Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Stripe]

It's fascinating how you think just saying "Nuh uh" is a valid rebuttal.

Actually, he expressed the YEC explanation for the evidence. Try to engage with what we say sensibly. :up:

 

[6days]

It's fascinating how you think just saying "Nuh uh" is a valid rebuttal.

"Nuh uh" would have been a valid comment to your ridiculous claim.


Discerning genetic function is determined by research, and a number of different methods... not beliefs. For example, genetic function can be determined by genetic screeing, ....or by identifying missing genes in 'mutants', ...or through linkage analysis...or complementation tests (comparing similar defects caused by different genes)... or by...etc. There are other tests and methods for discerning genetic function but none depend on Jose Fly's beliefs about the past.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Nuh uh" would have been a valid comment to your ridiculous claim.


Discerning genetic function is determined by research, and a number of different methods... not beliefs. For example, genetic function can be determined by genetic screeing, ....or by identifying missing genes in 'mutants', ...or through linkage analysis...or complementation tests (comparing similar defects caused by different genes)... or by...etc. There are other tests and methods for discerning genetic function but none depend on Jose Fly's beliefs about the past.

When people ask me why I keep going online and arguing with creationists, this is exactly the sort of thing I point to. Here we have 6days, who by now is well aware of THIS PAPER (because I've posted it enough times) that describes how scientists developed a statistical model that is completely based on evolutionary relationships between diverse taxa, applied it to genetic data, and were able to use the results to identify genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, even when the data is "sparse or noisy". And as they also note, the 96% degree of accuracy is far superior to other methods. I mean, we're talking about an entire field of science here (phylogenomics) that even the Wiki article notes is superior in identifying genetic function (and they give a very specific example).

I get a real kick out of watching creationists like 6days do everything they can to try and make this inconvenient information go away. Obviously they don't want this to be true....it can't be true in their world, so they come up with hilarious "rebuttals" like it's a "result of increasing knowledge". Um....yeah, that's the entire point. Our knowledge of what various genetic sequences do is increased by applying our knowledge of evolutionary relationships. :duh:

That's what keeps me coming back. I'm positively fascinated at the type and scale of denial of reality that creationists like 6days are willing to publicly engage in. I just can't look away.

 

[Clete]

When people ask me why I keep going online and arguing with creationists, this is exactly the sort of thing I point to. Here we have 6days, who by now is well aware of THIS PAPER (because I've posted it enough times) that describes how scientists developed a statistical model that is completely based on evolutionary relationships between diverse taxa, applied it to genetic data, and were able to use the results to identify genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, even when the data is "sparse or noisy". And as they also note, the 96% degree of accuracy is far superior to other methods. I mean, we're talking about an entire field of science here (phylogenomics) that even the Wiki article notes is superior in identifying genetic function (and they give a very specific example).

I get a real kick out of watching creationists like 6days do everything they can to try and make this inconvenient information go away. Obviously they don't want this to be true....it can't be true in their world, so they come up with hilarious "rebuttals" like it's a "result of increasing knowledge". Um....yeah, that's the entire point. Our knowledge of what various genetic sequences do is increased by applying our knowledge of evolutionary relationships. :duh:

That's what keeps me coming back. I'm positively fascinated at the type and scale of denial of reality that creationists like 6days are willing to publicly engage in. I just can't look away.

[MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION],

I wonder what it is that makes evolutionists do this? Just who was the above quoted post written too, himself? Who is he trying to convince with this unresponsive post that has nothing to do with what you said? When have you ever denied that scientists are learning more and more about what genes do and how would that argue against creationism anyway? Is his argument that science can figure out what genes do therefore they evolved? That can't be his argument. So what's the point? I don't get it.

I have him on ignore and this is the only post of his that I've read in weeks and weeks so maybe I missed something. :idunno:

Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

I wonder what it is that makes evolutionists do this? Just who was the above quoted post written too, himself?

Just an observation regarding the overall nature of these interactions.

Who is he trying to convince

No one.

with this unresponsive post that has nothing to do with what you said? When have you ever denied that scientists are learning more and more about what genes do and how would that argue against creationism anyway? Is his argument that science can figure out what genes do therefore they evolved? That can't be his argument. So what's the point? I don't get it.

Lol...Clete, you haven't gotten a single thing in this thread since you started it.

