Genetic Entropy and Your Future: a Flood of Mutations Strikes Back

How natural selection REALLY works

If you knew you inherited more than 100 new mutations from your parents, and that your heir will develop a hundred more per generation, would you believe that someday, they would evolve?
Certainly we cannot test or repeat the past, let alone prove evolutionary claims, but truly, we can falsify the claim that humans can evolve. So far, the evidence says 'No' to human evolution, more importantly, it shows that the generations of men have a limit in past time.

"Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome" - Get it NOW
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/0981631606/re...

--- ### Pseudoscience refuted by genetics:

http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misco...

--- ### We are all mutants

"Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans" -Crowell (2000)
http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

We're all mutants, say scientists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8227442.stm

Human mutation rate revealed (2009)
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html

--- ### Predominance of bad mutations:

The Distribution of Fitness Effects of New Deleterious Amino Acid Mutations in Humans -Eyre 2006
"14% of mutations are slightly deleterious such that they segregate in the population"
http://www.genetics.org/content/173/2/891.full

"Assessing the Evolutionary Impact of Amino Acid Mutations in the Human Genome" -Williamson et.al. (2008) (presuposses evolution)
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000083

"Accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large versus small mammals" Popadin et.al. (2007) (neutral mutations can be weakly deleterious)
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13390.full

Experimental approach to slightly deleterious mutations
(even 'neutral' mutations behave bad)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101105124235.htm

--- ### As Sanford states, beneficial mutations happen... one in a trillion times ;-)

Lenski's trillions of E Coli proves the extremely high number of generations and specimens required to get beneficial mutations:
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations."
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

--- ### Human genetic deterioration

"Fixation of deleterious mutations at critical positions in human proteins" Subramanian (2011)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/14/molbev.msr097.short

"Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation" Lynch (2010)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/22/0912629107.full.pdf

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Evolution
• mutations
• new
• scientist
• scientific
• slightly
• deleterious
• beneficial
• neutral
• kimura
• intelligent
• design
• Jesus
• John
• Sanford

[DClayTorosco]

This is hilarious. In the 1st place, there is no such thing as genetic entropy--the concept is from physics and applies ONLY to closed systems--the genome is NOT a closed system, nor is the human body. Secondly, BY DEFINITION, if mutations are occurring, it is a process of evolution. Creationism denies that mutations are able to occur as ALL creatures were made AS IS by a creator. FAIL!!!!

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DClayTorosco You seem to lack the good habit of 'reading', for other uses of the term entropy, google Shannon entropy or read Sanford's book.

Now, if you wanna call "evolution" a process of cummulative mutations, while ignoring the possible destruction of the genome, fine, it doesn't change the fact that a genesis via impersonal evolution is impossible.

Finally, Christian creationism doesn't deny that this world is going to rot down and perish, actually it's a common statement in the Bible.

[DClayTorosco]

@IloveYOUviruses Unlike Sanford, I don't invent fraudulent neologistic uses for existing terms. I do agree genesis via evolution is impossible, as evolution refers to the speciation of existing organisms. You are thinking of Biopoesis, also known as abiogenesis, the chemical origin of life. You might look up Biopoesis by Sidney Fox, PhD, but I warn you you won't like it.--but it is available on the net for free.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DClayTorosco "You are thinking of Biopoesis"

the worst thing you can do is try to say what I'm thinking in order to make your point; when I say "genesis", I mean the standard definition: origin, the same word Darwin used in the title of his book.

BTW, Shannon entropy was once a neologism, like genetic entropy is today. Everytime this happens, ppl is supposed to READ what the author has to say about it, instead of making a fuss on ultraconservative semantics.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DClayTorosco For biopoesis you believe "at the beginning proteins"? really? those molecules which require encoded information plus energy in order to be biologicaly functional? really? Is that what you honestly believe?

I mean, here we have evidence of dozens of NEW mutations developed in every human embryo each generation and you dare to believe that once upon a time, with no DNA correction systems, non-life became life, r u kidding me?

[DClayTorosco]

@DClayTorosco BTW, Shannon entropy refers to data compression in computer programming and has no relation to biology in any way.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 Before giving you the proper response, please say, how does Wichman study helps your cause? as for Perfeito et al, their results are totally harmonious with P Lind's 120 mutations out of 126 being weakly deleterious.

Don't forget that with 100+ denovo mutations per human embryo, expecting to have all of them NOT deleterious is worst than belief in magic, is just pure denial to reality.

[infinity730]

@IloveYOUviruses "Forgive me for relying in observations."

Please read this:

Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.

Then this:

Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424.

Then you might actually get a clue.