What a loaded question.
Perhaps, first demonstrate that that is the case.
Are you claiming to be unaware that the human genome is less functional over time because of damaging mutations? Or are you claiming almost all mutations that are not neutral are not damaging?
It's right there in the quote that you yourself posted.
It doesn't say that mere mutation does NOT add such variance.
It just says that it goes slower.
And yet this is just hypothesis, not actual observational data.
So it logically follows that it can accomplish the same thing.
No, it doesn't logically follow, when such has never been observed. It may logically follow in fantasy land, but not in reality.
It's like saying that "running" consists of large steps, as opposed to only taking steps of 1inch at a time.
i do believe that if you took 1 inch steps, under the definition of running, you would not meet it.
However, given enough time, taking one step at a time can cover the same distance.
Except that during that time 10,000 disasters happen (deleterious mutations) and so your dead before you get there.
New Research Suggests at Least 75% of The Human Genome Is Junk DNA After All
"The rationale for Graur's model is based on the way
mutations creep into DNA, and how as a species we weed these mutations out for the benefit of all.
These kinds of genetic variants, called
deleterious mutations, appear in our genome over time, subtly shifting or reordering the
four chemical bases that make up DNA – adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine – in parts of our genetic code.
When mutations take place in junk DNA, they're considered neutral – since that genetic code doesn't do anything, anyway – but when mutations occur to our functional, defining DNA, they can often be harmful and even ultimately lethal, as they mess up the instructions that code for healthy tissue and biological processes.
On that basis, it's better for our evolutionary prospects if less of our DNA is functional, because less of it is then exposed to the risk of mutation and the increased chances of early death it invites."
But you want the exact opposite to be true, and to increase the chances of survival, when fact dictates the opposite. The more mutations occur over time, the more chances the species will die out due to damaging mutations.
No. I just want you to be intellectually honest and the quotes you yourself are posting.
Then why are you not being intellectually honest and keep insisting something never observed is more important than what you observe? Why be intellectually dishonest and rely on unproven theory over what you see happening all around you?
How is admitting someones claim of mutations over millions of years causing variations when it has never been observed being unimportant being dishonest? Wouldn't it be more honest to just admit it has never been observed (unlike interbreeding causing change)?
So you want me to lie to myself and ignore how we actually observe variation to occur and instead accept an unproven method that can never be observed and is known to cause serious harm to an organism over time?
Mutation - Wikipedia
"One study on
genetic variations between different
species of
Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a
protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of
amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as
DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state."
Hmm, a built in correction routine to repair those mutations you want to be the cause of everything. Imagine that.
