You should read the article you quote. The article starts out saying that each individual has 4 mutations. It then states "On average, about 1.6 of them are bad enough that evolution and natural selection will eventually weed them out. "
JEP: You are simply misreading that article or it is not clear. I know this is incorrect because I had a friend steal the original paper from Princeton and email it to me. Ive since lost it somewhere on the six computers I have networked together. But if I find it, Ill get it to you. And, please use some common sense. They are rounding off numbers. If 2 harmful mutations (actually 2.4 if you want to get technical) are not weeded out of the genome and become fixed in the population; and 1.6 ARE weeded out by NS, then how many harmful mutations does this add up to?? Four? Yes, four. This paper may be online by now if you care to go to pubmed. In lieu of that, heres another article on the subject:
http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/evolution/article/evolution_walker.htm
1.6 is less than half of 4. Less than 50% doesn't justify a statement of "by and large most mutations are harmful ones".
JEP: All four of them are harmful mutations. This was a study ON harmful mutations and presented as such. Beneficial and neutral mutations were not even considered: Two British researchers, Adam Eyre-Walker of the University of Sussex and and Peter Keightley of the University of Edinburgh, report these findings in Thursdays issue of the journal Nature, the first time the rate of bad mutations has been measured in humans or any other vertebrate.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/mutation990127.html
JEP IN A PREVIOUS POST: The rest accumulate in the genome and will lead to extinction of the human race.
Only because we are no longer subject to natural selection. We are using our technology to prevent natural selection from working.
JEP: Really? Were we using this technology at the time we sprang from Chimps? This is the beginning time-line of the study. And if this study shows that the human genome was disorganizing at the rate of two harmful mutations per generation from the time of Chimps in mans magical evolutionary fairytative pixie dustical leap from a simian; then how in the world can you evolutionists postulate that the genome actually grew more complex to morph this more complex species from a more simplistic one?? Someones argument seems to be suffering here.
Thus, humans, because of their technology, are now a special species. If the situation continues and there is a crash, civilization would fall due to the 90% dieoff and loss of necessary skills to maintain a technological civilization. But the species would survive because enough individuals would be around with healthy enough genomes to keep the population going while purifying selection again did its work.
JEP: You bring up an interesting point. Partially true, I believe, in modern times. What we are doing at this point is introducing an area of thermodynamics into the picture called population entropy. Man steals negative entropy (called neguentropy) from other species to keep his population entropy in check. The end result of this is that man bulldozes wet lands to put in his shopping centers, logs out forest for his houses and decks, clears out rain forests for materials and medicines and plows up prairies for his agriculture. This neguentropy he borrows from other species raises their population entropy drastically. Many times to maximumextinction.
What you are wrong about is that 10% of the population would remain. This goes against scientific studies. Heres a chart from the government on how mutational meltdown really works. As you can see, the population falls quickly to zero once mutational meltdown begins as the genome becomes so disordered it can no longer govern the organism:
http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/gif_figures/muf2.gif
Now, the authors are also judging "good" and "bad" on their terms, not the environment's. Other, more rigorous studies have shown that the deleterious mutation rate is about 2.6 per thousand mutations.
JEP: My word. These people are on your side. They are evolutionists. In fact all three quoted in the ABC News article, Adam Eyre-Walker of the University of Sussex, Peter Keightley and Crow of the US are all evolutionary biologists. Who would you think more qualified to make this judgment call: creationists??
Too bad for you. You don't get to choose whether you "believe" the data or not.
JEP: I simply dont believe your assertion that other studies on harmful vertebrate mutations show results less deleterious to your argument because you did not back up this assertion with references and ABC news quite frankly says this is the first time the rate of bad mutations has been measured in humans or any other vertebrate.
This study documents the rate of deleterious mutations in the worm C. elegans. Because they are hermaphroditic, the authors were able to separate the worms and run parallel populations descended from a single individual. By maintaining independent sublines, the effect of selection could be minimized, and thus the deleterious mutations could be kept in the population. Lethal mutations are still lethal, but the experimental design allows accumulation of deleterious mutations (as well as neutral mutations) and then the effect on lifespan and production of viable offspring, both of which are measurements of fitness. The estimated deleterious mutation rate per haploid genome (the whole organism) was 0.0026, or 2.6 per thousand. This is about 100 fold *less* than previously found for Drosophila. All in all, deleterious mutation rates are very low, considering that total mutations are about 1 per genome (individual).
