Unlikely to you,because you think mutations create. NEWSFLASH... Mutations consistently destroy.
If you were right, we'd all be destroyed. Each of us has many of them. A few are quite destructive, but as you learned, most don't do much of anything, and a few are useful. As Kimura showed, natural selection acts on any that are useful or harmful, preserving useful ones and removing the harmful.
Barbarian observes:
It is, however true that all of us carry a large load of harmful recessives, that will be a problem if we mate with someone carrying any of those recessives.
Yes... With each passing generation the chances increase of mating with someone with the same harmful recessive increases.
Which, has the net effect of removing those recessives from the population. Any harmful recessive that becomes common enough, is removed from the population. Would you like to see the numbers?
Geneticists know that mutations destroy and are concerned abut the "degenerative genetic process".
I showed you that the greatest of modern geneticists, Kimura, the scientist who founded the neutral theories you're discussing, pointed out that these were generally not a problem due to the fact that any which became harmful would affect the phenotype, and therefore be removed by Darwinian natural selection.
Barbarian observes:
Hence, the incest prohibition.
Interestingly this is consistent with the Biblical account. Brother sister mating was not morally wrong, nor did it cause genetic problems in the beginning with a near perfect genome.
"Near perfect genome" is, of course, a creationist addition to scripture. God never said that.
OK...lets go with 60 additional mutations added to our genome each generation...Geneticists are still concerned because mutations destroy.
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, most of them don't do much of anything. If any of them do eventually become significantly harmful, natural selection then acts on the phenotype, and they are gone, as Kimura said. That's the part your people withheld from you.
Science shows your evolutionary beliefs are wrong.
Nope. I can see you're unhappy to learn that even neutralist geneticists don't agree with your beliefs.
You WANT and you hope and believe that mutations don't do much of anything.
See above. It comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.
Geneticist Crow in PNAS article 1997 'The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate' says "each mutation leads ultimately to one genetic death"
One death to each mutation in a population would be rather unlikely. Since each person has about 60 of them, that would mean for every human born, sixty people would have to die. Mathematical impossibility. I'm sure you can figure out why, if you thought about it.
Barbarian observes:
You claimed mutations destroy.
Yes...That's what geneticists tell us.
Nope. As you learned, geneticists realize that mutations are an important source of useful traits.
Barbarian observes:
And yet, you have about 60. If even a small percent of them actually destroyed, most of us would be dead. You can't have it both ways.
You either don't understand genetics or you are obtuse.
Nope. I've just taken a lot more coursework in genetics than you have. I'm guessing, since you don't know even many fundamental things about genetics, that you never even took an introductory class in genetics.
As you know, even if a few percent of them destroyed, almost all of us would be dead.
Science and Gods Word tell us that everything reproduces after their own kind.
Well, let's take a look...
Genesis1:11 "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Barbarian observes:
Nothing about "reproducing according to kind." As you just learned, that was a modification of God's word by creationists, seeking to make scripture more compatible with their new beliefs. As you see, it doesn't give the details on how God used nature to make new species. It just says that He did.
The reason you have difficulty accepting the science is your reluctance at accepting the way God actually created living things. Creationists have to make up new things to put in the Bible, because it doesn't support their beliefs.
God's Word does tell us that He spoke creation into existence ...the text is clear.
It is also clear that God created life by the earth bringing forth living things. Creationist claims that He created living things from nothing is another of their additions to Scripture.
Endorsements by modern revisionists don't really mean much to me. The ancient Christians, like St. Augustine, knew even then that Genesis was not a literal history, and the "days" (which in Hebrew were used to mean "24-hour day", or "in my time", or "an era" or "unspecified length of time", were not intended to be taken as actual days.