Evolution falsifies God/s?

Once again:Message 75

quote:

---

faceman linking writes:

​

Computational Evolution Experiments Reveal a Net Loss of Genetic Information Despite Selection

It's nice to see a Young Earth Christian linking to a John Sanford "genetic meltdown" paper. Fortunately for you, there are a number of problems with his view. I say "fortunately" because, as a YEC, the last thing you need to do is to encourage the idea that humans could face genetic deterioration at current mutation rates.

​

The standard YEC model requires the argument that past mutation rates since the Flood were far higher than they are today. This is necessary to explain the current diversity that can be directly observed on human genomes. Either Noah has to be pushed back more than 100,000 years in time to make the necessary number of generation transfers at the current mutation rate, or the past mutation rate has to be increased to be more than 20 times today's.

​

As the first option destroys YEC, the second is your only choice.

​

But there's hope! I can help you slightly on your way with this paper: A Resolution of the Mutation Load
Paradox in Humans

​

The authors are probably right in suggesting that the fitness effects of deleterious mutations should be determined by relative measurement rather than by comparison to a mutationless genome. Their model is good news for you, because not only does it show that purifying selection can cope with the current mutation rate, but that it should be able cope with hypothetical higher ones.

​

Here's one reason Y you need a super-high mutation rate.

​

The paper calculates the age of our most recent common "Y" chromosome ancestor (necessarily Noah in your model) at over 100,000 years assuming current mutation rates. It is just one of many observations we can make which mean that YECs require a massively increased past mutation rate from the flood to the present. The last thing you need is to argue that the current mutation rate would cause "meltdown". But John Sanford is no problem as his model is easily contradicted by observations made in the wild and the lab, as well as by points like the one made in the paper I linked to. Perhaps you should write to him and explain how he's hindering the cause.

​

I hope all this helps you update your YEC genetics.

---

Why are you still arguing that humans would have gone extinct through genetic meltdown shortly after the flood?

It's kind of you to teach the world about genetics, but it might be a good idea if you actually learned something about the subject before attempting to do so. Interesting readingMore interesting readingNow that you know about duplication and neofunctionalization, you can retract the comment I quoted, can't you? You could also explain why you made it in the first place.Edited by bluegenes, : corrected link

Let's look at what really happens when we can watch it happening.Here's how it works. You take one bacterium, and let it breed, producing what is known as a clonal line. Any changes in the genetic composition of the bacteria from now on must be produced by mutation, rather than mere selection from a range of genetic diversity, because you started with one bacterium.So, you introduce your bacteria into a new environment, you let them breed, you see if they mutate and adapt to the new environment. You watch them for years and years.Now, here's the clever bit. You can freeze bacteria, keep them literally on ice until you need them again. So every now and then you can take a sample of the bacteria and freeze them.So this means that if you want you can take the old bacteria out of the fridge, thaw them, let them breed a bit (so you know you have bacteria that aren't weakened by the freezing process) and then put them in direct competition with their descendants.Now, if Sanford was right, then the old bacteria would win. The first generation of bacteria would be stronger and fitter than their descendants 10,000 generations down the line, weighed down by the burden of their accumulated detrimental mutations.But if non-crazy people are right, then the more recent generations of bacteria will be better fitted to the environment, and will wipe the floor with bacteria having the genes of their ancestors.Which do you suppose happens? Yeah, the newer bacteria kick the ass of the older bacteria. Now if Sanford has a computer model saying that the opposite should happen, then his "model" does not in fact model reality.To which I would add, I've written lots of computer programs to model evolution. They never give the same results as Sanford claims he's got. What's more, they contradict him very robustly --- that is, I can fiddle with the parameters however much I like, the mutation rate, the strength of selection, whatever, and they still show that evolution works. The only way I've ever got my simulated bacteria to collapse under a genetic load was by supposing that their environment was so constrained that there'd never be more than 10 bacteria on my simulated Petri dish.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And in 1492, America rose up out of the ocean.Or maybe our ability to detect genetic dsorders is on the rise. Maybe before Darwin people died from genetic disorders (i.e. natural selection) but nobody knew they were genetic disorders.

Both. A higher average age of parents (particularly fathers) leads to an increased mutation rate, so there has been a rise in disorders in industrialised countries.

Thanks bluegenes. I read some article at a stage where the occurrence of Down Syndrome also increases exponentially with the age of the mother.This whole thing got me reading up on it a bit, and I got this Interesting site .It seems as if some polygenetic diseases such as type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, autism, asthma, and celiac disease (gluten sensitivity) are on the increase, not for the reasons faceman provided, but rather due to the increasing mobility of populations (they call it "population mixing). However, for the same reason diseases associated with single genes (cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs Disease) are on the decrease .

If you organize a movement around not believing in alien abductions, then I suppose it would be a belief system.

Neutral, deleterious and beneficial are all just mutations from a previously "normal" (non-mutated) gene. Many of the useful mutations are actually a net loss of the original useful code.Most mutations are neutral. The more neutral mutations there are, the less original useful material the organism has left to work with. Neutral is not useful - it's just in the way.The only way the ToE could work, is if a majority of the mutations were beneficial, but that's not the case. Natural selection works at the molecular level now? Weeding out only the bad mutations? Genetic LoadEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link. Don't use a " at the beginning or end of the address.

Not all sorts, no. I'm not into the sampler platter.

asdfqweb trhbkjgnhkfgzsdcasdgfczdsfgcHow's that for information? Not too informative, eh? But when I arrange the letters in a proper order and in a manner that you and I agree upon (in terms of a language), then suddenly we have communication.

And yet we see it working. Therefore the reasoning (which you do not supply) which led you to make this bizarre assertion must be flawed.

Here's better evidence (unless you think advocating communism is a step in the right direction):

The majority are neutral.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed link - Don't use ".

Well done, you said something true about genetics. I'm not sure why you said it, but you did.You made up for your brief moment of accuracy by having a broken link.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Au contraire. All genes ever investigated are mutations from other mutated genes.Your link doesn't work, but anyway, when you Google it, you get on Wiki ( I take it that it's the reference you intended): My bold.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling and added sentence