Re: West Virginia creationism

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:17:50 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>:

On 13/04/2024 01:58, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
 

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>

In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are
observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
>
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.

>
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all*  mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
>

As I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.

>
>
I understand the same thing on most mutations being neutral but do you
have a cite on beneficial and harmful ones being approximately equal in
number? From first principles you'd expect that once a system is vaguely
optimized (which all life is), changes that are harmful should be more
likely than changes that are beneficial.
>

No, I don't; sorry. I only (vaguely) recall that being from
several comments here, some by people (unlike myself)
qualified by training to make such a statement. As I recall
it, the comments were to the effect of "About 98% of
mutations are neutral, with the balance fairly evenly split
between beneficial and harmful". Your point is well-taken,
however, and it's something I never considered. I suppose it
depends on just how optimized the system is *in a particular
environment*, and how the environment is changing, since I'd
guess few mutations are inherently either beneficial or
harmful.

>

The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there
is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_
perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we
observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors
were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from
this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms
themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit
less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in
the extinction of Neanderthal species.
>
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction
such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to
your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?

>
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
>
>

  Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.

>
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition?  And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
>

question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov