Seems the new red herring from ICR is "equivocal" vs. "unequivocal" beneficial mutations.
http://www.icr.org/article/3466/
According to the article "unequivocally beneficial mutations are nonexistent in nature."
Of course, their examples are such things as bacteria which have developed anti-biotic resistance being less fit than other bacteria when the anti-biotic is no longer part of the environment.
If being less fit in a different environment qualifies a mutation as being only "equivocally beneficial" why is it a surprise that all beneficial mutations are equivocally beneficial? What are they looking for, a mutation that would be beneficial in all possible environments? How would such a mutation be selected since selection is a function of the local environment?
What gets me even more than the newest jargon is the sad repetition of arguments that should long ago have been abandoned. Shades of mark kennedy, he even uses the fact of genetically linked diseases as a supposed refutation of evolution. He repeats the fallacy that evolution is a program of improvement and even suggests that deleterious mutations will accumulate along with beneficial ones, thus wiping out the benefit of the latter. How can someone so completely misunderstand natural selection?
http://www.icr.org/article/3466/
According to the article "unequivocally beneficial mutations are nonexistent in nature."
Of course, their examples are such things as bacteria which have developed anti-biotic resistance being less fit than other bacteria when the anti-biotic is no longer part of the environment.
If being less fit in a different environment qualifies a mutation as being only "equivocally beneficial" why is it a surprise that all beneficial mutations are equivocally beneficial? What are they looking for, a mutation that would be beneficial in all possible environments? How would such a mutation be selected since selection is a function of the local environment?
What gets me even more than the newest jargon is the sad repetition of arguments that should long ago have been abandoned. Shades of mark kennedy, he even uses the fact of genetically linked diseases as a supposed refutation of evolution. He repeats the fallacy that evolution is a program of improvement and even suggests that deleterious mutations will accumulate along with beneficial ones, thus wiping out the benefit of the latter. How can someone so completely misunderstand natural selection?