DNA: Mutations, Versatility and Probability

[sfs]

All differences are not cause by mutations. They are caused by which characteristic in the gene pool of the parents is dominant and which ones are recessive.

Your reply does not address what I wrote. I'm talking about genetic differences between species. Your response seems to have nothing to do with that. Again, my point is that genetic differences between species look exactly like they would if they were caused by mutations. Why is that?

When you see the children of a black and white couple, their skin is always dark because the gene for dark skin is dominant.

That's not correct. Most skin pigmentation alleles show incomplete dominance; that is, mixed offspring show intermediate pigmentation. That's why African Americans usually have substantially lighter pigmentation than West Africans, even though they only have a modest admixture of European ancestry.

Our DNA will show we are the same species , but not related biologically.

Wait -- what? Humans aren't related to each other?

You are trying have mutations overcome the laws of genetics.

My statements are entirely consistent with everything known about genetics.

 

[sfs]

The reason mutations are the default explanation is that most of the variation in the genome are the result of mutations.

They are not merely the default explanation: they are the only explanation that anyone has offered for genetic data.

The problem is that they are a poor explanation for adaptive evolution, the odds of a spontaneous mutation resulting in an adaptive trait on an evolutionary scale are vanishingly small.

This would be an important point if it weren't false -- but it is.

We now know there are mechanisms in the genome that can modify sequences. They discovered one such mecanism that adapted the immune system of bacteria. Its call the Crisper gene and it literally can be used to edit any DNA sequence, it's a genomic cut and paste tool. The point being the Darwinian adage of mutations plus selection has proven itself to be false.

Pure Darwinian evolution has long been known to be false. The central role of mutation and natural selection in adaptive evolution continues to be true.

 

[mark kennedy]

They are not merely the default explanation: they are the only explanation that anyone has offered for genetic data.

This would be an important point if it weren't false -- but it is.

Pure Darwinian evolution has long been known to be false. The central role of mutation and natural selection in adaptive evolution continues to be true.

I think the Crisper gene argues otherwise and a mutation producing an adaptive trait on an evolutionary has to be the rarest of effects. Adaptive evolution happens on a grand scale but mutations have very little, if anything to do with it. I know that the are editing tools within the genomic machinary, random copy errors and a failure of copy repairs explains nothing.

 

[stevevw]

From what I understand the Neo Darwinian theory of evolution is being challenged more and more from many fields which show that life can evolve/change in a number of ways such as from non-adaptive mechanisms rather than adaptive ones which can explain what we see much better. We are understanding more than ever about how organisms and complex life develops and changes and the evidence is showing that the Neo Darwinian theory is inadequate for explaining what we see. Adaptive evolution requires extraordinary explanations to make things fit to what is being seen without any supportive evidence.

Natural selection has been given more and more creative power because people think that everything is the result of natural selection. Natural selection is more about maintaining the status quo and refining things rather than morphing any new features and creatures. There are other mechanisms that allow life to change through development such as switching on latent genetic material from existing genetic info, gaining genetic material from other cohabitating organisms, cross-breeding, and symbiotic relationships. Phenotypic plasticity can allow living things to make changes in their own life time and epigenetic influences can affect the way living things change in future generations.

In fact, in some ways, random mutations and natural selection can be detrimental to pre-existing finely tuned genetic structures by introducing possible harmful mutations which can undermine what is already working well. I think there is some process where living things are connected to other living things and the environment and can activate the exact needed genetic material to fit into their environment, therefore, cooperating with their surroundings rather than always in competition and being forced to adapt. A bit like Lamarckian evolution. Neo Darwinism takes a narrow view of how life can change which cannot account for what is happening and will be shown to be wrong at least in the way some are trying to claim what it can do.

 

[omega2xx]

Your reply does not address what I wrote. I'm talking about genetic differences between species. Your response seems to have nothing to do with that. Again, my point is that genetic differences between species look exactly like they would if they were caused by mutations. Why is that?

That simply isn't true. Eye color is not cause by a mutation. A dog leg becoming a fin is not caused by a mutation.

hat's not correct. Most skin pigmentation alleles show incomplete dominance; that is, mixed offspring show intermediate pigmentation. That's why African Americans usually have substantially lighter pigmentation than West Africans, even though they only have a modest admixture of European ancestry.

