OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 06 2012,13:34) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 06 2012,13:50) | | Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 06 2012,11:38) | | Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2012,12:25) | | Quote (REC @ Aug. 06 2012,11:18) | Why do BA and other ID types like this argument?
| Quote | | the vast majority of times, [mutations] have a negative impact on the information content inherent in the genome). i.e. If nature is allowed to run her full course, without outside intervention, humans, as well as all other life on earth, is headed for extinction! |
Life's extinction is evidence of a design?
Or is this some sort of countdown to the second coming? |
I've never understood why bacteria haven't succumbed to genetic entropy, seeing as how they reproduce about a hundred thousand time more rapidly than humans.
Poor things. |
Is there a thorough fisking of the genetic entropy nonsense available online? BA77 is raising it on the Biologic Institute's Facebook page. |
I'd just ask for peer-reviewed research that supports genetic entropy.
Of course, you could also mention that entropy is a very specific concept related to the flow of heat and therefore doesn't have shit to do with genetics.
Then you could mention all the positive mutations that are known to exist. Then you could bring up all the genetic repair systems that fix broken DNA.
Then you could ask if genetic "entropy" is decreased or increased by gene duplication and why.
As far as I can tell; genetic entropy is used by creationists to support a very young Earth. If mutations are bad (and we all know that every single mutation is always bad, right?), then over time, bad mutations collect and cause the extinction of the species. If the Earth was much over 10,000 years, then all species would be extinct because of the accumulation of bad mutations.
Of course, a simple example will show this to be utter crap. Sickle Cell Anemia. In certain situations (homozygous recessive) it's really bad. In other situations (heterozygous and malaria being common), it's good. Therefore, no one can say that all mutations are bad all the time, so the entire argument is based on a faulty assumption. I wonder how that happened? |
See the peer reviewed literature at the bottom of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......eltdown
(and note the reference to Sanford's book!)
Now all you have to do is ignore the 'small populations' constraint, and you can believe that we are all headed for doom!!! |
Good grief. That article is talking about population sizes of less than 100 individuals and no possible inflow of new genetic material.
Yet, it would still be an upper bound of 100-1000 generations before extinction occurred. Of course, with a population of less than 100, a rock slide or a tree falling at an inopportune moment could cause an extinction even too.
And yet, cheetahs are estimated to have been reduced to less than a handful of individuals once about 10,000 years ago and then again just 1000 generations ago (not the different units there) and they seem to be doing OK.
Recent genetic evidence suggests that cheetah diversity is increasing slightly, in spite of the low population.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
