

No, it's saying that intelligence is increasing every generation. Nothing about iPads. For whatever reason, each generation, for a long time, has been getting smarter.

Maybe you don't understand what I said. The more we learn about things the more we pass down to the next generation they pick it up and learn more. The example I gave you of my son learning robotics in 5th grade, of course we are getting smarter. That does not show a the genome is not deteriorating.

I am sure you don't agree with me or them, but here this is what I was saying, does not mean increase in genome. You hypothesis don't work.

In many countries the level of education of the general public is increasing. People are spending a larger amount of their time learning and being examined in formal educational settings.

It has also been hypothesized that IQ gains are the results of better world wide nutrition. The idea behind this hypothesis is that better nourished brains would allow subjects to perform better on IQ tests as well as in everyday activities

Brand suggested that societal changes that teach testing with "time limits" could be a cause of IQ gains. The idea behind this hypothesis is that people in our society have learned to work better within a limited time frame.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

So the "fitness is decreasing" story collapses due to a collision with reality.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

You deleted the part that predicts soft selection and epistasis is the reason we don't see a decrease in fitness in the population. Sandford would be proud of you.

It says possible and considered. Not a empirical evidence.

BTW, Kondrashov's prediction turns out to be correct:

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans
Peter D. Keightley
Genetics February 1, 2012 vol. 190 no. 2 295-304
A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is “hard,” but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis.

That don't mean anything, and you should really find links that work or just a link. If a certain amount of people die because of their fitness, it still will not stop it. We have went over this even the most healthy will still have 100 more mutations then their parents.

Even without the data showing that the supposed degeneration doesn't exist, the observed fact that human performance is increasing, makes contrary claims pointless.

See above about performance of athletes.

Comes down to evidence. That "E" word that you find so frustrating.

No don't frustrate me, seems to frustrate you.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

Mutations are copying errors known for destroying things not creating them, sometimes when they destroy something it may be beneficial, but is still an error in the copying of the information, it will not increase the genome.

You can deny the evidence but it don't make you right. Your arguments are busted, I am looking at empirical evidence not speculation or assumptions. And it shows deterioration.

 

[cupid dave]

... it's saying that intelligence is increasing every generation.
For whatever reason, each generation, for a long time, has been getting smarter.
.

The reason man is getting wiser is that the Collective Mind has been accumulating more and more experiential insight into a Direct Evolution.

The individual Unconscious mind adds to all others in each generation and is schooled by the Colective Unconscious mind that is always present before one's birth and remains after one's death.

This Third Eye which is the Good Shepherd has gained in knowledge and experience over eons of time as evidenced by the session of the Seven Historical Ages our species has grown from one into the next much analogous to our individual life passages defined by Erik Erickson.

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by Barbarian
Nice graphics. Creationists always put a lot of money into the CGI stuff. As usual, not so much in research.

1. First goof Creationist asserts that if there's a bad mutation, natural selection can't do anything about it. In fact, natural selection removes those. Rookie error.

3. Sanford tries his best to help creationism. He is obviously aware of the fact that almost all mutations do nothing measurable to living things. But this doesn't help much, so he suggests that they can't be truly neutral, and therefore, must be harmful..

//////

This is off topic and has been addressed to you in other threads. This is an assumption and not a fact. You should really do some more reading into it. Do you know what 2-5% of 3 billion is or why I would ask?
This thread is not about apes and humans but about the deterioration of the human genome. If you are not going to post on topic don't post.

Yes, I am on topic.

I was critizing the comments of Barbarian, here.

I find comments on what is stated in a thread important and will correct erroneous ideas and bias even when the posted, himself, is off topic.

I find that useful in all discussions to respond to people who make statements that are either wrong or a direct attack on information and ideas of others.

 

[cupid dave]

No he don't cite any data for that, just assumes a substitution can happen every 200 generations. What data does he have for 200 generations ago? We have the Bible and that clearly shows deterioration.

.

Please clarify this innuendo and its pertinence to the discussion.

We can see from the Dead Sea Scrolls that there has been very very little deterioration in the Scriptures.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
He cites the same data for which he says neutral mutations can degrade fitness. The data say that a few positive mutations can obviate any effect by neutral mutations.

No he don't cite any data for that, just assumes a substitution can happen every 200 generations.

You say that, because you haven't read his work. You only read what Sanford wanted you to see.

What data does he have for 200 generations ago?

For example, the data showing over 100 recent favorable mutations in humans, which are new enough that they haven't reached fixation. Many more than his data show to be necessary to overcome the very small effects of essentially neutral mutations.

We have the Bible and that clearly shows deterioration.

Over the years, there have been a few errors discovered in the Bible, but of course, it's not an organism.