You see, 6days and Judge Rightly are trying to say that evolutionary theory has never contributed to science. I responded by pointing to the fact that our understanding of the evolutionary relationships between groups is how genetic functions are discerned....which is kinda important. Now the creationists are trying to deny that fact despite the absolutely unambiguous statements, descriptions, and results from the people who actually do this sort of work.

And that's what I'm so fascinated by. How can a person, being fully aware of this paper...

http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010045

...deny what it clearly says? It's quite the sight to behold.

I have him on ignore and this is the only post of his that I've read in weeks and weeks so maybe I missed something. :idunno:

Wow.....absolutely unbelievable.

 

[6days]

Please support this with a citation.<that before 1950 that geneticists knew, even just one deleterious mutation, per person per generation would result in deterioration of the genome>

No internet where I am right now, so I will answer with what I have at the moment. (And post this when I have internet again).


1950 Mueller in American journal of Human Genetics 'Our Load of Mutations "it becomes perfectly evident that the number of children per couple can not be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1"


The mutation rate, we now know, is a couple hundred percent higher than Mueller feared. That is why modern evolutionists create models trying to explain away the data with 'potential solutions'.

Huh....I don't see any indication of anyone being "shocked" by this. Do you have an example?

1. "Of special concern is the rate at which mutations are arising in our own lineage..." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/

2. "The accumulation of deleterious mutations in humans has been of concern to many geneticists, including Hermann Joseph Muller, James F. Crow, Alexey Kondrashov,W. D. Hamilton, and Mike Lynch. https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Genetic_load.html

So basically you're saying that you accept the science that was used to identify the potential problem, but you reject the science that was used to identify the resolutions...

Hmmmm.... it is usually only Barbarian who is intentionally dishonest. Maybe your wording was a mistake.

Kondrashov identifies the problem as real, and the resolutions as 'potential. Why are you reversing it?

Well 6days, the problem here is, you've had this pointed out to you multiple times and you've ignored it every time. Let's recap...
IOUAE attempted to alert you to the fact that Kondrashov (1995) specifically stated that the problem only exists in populations that remain small over long periods of time.
You ignored that part and snipped out IOUAE's comment about "fringe science"

Haha.... IOUAE knows little about genetics, and certainly does not understand this article. In a previous conversation, he said he had never heard of geneticists such as J.F. Crow, Kondrashov and Keightley so they represent "fringe science", according to him.

As I tried to convey to you, your question was nonsense. As documented above, the problem only exists when selective pressures are greatly relaxed, as in very small populations over long periods of time.

As Mueller knew in 1950, and every geneticist since knows...you are wrong. In order for you to be correct, selection would need to be able to eliminate mutations as fast as they occur...or load will increase. If the rate is even one deleterious mutation, per person, per generation, then load WILL increase.

Please quote from the actual body of the paper where he talks about genetic load in nuclear DNA.

The whole article is about mtDNA. It is titled 'Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muellers ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA" I don't need quote from the body of the 2006 article to show the The mutation load problem is NOT settled as you implied it was in 2001.

Nope. I'm not sure what "evolutionist site" you think I'm copying from, but if you have one in mind, show where it contains material that is the same as what I've been posting.

If you make broad unsubstantiated allegations...I can do the same. I'm sure I can find an article on Talk origins or some place that discusses similar matter you post.

You know 6days, it's hilarious how you keep trying to use papers from evolutionary biologists to argue against evolutionary biology.

A 'hostile witness' is always more fun to use.

Citation and in-context quote from the paper please.(Crow who said we are currently suffering a 1-2% decrease in viability per generation due to mutation accumulation)

Sure (I don't have internet at moment but do have this... J.F.Crow in PNAS 'The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate...' said "It seems clear that for the past few centuries, harmful mutations have been accumulating...the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation." Further in the article, Crow says "I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb but with a much longer fuse".

 

[6days]

You see, 6days and Judge Rightly are trying to say that evolutionary theory has never contributed to science.

They are correct. The common ancestry belief system has hindered science, and harmed people.

I responded by pointing to the fact that our understanding of the evolutionary relationships between groups is how genetic functions are discerned....which is kinda important.

And as was pointed out to you many times before... you are wrong. Genetic function is determined by multiple methods. You might BELIEVE a gene is the result of evolutionary relationships...or you might BELIEVE a gene is a result of a programmer that used similar genes to perform similar functions.


