Mutational Problem

The model (genetics) is the theory. And something would be falsified. Either the theory would be wrong or the dating methods.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In the first place, the absence of any plausible mechanism by which evolution could take place would cast at least some doubt on the proposition that it actually has.In the second place, if we don't have a mechanism, where is the predictive power of the theory? Given common descent plus the theory of evolution, we can predict the sorts of things that we should see in (for example) the fossil record, or in molecular phylogeny, and then we can say: "Look, see how reality matches the predictions".Remove the theory (mutation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, natural selection, genetic drift, etc) and where is the predictive power? With no known mechanism --- no constraints --- the history of life could have begun with an aardvark giving birth to an aardwolf ... and so on in alphabetical order until a zebra gave birth to a zebu; or any other scheme you care to dream up --- and where, then, is the predictive power? The evidence can only confirm something sufficiently definite to be tested.---However, this is all rather by-the-by in that (as I have explained on another thread) Plaisted's article is nonsense.

Well I did that on the other thread.Insofar as it is possible to follow his largely inarticulate ramblings, his reasoning (and I use the term loosely) implicitly assumes that the proportion of mutations that occur in the gene pool and are harmful is equal to the proportion of mutations that are fixed in the gene pool and are harmful.

Well, there's an interplay between genetics and environment. As someone or other pointed out, if everyone smoked, lung cancer would be a genetic disease. And if everyone had phenylketanuria it would be caused by bad diet.