Barbarian on suckers buying "body building supplements")
Even the guys peddling those things admit they aren't capable of much:

"These products provide a subtle, incremental effect. You can't use a sports supplement for a week and expect to gain pounds of muscle, but if used properly, research shows they can provide a slight, not overwhelming, edge," says Andrew Shoa, PhD, vice president for regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for the dietary supplement industry.

If you eat right, and take care of yourself, you're wasting your money on supplements. Why do you think there are no controlled studies showing any benefit to supplements over a good diet and frequent exercise?

You really don't understand much about hard training.

I was a varsity wrestler. You have no idea what "hard training" is.

For the normal person yes they would be a waste of money, but for an athlete or someone training for competition they help a lot.

See above. Even the guys peddling them admit that they don't.

Barbarian observes:
It's saying that intelligence is increasing every generation. Nothing about iPads. For whatever reason, each generation, for a long time, has been getting smarter.

Maybe you don't understand what I said. The more we learn about things the more we pass down to the next generation they pick it up and learn more.

That's not intelligence. That's just knowledge. But it's a fact that each generation has been getting smarter for a long time. Which puts an end to the idea that we are degenerating.

It has also been hypothesized that IQ gains are the results of better world wide nutrition.

So 20-somethings today, were better nourished than the boomers? C'mon. Be realistic. The facts are, they generally have a worse diet.

The idea behind this hypothesis is that better nourished brains would allow subjects to perform better on IQ tests as well as in everyday activities

So much for that one.

Brand suggested that societal changes that teach testing with "time limits" could be a cause of IQ gains. The idea behind this hypothesis is that people in our society have learned to work better within a limited time frame.

Problem is, even societies that don't test that way, still see increases. So it's not cultural.

The "fitness is decreasing" story collapses due to a collision with reality.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094


BTW, Kondrashov's prediction turns out to be correct:

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans
Peter D. Keightley
Genetics February 1, 2012 vol. 190 no. 2 295-304
A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is “hard,†but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis.

That don't mean anything,

It means Kondrashov was right. And it explains why fitness is increasing in humans.

Even without the data showing that the supposed degeneration doesn't exist, the observed fact that human performance is increasing, makes contrary claims pointless.

See above about performance of athletes.

Note that even the guys peddling those "supplements" admit they don't do much of anything.

Comes down to evidence. That "E" word that you find so frustrating.

When human performance and intelligence is increasing, it's pointless to argue that it isn't. And as you learned, Kondrashav's prediction that soft selection and epistasis likely explain why, has since been verified.

You can deny the evidence but it don't make you right.

The evidence shows you're wrong. Instead of getting less fit, it shows we are getting physically and mentally better.

Your arguments are busted

Simple assertions won't help you. You need a convincing argument showing how an increase in fitness isn't an increase in fitness.

 

[spartakis]

He cites the same data for which he says neutral mutations can degrade fitness. The data say that a few positive mutations can obviate any effect by neutral mutations.

You say that, because you haven't read his work. You only read what Sanford wanted you to see.

Yes I have read some of his stuff on the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Are you denying that he is saying this may happen in 200 generations?

For example, the data showing over 100 recent favorable mutations in humans, which are new enough that they haven't reached fixation. Many more than his data show to be necessary to overcome the very small effects of essentially neutral mutations.

You mean the little piece of literature speculating what might of happened 10,000-100,000 years ago and even stated it was speculation.

Over the years, there have been a few errors discovered in the Bible, but of course, it's not an organism.

I have not seen any is this with your version?

Barbarian on suckers buying "body building supplements")
Even the guys peddling those things admit they aren't capable of much:

"These products provide a subtle, incremental effect. You can't use a sports supplement for a week and expect to gain pounds of muscle, but if used properly, research shows they can provide a slight, not overwhelming, edge," says Andrew Shoa, PhD, vice president for regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for the dietary supplement industry.

If you eat right, and take care of yourself, you're wasting your money on supplements. Why do you think there are no controlled studies showing any benefit to supplements over a good diet and frequent exercise?

I was a varsity wrestler. You have no idea what "hard training" is.

See above. Even the guys peddling them admit that they don't.

I was a wrestler also, now I train in krav mega and do power lifting/ strength training. Wrestling was not as hard of training you may make it out to be.

Supplements are just that supplements. They are not like steroids. They help you get the protein, and nutrients to your body quicker more energy and etc.... Used correctly they will produce benefits, it is debatable.
But you are saying anything that helps giving you the proper nutrients for muscle recovery and protein synthesis in not beneficial and can help performance. Like I said I have seen this first hand but lets take a quick look.


