The author states that most mutations are detrimental and the rest are mostly neutral. This is an error. By far the majority of mutations are selective neutral. Your author doesn't even understand the basics of Kamura’s neutral mutation theory and the basics of Molecular Evolution.
She also thinks that sharks maintaining the same basic body plan over millions of years is somehow a blow against the theory of evolution (Normand the millions of years, and the evidence of so many other species changing around them). Nothing in the theory of evolution through natural selection MANDATES major body changes. A shark had a great body plan and a great food procurement strategy back in the late Cretaceous, and over two thousand shark species have been described in the fossil record.
Should I point out all her other errors? She started out with fundamental errors in her first paragraph that showed her poor understanding of the subject and the history of Science.
So what is her degree? What work has she done in genetics? Her obfuscation about her credentials goes well with her obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
Her obfuscation about her credentials goes well with her obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
She didn’t say anything about her credentials, as a matter of fact. I did, because I know what they are. If she wishes to provide more she can. I really think she’s fed up with FR though, and doubt she’ll be back.
I’m not sure you read the first paragraph, because if you did, you would know this was not a formal paper, but a slightly cleaned up very quick response to some questions posed on a forum a year or so ago. She gave me permission to post it as an intrim article, which is what you’ve got. She would probably agree with some of your criticism.
Still think you have not answered the questions posed though. Doesn’t really matter, though.
Hank
I suspect that the geneticist's definition of mutation differs from that of the layperson...
Cheers!