It's funny evolutionists are so insistent that phylogenetic inference / similarity can only be a result of common ancestry yet they pretend discordant / incongrous data / incomplete lineage sorting does not exist. Their 'trees' have been redrawn hundreds of times because data keeps interfering with their beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

1950 Mueller in American journal of Human Genetics 'Our Load of Mutations "it becomes perfectly evident that the number of children per couple can not be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1"

Here's the paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716299/?page=1

This is what you claimed: "It was likely well before 1950 that geneticists knew, even just one deleterious mutation, per person per generation would result in deterioration of the genome (No matter what the population size is)."

I've read through the paper and I don't see anything resembling "no matter the population size". In fact, I see several references to the role large population sizes play, and I see how N is used in several calculations.

So please show where Muller stated that this is a problem no matter the size of the population.

1. "Of special concern is the rate at which mutations are arising in our own lineage..." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/

This is the second time you've tried to cite this paper. After the last time I asked what your summary of that paper was and you ignored that. So again 6days, just what is that paper about?

Also, I don't see anything in there that would cause me to conclude that Lynch is "shocked".

Finally, I wonder if you appreciate the irony of what you quoted. Here it is in fuller context...

MUTATION, the production of heritable changes in DNA, is one of the most fundamental concepts in genetics. Yet, a broad phylogenetic understanding of the rate and molecular spectrum of mutations and the mechanisms driving the evolution of these key parameters has only recently begun to emerge (Baer et al. 2007; Lynch 2010, 2011). Of special concern is the rate at which mutations are arising in our own lineage and their long-term consequences. In terms of cognitive abilities and proclivity for dominating the global ecosystem, humans are clearly exceptional. But how exceptional are we with respect to the genetic machinery that is the key to long-term genome stability and evolutionary flexibility? ​

As Lynch explains, the ability to identify the potential problem he's writing about emerged from our understanding of evolutionary relationships (phylogenetics). So on one hand you argue that evolutionary theory hasn't contributed a single thing to science, yet OTOH you keep referring to this "concern" that was identified via application of evolutionary theory!

Can't have it both ways 6days. Either this isn't a problem, or it is but was realized via application of evolutionary theory. Which one of your talking points are you going to abandon?

2. "The accumulation of deleterious mutations in humans has been of concern to many geneticists, including Hermann Joseph Muller, James F. Crow, Alexey Kondrashov,W. D. Hamilton, and Mike Lynch. https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Genetic_load.html

No way. You can't be serious....can you?

First, "has been of concern" =/= "shocked". Nice try though.

But the real shocker here is the context you pulled that quote from. Right above it we find, "Purging of deleterious mutations in sexual populations is facilitated by synergistic epistasis among deleterious mutations."

So the source you're relying on says the "problem" is alleviated by synergistic epistasis. I guess that means you're going to cherry pick from your sources again, eh?

Also right above your quote we find this, "High load can lead to a small population size, which in turn increases the accumulation of mutation load, culminating in extinction via mutational meltdown." That's exactly what we've been trying to get across to you....the problem only occurs in very small populations over long periods of time.

So again, time for you to cherry pick.

Kondrashov identifies the problem as real, and the resolutions as 'potential. Why are you reversing it?

Sheesh 6days. I guess that's the problem with lying....it's tough to keep your stories straight.

Remember when you cited Kondrashov's 2002 paper? Do you remember me pointing out the following?

"Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]."

Huh. I don't see any context there that Kondrashov thinks synergistic epistasis is merely a "potential" resolution. Instead, it's as I described in that post...

Kondrashov writes a paper in 1995 wherein he asks questions about genetic load and gives a set of possible answers, one of which is synergistic epistasis. Kondrashov and others keep working and eventually conclude that synergistic epistasis is indeed a mechanism for offsetting genetic load. Then in 2002 Kondrashov writes another paper that reflects this conclusion.
​

Try and do a better job of keeping your stories straight 6days.

Haha.... IOUAE knows little about genetics, and certainly does not understand this article. In a previous conversation, he said he had never heard of geneticists such as J.F. Crow, Kondrashov and Keightley so they represent "fringe science", according to him.

IOUAE's understanding of genetics is irrelevant to the point at hand. He posted the following from Kondrashov (1995) and you've ignored it every time...

High contamination by VSDMs is reached after Ne of a lineage remains much smaller than G during 0m−11108 generations. This may be the case in some vertebrates. In addition, if after a drop of Ne the expected equilibrium contamination is, say, 100, VSDMs may become important much sooner, 0106 generations after the drop. The total mutation rate in mammals is 0100 events per genome. If 10% of them are VSDMs with the average selection coefficient 10−6 (implying Ne1105), they cause the decline of fitness by 010−5 per generation (if initially all nucleotides were best). This decline will become important 0105 generations after the drop of Ne. ​

Even IOUAE, who you claim knows little about genetics, understood what that means "This is talking about millions of generations...and is a problem when populations drop to small sizes".

