It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If over time harmful mutations outpace "beneficial" ones to fixation, evolution from molecules-to-man surely cannot occur.
Originally posted by BBalazs
Evolution aint no theory at all.
Its a fact.
An astute observation. Like there are males and females (and in rare cases androgyns). Is that up for debate?
Besides, anyone who breeds animals can pretty much do some mini evolution at home.
Its an eloquent and poignant observation.
Now you may believe something else, but it remains a fact.
And it is so incomprehensibly beautiful, why would anyone want to deny this fact?
It is about our Earth.
It is about the very soul of being human.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
Here is the definition of fact:
A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience.edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later).
The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution, B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female! What pray tell does this mean? What are the authors failing to make crystal clear? It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! A rate less than 10 means certain genetic deterioration over time, because even the evolutionist's magic wand of natural selection cannot help (in fact Eyre-Walker & Keightley had already factored in natural selection when they arrived at a rate of 1.6)
Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7). Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get:
Dr. Crow in his letter to Nature acknowledged that given the high mutation rates and a conventional elimination of mutations, a species with limited reproductive capacity would face "inevitable extinction." He then added: "A way out is for mutations to be eliminated in bunches". This is sometimes called truncation selection, a completely speculative process that you will have a very difficult time finding in any college text book on genetics or biology.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by addygrace
So what's the mechanism that prevents speciaition from occurring after a certain point? I say after a certain point because we have observed speciation in both the lab and nature. So, since speciation has been observed, but you claim it is impossible for humans and chimpanzees to have a common ancestor so there must be some mechanism that prevents speciation after a certain point. Since you're so sure you must know what that mechanism is.
Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by BBalazs
What evolutionary advantage is there in us seeing "immense beauty" in the structure and process of the universe?
We don't need to see beauty, form, color or anything like that to survive.
It would appear that the human race is directed towards an outcome that goes beyond both genetics and selection pressures.
If you balance the results of random chance and compare that to the observed universe, and apply a little mathematical and statistical nous, you have to admit that it is highly, ridiculously impossible that things would be so anthropocentric.
In that mindset, I see the universe directed to achieve specific results.
edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by chr0naut
The assumption by Evolutionists is that Intelligent Design and Creation theorists think God did what he did, and walked away, so any change therefore MUST be evidence of Evolution.
Well, what if God is still in the process of messing with life on the planet, directing it towards particular outcomes?
Then each of these "proofs" actually become proofs of Intelligent Design rather than of Evolution by Genetic drift and Natural Selection.edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
I spend a good deal of my personal time in creation ministry. I am currently the webmaster of the Creation Research Society... I am also a speaker for the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. I regularly give presentations on creation/evolution to schools & churches, have appeared on the Gino Geraci radio program, and regularly appear on Bob Enyart Live's Real Science Friday program. All my shows are archived at www.kgov.com, or you can listen to them on my Speaker page. I have also had several articles appear in the popular online magazine Creation Digest. [ur=http://evolutionfairytale.com/bio.htm]Source[/url]