Replies

So which is it?

Is mutation not powerful enough to explain a 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference over six to seven million years?

Or is mutation so powerful that a species would go extinct from mutation over six to seven million years?

It cannot possibly be both.

So which is it? Is mutation not powerful enough to explain a 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference over six to seven million years? Or is mutation so powerful that a species would go extinct from mutation over six to seven million years? It cannot possibly be both.

Of course it can be both, because we are talking about two different things. As a practical matter we will go extinct at observed mutation rates in far less than 6-7 Mya. But if for some reason we did not, then natural selection as a sifting mechanism would only fix 1600 or so new mutations in the population as a whole, far less than the 2% or 6% figure.

What you are not getting is that the much larger change that is causing the overall extinction due to loss of fitness is not becoming fixed (that is, the harmful mutations don't need to spread throughout the entire population), whereas for meaningful evolution to occur, fixation must occur. Or to put it another way - we are genetically changing, and much more quickly than standard evolutionary theory predicts, but it is not driven by natural selection and the drift is thus not coherent.

Mutation eventually leads to extinction, not evolution.

Show me some "mutated" humans that have "evolved" to higher species.

When humans get a defective gene, they get sicker, and unless that 'tribe introduces a stronger gene pool from another tribe and "breed out" that defect, that gene will become hereditary, and the entire tribe will get sicker, weaker, and eventually die out if nature is allowed to take it's course.

Diabetics for instance, if left to natures devices, die young, they don't reproduce. If it becomes hereditary within the entire tribe, it will die out. Other tribes will avoid it like the plague.

Don't attempt to claim adaptation as mutation. It isn't. Adaptation is part of the design, "dormant" genes are not "junk genes" as was previously thought. Living in a higher altitude for instance, future generations develop larger lungs because the genetic information for larger lungs is already present as a dormant gene.