Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
then you realize the rates mean only one out of a hundred children are fit to breed? for evolution to work, the rest would have to die without breeding (the paper even states this directly), while the one who didn't get any new deleterious mutations would have to mate with another and produce another hundred children to make one at the same genetic equilibrium, and even that would result in a population decrease of 50%. the study itself ignores the birth rate problem.
Please find me the quote in the study that says one of a hundred are fit to breed. We know that isn't true based on what happens in the real world. Somebody having a deleterious mutation does NOT make them unfit to breed, because it usually does not effect the organism as I have clearly stated already.
the paper was written by die-hard evolutionists, obviously it doesn't explicitly state that evolution is wrong. it's simply a matter of understanding what the deleterious mutation rate means (more cultures aren't needed. the estimate is accurate. care to prove it isn't?) then examining the solutions that evolutionists have concocted to try and solve the problem. none of them are feasible. the paper even admits as much:
No, it's a matter of you drawing your own absurd conclusion from the study. The estimate is based on a very low sample size, and doesn't prove evolution wrong. If it did, there would be huge pushes in the scientific community to find out the alternative, and this would be front page news all over the country. Sorry, only creationists are suggesting this, not scientists. Evolution absolutely IS proven, so simply throwing it out the window because of an anomaly that we don't fully understand yet makes no sense. It might be because the human population is way too high and this is nature's way of sorting it out and reducing it. It could be caused by pollution. There could be tons of other factors involved in why the deleterious rate seems high, but to simply say it means evolution is wrong is beyond absurd. Sorry. That is the narrow minded view.
Even if selection mostly occurs in the germline, it is difficult to envisage how such a high load could be tolerated by hominid populations, which have very low reproductive rates.
"difficult to envisage" means "humans can't have near enough children" therefore, evolution is impossible.
No it doesn't. It means difficult to envision or imagine! LOL at making up your own definition for a word because you so badly want it to be true. All they're saying is that it's hard to imagine how it could be tolerated. BUT IT IS tolerated. Proof is that we are all here and haven't gone extinct. It might pose questions about our future as a species, but prove evolution wrong?
this leads me to believe you don't understand much about genetics. while your definition of evolution is close enough, you fail to realize the consequences of such a high deleterious mutation rate.
That the human race might eventually have less diversity? Sure. That evolution is wrong? Not a chance.
What percentage of deleterious mutations are harmful?
It's also worth noting that humans have removed themselves from nature, so natural selection works a lot differently for us now. If we still lived in the wild and had to struggle to survive, a large amount of people that are alive today would not be because they are not equipped well enough. In today's society we make laws to protect stupid people and help the evolutionarily weak (handicapped, mentally challenged, etc). We have empathy, which changes everything about natural selection. It still applies, but in a much lower capacity.
I've been looking for that other experiment that shows a lower rate, but am having difficulty finding it still. I'll have more for you next time, I just need to find the time to search more thoroughly. It's been a year since this topic was first brought up.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)