From JGuy:: "The Degenerating Genome".
"Nearly all mutations (greater than 99.9% of them) are neutral and slightly deleterious. Therefore effectively all of these mutations are completely unselectable by natural selection. There are greater than 100 (an very conservative minimum) actual mutations entering the human genome per person per generation. Since they are unselectable, they will be passed on to the next generation where just as many will be added by the next generation (the cycle continues). Just the present generation will add 600 billion new mutations... more than 200 times the information content of one humans genetic material. The human genome is inevitably doomed to degenerate. It can not be stopped. It can not be selected away. No questions asked.
Since degeneration is occuring, and not forward evolution. We are all then, in effect, modern types of inbreeds of historically accumulated, then recessive, mutations. It is the sad reality.
Since we are degenerating, the human genome must have been better in the past. This explains why, for example, the Neanderthals (humans of the past) had superior jaw structure than us..why they did not have molar/teeth alignment problems.. why they had better enzymes in their saliva.. why there is the appearance that they aged much much slower and lived very long lives compared to us in modern times (this is all based on their cranial & dental development..as found from Neanderthal skulls in museums around the globe). The degeration also explains why, while we have organs of extreme perfection such as the eye, we still have many relatively simple genetic diseases that should have been "selected out" (if selection was responsible for those organs of perfection in the first place). We are worse off today than even our so called Neanderthal relatives (who I argue are simply longer lived and better developed humans) because as stated, we are degenerating. The math doesn't lie...and the evidence supports this.
Logically, going into the past we would find a more perfected human genome. The then obvious question is..where did the original and more perfected genome of the past originate from? ... the answer is that since mutation and natural selection are already shown to be incapable of even PRESERVING the genome, then the same process obviously could not build up the genome. The best answer for the origin of the original genome is that it is from an original intelligent cause."
20 comments:
I deleted your post on the other thread after transferring it here as a new topic. (In case anyone wondered about the deletion.)
Just on the point about Neanderthals, do I recall that due to the position of the tongue attachment, they would have had difficulty with complex speech patterns?
The Ancient Greeks thought civilisation was on the way to hell in a handcart. They harked back to a golden age when heroes boldly strode the Earth. We're still here for the moment.
Mind you, evolution is considered to be goal-less and unguided, so degeneration would not seem to a problem for the theory. For instance, animals that take to a cave dwelling existence lose many features that are no longer a benefit in the habitat they colonise , eyes, pigmentation etc.
Natural selection is very real and acts entirely to conserve what is already there. It has no creative potential at all. It is not effective in civilized society because we insist on allowing genetic defectives to reproduce and pass their defective genes on to the next generation. It is far more effective in aboriginal societies where any departure from the wild type is likely to be selectd against just as it is in all wild animals and plants. We are accumulating defective genes at an alarming rste. The only way to rid them is to practice inbreeding and allow the defective genes to destroy the homozygous products thus purging the genome. Animal and plant breeders do this all the time to rid their stocks of defective genes. The only objections to this are cultural and they should be set aside in the interests of the future of the human race.
Of course this will label me as a Nazi but that is my position as a scientist nevertheless. If this practice were to become acceptable there is no reason to anticipate the extinction of Homo sapiens. If it is not we will go the way of every other reasonably large animal that ever existed. No large mammal species has ever lived long enough to be regarded as a "living fossil." In my opinion none ever will no matter what we do now. Evolutionary extinction, like every other evolutionary event, was preprogrammed or, using my preferred term, "prescribed."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
jeannot
What part of "you don't exist" don't you understand?
comment 10 from John Davison deleted (obscene content)
That is more like it you degenerate half wit. Show us the real Falan Ox we have all grown to know and love as the biggest phony in cyberspace.
Is there anything obcene above? If so - what?
Love it so!
Yes Jeannot they did say when evolution stopped. Huxley especially was very specific about it which you would know of you could read. Your mindless stupid ego prevents you.
"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it."
John A. Davison
Huxley said nothing of the kind you moron.
That is easy. Neither a natural disaster nor a pandemic is selective. Get ir? Probably not!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
jeannot lies.
What else is new?
I love it so!
Sure I am and 2+2=7
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
My point in mentioning the Ancient Greek attitude that life is on a downward spiral was really plus ça change.... The older generation (who tend to contribute disproportionately to literature) always complain about the collapse of society and the dissipation of the young.
On Neanderthals. How ever well adapted they were to the environment they found themselves in for 1-2 millenia, for some reason, they are not here now. I think current evidence shows that Neanderthals and Cromagnons shared a very recent common ancestor but Neanderthals are not our ancestors.
(Have to curtail this post due to time pressure, will post again as time permits)
Do you know who is most likely to succumb in a pandemic? It is the healthiest subjects who have not yet lived long enough to establish immunity. Anyone who thinks that an earthquake or a tidal wave is selective belongs in a rubber room all by himself.
I love it so!
I bet you are finding this blog hard to upkeep in places.
You're telling me. Mrs Fox has bought an oven timer, and I am rationed to 1/2hour a day, or no supper.
I am a young earth creationist.
Well, No-one's perfect! I'm an irrelevantist, myself. (Ask Rock) Frankly, I can't imagine how anyone can remain (or even begin to believe) convinced of a 6-10 thousand year old earth. Personally, I am very comfortable with my own beliefs and very happy for anyoe else to have their own, and no more needs saying, AFAIAC.
I noticed you had to do a little moderation already.
No. I have deleted two posts for obscene content, due to John Davison including masturbatory references. I said right from the start I would have to delete obscenity, and there is no option on this blog that I can see to just edit others' posts.
Aside to John:
If you don't want posts deleted, don't include obscenity.
Masturbation is obscene? Since when?
"Dr Sanford, in discussing genetic decay, refers to a relatively recent study on the ages that are recorded in the Bible."
Well, I think that tells us all we need to know about the good doc...
Let me guess - he also argues 'no new information'?
"There is correlating with MIT research that shows that the areas of the skull in which Neanderthals morphologically differ from modern human, are in fact the same areas that DO NOT stop growing as we get older. Considering that with the historic model I present, with Neanderthals simply living ages of say e.g. 400+ years, then their skulls would appear much thicker in those areas because they did not stop growing for hundreds of years."
Interesting. My grandfather-in-law died recently at the age of 96. He had no browridge, no occipital bun, no receding chin (how is that explained by continued growth, I do wonder).
Is there a reference to this MIT research?
I will be eager to see it, for my graduate degree is in Anatomy and Cell Biology and I teach human and comparative vertebrate anatomy.
I would also like to see the explanation for these features 'caused' by extreme age being present in juvenile Neanderthals. Did they all suffer from some form of progeria or something?
Guess not...
Post a Comment