Phelps uses the supplement, which was introduced to the market in 2008, because he and Bowman believe he needs additional nutritional intake when in the midst of heavy training.
http://reachforthewall.com/2009/10/22/phelps-puts-his-reputation-on-the-line-for-puresport/

An endurance athlete may find it easier to train with the help of protein shakes, says Antonio. That's because they help the body recover from intense exercise. Protein shakes do this mainly by restoring muscle glycogen, a fuel source for exercise, which gets used up during workouts.
For the strength athlete, protein shakes can also help repair damage to muscles that can occur with serious bodybuilding.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/protein-shakes

Barbarian observes:
It's saying that intelligence is increasing every generation. Nothing about iPads. For whatever reason, each generation, for a long time, has been getting smarter.

That's not intelligence. That's just knowledge. But it's a fact that each generation has been getting smarter for a long time. Which puts an end to the idea that we are degenerating.

So 20-somethings today, were better nourished than the boomers? C'mon. Be realistic. The facts are, they generally have a worse diet.
So much for that one.

Problem is, even societies that don't test that way, still see increases. So it's not cultural.

Ya you should study the flynn effect
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

The "fitness is decreasing" story collapses due to a collision with reality.

Over the last 20-30 years, young people have become fatter and less fit
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17387261

Canadians were far less fit in 2009 than they were in 1981, according to a sweeping new Statistics Canada survey, which found that obesity rates have sky-rocketed in both teenagers and adults.
http://www.obesitysurgery.ca/blog/exercise-fitness/decrease-in-fitness-levels-for-canadians/

Simple assertions won't help you. You need a convincing argument showing how an increase in fitness isn't an increase in fitness.

Sometimes you should just man up to the facts.
Lets look at the facts layed out.


Over the last 20-30 years, young people have become fatter and less fit
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17387261

Canadians were far less fit in 2009 than they were in 1981, according to a sweeping new Statistics Canada survey, which found that obesity rates have sky-rocketed in both teenagers and adults.
http://www.obesitysurgery.ca/blog/exercise-fitness/decrease-in-fitness-levels-for-canadians/

You IQ problem can be found here
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

Mutations are copying errors known for destroying things not creating them, sometimes when they destroy something it may be beneficial, but is still an error in the copying of the information, it will not increase the genome.

I don't have time to listen to you deny facts sorry, get something solid, that are not assumptions.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes I have read some of his stuff on the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Are you denying that he is saying this may happen in 200 generations?

You haven't even read what he's written that was posted here. Notice that his data says that the negative effects of neutral mutations are small enough that one positive mutation in 200 generations can overcome it.

For example, the data showing over 100 recent favorable mutations in humans, which are new enough that they haven't reached fixation. Many more than his data show to be necessary to overcome the very small effects of essentially neutral mutations.

You mean the little piece of literature speculating what might of happened 10,000-100,000 years ago and even stated it was speculation.

But that's not what it said, was it? In fact, the paper positively identified over a hundred favorable mutations which had not reached fixation, a much larger number than would be needed to overcome any effects of neutral muations, as Kimura's data showed.

(Sparticus claims the Bible shows deterioration)

Barbarian observes:
Over the years, there have been a few errors discovered in the Bible, but of course, it's not an organism.

I have not seen any is this with your version?

KJV, for example.
https://dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf

Barbarian on suckers buying "body building supplements")
Even the guys peddling those things admit they aren't capable of much:

"These products provide a subtle, incremental effect. You can't use a sports supplement for a week and expect to gain pounds of muscle, but if used properly, research shows they can provide a slight, not overwhelming, edge," says Andrew Shoa, PhD, vice president for regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for the dietary supplement industry.


If you eat right, and take care of yourself, you're wasting your money on supplements. Why do you think there are no controlled studies showing any benefit to supplements over a good diet and frequent exercise?

I was a varsity wrestler. You have no idea what "hard training" is.

See above. Even the guys peddling them admit that they don't.
I was a wrestler also, now I train in krav mega and do power lifting/ strength training. Wrestling was not as hard of training you may make it out to be.

Supplements are just that supplements. They are not like steroids. They help you get the protein, and nutrients to your body quicker more energy and etc....

Notice even the guys peddling them admit that they don't do much.

An endurance athlete may find it easier to train with the help of protein shakes, says Antonio. That's because they help the body recover from intense exercise. Protein shakes do this mainly by restoring muscle glycogen, a fuel source for exercise, which gets used up during workouts.
For the strength athlete, protein shakes can also help repair damage to muscles that can occur with serious bodybuilding.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/protein-shakes

Or they could just eat a high-protein meal, with a moderate amount of starch. One of the two.