JEP: Could be true. But people, my friend, are not worms. Although this sometimes is debatable, especially in the case of Scott Peterson.
JEP: You are simply misreading that article or it is not clear. I know this is incorrect because I had a friend steal the original paper from Princeton and email it to me. Ive since lost it somewhere on the six computers I have networked together. But if I find it, Ill get it to you. And, please use some common sense. They are rounding off numbers. If 2 harmful mutations (actually 2.4 if you want to get technical) are not weeded out of the genome and become fixed in the population; and 1.6 ARE weeded out by NS, then how many harmful mutations does this add up to?? Four? Yes, four. This paper may be online by now if you care to go to pubmed. In lieu of that, heres another article on the subject:
http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/evolution/article/evolution_walker.htm
1.6 is less than half of 4. Less than 50% doesn't justify a statement of "by and large most mutations are harmful ones".
JEP: All four of them are harmful mutations. This was a study ON harmful mutations and presented as such. Beneficial and neutral mutations were not even considered: Two British researchers, Adam Eyre-Walker of the University of Sussex and and Peter Keightley of the University of Edinburgh, report these findings in Thursdays issue of the journal Nature, the first time the rate of bad mutations has been measured in humans or any other vertebrate.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/mutation990127.html
JEP IN A PREVIOUS POST: The rest accumulate in the genome and will lead to extinction of the human race.
Only because we are no longer subject to natural selection. We are using our technology to prevent natural selection from working.
JEP: Really? Were we using this technology at the time we sprang from Chimps? This is the beginning time-line of the study. And if this study shows that the human genome was disorganizing at the rate of two harmful mutations per generation from the time of Chimps in mans magical evolutionary fairytative pixie dustical leap from a simian; then how in the world can you evolutionists postulate that the genome actually grew more complex to morph this more complex species from a more simplistic one?? Someones argument seems to be suffering here.
Thus, humans, because of their technology, are now a special species. If the situation continues and there is a crash, civilization would fall due to the 90% dieoff and loss of necessary skills to maintain a technological civilization. But the species would survive because enough individuals would be around with healthy enough genomes to keep the population going while purifying selection again did its work.
JEP: You bring up an interesting point. Partially true, I believe, in modern times. What we are doing at this point is introducing an area of thermodynamics into the picture called population entropy. Man steals negative entropy (called neguentropy) from other species to keep his population entropy in check. The end result of this is that man bulldozes wet lands to put in his shopping centers, logs out forest for his houses and decks, clears out rain forests for materials and medicines and plows up prairies for his agriculture. This neguentropy he borrows from other species raises their population entropy drastically. Many times to maximumextinction.
What you are wrong about is that 10% of the population would remain. This goes against scientific studies. Heres a chart from the government on how mutational meltdown really works. As you can see, the population falls quickly to zero once mutational meltdown begins as the genome becomes so disordered it can no longer govern the organism:
http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/gif_figures/muf2.gif
Now, the authors are also judging "good" and "bad" on their terms, not the environment's. Other, more rigorous studies have shown that the deleterious mutation rate is about 2.6 per thousand mutations.
JEP: My word. These people are on your side. They are evolutionists. In fact all three quoted in the ABC News article, Adam Eyre-Walker of the University of Sussex, Peter Keightley and Crow of the US are all evolutionary biologists. Who would you think more qualified to make this judgment call: creationists??
Too bad for you. You don't get to choose whether you "believe" the data or not.
JEP: I simply dont believe your assertion that other studies on harmful vertebrate mutations show results less deleterious to your argument because you did not back up this assertion with references and ABC news quite frankly says this is the first time the rate of bad mutations has been measured in humans or any other vertebrate.
This study documents the rate of deleterious mutations in the worm C. elegans. Because they are hermaphroditic, the authors were able to separate the worms and run parallel populations descended from a single individual. By maintaining independent sublines, the effect of selection could be minimized, and thus the deleterious mutations could be kept in the population. Lethal mutations are still lethal, but the experimental design allows accumulation of deleterious mutations (as well as neutral mutations) and then the effect on lifespan and production of viable offspring, both of which are measurements of fitness. The estimated deleterious mutation rate per haploid genome (the whole organism) was 0.0026, or 2.6 per thousand. This is about 100 fold *less* than previously found for Drosophila. All in all, deleterious mutation rates are very low, considering that total mutations are about 1 per genome (individual).
JEP: Could be true. But people, my friend, are not worms. Although this sometimes is debatable, especially in the case of Scott Peterson.
Upvote
0
