shirley knott

Dave, what does 'genetically inferior' MEAN?
I would interpret in the light of the ToE to mean 'with respect to a given fitness landscape'. And it is unarguably correct that the current human population is genetically superior to "the ancients" simply because we are better matched to our fitness landscape than they were to theirs. That is, we suppport a higher percentage of the breeding population with successful* progeny than "the ancients" ever did. (*'successful' here defined as offspring who themselves reproduce with offspring who reach breeding age). This is due in no small measure to the fact that we ourselves and our products (like medical technology) are part of the fitness landscape. It's reflective and recursive, two concepts you appear to have difficulty with...
What on earth does 'genetically inferior' mean in your universe?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

ericmurphy

Dave believes that there is a "correct" form for every genotype. He believes that modern man's genotype is further away from this "correct" type than the genotype of our ancestors was. This "correct" genotype should not be mistaken for the "wild type" that geneticists refer to, because it refers to the "perfect" genotype as originally created by God.

ericmurphy

Dave does this all the time: he claims he'll contact some person who he is accused of misunderstanding. Sometimes it happens; more often it doesn't.

But what I find fascinating about the whole process is it is indicative of the fact that Dave seems to really only understand one kind of argument: argument from authority. Dave claims that Crow is arguing that modern humans' genome is deteriorating, and that ancient humans were genetically superior to modern humans (and therefore Crow supports Dave's contention that the modern human genome is "degenerating" as a result of the Fall and the Curse). Dave expects that if Crow agrees with Dave that ancient humans were genetically superior to modern humans, that's the end of the story, and we'll just have to accept that Dave is correct.

It's almost as if Dave doesn't understand that there's an objective reality out there. All that matters is what "authorities" say about that reality.

Gullwind

But that makes sense, when you consider that their primary argument is nothing more than an argument from the bible's authority. It only follows, then, that the big bad evolutionists have nothing more than the argument from authority as well.

shirley knott

Indeed. Argument from authority is all Dave has, and all the Christians have, despite 20 centuries of [all-to-often at least partially successful] attempts to corrupt philosophy with their non-sense.
That's their "argument" for objective morality as well -- it is moral because God says so.
One would be hard-pressed to find a more anti-moral stance.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Sven

Thus for Crow's words really meaning what Dave thinks that mean, Crow would have to know how this "correct form" of the human genotype looks like. Since this is obviously impossible, Dave is proven wrong - just another time.

ck1

The point is that Dave is so convinced of his position that he thinks that he can easily surpass a lifetime of learning in any field by reading creationist websites for a few hours. As he has claimed on RD.net.

Dave Hawkins

CK1 ... Incorrect. Can you please provide the complete quote which you think supports your assertion about me? Thx.

I note that no one has chimed in saying that they are a geneticist, so what we have here is all of you (non-geneticists) claiming Sanford (a highly successful geneticist in the commercial world) is misinterpreting Crow (also a highly successful geneticist).

Just wanted to make that clear.

My role in this whole thing is simply to point this out to you.

Amaleq13

My argument has been entirely based on correctly comprehending the plain English with which Crow writes. He uses technical jargon sparingly and none of it has anything to do with either your (Sanford's) confusion or the attempts to explain exactly why you (and Sanford) are wrong. Sanford is simply making an inference that is not supported by what Crow says but by what Sanford believes.

The idea that one needs to be a professional geneticist to correctly understand Crow's article is clearly a red herring but I'm sure we have at least one hanging around in S&S.

If a professional geneticist tells you that Sanford is wrong, Dave, would you believe that individual?

Or is this just a dodge to avoid admitting you have been misguided on Crow?

Dave Hawkins

I would consider the statements of another geneticist who contradicts Sanford carefully.