Good enough my friend… But let us keep the conversation open and honest as I hope to endeavor to do.
Upvote
0
You are completely wrong they mention exactly what you are talking about. Did you read that article? Please let’s stay honest here.
(Emphasis mine) So, for every 3 deleterious mutations, there are 172 neutral ones.The average mutation rate was estimated to be ∼2.5 [FONT=ariel,helvetica]x[/FONT] 10-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation...... Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3.
Thats probably right. But I would still like to know how secure in science the random mutation idea is, although I am aware it is taught as standard. I recall hearing somewhere about the evolution of mutation rates, as if there was a optimal frequency for mutation. Also I am not sure (not having studied this much) that there are no feedback mechanisms that pressure certain mutations in a non-random fashion. All it would take is a mintue interference and there would be non-randomness. Is that actually ruled out by hard evidence? How advanced is the genetic reading technology that helps us to know this stuff?Yeah, when you compare something that you can actually observe in nature (random mutation) to something not only never confirmed, but also impossible to observe even if it happened (reincarnation), there is not much I can do. Might as well not believe in gravity, magnetism, relativity, etc.
Actually CabVet I just showed how the new genetics is finding silent mutations in locations once thought to be harmless to actually be the reason for severe genetic dieses (50 now confirmed), Scientific American June 2009 volume 300 Number 6, A must read.
GrowingSmaller
This is what I believe.
The information in DNA can not originate or be stored by agents of chance.
Chance working on original programming can cause adaptation (chance working on established rules) but chance working by itself is antithesis to organism fitness.
In other words mutation by itself does not produce new information that can promote fitness;
in fact evolution adds no new gene sequences at all (never been observed or a mechanism hypothesized).
The fitness gain in any mutation is a byproduct of altering original programming. (God is the designer of all life)
The second law of thermodynamics denies the presence of intrinsic Teleonomy in matter.
But I would still like to know how secure in science the random mutation idea is, although I am aware it is taught as standard. I recall hearing somewhere about the evolution of mutation rates, as if there was a optimal frequency for mutation. Also I am not sure (not having studied this much) that there are no feedback mechanisms that pressure certain mutations in a non-random fashion. All it would take is a mintue interference and there would be non-randomness. Is that actually ruled out by hard evidence? How advanced is the genetic reading technology that helps us to know this stuff?
Good enough my friend But let us keep the conversation open and honest as I hope to endeavor to do.
I think if I were to be sure mutation was randon, then I would have to be a specialist in the field of genetics and have clearly demonstrated scientific proofs.
My reasonable doubt is not earth shattering though, because I am not an expert in the field. A certain level of doubt may well be more rational to me because I don't actually claim to know that much, and anything else might be pretentious, because I don't actually hold the credentials or qualifications which would possibly lead me to a rationally warranted degree certainty.
Ok thatnks for that but is randomness actually verified statistically or is it implied by a lack of apparent direction?
Ok thatnks for that but is randomness actually verified statistically or is it implied by a lack of apparent direction?
New evidence
shows that far fewer mutations are passed along to the offspring than previously thought, about 30 from each parent. This is about 1/3 the predicted mutation rate by the evolutionist.
The problem for the evolutionist is they have only one third the needed mutation rate to make a monkey into a man; this fact alone is enough to put the nail in the coffin of the evolutionist.
New evidence shows that far fewer mutations are passed along to the offspring than previously thought, about 30 from each parent. This is about 1/3 the predicted mutation rate by the evolutionist. The problem for the evolutionist is they have only one third the needed mutation rate to make a monkey into a man; this fact alone is enough to put the nail in the coffin of the evolutionist.
http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Family_genetic_research_reveals_the_speed_of_human_mutation.asp
Now how do you fit a deleterious rate of U = 4.2 into the equation. Well actually it wont fit in because now the genetic load is over 99% for humans.
Wow, are you full of nonsense.Time has always been the magic ingredient of evolution but now it is just becoming real nonsense. Chimp Human divergence is now at 12 to 15 million years . Fossil evidence please. Oops there was none in the first place.