No its saying in most cases when beneficial mutations are added together they incur a fitness cost. So this is supporting what I said in that what can seem like a benefit on its own becomes a negative when mixed with other mutations and multiple mutations are needed to make anything significant in evolution. So mutations together dont build better and fitter life but the opposite. Humans carry many negative mutations that are deteriorating our genomes.
The first problem is whether there is the type of beneficial mutations that lead to increased function, complexity and fitness in the first place. What is cited as a benefit may just be a organism tolerating slightly negative mutations or the change that has brought the perceived benefit is actually negative anyway because it is changing what was already good which will have a cost even if it is that the organism has to use more energy to deal with that change.
For there to be new features and creatures beneficial mutations need to be more than very rare and need to be significant to be selected. Something around zero is not going to be often or great enough and have enough influence especially if its claimed to have created the vast and immense amount of complexity and variety we see in life. But not just that evidence says that no matter if mutations are beneficial, neutral or negative they are a cost to fitness and cannot go beyond certain limits because they are errors that are changing what is already good and working.
Similarly, genetic drift increases the likelihood that a potentially beneficial mutation will be lost before it becomes widespread in the population.
The net effect of genetic drift in such populations is "to encourage the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discourage the promotion of beneficial mutations,",
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
You are assuming that because some of the science may say that there is some benefit even if it’s slim pickings it is then saying that this is enough to create all of life. There is a big difference in some possible slightly rare beneficial mutation and there being enough to be a significant benefit that would create the complex variety we see in life.
Slight benefits don’t add up to much and on their own they get lost in the many other mutations that are not benefits. It would take more time then evolution claims to have them build up to all the life we see even if they did hang around and build up slowly according to the evidence, Supporters of darwins theory want to find beneficial mutations and want to elevate them and give them more credit than they have. they have to as this is the only source of all the complex variety we see. But how can a source that is basically damage to the codes that make life produce something better.
In addition, one can just as easily point to a long list of pathologies that can arise from an overly rapid proliferation of a new phenotype, and such scenarios have motivated a completely alternative, and equally speculative, view, that s(election can favor mechanisms that suppress evolvability 103). Furthermore, theoretical studies have shown that the kinds of complexities that are often focused on by those enamored with evolvability (e.g., increased dimensionality and modularity) can actually inhibit the rate of adaptive evolution.
"What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms."
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms
"it is important for biologists to realistically appraise what selection can and cannot do under various circumstances. Selection may neither be necessary nor sufficient to explain numerous genomic or cellular features of complex organisms."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102618/
The difference is I support the idea that life can evolve to a point through tapping into that genetic material and create variations of each type of creature. But if you consider this concept is basically the same for theistic evolution. The only difference is the point at which God has intervened. Whether He places that genetic info and programming into a single celled organism or more complex ones doesn't matter. The instructions for life whether through processes of evolution or non adaptive mechanisms needs the intervention of intelligent agent such as God to make it happen.
Life and the creation of more complex organism doesn't create itself through purely naturalistic processes and come from nothing for which Darwin's theory promotes. Scientific tests show that evolution cannot explain how complex variety can come into existence and continue to be created through a self creating naturalistic process. That is why supporters of evolution are appealing to more and more design capabilities and powers from evolution because much of what we see is beyond the explanations for what Darwin's theory is capable of.
Creationism doesn't use any of this and appeals to purely supernatural creation for all life and believes what we see was all created. They also believe that life and all existence is only a few thousand years old. In some ways supporters of Darwin's Evolution are appealing more to unrealistic powers of creation by speculating that a blind process based on assumption which hasn't been scientifically verified can create everything we see and dogmatically stick to it no matter what.
You are obviously either not reading the papers or ignoring certain parts that are showing the evidence. Look at the above papers for starters which show that beneficial mutations are overcome by other mutations and the effect is not great enough to be selected or gain a foothold to keep adding towards creating complex features. IE,
The net effect of genetic drift in such populations is "to encourage the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discourage the promotion of beneficial mutations,",. increased dimensionality and modularity) can actually inhibit the rate of adaptive evolution.
But here are other papers I have posted that say the same
Here, it is argued that random genetic drift can impose a strong barrier to the advancement of molecular refinements by adaptive processes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503168/
Similarly, genetic drift increases the likelihood that a potentially beneficial mutation will be lost before it becomes widespread in the population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17494740
Are you serious, I must have posted this evidence 10 times. How can you say that you want me to cite it again? You’re obviously not following the link because you don’t want to make the connection as this will show that I am correct. Here it is again.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity.
Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation.
These issues are examined in the context of the view that the origins of many aspects of biological diversity, from gene-structural embellishments to novelties at the phenotypic level, have roots in nonadaptive processes,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17494740
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
Although numerous investigators assume that the global features of genetic networks are moulded by natural selection, there has been no formal demonstration of the adaptive origin of any genetic network. This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/full/nrg2192.html
How the papers talking about the inability of beneficial mutations to increase complexity.
Ah if you go back and check my posts you will find I have already posted support for this. There is support for this in this post as well in the above papers.
Its not about creationism as stated before. All that I am posting is purely to do with the science as supported by the papers posted. Its about whether evolution through chance random mutations and natural selection can produce the complexity and variety we see in life or whether it is through other sources such as non adaptive ones that use pre existing genetic info.