Irrelevant. Skin color is determined by a gene. Caucasians have gene for white; negros have one for black which is dominant. That is why the skin color of kids of a mixed marriage is always dark. African American have a different gene for skin color than West Africans, which you just admitted is no longer pure.

Wait -- what? Humans aren't related to each other?

Read what I said. We are related as to species. You are not my brother, nephew ,or cousin twice removed.

My statements are entirely consistent with everything known about genetics.

 

[sfs]

That simply isn't true. Eye color is not cause by a mutation. A dog leg becoming a fin is not caused by a mutation.

Which again has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. Which part of what I'm saying do you not understand? I'm talking about the differences you see when you compare the DNA of two different species. I'm not talking about fins or eye color -- just DNA. Those differences look exactly like accumulated mutations. Why?

Irrelevant. Skin color is determined by a gene. Caucasians have gene for white; negros have one for black which is dominant. That is why the skin color of kids of a mixed marriage is always dark. African American have a different gene for skin color than West Africans, which you just admitted is no longer pure.

Everything you just wrote is wrong. Skin color is determined by possession of genetic variants (not genes -- we all have the same pigmentation genes). Black pigmentation is not dominant. African Americans usually have the same variants for dark pigmentation as West Africans, since they inherited them from West African ancestors (again, usually).

Read what I said. We are related as to species. You are not my brother, nephew ,or cousin twice removed.

I am your cousin many-times removed. We're all distant cousins.

I'm trying to politely tell you that I know a lot more about genetics than you do.

 

[omega2xx]

Which again has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. Which part of what I'm saying do you not understand? I'm talking about the differences you see when you compare the DNA of two different species. I'm not talking about fins or eye color -- just DNA. Those differences look exactly like accumulated mutations. Why?

Everything you just wrote is wrong. Skin color is determined by possession of genetic variants (not genes -- we all have the same pigmentation genes). Black pigmentation is not dominant. African Americans usually have the same variants for dark pigmentation as West Africans, since they inherited them from West African ancestors (again, usually).

I am your cousin many-times removed. We're all distant cousins.

I'm trying to politely tell you that I know a lot more about genetics than you do.

You are half right. Thanks for being polite.

 

[omega2xx]

I think the Crisper gene argues otherwise and a mutation producing an adaptive trait on an evolutionary has to be the rarest of effects. Adaptive evolution happens on a grand scale but mutations have very little, if anything to do with it. I know that the are editing tools within the genomic machinary, random copy errors and a failure of copy repairs explains nothing.

What is "adaptive evolution"? A species either adapts to its environment or it becomes extinct, but an environment can't be a mechanism for change of species. Also no mutation is a mechanism for a change of specie.

 

[stevevw]

What is "adaptive evolution"? A species either adapts to its environment or it becomes extinct, but an environment can't be a mechanism for change of species. Also no mutation is a mechanism for a change of specie.

I think that is too narrow a view and there is a range of other possibilities for creatures to live in their environments. For one they can change their environments instead of having to change themselves to fit into their environments. This happenes a lot especially with smaller creatures where we see them transform things like the shape of an environment, the composition of the environment, its temperature and even make large scale changes to the structure such as beavers damming up rivers which also changes the environment for others and often works in favor of cohabitating creatures that can benefit from those changes and in the end has an affect on the entire ecosystem. In that sense it is not all about adaptations and competition for survival but about co-operation between living things which feed off each other and work together to fit into environments. It gives life more control besides having to make morphological changes to themselves.

 

[omega2xx]

I think that is too narrow a view

Truth is always a narrow view. The narrower it is the truer it is.

and there is a range of other possibilities for creatures to live in their environments. For one they can change their environments instead of having to change themselves to fit into their environments.

The can migrate to a more suitable environment, that will not change their species.

This happenes a lot especially with smaller creatures where we see them transform things like the shape of an environment, the composition of the environment, its temperature and even make large scale changes to the structure

How can an animal change the environment? Only God can do that.

such as beavers damming up rivers which also changes the environment for others and often works in favor of cohabitating creatures that can benefit from those changes and in the end has an affect on the entire ecosystem.

What beavers build does not change the environment. It provies them with protection from the environment.

In that sense it is not all about adaptations and competition for survival but about co-operation between living things which feed off each other and work together to fit into environments. It gives life more control besides having to make morphological changes to themselves.

