For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.
Romans 8:22
"A new review article by Vivian Callier in Quanta Magazine reveals that evolution does not have a weak foundation: It has no foundation.
The subtitle summarizes the dilemma evolutionists are in: “For 50 years, evolutionary theory has emphasized the importance of neutral mutations over adaptive ones in DNA. Real genomic data challenge that assumption.”
Classical Darwinian or “Adaptationist” Evolutionism
In a nutshell, evolution theory has historically postulated that the source of genetic variety is created by genetic mutations which in turn are selected by natural selection.
Improvements in a life-form that enable it to out-compete other life forms are more likely to survive and out-produce its competitors, thus maintaining or improving its position in its ecological niche. Those life-forms that are less able to compete are more apt to go extinct. This is the source of the expression, ‘survival of the fittest.’
One problem has always been the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, or nearly neutral.
Mildly-deleterious or near-neutral mutations individually cause only minor or no problems, but they add up, in time producing genetic meltdown, causing death and eventually extinction.
One fruitful area of mutational study is cancer. Cancer cells are rife with mutations, and although only a small subset of those mutations are important in causing cancer, they do help us to understand mutations, and especially the commonality of patterns such as hot spots and trends, such as the conversion of the genetic base G to T is a far more common mutation than T to G.
This information will, the evidence so far indicates, destroy both neutral theory as well as evolution based on mutations according to the fact that mutations as a whole tend to degrade the genome and not improve it."
CEH/Bergman
Romans 8:22
"A new review article by Vivian Callier in Quanta Magazine reveals that evolution does not have a weak foundation: It has no foundation.
The subtitle summarizes the dilemma evolutionists are in: “For 50 years, evolutionary theory has emphasized the importance of neutral mutations over adaptive ones in DNA. Real genomic data challenge that assumption.”
Classical Darwinian or “Adaptationist” Evolutionism
In a nutshell, evolution theory has historically postulated that the source of genetic variety is created by genetic mutations which in turn are selected by natural selection.
Improvements in a life-form that enable it to out-compete other life forms are more likely to survive and out-produce its competitors, thus maintaining or improving its position in its ecological niche. Those life-forms that are less able to compete are more apt to go extinct. This is the source of the expression, ‘survival of the fittest.’
One problem has always been the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, or nearly neutral.
Mildly-deleterious or near-neutral mutations individually cause only minor or no problems, but they add up, in time producing genetic meltdown, causing death and eventually extinction.
One fruitful area of mutational study is cancer. Cancer cells are rife with mutations, and although only a small subset of those mutations are important in causing cancer, they do help us to understand mutations, and especially the commonality of patterns such as hot spots and trends, such as the conversion of the genetic base G to T is a far more common mutation than T to G.
This information will, the evidence so far indicates, destroy both neutral theory as well as evolution based on mutations according to the fact that mutations as a whole tend to degrade the genome and not improve it."
CEH/Bergman
