@pauluc: You know the process as you have indeed published …

Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.

@pauluc:

You know the process as you have indeed published in the peer reviewed literature. Give me the evidence for
1] There is a rate of accumulation of the detriment mutations that outstrips mechanisms for loss

This is a calculated rate based on known overall mutation rates, the amount of functional DNA in the genome, the ratio of beneficial vs. detrimental mutations, and the known reproductive/death rate that would be required to compensate for the detrimental mutation rate.

Overall mutation rate:
A fairly recent paper in a 2010 issue of Science attempted a direct measurement of the mutation rate by comparing the complete genome sequences of two offspring and their parents. They estimate that each offspring had only 70 new mutations (instead of previously predicted rates of around 170) for an overall mutation rate of around 1.1 x 10^-8 per site per generation (Roach et al. 2010: Link). Another paper published in a 2010 issue of PNAS suggested an overall autosomal mutation rate of 1.481 × 10^−8 base substitutions per site per generation – or approximately 89 new mutations per person per generation (Lynch, 2009: Link). Unfortunately for men, a 2009 pedigree-based estimate derived from high-throughput sequencing of Y chromosomes (~58 million bp) separated by 13 generations (Xue et al. 2009: Link) yielded a much higher base-substitutional mutation rate estimate of 3.0 × 10^−8 base substitution rate for the Y-chromosome (~ 1.74 mutations per person, per Y-chromosome alone, per generation – comparable to a rate of ~180 autosomal mutations per person per generation).

For purposes of discussion, let’s assume, then, an average per person, per generation, mutation rate of 70.

Functional DNA in the Genome
In the past five years or so, the discovery that non-coding DNA is largely functional, has pretty much destroyed the notion of “junk-DNA”. Previously, it was thought that no more than 1.5% of the human genome was functional. While less than 1.5% of the mammalian genome encodes proteins, it is now evident that the vast majority is transcribed (at least 70%), mainly into non-protein-coding RNAs. Many of the observed noncoding transcripts are differentially expressed, and, while most have not yet been studied, increasing numbers are being shown to be functional and/or trafficked to specific subcellular locations, as well as exhibit subtle evidence of selection. Even certain regions of non-transcribed DNA are now being shown to be functional. Of course, analyses of conservation patterns indicate that only∼5% (3%–8%) of the human genome is under purifying selection for functions common to mammals. However, these estimates rely on the assumption that reference sequences (usually ancient transposon-derived sequences) have evolved neutrally, which may not be the case, and if so would lead to an underestimate of the fraction of the genome under evolutionary constraint. These analyses also do not detect functional sequences that are evolving rapidly and/or have acquired lineage-specific functions. Indeed, many regulatory sequences and known functional noncoding RNAs, including many microRNAs, are not conserved over significant evolutionary distances, and recent evidence from the ENCODE project suggests that many functional elements show no detectable level of sequence constraint.

In short, “It is possible that much if not most of the human genome may be functional.” (Pheasant and Mattick, 2007: Link)

Implied functional mutation rate
Given that most of the human genome is functional to one degree or another (let’s say 70%), this would imply a functional (non-neutral) mutation rate of 70 * 0.7 = ~50 functional mutations per person per generation.

Ratio of beneficial vs. detrimental mutations
There are numerous published estimates ranging from 1/1000 to 1/1,000,000. A 1998 paper published in Genetica suggests a beneficial mutation rate (vs. the total mutation rate) of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998: Link). Given that a significant portion if not most of the human genome is functional to one degree or another, to a similar degree those mutations that are not beneficial would be functionally detrimental to one degree or another. In short, the ratio of beneficial vs. detrimental is very small – most likely well below the ratio of 1/1000.

Detrimental mutation rate
Given that the ratio of beneficial vs. detrimental mutations is so low (less than 1/1000), the detrimental mutation rate would be very similar to the overall functional mutation rate. In other words there would be ~50 detrimental mutations (to include mostly near-neutral detrimental mutations) per person per generation.

Required reproductive/death rate to compensate for detrimental mutation rate
The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 – e^-U (Kimura and Moruyama, 1966). For a detrimental mutation rate (U) of just 3 mutations per person per generation, the average fitness is reduced to 2.71828183^-3 = 0.05. The number of offspring needed to maintain the population at the parental level of fitness would therefore be: 1 / 0.05 = 20 offspring per woman per generation for just one to survive without any detrimental mutations. This, of course, means that each woman would actually have to produce at least 40 offspring for two to survive without any detrimental mutations and maintain the population size. Of course, if the detrimental mutation rate were really more like 50 per person per generation, the number of offspring needed, per woman, to allow natural selection to deal with this degree of bad karma would be around 1/e^-50 * 2 = ~10 million trillion offspring per woman per generation.

Now, you might argue that the actual detrimental mutation rate is much lower than this, but it is rather hard to believe, given what we’ve learned about the functionality of the non-coding elements of the genome lately, that the true detrimental mutation rate could be remotely within the reproductive range of what any woman could possibly achieve in her reproductive lifetime. We humans simply do not reproduce remotely fast enough to keep up with the minimum rate of detrimental mutations that hits our gene pool every generation.

2] compare living individuals with the DNA obtained from ancient relatives, the mutation rate can actually be calculated in a direct manner
Author? Title? Journal? Date? Volume? Page?

How far back do you want to go? Are the pedigree studies noted already not good enough for you? Even divergent times based on evolutionary assumptions between different individuals and even different species are not significantly different from the mutation rates I’ve presented here to make much of a difference for your position… unless I’m really missing something obvious here?

The point is that mutational divergence over time is ongoing and the detrimental mutation load cannot be not resolved by natural selection without a death rate that is far too high for any slowly reproducing creature to tolerate.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Ken:

Aside from the fact that science cannot definitively prove any theory, yes, a form of historical science can be used to test and evaluate Biblical prophecies. You have to know a lot about history though. You can’t simply read Daniel and Revelation and hope to understand what you’re reading unless you have detailed knowledge of the historical events being discussed.

I recommend you start with the “70 weeks” prophecy starting with Daniel 9:24. This prophecy precisely predicts the First Coming of Jesus as well as his death to the day.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:

I’ve been doing this a long time (almost 20 years now) and I can tell you that, as far as I know, no one has misunderstood my position as a young life creationist who also recognizes limited forms of Darwinian evolution…

This isn’t like accepting a little bit of Nazism. The Darwinian mechanism is given its name because Darwin really was the first to popularize it in published literature. Therefore, he deserves to have his name attached to the mechanism of RM/NS.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:

I’ve only been expaining why I say things the way I say them. I believe it is best to at least try to start off a discussion on as much common ground as is possible with those on the opposing side in a discussion… to openly admit those points, from the opposing side, that are actually valid.

As I see it, there is simply no advantage in arguing that Darwinian evolution is completely wrong – that I believe in no form of Darwinism. It’s just not true for one thing and admitting those things that the Darwinian mechanism can produce only adds to the credibility of the creationist position – in my opinion.

Sean Pitman
www.DeteectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.