I've mentioned various hypothetical mechanisms secularists have proposed. For example in the one article we have briefly discussed, but you didn't seem to understand, Crow proposes both relaxed selection and quasi truncation.
Yes. Have you got anything newer than 1997?
Even though modern medicine and agriculture allows more people to live longer, it does not prevent genetic load from increasing.
I think James Crow was blaming these (and other) technologies for decreasing selection pressure, wasn't he?
Not just my opinion, but it is what Crow states. Because he thought most of the non-coding DNA was junk, he thought mutations would have no effect in that region.
Epigenetics knowledge has improved quite a bit since 1997.
However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
But you seem to be using mortality rates as a proxy for population control as a way of reducing the occurrence of mutation, without acknowledging that there are increasing numbers of both beneficial and deleterious mutations in an exponentially increasing population.
Uh... I don't think you're understanding the article. Crow suggests / proposes that relaxed selection is part of the reason we are genetically inferior to stone age ancestors. If you continue reading he also proposes quasi-truncation as a solution to the paradox. The paradox being that the evidence is inconsistent with his evolutionary beliefs.
And what are his inconsistent evolutionary beliefs?
Natural selection is not the answer to the paradox, since it is impossible for selection to detect and remove the near neutral mutations that accumulate causing genetic problems to future generations.
You wouldn't want natural selection to remove beneficial near-neutral mutations, with the potential to accumulate phenotypic benefits for future generations, would you.
Stuu: what kind of creation just lets over 99.9% of all species go extinct...
Your comment shows a basic misunderstanding of speciation. Generally the more highly adapted (or speciated) a population becomes, the less genetic diversity exists and the closer to mutation meltdown and, or extinction.
What definition of the word speciation are you using there? What do you mean by 'highly adapted'? Is that some creationist term? One word I can't remember you using is fitness.
Stuu: So, real science understands that there is no 'purpose' in the appearance of a viral parasite, what is your explanation for their existence? Did your god make something that has no purpose, or are we talking about a spiteful god?
You seem to have a mistaken concept of what science is. Science does not understand anything. Science is the study of the world around us using observation and experiments.
I wasn't asking you a scientific question. I was asking you a theological question.
The problem with evolutionism... The reason science continues proven evolutionary beliefs to be false, is that the answer for evolutionist is always evolution did it. iIt does not matter if they believe something is homologous or analogous... Their automatic response is 'evolution did it'. It is not science it is a false belief system. For example... evolutionist used to claim that our appendix was a useless evolutionary vestige based on homology. Science has shown that to be false, so now evolutionists claim it is analogous and must have evolved independently. In other words the evidence did not really matter... all that mattered to the evolutionists was trying to explain it within their belief system.
The appendix is a perfect example of a vestigial feature, by the proper definition of that term. And it is the reason why Intelligent Design died: vestigial features aren't necessarily ones that no longer have a function, they could be features that have adapted to a different function. But of course there are great examples of features that are disappearing because of adaptation to new environments. My favourite remains the plantaris muscle. Have you got one? 9% of people don't.
Stuu: There is nothing in our genomes consistent with 'several thousand years of mutation'. It's several billion years.
Science shows us that your claim is silly.
No, science shows that life has been present on this planet for not far off 4 billion years. The size of your mistake is the equivalent to claiming the distance from Los Angeles to New York is about 9 yards.
Science shows us that any organism with a high mutation rate and low reproductive rate will go extinct. More than one secular geneticist has referred to this as a population bomb with a long fuse.
Do you believe the fuse is long, or do you believe it has only been a matter of thousands of years? James Crow gives it up to 100 generations before you might expect to see problems. I think he has not analysed 100 generations of human DNA, and I see you have not cited any paper written after the establishment of routine sequencing of the human genome. There should be plenty of evidence of increased mutation rates in the various ancient sequences that have been done. Where is all that?
You might also care now to answer my question about the best way to describe a creation in which well over 99.9% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. I dare say this has not been because of mutation rates, either. The dinosaurs did not have artificial sources of ionising radiation and mutagenic chemicals that loaded them up to extinction. They had a big rock hit the Earth.
Can I take it you believe dinosaurs existed? You don't believe in the time period in which they lived.
That type of 'logic' is what has led to the numerous false conclusions proven wrong by science. Our DNA is not 98% junk.
Strawman argument. You sound desperate.
Our inverted retina is a superior design.
The octopus thinks you are deluded.
Pseudogenes are not useless evolutionary relics.
What do you think they are, then?
Our appendix is functional and designed with purpose.
...but millions of people live perfectly healthy lives without one. Some people are even born without one.
It is exciting times for bible-believing Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Yes, christians must be thrilled to learn that the appendix they might not ever have had is functional and designed with them in mind. Those who survived peritonitis when an infected one burst must be wondering what it's designed purpose really is. Maybe they are even suspicious of their god's motives.
Stuart