Even if that is true which it isn't. it would not result in a change of species and no animal can make a morphological change to themselves. That is one reason "natural selection" is not true.

 

[sfs]

You are half right. Thanks for being polite.

What part of what I wrote was wrong?

 

[stevevw]

The can migrate to a more suitable environment, that will not change their species.

How can an animal change the environment? Only God can do that.

What beavers build does not change the environment. It provies them with protection from the environment.

This is called niche construction theory.
Niche construction theory (NCT) addresses the fact that life forms—consciously or not—alter their selective environments and are not always simply passive precipitates of a given selective regime.

Beavers, earthworms, ants, and countless other animals build complex artefacts, regulate temperatures and humidity’s inside them, control nutrient cycling and stoichiometric ratios around them, and in the process construct and defend benign and apposite nursery environments for their offspring. (Laland and Brown 2006:95).
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=anth_fac

Life can change their enviroment to suit the way they live and in doing so will change the composition of that environment for themselves, their offspring and other living things around them. For example earth worms will change the composition of the soil to suit their living conditions and at the same time are adding nutrients to the soil to benefit plants which then benefit plant eating creatures. The entire ecosystem is changing as a result of what living things can do to their environment. Beavers will change the course of a river through dams and in doing so create the ideal habitat for themselves which has calmer deeper waters which also allows different types of organisms to exist and thrive in those waters that would not normally be there and may benefit other creatures who feed off the organisms in those waters.

Perhaps the greatest creatures that can influence their environment are humans who are able to adjust to just about any environment as seen in the extreme environments we have learnt to live in. There is is also the social imact which has an effect on life and how creatures live. As mentioned when considering all the influences the way life changes is more complex and needs to be taken into consideration.

Even if that is true which it isn't it would not result in a change of species and no animal can make a morphological change to themselves. That is one reason "natural selection" is not true.

I do not think you appreciate the implications these influences have on how life changes. These influences are additional ones besides natural selection and are not so much based on adaptive changes where living things are reduced to survival of the fittest through random mutations and blind natural selection. They are perhaps inbuilt mechanisms that God has installed in life to help them live on planet earth and in that sense I see them as a design rather than a naturalistic process.

There is now evidence that living things are somehow tuned in to other living things and their environment and can get feedback which can then activate changes in them through either switching on genes needed to adapt or gaining extra genetic material through cohabitations with other organisms. Epigenetics can also influence the way genes are expressed for future generations. This is sort of like a lamarckican theory of change where a creature is more the product of their lifestyle and environment. Rather than the blind course of selection life may be biased to develop and change along certain paths which can benefit them. This make more sense than Neo Dawinian theory as it can explain a lot of the anomelies we see such as the sudden appearence of well defined living things and the way life can be similar right down to the genomic level and follw the same development paths yet live in different environments which evolution cannot explain.


“Does evolution need a rethink”
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[omega2xx]

This is called niche construction theory.
Niche construction theory (NCT) addresses the fact that life forms—consciously or not—alter their selective environments and are not always simply passive precipitates of a given selective regime.

People can theorize all they want, but theories are not evidence.

Beavers, earthworms, ants, and countless other animals build complex artefacts, regulate temperatures and humidity’s inside them, control nutrient cycling and stoichiometric ratios around them, and in the process construct and defend benign and apposite nursery environments for their offspring

. (Laland and Brown 2006:95).
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=anth_fac

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=anth_fac

Building a protective shelter does not change the outside environment and it certainly doe not cause a species to evolve into a different specie. That is absurd.

Life can change their enviroment to suit the way they live and in doing so will change the composition of that environment for themselves, their offspring and other living things around them. For example earth worms will change the composition of the soil to suit their living conditions and at the same time are adding nutrients to the soil to benefit plants which then benefit plant eating creatures. The entire ecosystem is changing as a result of what living things can do to their environment. Beavers will change the course of a river through dams and in doing so create the ideal habitat for themselves which has calmer deeper waters which also allows different types of organisms to exist and thrive in those waters that would not normally be there and may benefit other creatures who feed off the organisms in those waters.

Nothing in that paragraph is true. Changing the soil, making it richer does not change the environment. Building a dam does not change the environment. Humans living in houses does not change the environment. They protect us for the environment. Even if it was, it would not be a mechanism for a change of species.

Perhaps the greatest creatures that can influence their environment are humans who are able to adjust to just about any environment as seen in the extreme environments we have learnt to live in.

