|
GHitch -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (1/17/2009 11:16:05 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: USincognito
It looks like Morton, Crow and Mullers conclusions were being questioned back in 1960s.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v207/n5002/abs/2071216a0.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/50/4/587.full.pdf?ck=nck
Indeed. That's what science is about - questioning. Something Darwinists refuse to do. Thus Darwinism is no longer science.
Nevertheless, the conclusions continue to repeat themselves no matter what the given estimates or methods, mutation rates continue to pose serious problems both for the human genome and necessarily for Darwinism.
Again, there are virtually no truly neutral mutations - most are near-neutral. Mutations tend to accumulate in populations thus increasing the genetic load.
i.e. We are not evolving, we are devolving. "Mutational meltdown" is a very real problem.
Neel et al. in 1986 showed that deleterious mutation rates must be greater than 1/person/generation. And that is bad news for Darwinism and humans.
Furthermore, the more we learn about DNA the more we see that it's information content is ever greater than that predicted under Darwinist models - of course since ID predicts that not much of the genome will be "junk". So there's another Darwinist prediction that has utterly failed.
Sanfords data may be questioned as to it's precision, but his conclusions, based on any viable mutation rate estimates are still devastating to Darwinism - which is why he abandoned Darwinism altogether after all his years of research at Cornell U.
Sanford demonstrates as a testable data-based hypothesis (not speculative conjecture), that DNA as a rich repository of information, has been steadily eroding and will continue to erode even if a maximal amount of eugenic selection is applied. But this implies that the original genome was far more 'perfect' or 'pure' and than now, which implies that Darwinism is not true. And this uniquely coincides with both creationism and the predictions of ID theory!
|
|
|
|