Barbarian observes:
It's saying that intelligence is increasing every generation. Nothing about iPads. For whatever reason, each generation, for a long time, has been getting smarter.

That's not intelligence. That's just knowledge.

Wrong. IQ tests measure reasoning ability, not knowledge. Each generation has been a little better at thinking.

But it's a fact that each generation has been getting smarter for a long time. Which puts an end to the idea that we are degenerating.

So 20-somethings today, were better nourished than the boomers? C'mon. Be realistic. The facts are, they generally have a worse diet.
So much for that one.

Problem is, even societies that don't test that way, still see increases. So it's not cultural.

Ya you should study the flynn effect

[/
From your source:
Education a cause of IQ gains?

In many countries the level of education of the general public is increasing. People are spending a larger amount of their time learning and being examined in formal educational settings. In some cases IQ gains are highly correlated to increased years spent in formal education. Again, several scholars point at the increase in culture-free tests as evidence against an educational cause.

The Brand hypothesis: Societal changes causing IQ gains?

Brand suggested that societal changes that teach testing with "time limits" could be a cause of IQ gains. The idea behind this hypothesis is that people in our society have learned to work better within a limited time frame. This societal trend allows later generations to score better on timed tests because they make intelligent guesses and don't waste time trying to get every test item correct. Although this hypothesis seemed promising, there has been research that contradicts its fundamental assumptions (Flynn, 1994)

Better nutrition a cause of IQ gains?

It has also been hypothesized that IQ gains are the results of better world wide nutrition. The idea behind this hypothesis is that better nourished brains would allow subjects to perform better on IQ tests as well as in everyday activities. Experimental data trying to prove this theory are also mixed leading one to believe that nutrition, though a possible contributing cause, cannot account entirely for the massive gains in IQ measured around the world.

Did you even read it?

The "fitness is decreasing" story collapses due to a collision with reality. Athletic records are steadily falling and IQ scores are steadily rising.

(reports say kids today are fatter)

Yep. As you see, the improvement in human performance isn't nutrition. It's happening in spite of dietary problems.

Simple assertions won't help you. You need a convincing argument showing how an increase in fitness isn't an increase in fitness.

Sometimes you should just man up to the facts.

The facts are what got you frustrated.

Lets look at the facts layed out.

The intelligence of people in all cultures around the world is increasing.

Athletic records continue to fall.

And the site you linked says that the usual excuses for the Flynn effect are not credible.

So an increase in fitness in the population clearly rules out a deterioration. And Kimura's data explains why.

If you'd like a slightly more technical reason why Sanford's story won't work, look here:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html

 

[spartakis]

So I am talking about the Bible showing lifespan decrease since Noah and you are talking about typing errors? I am aware of the Haldane's Dilemma Sarfarti has some good stuff on it. The I.Q increase is what I was showing you with my son, with education. He started sign language in K Spanish in 2nd grade and robotics in 5th so ya he will probably have a higher I.Q. then me. your 100 beneficial mutations was speculation of 10,000 years ago, you can maybe name a couple you have proof for and they are still a broken gene. I showed you where those that train hard nowadays use supplements and they help or else they wouldn't use them. You quote is just saying they won't throw weight on you in a week, thats pretty obvious. Could someone just drink milk or eat meat after a workout and be fine? Yes. But if you understand the different types of protein their brake down rate and protein synthesis you would understand how that extra benefit adds up to increase your long term performance. Would you declined an extra 20 dollars a day or a week? It might not be a lot but it adds up to increase your long term financial ability. Go to the gym and ask you local athletes what they find beneficial, not those standing in front of the mirror during curls for 2 hours, but those doing heavy squats, Dead lifts, presses, Bench press, tire flips and etc.... You might find few that do something called gomad( gallon of milk a day) but most try and keep a lean figure and improve performance and supplements come in handy. BTW your last post you claimed the athletic records continue to fall, are you starting to confuse yourself with your beliefs?

I am about to leave to travel and will not be able to post for about a week. I don't have time to debate if the facts are true. So just to put on record and we can end the yes no yes no over the facts ( total waste of time have better things to do).

You decline all below, and what Sandford is claiming in the video, and claim the opposite is happening correct?



Over the last 20-30 years, young people have become fatter and less fit
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17387261

Canadians were far less fit in 2009 than they were in 1981, according to a sweeping new Statistics Canada survey, which found that obesity rates have sky-rocketed in both teenagers and adults.
http://www.obesitysurgery.ca/blog/ex...for-canadians/

You IQ problem can be found here
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

Mutations are copying errors known for destroying things not creating them, sometimes when they destroy something it may be beneficial, but is still an error in the copying of the information, it will not increase the genome.