Humans might influence the environment a little, but the topic of this thread is whale evolution. Even if all you claim is true, it will not cause a land animal to become a sea creature. Environment do change but are not caused by animals and those species that cant' adapt become extinct. Probably the reason we no longer have dinos and many other species.





There is is also the social imact which has an effect on life and how creatures live. As mentioned when considering all the influences the way life changes is more complex and needs to be taken into consideration.

I do not think you appreciate the implications these influences have on how life changes. These influences are additional ones besides natural selection and are not so much based on adaptive changes where living things are reduced to survival of the fittest through random mutations and blind natural selection. They are perhaps inbuilt mechanisms that God has installed in life to help them live on planet earth and in that sense I see them as a design rather than a naturalistic process.

There is now evidence that living things are somehow tuned in to other living things and their environment and can get feedback which can then activate changes in them through either switching on genes needed to adapt or gaining extra genetic material through cohabitations with other organisms. Epigenetics can also influence the way genes are expressed for future generations. This is sort of like a lamarckican theory of change where a creature is more the product of their lifestyle and environment. Rather than the blind course of selection life may be biased to develop and change along certain paths which can benefit them. This make more sense than Neo Dawinian theory as it can explain a lot of the anomelies we see such as the sudden appearence of well defined living things and the way life can be similar right down to the genomic level and follw the same development paths yet live in different environments which evolution cannot explain.


“Does evolution need a rethink”
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?[/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

Your reply does not address what I wrote. I'm talking about genetic differences between species. Your response seems to have nothing to do with that. Again, my point is that genetic differences between species look exactly like they would if they were caused by mutations. Why is that?

That's not correct. Most skin pigmentation alleles show incomplete dominance; that is, mixed offspring show intermediate pigmentation. That's why African Americans usually have substantially lighter pigmentation than West Africans, even though they only have a modest admixture of European ancestry.

Wait -- what? Humans aren't related to each other?

My statements are entirely consistent with everything known about genetics.

People can theorize all they want, but theories are not evidence.


Building a protective shelter does not change the outside environment and it certainly doe not cause a species to evolve into a different specie. That is absurd.



Nothing in that paragraph is true. Changing the soil, making it richer does not change the environment. Building a dam does not change the environment. Humans living in houses does not change the environment. They protect us for the environment. Even if it was, it would not be a mechanism for a change of species.



Humans might influence the environment a little, but the topic of this thread is whale evolution. Even if all you claim is true, it will not cause a land animal to become a sea creature. Environment do change but are not caused by animals and those species that cant' adapt become extinct. Probably the reason we no longer have dinos and many other species.





There is is also the social imact which has an effect on life and how creatures live. As mentioned when considering all the influences the way life changes is more complex and needs to be taken into consideration.

I do not think you appreciate the implications these influences have on how life changes. These influences are additional ones besides natural selection and are not so much based on adaptive changes where living things are reduced to survival of the fittest through random mutations and blind natural selection. They are perhaps inbuilt mechanisms that God has installed in life to help them live on planet earth and in that sense I see them as a design rather than a naturalistic process.

There is now evidence that living things are somehow tuned in to other living things and their environment and can get feedback which can then activate changes in them through either switching on genes needed to adapt or gaining extra genetic material through cohabitations with other organisms. Epigenetics can also influence the way genes are expressed for future generations. This is sort of like a lamarckican theory of change where a creature is more the product of their lifestyle and environment. Rather than the blind course of selection life may be biased to develop and change along certain paths which can benefit them. This make more sense than Neo Dawinian theory as it can explain a lot of the anomelies we see such as the sudden appearence of well defined living things and the way life can be similar right down to the genomic level and follw the same development paths yet live in different environments which evolution cannot explain.


“Does evolution need a rethink”
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

[/QUOTE]

You are half right. Thanks for being polite.

What part of what I wrote was wrong?

Here is one of your statements, "Those differences look exactly like accumulated mutations. Why?

What happens to a characteristic not altered by a mutation, does not resemble what happens when there is no mutation. Mutations are almost always harmful in some way. What happens when there is no mutation, is never harmful. There is no such thing as accumulated mutations. There may be more than one mutation involved in the kid, but they are not accumulated. Can you give me an example of accumulated mutations?

Even if there is, it will not change the species.

