Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

In what is by far the most extensive of these kinds of reports, geneticists tallied each new mutation in 219 people, including 78 parent-offspring trios of Icelandic families.3 They found an average of 63.2 new mutations per trio, meaning that about 60 new mutations are added to each new generation. Prior studies indicate that up to ten percent of new mutations are deleterious (harmful), most mutations cause no noticeable change, and beneficial mutations are virtually unknown.

Mutation expert Alexey Kondrashov reviewed the Nature study and agreed with its authors that these accumulating mutations very likely contribute to increasing incidences of diseases, including schizophrenia and autism. Additional studies confirm these claims.

Plainly, human DNA sequence quality is relentlessly worsening. Kondrashov wrote, “Because deleterious mutations are much more common than beneficial ones, evolution under this relaxed selection will inevitably lead to a decline in the mean fitness of the population.”An inevitable “decline” in a population’s “fitness” is certainly not what most people ascribe to “evolution”!

Each new DNA typo is a tick from a genetic clock counting down to zero. And everybody knows what happens to a clock that stops ticking. Eventually, mutations render vital DNA sequences illegible to cellular machinery, and nobody but the Creator can reverse this inevitable genetic decline.

http://www.icr.org/article/7077/

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

That's great Rick now we gotta deal with the de-evolutionists.
Good post:thumbup:

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Amen bro! it's not looking good for Darwin's evolution :)

anotherview Loc: California

It will help if we first define mutation:

One definition: genetic mutation - (genetics) any event that changes genetic structure; any alteration in the inherited nucleic acid sequence of the genotype of an organism

Another definition: A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.

Wikipedia says: In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

This is what Alexey Kondrashov said: “Kondrashov argues that because of the slightly deleterious effect of mutations the population will tend to be composed of individuals with a small number of mutations. Because of the recombination effect of the sex on the genotypes the individuals with fewer and more deleterious mutations will be created. Since there is a major selective disadvantage to individuals with more mutations, these individuals die out.” [found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Kondrashov]

So the individuals with fewer mutations will survive, and thus carry forward the changed genetic message from the these mutations.

The article found at the link comes from The Institute for Creation Research Web-site. From a cursory review, I get the impression the article quotes others who have summarized the work of Kondrashov. The article appears to contradict the Wikipedia quote of Kondrashov’s work.

His main point goes like this: “because of the slightly deleterious effect of mutations the population will tend to be composed of individuals with a small number of mutations.” Hence, overall, mutations do not thin out the human population over time.

Apparently, the religionists have twisted the work of Kondrashov.

James Shaw

Words that you use, like: "very likely contribute," "DNA typo," "nobody but the Creator," "human DNA sequence quality," etc. immediately makes me feel that this is just another Rac-o-wacko post to sway the ignorant to believing in his superstitious and distorted reasoning.

Then when I see it is yet another Institution of Creation Science, propaganda piece, I am convinced it is anything but rational. Rac this is not science.

Who are you trying to fool Rac? Any new followers for this kind of nonsense/stupidity?

The articles ends with: "The reason we have not yet reached the end must be because we began our journey recently—only thousands of years ago."

Well, science sees it differently. The first vertebrate fossils existed 500 million years ago; the first mammalian fossils about 200 million years ago. I'll go with science Rac; you remain with superstition and ignorance.

James Shaw

Another Rac-attempt to mislead. He even fears the word "evolution." Rac is a person who is lost in ignorance while knowledge surrounds him and he chooses ignorance over knowledge. I call that a lost soul.

Rac is absolutely not credible nor is he believable. He is one good example of a nut-case.

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Just more bad science........check out a response from someone not affiliated with ICR.....http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/news-flash-creationists-distort-science/

James Shaw

Yep, it looks like Rac and LarJ against hundreds of thousands of scientists who disagree with them. I shall go with science. Evolution is looking really good. Rac and LarJ looking pretty awful.

anotherview Loc: California

I get the impression the ID and Creationist factions engage in intellectual dishonesty not naively but wilfully when evaluating scientific work regarding evolution and related matters. By doing so, they discredit themselves, and they tread where they should not go.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Because we know that evolutionists would never stoop to faking evidence.

James Shaw

If you fake scientific evidence then it must pass the review of the hundreds of thousands of scientists that will see it. One or more will catch it and the faker will be exposed. That is the way Science works.

The theory of evolution will not be faked out of existence. Only science will change the theory with compelling evidence. That has not happened.

The Institute of Creation Research, that you and Rac support, will fail in its every attempt to fool main stream science. The Institute is a fake in itself. The word Research in its title makes it so.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

There is a reason that the young earth creationists post the results of their "scientific studies" on youtube....

Where else can they "publish?"

anotherview Loc: California

Unresponsive reply.

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

Everybody posts everything on YouTube :thumbdown:

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

They have to…cuz they got nuthin'!