And how many times should I refer you to the context in which other population geneticists refer to this potential issue?

Consistent with the reduced efficacy of selection in smaller populations, lineages that tended to have smaller effective population sizes over long evolutionary timescales (e.g., since the split between rodents and primates) show evidence for relaxed constraint at coding and regulatory regions [55,56]. ​

Every time someone has tried to get you to acknowledge this information, you ignore it. Why is that 6days?

As Mueller knew in 1950, and every geneticist since knows...you are wrong. In order for you to be correct, selection would need to be able to eliminate mutations as fast as they occur...or load will increase. If the rate is even one deleterious mutation, per person, per generation, then load WILL increase.

So Kondrashov was lying in the part IOUAE quoted? Simons and Sella were lying when they wrote the above?

I don't need quote from the body of the 2006 article

That's what I thought.

If you make broad unsubstantiated allegations

Sheesh...try and keep up 6days. I posted the link to the creation.com site that made the same argument you're trying to make here, so my allegation was hardly "unsubstantiated".

I can do the same. I'm sure I can find an article on Talk origins or some place that discusses similar matter you post.

Then do so.

A 'hostile witness' is always more fun to use.

What? How are they "hostile witnesses" when they publish their material for anyone who's interested to see? I mean, they've been writing about this in about as transparent a manner as can be, so how can they be accused of being "hostile"?

Sure (I don't have internet at moment but do have this... J.F.Crow in PNAS 'The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate...' said "It seems clear that for the past few centuries, harmful mutations have been accumulating...the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation." Further in the article, Crow says "I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb but with a much longer fuse".

So here's the full article: http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380

Care to comment about the larger context of this problem? Specifically, why is it only a recent problem, and only in wealthy societies?

 

[Jose Fly]

And as was pointed out to you many times before... you are wrong.

LOL! Again, you seem to think that simply saying "Nuh uh" is a valid rebuttal. That's positively hilarious.

Genetic function is determined by multiple methods.

And as the material I've cited shows, one of those methods is the application of evolutionary relationships.

You might BELIEVE a gene is the result of evolutionary relationships...or you might BELIEVE a gene is a result of a programmer that used similar genes to perform similar functions.

And when we apply the concept of evolutionary relationships to the data, we get results that are 96% accurate.

Creationists OTOH can't seem to manage to apply their beliefs to the data in a similar manner, even though the sequences are publicly available. They have all kinds of money to make fake museums, theme parks, movies, etc., but when it comes to actually putting their beliefs to the test....suddenly things go very quiet.

It's funny evolutionists are so insistent that phylogenetic inference / similarity can only be a result of common ancestry yet they pretend discordant / incongrous data / incomplete lineage sorting does not exist. Their 'trees' have been redrawn hundreds of times because data keeps interfering with their beliefs.

Yet somehow application of these evolutionary relationships produces very accurate and useful results.

How can that be if the concept of phylogenetics is completely wrong?

Simply put 6days, the fact remains....our understanding of evolutionary relationships between diverse taxa has indeed resulted in new knowledge that is extremely useful. You desperately crying "You're wrong" over and over doesn't affect that one bit.

 

[6days]

Here's the paper: This is what you claimed: "It was likely well before 1950 that geneticists knew, even just one deleterious mutation, per person per generation would result in deterioration of the genome (No matter what the population size is)."...

So please show where Muller stated that this is a problem no matter the size of the population.

Read bottom paragragh of P149 which continues on to P150. Humanity can't have enough kids to overcome genetic load. IOW load will increase no matter population size.

This is the second time you've tried to cite this paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/ After the last time I asked what your summary of that paper was and you ignored that. So again 6days, just what is that paper about?

You like bunny trails rather than just admit you were wrong. You suggested the issue of genetic load was a settled issue. The 2016 article shows secular geneticists are still trying to understand... and rationalize (as in this article) the high mutation rate. (Guess what.... even without soft selection... load still increase)

First, "has been of concern" =/= "shocked". Nice try though.

Ok... so they are CONCERNED! And... evolutionists find that the "high rate is difficult to reconcile" with their millions and millions of years belief system.