What is the evidence that living things are somehow tuned in to other living things and their environment and can get feedback which can then activate changes in them through either switching on genes needed to adapt or gaining extra genetic material through cohabitations with other organisms?

 

[sfs]

What happens to a characteristic not altered by a mutation, does not resemble what happens when there is no mutation. Mutations are almost always harmful in some way. What happens when there is no mutation, is never harmful.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The one statement in there that I can understand -- "Mutations are almost always harmful in some way" -- is wrong. Every baby born has something like 75 new mutations. We all carry millions of mutations that we've inherited from our ancestors. Almost all of them are not harmful.

Can you give me an example of accumulated mutations?

There are millions of genetic differences between you and the guy standing next to you. Those differences are accumulated mutations.

Even if there is, it will not change the species.

Mutations change the species all the time. They also change subpopulations within the species (some of which then go on to become species themselves). That's why different human populations have different color skin, and why some of them can tolerate high altitude, and why some of them can digest milk as adults, and why some of them are resistant to malaria.

What is the evidence that living things are somehow tuned in to other living things and their environment and can get feedback which can then activate changes in them through either switching on genes needed to adapt or gaining extra genetic material through cohabitations with other organisms?

Again, I cannot parse this question. We have lots and lots and lots of evidence that mutations happen, that some of them are beneficial, and that they change traits. Some of them change genes (i.e. change the protein that is produced), and some of them change when genes are turned on and off.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The one statement in there that I can understand -- "Mutations are almost always harmful in some way" -- is wrong. Every baby born has something like 75 new mutations. We all carry millions of mutations that we've inherited from our ancestors. Almost all of them are not harmful.

There are millions of genetic differences between you and the guy standing next to you. Those differences are accumulated mutations.

Mutations change the species all the time. They also change subpopulations within the species (some of which then go on to become species themselves). That's why different human populations have different color skin, and why some of them can tolerate high altitude, and why some of them can digest milk as adults, and why some of them are resistant to malaria.

Again, I cannot parse this question. We have lots and lots and lots of evidence that mutations happen, that some of them are beneficial, and that they change traits. Some of them change genes (i.e. change the protein that is produced), and some of them change when genes are turned on and off.

I think one of my deepest concerns with these kinds of conversations is that...someone, somewhere, is misinforming the general public. How many times do people quote someone like Stephen Gould, without knowing anything about him, or without having read his books or his research? How many times will people press the position of mutations being predominantly harmful, without actually knowing about mutations? People think the complexity in geology and a global flood forming a canyon, are equivalent to a bucket of water being dumped into a sandbox.

People are being misled, but by who? Is this really all...Ken Hams doing?

 

[stevevw]

I think one of my deepest concerns with these kinds of conversations is that...someone, somewhere, is misinforming the general public. How many times do people quote someone like Stephen Gould, without knowing anything about him, or without having read his books or his research? How many times will people press the position of mutations being predominantly harmful, without actually knowing about mutations? People think the complexity in geology and a global flood forming a canyon, are equivalent to a bucket of water being dumped into a sandbox.

People are being misled, but by who? Is this really all...Ken Hams doing?

Maybe some of that misinformation comes from the very people supporting the ideas of evolution and not just the opponents. I have always found the debate about mutations to be confusing and conflicting. From what I have read from the experts who support evolution some say mutations are mostly deleterious and cite genetic entropy where living things are gradually deteriorating becuase of the many deleterous mutations and that beneficial mutations are very rare. Then others will disagree or say that mutations are mostly neutral and harmful and beneficial mutations are about the same. Some will say that even beneficial mutations will be gradually wiped out by the accumulative affect of mutations reacting with each other and will end up having a fitness cost through epistasis.

Still others say that there are no real neutral mutations as they are actually slightly deleterious because any change to even a single nucleotide is something that will affect the surrounding nucleotides and spaces and take more energy to reproduce and sustain. They are only classed as neutral becuase the harmful affect is so small that there is no cost to fitness at that time. It is the accumulation of these slightly deleterious mutations that can add up to a bigger cost to fitness over time. Hense for example humans are accumulating many harmful mutations.

So there is conflicting claims out there not just from religious camps. I do not think anyone is really sure. In fact there is now talk that mutations may not be random amd are a integral part of how creatures can turn on new genes through enviromental pressures. I would think that for the evolution of the variety and complexity we see the benefit of mutations would have to be big which would seem to take more than one mutation and I am not sure that is possible or proven. Before there would be any big benefit harmful mutations are more than likely to mess things up. And its not as simple as selection weeding them out as they are often too small individually or associated with other aspects of a function that will need it to stick around.

