obviously you didn't read the article i posted, or you would see that every female human must have 40 children to produce ONE child who doesn't have
a new harmful mutation. (harmful mutation meaning genetic information was lost). the study it was based off of was conducted by three evolutionists,
and even they were bothered by the high rates because it didn't fit with evolutionary theory.
abstract from the article:
Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry. Over the last 20 years, studies have
shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3. These rates are simply too
high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent
creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting
Absurd statement again. There are cases of beneficial mutations. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful, so your assertion that all genetic
information came from beneficial mutations shows your ignorance of the subject.
actually evolutionists don't provide an answer to where genetic information came from in the first place to avoid answering the question "where did
life come from?", but that is a slightly different topic. here is a great article on the rarity of beneficial mutations.
It is also widely known that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Some workers have estimated that far less than .01 percent of all expressed
mutations are helpful to the organism. As Francisco Ayala (1978) noted “mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,” but useful
genetic variation “is a relatively rare event....” (p.63). Dobzhansky (1957) likewise concluded that “the mutants which arise are, with rare
exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters” (p. 385). The conclusion that very
few beneficial mutations occur in nature is still held by many today. In Strickberger’s words “new mutations that have an immediate beneficial
effect on the organism seem generally to be quite rare” (2000, p. 227).
they searched an archive of 16 million articles/papers/reports/experiments and found only 126 that alluded to any beneficial mutations. and of those
All of the 126 examples located were then reviewed, focusing on evidence for information-gaining beneficial mutations. It was found that none of them
contained clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Most “examples” of actual, beneficial mutations were
loss mutations in which a gene was disabled or damaged, all of which were beneficial only in a limited situation.
oh, talk origins, how i've missed you...not. talk origins uses outdated and blatantly false information. notice how all the research for their
supposed "speciation" is 40-80 years old?
primrose speciation has been debunked numerous times by different geneticists:
W.W. Cleland showed that this was not speciation. It was chromosomal changes (specificallly various trisomies) due to the curious fact that this
species has a set of translocations that results in a ring chromosome at meiosis. The ring structure means that each translocation set goes to
opposite poles during meiosis and each set has a different recessive lethal allele. Thus, only heterozygotes for each translocation set can survive.
The homozygous sets die early enough to not have a significant effect on fertility.
Tragopogon speciation is much like breeding a lion with a tiger, thus producing a liger (it is a real animal). it is not an example of evolution, but
of cross-species breeding. instances of this are rare and the offspring usually doesn't do well.
i'll do one more example of plant because i'm not going to waist my time going through all of these. you get the idea.
Stephanomeira malheurensis. this "new species" can still breed with the "other species" though, and i quote from talkorigins:
Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1
hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various
a very unhelpful mutation to say the least. funnily enough, most of the speciations listed on talk origins, when searched, lead only back to talk
lets see..animals..err..i'm out of space. continued....