Genetic Entropy? (Accidently Posted in "Introductions" Forum)

[OfficerVajardian]

And here we have the standard creationist tactic of misunderstanding some element of evolution, and then trying to turn that into a problem that doesn't exist.

First of all, nobody ever claimed that natural selection weeds out all negative mutations, just the ones that are fatal more often than not. Obviously, if a negative mutation doesn't result in a significant detriment to the organism's survival chances, then it will persist in those organisms that survive to breeding age with it intact.

So the "evolutionists believe that X, but actually Y! Nyuk, nyuk!" portion of the claim is completely wrong. But more importantly, what the fuck does "wearing out" a genome mean? The contention that since the virus' lethality has been reduced it's therefore "weaker" is absolutely stupid, since a reduction in viral symptoms doesn't necessarily correlate to a reduction in virus survivability. In fact, one could argue that a virus which leaves the host alive does a much better job of surviving; that's why Ebola outbreaks are relatively rare, but we all live with the common cold every year.

There seems to be this idea that there's a pre-set "perfect" genome for things, a specific code for humans, for viruses, for everything, and the more we stray away from that via mutation, the closer we are to disaster. But that's not true, that's just evolution. Things change over time, and mutations accumulate. There's no reason to even believe that negative mutations will stay that way; all it takes is a single generation for a bunch of negative things to evolve a single new trait that "completes" the picture, so to speak, and turns those negatives into one big positive. And that's just ignoring potential environmental changes that might cause us to need that stuff.

And let's say that all those negative mutations do build up and a species goes extinct... so what? That's what happens in nature. Things die. To spin this as evidence against evolution would just be an argument from consequences: "I don't like where this would lead, therefore it can't be true."

Sorry, doesn't work that way, creationists.

Wow. So much thing I did not think about when I was reading those things. I had a feeling that Jon (or is it John?) Sanford was arguing for devolution, but that doesn't mean Evolution is some how invalid, right?

We know that Evolution doesn't require a "more complex" form to arise, just one that is suited to fit it's environment best, right?

I also remember that there was a research paper that showed evidence of Muller's Ratchet in RNA Viruses, the same class of viruses which the H1N1 virus is in, right?

So how do we know that's it's NOT Muller's Ratchet acting and Genetic Entropy instead?

(Paper here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2247152)