I tend to like the idea that mutations are more directional and have a purpose for helping living things to initiate change when under pressure or in new enviromentalsituations. Maybe even where a creature is having to reacte a certain way because of the pressure it is under this sets of a process where mutational changes activate new genes to come into play to help the creature adjust to that new enviroment or situation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe some of that misinformation comes from the very people supporting the ideas of evolution and not just the opponents. I have always found the debate about mutations to be confusing and conflicting. From what I have read from the experts who support evolution some say mutations are mostly deleterious and cite genetic entropy where living things are gradually deteriorating becuase of the many deleterous mutations and that beneficial mutations are very rare. Then others will disagree or say that mutations are mostly neutral and harmful and beneficial mutations are about the same. Some will say that even beneficial mutations will be gradually wiped out by the accumulative affect of mutations reacting with each other and will end up having a fitness cost through epistasis.

Still others say that there are no real neutral mutations as they are actually slightly deleterious because any change to even a single nucleotide is something that will affect the surrounding nucleotides and spaces and take more energy to reproduce and sustain. They are only classed as neutral becuase the harmful affect is so small that there is no cost to fitness at that time. It is the accumulation of these slightly deleterious mutations that can add up to a bigger cost to fitness over time. Hense for example humans are accumulating many harmful mutations.

So there is conflicting claims out there not just from religious camps. I do not think anyone is really sure. In fact there is now talk that mutations may not be random amd are a integral part of how creatures can turn on new genes through enviromental pressures. I would think that for the evolution of the variety and complexity we see the benefit of mutations would have to be big which would seem to take more than one mutation and I am not sure that is possible or proven. Before there would be any big benefit harmful mutations are more than likely to mess things up. And its not as simple as selection weeding them out as they are often too small individually or associated with other aspects of a function that will need it to stick around.

I tend to like the idea that mutations are more directional and have a purpose for helping living things to initiate change when under pressure or in new enviromentalsituations. Maybe even where a creature is having to reacte a certain way because of the pressure it is under this sets of a process where mutational changes activate new genes to come into play to help the creature adjust to that new enviroment or situation.

May I see research you are referring to, where biologists discuss predominantly deleterious mutations? And further i would ask if they simultaneously are proposing that speciation would no longer occur due to this degredation?

 

[sfs]

From what I have read from the experts who support evolution some say mutations are mostly deleterious and cite genetic entropy where living things are gradually deteriorating becuase of the many deleterous mutations and that beneficial mutations are very rare.

I know of no experts who say that most mutations in humans are deleterious. There are experts who are worried that humans are degenerating, but that's because we have relaxed the selective pressures on us as a species, because of medicine, agriculture, sanitation and the like. "Genetic entropy" is a term I've only seen used by creationists.

Still others say that there are no real neutral mutations as they are actually slightly deleterious because any change to even a single nucleotide is something that will affect the surrounding nucleotides and spaces and take more energy to reproduce and sustain. They are only classed as neutral becuase the harmful affect is so small that there is no cost to fitness at that time. It is the accumulation of these slightly deleterious mutations that can add up to a bigger cost to fitness over time. Hense for example humans are accumulating many harmful mutations.

Who says this?

 

[omega2xx]

I think one of my deepest concerns with these kinds of conversations is that...someone, somewhere, is misinforming the general public. How many times do people quote someone like Stephen Gould, without knowing anything about him, or without having read his books or his research?

I don't have to understand Gould, I only have to understand what he says.

How many times will people press the position of mutations being predominantly harmful, without actually knowing about mutations?

If you think mutations are a mechanism for change of species, it is you who does not know anything about them. Whether they are harmful or not is irrelevant.

People think the complexity in geology and a global flood forming a canyon, are equivalent to a bucket of water being dumped into a sandbox.

No they don't and you thinking the Grand Canyon was formed by a river is beyond absurd. Especially when you have no evidence to support you speculation.

People are being misled, but by who? Is this really all...Ken Hams doing?

It is amusing that the only scientist ever quoted by you evos is Ken Ham. There are many more creationists scientist who refute evolution and give real scientific evidence as too why.