(October 5, 2013 at 4:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Deleterious mutations get removed from the genome after 1~80 generations (20, on average).
Non-deleterious mutations may remain for thousands of generations.
Beneficial mutations remain for as long as they are beneficial.

Back to school with you, man. I told you to read... why didn't you?

So it is just the definition of non-deleterious vs Deleterious.

So when the genome has been corrupted by non-deleterious mutations of very many different kinds for all individuals of the population, how will they be removed? You did say "may" after "thousands" of generations. So may never or may after 100,000 generations. You just proved my point.

So as they accumulate, why do they then not start to become deleterious but now there is no way to remove because all individuals have the very many errors.


This is simple logic and you are blind to see it.

(October 5, 2013 at 5:26 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 4:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, after being given a source that shows that this is not the case, you continue along this idiotic path anyway, and have brought this on yourself:

You're a liar, Grace. You're a liar, and nobody here should take you seriously at all until you start actually engaging, and retract this blatantly false claim, with an acknowledgement that you are wrong.

Your source was worthless. Just the same old blindness.

If you were on trial for murder, who do you think has the stronger case: the prosecution with mountains of substantiated evidence and expert witnesses, or you, saying nuh-uh and attempting to discredit those witnesses by changing definitions of terms?

The jury wouldn't even need to deliberate.

(October 5, 2013 at 5:31 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 4:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Deleterious mutations get removed from the genome after 1~80 generations (20, on average).
Non-deleterious mutations may remain for thousands of generations.
Beneficial mutations remain for as long as they are beneficial.

Back to school with you, man. I told you to read... why didn't you?

So it is just the definition of non-deleterious vs Deleterious.

So when the genome has been corrupted by non-deleterious mutations of very many different kinds for all individuals of the population, how will they be removed? You did say "may" after "thousands" of generations. So may never or may after 100,000 generations. You just proved my point.

So as they accumulate, why do they then not start to become deleterious but now there is no way to remove because all individuals have the very many errors.


This is simple logic and you are blind to see it.

At least, we've agreed that deleterious mutations do cause a survivability/reproducibility problem, right?
Now, the non-deleterious mutations may have an effect on the certain details in the physiology of the animal, or on its functionality, or may have no effect at all.
When lots of these mutations build up.... if they have caused sufficient changes in physiology, they may give rise to a new species, or just a new race.
If one of them becomes deleterious, it is weeded out of the population, at the same rate as all deleterious mutations. But the overall population retains the non-deleterious ones and just goes on.
Do remember, we are not talking about one single animal from a given species. We are talking about an entire population. And the mutations pop up on single animals, not on the whole population at the same time!

(October 5, 2013 at 4:02 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Mutations eventually destroy the DNA code of all species given enough time.

So mutations disprove the theory of evolution.

This has to be a Poe. No one offers something like this unless they're giving up the game.

(October 5, 2013 at 5:26 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Your source was worthless. Just the same old blindness.

Translation: Didn't read.

The source was the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institute of Health. Seems legit to me.

What precisely is wrong with it as a source is a complete mystery, absent any specific criticism.

A real intellectual heavyweight, this one is.

(October 5, 2013 at 5:52 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 5:31 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: So it is just the definition of non-deleterious vs Deleterious.

So when the genome has been corrupted by non-deleterious mutations of very many different kinds for all individuals of the population, how will they be removed? You did say "may" after "thousands" of generations. So may never or may after 100,000 generations. You just proved my point.

So as they accumulate, why do they then not start to become deleterious but now there is no way to remove because all individuals have the very many errors.


This is simple logic and you are blind to see it.

At least, we've agreed that deleterious mutations do cause a survivability/reproducibility problem, right?
Now, the non-deleterious mutations may have an effect on the certain details in the physiology of the animal, or on its functionality, or may have no effect at all.
When lots of these mutations build up.... if they have caused sufficient changes in physiology, they may give rise to a new species, or just a new race.
If one of them becomes deleterious, it is weeded out of the population, at the same rate as all deleterious mutations. But the overall population retains the non-deleterious ones and just goes on.
Do remember, we are not talking about one single animal from a given species. We are talking about an entire population. And the mutations pop up on single animals, not on the whole population at the same time!

We can agree that the deleterious mutations are weeded out.

But the remainder of the population is accumulating non-deleterious mutations.

If the population does not accumulate these changes, then there is not enough changes in the DNA to turn one species into another.

Now here is the problem. Unless it can be shown that there is enough that are beneficial, the rest do corrupt the genome of the species.

It is speculation that there are enough beneficial changes to produce new functionality.

That is another weakness in the theory of evolution.

[Citations needed]

Gracie, you are like your biblical prophets of old; you make shit up as you go along.

As the resident representative of the Amalgamated Guild of Prophets, Soothsayers and Vaticinatious Oracles, I feel it is incumbent upon me to say that not all of our members make shit up as they go along. What an opprobrious, if not libellous, suggestion. Some of us make shit up after the fact and pass it off as historical pronouncement, others use the shit that the client has said and then get the client to supply context.

Present interlocutor excepted, obviously.

(October 5, 2013 at 8:55 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 5:52 pm)pocaracas Wrote: At least, we've agreed that deleterious mutations do cause a survivability/reproducibility problem, right?
Now, the non-deleterious mutations may have an effect on the certain details in the physiology of the animal, or on its functionality, or may have no effect at all.
When lots of these mutations build up.... if they have caused sufficient changes in physiology, they may give rise to a new species, or just a new race.
If one of them becomes deleterious, it is weeded out of the population, at the same rate as all deleterious mutations. But the overall population retains the non-deleterious ones and just goes on.
Do remember, we are not talking about one single animal from a given species. We are talking about an entire population. And the mutations pop up on single animals, not on the whole population at the same time!

We can agree that the deleterious mutations are weeded out.

But the remainder of the population is accumulating non-deleterious mutations.

If the population does not accumulate these changes, then there is not enough changes in the DNA to turn one species into another.

Now here is the problem. Unless it can be shown that there is enough that are beneficial, the rest do corrupt the genome of the species.

It is speculation that there are enough beneficial changes to produce new functionality.

That is another weakness in the theory of evolution.

Well first you have to define what you mean by a corrupted genome?
You see around 95% of the human genome is junk and that number is fairly in every mammalian genome we have mapped.
I think something that may help understand better is the experiments done by Dmitri Belyeav, I'll link
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/...&css=print