Don't hold your breath waiting for them to actually get around to Dr. Sanford's science.
This despite the fact that you will not actually post any of Sanford's science due to concerns about copyright. What do you want us to do, all go out and buy the book? Does that really seem likely? Why notsuggest to Dr. Sanford instead that he get his science published somewhere scientific.
Evolutionists (the less truth-averse variety, at any rate) are always saying the reason we can't see evolution is because it works so slowly.
So when you say 'evolution' presumably what you mean is cats giving birth to dogs.
Otherwise your statement makes no sense since we see many of the processes of evolution observable in a tenable time frame occurring.
Our genes aren't deteriorating slowly; it can be seen from one generation to the next.
Only if you start from the a priori assumption that any change from the parental genome is degradation, which is kind of assuming the answer you want to get. If you are claiming that every offspring has clear functional differences which make them less fit than their parents then you are going to need more than a book and some blather, this is the sort of claim that should be substantiated by research if there is any substantiation for it at all. You certainly can't expect a mathematical model to be a substitute for actual evidence.
It has been seen, and measured. (The rate is much higher than the speculations or "educated guesses" of decades past.)
This seems especially hypocritical when the researchers suggesting a high rate of deleterious mutations are basing their estimates on divergence between human and other primates genomes, particularly those of chimps. Surely this isn't considered a viable basis for such measurements by anyone who denies common ancestry and an posits an age for the Earth of no greater than 100,000 years, as Sanford testified at the Kansas evolution hearings. Such changes in the time scales involved or denial of the descent of humans and chimps from a common ancestor is going to radically change the interpretation of the data that current estimates of deleterious mutation are based on (
Keightley et al, 2005;
Nachman and Cromwell, 2000,
Gianelli et al., 1999) and certainly would render those rates invalid. Interestingly the Gianelli et al. paper which takes a mutation rate estimate most directly from human clinical data gives the lowest estimate for the deletrious mutation rate.
Crow's paper, which you mentioned earlier and dismissed despite not having actually bothered to read, is primarily discussing the increase in mutation due to parental age, particularly paternal age.
He notes a number of differences in modern culture which are the result of new medical technologies and attitudes such as the hugely improved rates of survival for mothers and children in childbirth which radically affect the operation of natural selection on the population and argues that these factors are allowing an increased accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations which might otherwise be being removed from the population through his hypothesised quasi-truncation selection model.
TTFN,
WK
™ Version 4.2