Quote from the research:
2009: In 2009, Barrick et al. reported the results of genome sequences from multiple time points in population Ara-1. They found that, unlike the declining rate of fitness improvement, mutation accumulation was linear and clock like, even though several lines of evidence suggested that much of the accumulation was beneficial, rather than neutral
2013 "the [fitness] increase would continue without bound as progressively lower benefit mutations were fixed in the populations"
So mutations always occur but good ones are progressively decreasing. In fact they didn't report any actual benefitial mutations since the cit change, most they notices are defects.
They completely reversed their research on rate of fitness improvement and mutations, from saying fitness are decresing to increasing, from "mutations are clock and liner, lines of evidence suggested that much of the accumulation was beneficial", to "rogressively lower benefit mutations were fixed".
This is your most desperate and dishonest act of quote-mining yet, and you're still failing miserably at demonstrating anything meaningful. None of that represents a 'reverse in research'.
Even if the narrative you have constructed were true, and accurately represented the conclusions of the researchers themselves, all you would have on your hands is a fluctuation in mutation rate, which scientists have already known can happen. In fact it's a prediction of evolution in a constant environment without selective pressure, as used in the study. But of course, that's not the whole story. If you look elsewhere in the article you are quote-mining from, you will find this excerpt,
Further work published in 2015 reported the results of over 1100 new fitness assays that examined fitness changes through 60,000 generations. The data once again fit the proposed power law model, and, indeed, fit within predictions of the model from earlier data. These results suggest that, contrary to previous thinking, adaptation and adaptive divergence can potentially increase indefinitely, even in a constant environment.
Adaptive divergence with no bound is
the exact opposite of a 'mutation barrier'.
Just to really hammer the point home, as has been pointed out several times at this point, the researchers themselves, whom you continue to dishonestly represent, believe a speciation process may be happening within the study right now. Which again, is
the exact opposite of what you set out to demonstrate when you first brought this up - that your imaginary 'mutation barrier' prevents speciation from occurring.
I really shouldn't have to go any further than that. The researchers themselves, who are responsible for the study, conclude
THE. EXACT. OPPOSITE.
of what you are trying to force them to conclude. I don't have to say anything else besides that, but I will anyway.
My "dishonest imaginary mutation barrier" seems to exist in actual testing.
No, it absolutely does not. The
very best case you could get from your desperate act of quote-mining is a change in mutation rate, which proves
nothing at all.
Unless you can show actual lab tests that shows otherwise.
LOL. No. Doesn't work that way.
You are the one attempting to demonstrate a concept that exists nowhere in science, going against a
gigantic body of critically robust evidence in opposition to you, so the burden of proof is
yours. You have utterly, abysmally, hilariously failed to meet it, even when you shamelessly cheat by dishonestly representing the researchers responsible for the study, over and over and over again. The crap you have tried to pull here in proving your imaginary 'mutation barrier' would get you laughed out of any biology department of any university on the planet.
Well, except a fake biology department like Liberty. They might be stupid enough to fall for this.
