Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic load: can someone explain?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 22 of 53 (535771)
11-17-2009 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phydeaux
11-17-2009 6:42 PM


Deleterious mutations
If the build up of deleterious mutations is only due to medical advances, then it is not a problem for evolution, but if deleterious mutations are always building up regardless of medical advances, then this is obviously just as much a problem for australopithecus as it is for humans. We can't evolve if genetic load kills us first. Further more, we can't build up function building mutations if we have more deleterious mutations than function building mutations.
If evolution, and these deleterious mutations, have been going on for several billion years, I wouldn't worry about them too much. We're doing just fine in spite of being proclaimed doomed because of this problem.
Where deleterious mutations would become a real problem is when one believes that the buildup of these mutations has been going on for just 6,000 years (since The Fall), and that its been all downhill since then.
But since there is no empirical evidence for either a 6,000 year old earth, or a "fall from perfection," and since the evidence shows billions of years of successful evolution, we don't need to worry about it, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phydeaux, posted 11-17-2009 6:42 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Phydeaux, posted 11-17-2009 9:24 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 2:04 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 53 (535776)
11-17-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Phydeaux
11-17-2009 9:24 PM


Re: Deleterious mutations
Well, first, you just ignored old earth creationism/ID.
With old earth creationism we have billions of years of evolution, and no "fall" about 6,000 years ago. The argument that deleterious mutations are going to get us "real soon now" after billions of years doesn't scare me in the least.
Second, the question of what the evidence says is exactly the question we are here to discuss.
Evidence, yes. Scripture and "divine" revelation are not evidence. The idea of "the fall" is a religious belief, not a scientific finding.
The mutation rate and genetic load is part of the evidence. I think it is rather foolish to ignore evidence in any case. Sure, pointing to other evidence and saying this evidence over here is more convincing is perfectly reasonable, but you should also acknowledge that there is evidence against the theory (if this is actually evidence against the theory).
If the deleterious mutations are suddenly going to get us, with this "genetic load," after billions of years, perhaps we could be provided with a mechanism, and a reason for such a drastic change after all this time.
I think the belief in a young earth and "the fall" is behind this so-called science. With an old earth and no "fall" there doesn't seem to be a problem at all, no matter what creationist authors claim.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Phydeaux, posted 11-17-2009 9:24 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 2:08 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 28 by Phydeaux, posted 11-18-2009 2:18 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 35 of 53 (535839)
11-18-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
11-18-2009 2:08 AM


Re: Deleterious mutations
You always seem to be bringing up the fall for whatever reason I don't know.
When folks become ardent creationists they accept the beliefs of their particular brand of creationism. Many organizations, such as AiG, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society, have a code of beliefs to which all members must subscribe. These are readily available on the web with minimal searching, and will help one understand what the beliefs of the various groups are, and how they require all members to abide by those beliefs.
One of those religious beliefs is in "the Fall." Another is belief in a young earth. Many ardent creationists believe in both, ignoring scientific evidence when it conflicts with scripture.
I think that these beliefs color the thinking of some creationists when they attempt to do science. This pertains directly to the question of "genetic load" because if one is looking at evolution as the product of billions of years, vs. just 6,000 years, one will see the accumulation of deleterious mutations quite differently. And when one believes in "the Fall" it is a natural tendency to blame that for deleterious mutations in the first place!
That is why I have brought up "the Fall" in this thread. I think belief in that, along with belief in a young earth, are influencing the debate concerning genetic loading. I don't know to what degree it may be subconscious, but in either case it is not very good science to rely on mythical events as a fundamental part of one's argument.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 2:08 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024