Here's my point...
Deleterious mutations do accumulate. Bergman is not talking about that in his article, he is talking about BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS. DO THEY REALLY OCCUR AND IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT ? DO THEY DO SO TO PRODUCE HUMAN LIFE ?
Sickle-cell introduces genetic disease into a population and
occurs at a natural 'background rate' and is called a
'balanced polymorphism'.
It can never move to fixation because
there would be no 'normal' alleles to confer the advantage in the heterozygous state and all members of the population would have a genetic disease that would kill them.
So, I don't think Sickle-cell can even be used to explain 'beneficial' mutations arising and moving to fixation in a population.
THIS IS THE WRONG TYPE OF MUTATION AND THAT I THINK , WAS Dr. BERGMAN's POINT.
Regarding your statement to the effect that ...
No, he's not. What he is saying is that all mutations, beneficial or otherwise, degenerate the DNA, and if evolution were true then it would eventually kill everything. Read the whole article.
He said nothing of the sort. Search for the word "sickle" in the article. He said nothing of the sort.
It can never move to fixation because there would be no 'normal' alleles to confer the advantage in the heterozygous state and all members of the population would have a genetic disease that would kill them.
He didn't say that either. Why do you think that I can't look up the article? It's linked, for crying out loud.
What he did say is this:
"All of the beneficial mutations located in my search of the literature involving almost 20 million references..."
Brief interjection: Does this guy really expect anybody to believe that he checked 20 million references? Do you believe that?! He certainly isn't quoting any of them!
Heck, I'll say it up front: THERE AREN'T 20 MILLION REFERENCES. THIS MAN IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH!
And now, back to the qoute...
"were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented.
When scientists make bold statements like this referencing other people's research, especially when he is referencing 20 MILLION WORKS, i.e. "in most situations", "not a single clear example", "it was concluded", they note where the research originated. There is nothing like that here. It is pure nonsense. If there were a source (let alone 20 million of them), it/they would have been cited. Now on to this little gem:
While such negative findings do not in and of themselves prove creation, they support the conclusion that an Intelligent Designer formed the original genomes of each created kind.
This statement is called, technically, "Anal Extraction". It has absolutely no basis in reality, no foundation in fact, and could only come from that one place.
Try to understand what he is saying.
He uses so many logical fallacies, and presents so many premises and conclusions without any supporting evidence that it is impossible to "understand what he is saying". That you do is, quite frankly, disturbing.
[regarding anemia] The gene is a naturally-occurring point mutation and the allele is found in areas that do not have high levels of malarian mosquitos.
Do what the author of this article has failed to do. Document that. Seriously. Document it.
Your assumed 'primitive cell' populations would have failed to survive because 'reproductive error catastrophe' would have resulted in extinction before the repair mechanisms could have 'evolved'.
I asked you if you had even a basic understanding of the cell cycle. Clearly, you do not. Congratulations: You have answered one of my questions.
And yet, most of our DNA is nonfunctional "junk DNA". How does he account for that?