Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
Evolution does not require additions to outweigh subtractions.
it actually does. if more is being taken away then added, how/where did the genetic information come from in the first place? genetically we are in a
state of regression, which is the complete opposite of evolution. the author of the paper admits it is a big problem for evolution.
Survival of the species might depend on it, but evolution does not. Even if the human genome withers away (which would take some 200,000 years of
breeding with the same exact race of human, I calculate the rate and factor in deletions and insertions) and humans go extinct, THAT STILL COUNTS AS
EVOLUTION. Would we not be changing over time?
You'd also have to assume that they did not interbreed with other cousin / sub species that are the result of convergent evolution. This is just an
example here, but suppose what you are saying is true. The human genome is shrinking over time. It is proven via genetics that humans have interbred
with Neanderthals and Denisovans at the very least. That is two 'separate' species of hominid that lived at the same time. They just left Africa
earlier and adapted to a different environment. The human genome is shrinking, but Neanderthals do not have such a high rate of deleterious mutation
and have a larger genome. What happens when they breed? The genetic diversity increases a lot, the genome gets bigger and the rate changes. It could
also be the opposite. Homo sapiens had the lower rate and they inherited the faster rate from Neanderthals. The genome might slowly decrease, but
there is enough interbreeding going on to give it the boost it needs. Again, there are way too many possibilities to simply dismiss them and claim
evolution is impossible, because we know that it is possible.
The problem might simply be that humans have mostly removed themselves from natural selection, and as a result other races are not becoming different
enough to breed together to bump the diversity and size of the genome again. If we took 2 human populations and separated them for 50,000-100,000,
one in Africa and one in Russia, and had them live naturally off the land, they would change and as time goes on get more different. If they diverge
enough to the point where they can no longer breed with one another, they become separate species.. BUT if they become different, but don't quite get
to that point and then breed again, both people might look quite different, but the offspring will be a combination of both, where certain traits are
inherited and certain ones are not. The genome overall will probably increase.
You are making the bold assumption that all other organisms have high rates of deleterious mutations AND you are assuming that the rate has always
been this high. Many organisms don't even come close to humans with the rate of deleterious mutations. You can't say it disproves evolution without
looking at every one of them. You can't selectively say that evolution applies to every creature on earth except humans. It poses a question about
why the rate is high. It doesn't disprove evolution. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Again, the changes are small and I proved that deleterious mutations can be beneficial. That debunks your entire premise. You're equivocating
beneficial with insertion mutations. They are not the same.
For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain
the population at constant size.
This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations
they go on to invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a solution, but it doesn't negate the birth problem.
at invoking something in a scientific study. They gave a possible explanation and you instantly dismissed it because it goes against your
worldview about evolution. You can't keep insisting this proves evolution wrong until at least one evolutionary biologist agrees with that. You
claim they are biased, but that is just another BS claim. They are scientists. They follow the data, not worldviews. Evolution is beyond proven as
a process that is responsible for the diversity of life and organisms changing over time. While you sit back and just make flat out assumptions about
what the deleterious rate means, the actual scientists are doing more research and studies to find out more about it. Let them do the work, and make
the conclusions. You can still believe in god or ID or whatever your view is without attacking evolution as if it doesn't hold merit. THAT is the
real joke here.
talkorigins is a very biased source. many of the "facts" and "proofs" given are outright falsehoods. in another thread i went through 5 or 6
organisms they gave as evidence for evolution and debunked them all. i'm attempting to find the page so i can demonstrate the bias of the source. ahh,
here it is. i won't post all of them, just enough to show you the claimed "evidence" is tripe when examined.
Talk origins is pro science and backs up every claim they make with actual scientific studies. If you wish to debunk them you need science of your
own that contradicts it, not conjecture and one liners.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
strong intra-strain mating preferences.
through forced mating they created a hybrid fruit fly incapable of breeding. this isn't evolution or speciation.
More wild assumptions. Various environmental factors were introduced and the flies changed after many generations do to genetic mutations and
adapting to the environment. You call that a debunk?
Look, this is just a red herring and an ad hominem attack on the source. Read BOTH of
the links I posted. It is clearly explained. Talk origins is back up by several scientific studies and if you disagree, you can simply look them up.
Sorry, you aren't qualified to debunk something like that with idle chatter and assumptions. You need actual evidence or alternative explanations
rooted in science.
You can test evolution with a very basic lab kit. Take a microscope and put a bacterial culture under it and observe it. Watch them multiply. Now
add bleach or some other harmful substance. It will instantly kill off MOST of the bacteria, but some will survive and continue to replicate. Keep
doing this over and over and you will eventually have a culture of replicating bacteria that is immune to the negative effects of the bleach. That's
a slam dunk for evolution right there. A creature changes to adapt to the environment over time and eventually the trait dominates the population
because it's necessary for survival.
Sorry, your claim is bogus and doesn't prove evolution wrong. It brings up questions as to why humans have a higher rate of mutation than most other
species, but that doesn't debunk it.
edit on 27-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)