But the real shocker here is the context you pulled that quote from. Right above it we find, "Purging of deleterious mutations in sexual populations is facilitated by synergistic epistasis among deleterious mutations."

I think you missed the part calling that a HYPOTHESIS?

Also right above your quote we find this, "High load can lead to a small population size, which in turn increases the accumulation of mutation load, culminating in extinction via mutational meltdown." That's exactly what we've been trying to get across to you....the problem only occurs in very small populations over long periods of time.

I think you PRETEND you don't understand this, but surely you do. The problem exists in any population where the mutation rate / genetic load is higher than reproductive rate. Yes, of course a small population can go extinct quickly. And, as your statement agrees...high load can lead to small populations and extinction.

Sheesh 6days. I guess that's the problem with lying....it's tough to keep your stories straight.

I noticed you seem to have that problem
Jose Fly Discussing Kondrashov "science that was used to identify the potential problem"
Kondrashov actually said " the stochastic mutation load paradox appears real"
THE PROBLEM SEEMS REAL

Jose Fly "but you reject the science that was used to identify the resolutions."
Kondrashov actually said "Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis"
THERE IS ONLY POSSIBLE RESOLUTIONS... because the data is not consistent with evolutionary beliefs.

"Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]."

Yup..... Notice that is a statement of belief, calling on synergistic epistasis as your rescue device.

IOUAE'...High contamination by VSDMs is reached after Ne of a lineage remains much smaller than G during 0m−11108 generations....Even IOUAE, who you claim knows little about genetics, understood what that means "This is talking about millions of generations...and is a problem when populations drop to small sizes".

The problem exists in large populations, but extinction can happen rapidly in small populations. The data is consistent with a good genome corrupted by several thousand years of mutations. .

So Kondrashov was lying in the part IOUAE quoted?

Nope... But you are confusing data with beliefs. Kondrashov presents the data... genetic load appears real. He suggests POSSIBLE resolutions which you mistake for 'its resolved'.

How are they "hostile witnesses" when they publish their material for anyone who's interested to see?

Perhaps you are not familiar with the term. Evolutionists like Kondrashov are often hostile to the Gospel, and Biblical creation, yet their data often is consistent with the Biblical account. We don't need create "possible resolutions" to understand genetic load within the Biblical model.

So here's the full article: http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380
Care to comment about the larger context of this problem? Specifically, why is it only a recent problem, and only in wealthy societies?

Sure... Crow says we are genetically inferior to stone age people. Its an admission that genetic load is real, (That is the data...the science) and he tries fit that into his belief system waving the problem away with hypothetical solutions such as truncation selection. (Also suggesting the problem wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for soft selection)

 

[6days]

How can that be if the concept of phylogenetics is completely wrong?

Nuh-uh.

Finding genetic similarities is very helpful in medicine. But our beliefs as to why there is similarity is different, and the evidence best fits the common designer model.....as opposed to common ancestry. Novel function... novel genes are puzzling to secularists who invent rescue device explanations. As this biologist says in Scientific American "Genetic function somehow springs into existence". Also from the article "Over the last decade, scientists sequenced DNA from thousands of diverse organisms, yet many orphan genes still defy classification. Their origins remain a mystery." (Maybe the junk DNA creates novelty? ha) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-surprise-source-of-life-s-code/

The common ancestry belief system does not help, but instead has hindered science and in particular genetics. For example, the false label of pseudogenes and junk DNA, lead many to ignore researching for purpose since they falsely believed it was biological junk. The common ancestry belief system has never contributed to a single medical advancement, nor any new technology.

 

[Jose Fly]

Read bottom paragragh of P149 which continues on to P150.

Read it....don't see anything resembling "regardless of population size".

You suggested the issue of genetic load was a settled issue.

Pay attention 6days....I didn't suggest that, the authors of the papers you've been citing are the ones who directly say so. The only way you've dealt with that inconvenient fact is to wave it away and cherry pick.

The 2016 article shows secular geneticists are still trying to understand... and rationalize (as in this article) the high mutation rate.

That's it? That's all you took from the paper? Even though the very first sentence in the abstract is...

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration.​

Is Lynch lying when he says that?

I think you missed the part calling that a HYPOTHESIS?

Sheesh, way to blatantly quote mine 6days. Here's the section you're referring to....

Sexually reproducing species are expected to have lower genetic loads.
This is one hypothesis for the evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction. Purging of deleterious mutations in sexual populations is facilitated by synergistic epistasis among deleterious mutations.​

So as is plainly seen, the "hypothesis" referred to is regarding the evolution of sexual reproduction, not that synergistic epistasis facilitates the purging of deleterious mutations.

