Evolution falsifies God/s?

He's not accounting for neutral mutations. Not according to the near neutral theory. If correct, then most mutations are actually slightly deleterious, but not enough to be selected out by natural selection. They then accumulate, reduce fitness and finally cause extinction.

Die Google ist dein Freund.Her name is Tomoko Ohta, btw. No not yet, but keep your eye on the atheist from WI, he seems to be nearing meltdown real soon.

Here it is in action: The Achilles' heel of biological complexity

Yes. This has been explained to you.

There may be all sorts of things he's not accounting for. That's hardly a defense of his model, is it? That is not what the nearly neutral theory says, and if it did we'd know it was wrong, since this is not what we observe.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We observe variation, not new body plans having been created.

The closest you ever came was to suggest insertion mutations were the key. I don't see how that could work though, if the majority of DNA is poly-functional.

Ooooh, are we playing Dumb Non Sequiturs?My turn! "Flying anteaters are attacking my sock drawer."

Please re-read my posts until you know what I said. Then when you tell me what I said, this activity will be stupid only by virtue of its redundancy rather than its inaccuracy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I see some signature material here. Do you mind?

He assumes most to be neutral, and counts just 10 per. generation transfer as being deleterious. If accumulation reduces fitness, then accumulations in individuals would be subject to purifying selection. Distribution will be unequal, so the mutation level can be controlled by selection.Think about it. In your 6,000 young earth years, fruit flies are 150,000 generations old, and thriving. They probably have at least 50 of your near neutral slightly deleterious mutations per individual per generation transfer. That would give them a "load" of 7,500,000. If that can't kill you, then clearly most mutations are effectively neutral, and/or purifying selection works well.The YEC hyper mutation rate necessary to explain the diversity we can see on the Y chromosome happening since Noah would mean more than 1000 mutations per. generation transfer on the whole genome. That means that the effect you describe should kick in far more rapidly than Sanford would expect. Also, consider the chances of an individual avoiding any serious/lethal deleterious mutations at that rate. It might be that women would have to bear more than 30 children to produce 2 who could survive to adulthood and maintain a stable population!As a YEC, you need to argue that purifying selection works very well, yet you insist on doing the opposite.Why?

Why not use bacteria as your example. I think they burn through a generation every 30 min or so, don't they? It's an apples to oranges comparison though. The far more simpler genome of the fruit fly (or of bacteria) means less can go wrong plus they have an enormous population size anyways (unlike us). If something does go wrong, then natural selection should spot it right away and remove it. The near neutral theory, however, allows for slightly deleterious mutations to squeak by, unnoticed by natural selection. I like uphill battles.

Because fruitflies are sexual eukaryotes, like us. How do you measure the genome of the fruitfly as being "far simpler" than ours? That certainly can happen, especially in bottlenecks, if by "squeak by", you mean "go to fixation". A possible explanation. Alternatively, you might not have been aware of your mistake until I pointed it out, and you still might not understand it.Let's be honest.

Would a protocell have any DNA? or are you jumping from the RNA world to the prokaryote cells now?I would agree that no primitive prokaryote cell organism would have the specific sequences in their genome to form an "eye or an ear or hands or feet" ... but they could still evolve into bacteria living today that don't have an "eye or an ear or hands or feet" ... because it is rather difficult to assemble a multicellular structure in a single cell life forms.Further I would agree that no organism would have the specific sequences to form any traits that are not in the population for that species.Does this shocking information invalidate all biological science?Because the DNA for all living and extinct lifeforms on earth use the same basic structure of C, A, T and G molecules in DNA every organism carries sufficient DNA to be transformed into any other organism by rearranging the molecules. The actual process would take many mutations, many selections in favorable ecologies, many generations to achieve relatively minor modifications. Many steps, taken one step at a time.Such developments of traits and features can be observed in the fossil record -- such as the development of the mammal jaw and ear structure from the reptilian structures, documented by therapsids over many generations. Or the evolution of tetrapodal intermediate Tiktaalik from finned fish. By the regular evolution process. Many steps, taken one step at a time.Curiously, positing a single step evolutionary jump of a change like this is an absurdly stupid misrepresentation of how evolution is known to work, and demonstrates a basic level of ignorance of how biology works, rather than any challenge to evolution. You just look silly saying it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : , clrtyEdited by RAZD, : mre clrty

When you have nothing it is best to say nothing.It is better to be thought a fool rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.Now would you like to contribute to the topic?