As to the rest of your post (and the next post regarding phylogenomics), you're falling back into your comfort zone of merely repeating your talking points no matter what. And that brings me to a question I would really appreciate if you would answer. Do you agree with the following statement?

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

You and I both know where that comes from, but I don't know that I've ever seen you either reject it or embrace it. And you do cite AiG a fair bit, so I think at this point it'd help a lot if you could clarify.

 

[Stripe]

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

How about you just stick to the discussion — it's an interesting one — instead of bringing up motives.

Those are boring. :yawn:

 

[Greg Jennings]

How about you just stick to the discussion — it's an interesting one — instead of bringing up motives.

Those are boring. :yawn:

Hi. Want to talk about something??

 

[6days]

.Read it....don't see anything resembling "regardless of population size"

So, you read, but did not understand.

Pay attention 6days....I didn't suggest that, the authors of the papers you've been citing are the ones who directly say so. (Genetic load a settled issue)

The load problem / paradox is unresolved with ALL secular geneticists. (The load problem is consistent with the Biblical account.

That's it? That's all you took from the paper? Even though the very first sentence in the abstract is...

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration.

Yes? The 2016 article shows the load problem is not resolved, as you suggested... and geneticists are concerned.


Lynch says "The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies"

So as is plainly seen, the "hypothesis" referred to is regarding the evolution of sexual reproduction, not that synergistic epistasis facilitates the purging of deleterious mutations.

Synergistic epistasis IS a rescue device... a hypothetical solution where secularists try rationalize the data (high mutation rate, with their belief in millions of years). And... synergystic epistasis is an unrealistic model. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4957254/

And you do cite AiG a fair bit...

You are wrong again... like most of your posts. Why not go with the data, instead of your beliefs?

 

[Jose Fly]

So, you read, but did not understand.

Then show where Muller said something resembling "regardless of population size" as you claimed.

The load problem / paradox is unresolved with ALL secular geneticists.

So when Kondrashov wrote in his 2002 paper (that you cited), "Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]", was he lying?

When THIS WEBSITE (that you cited) said "Purging of deleterious mutations in sexual populations is facilitated by synergistic epistasis among deleterious mutations", were they lying?

When Simons and Sella wrote in their 2016 paper "Consistent with the reduced efficacy of selection in smaller populations, lineages that tended to have smaller effective population sizes over long evolutionary timescales (e.g., since the split between rodents and primates) show evidence for relaxed constraint at coding and regulatory regions [55,56]. One might therefore expect a substantial increase in load, due to the additive mutations that the Out-of-Africa bottleneck turned from strongly to weakly selected. In fact, the duration of the bottleneck was too short to have led to many deleterious fixations, and therefore the increase is predicted to be minor (Fig. 1) [31]", were they lying?

Synergistic epistasis IS a rescue device... a hypothetical solution where secularists try rationalize the data (high mutation rate, with their belief in millions of years).

And that brings me to the question you dodged. Again....

Do you agree with the following statement?

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

 

[Stripe]

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Darwinists love it when the discussion is not over evidence.

 

[Stuu]

Darwinists love it when the discussion is not over evidence.

There wouldn't be much discussion to be had with a creationist if it was only to be about evidence. There's no unambiguous evidence for any act of divine creation, nor indeed of anything divine.

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists love it when the discussion is not over evidence.

Do you think AiG is a valid source?

 

[6days]

Then show where Muller said something resembling "regardless of population size" as you claimed.

Jose... I gave you page number and paragraph. Even your arguments have shown load increases regardless of population size, but is critical in small populations.

The load problem / paradox is unresolved with ALL secular geneticists.

So when Kondrashov wrote in his 2002 paper (that you cited), "Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]", was he lying?

Sheesh ..... why suggest he is lying. Your quote shows my statement is correct. Kondrashov is trying to reconcile the data with his beliefs. He is proposing a solution, to an unresolved problem.

And that brings me to the question you dodged. Again....

That's funny for a couple reasons. Earlier I told you "You like bunny trails rather than just admit you were wrong". I understand why you suddenly want to talk about AIG... which has nothing to do with the evidence or what we have been discussing.


Speaking of dodging.... why didn't you respond to this. .You said I cite AIG quote a bit. I asked you to back up your claim with evidence / stats. Why do you keep making claims, then dodging?