In a recent paper entitled Evidence for elevated mutation rates in low-quality genotypes, authors Nathanial P. Sharp and Aneil F. Agrawal sneak in a gratuitous statement about the possible effects mutational load could have on the acceleration of adaptation into new environments. Interestingly, the paper is only intended to provide evidence for increased mutation rates in weak genotypes (using fruit flies), but the authors also propose that a mutational meltdown can result in adaptation:
[ … ]
Not only is this statement completely unsupported experimentally, the authors cited to support such a bold statement acknowledge that their own “experiments provide no evidence for or against a hypothesis of ‘adaptive mutation’.” Ignoring the more likely scenario that a genetic meltdown will result in a downward spiral towards extinction due to the preponderance of mortality rates over birth rates, the authors propose that beneficial mutations will somehow overcome the accumulation of irreversible deleterious mutations, leading to adaptation.
The thing is, Darwinists are not really doing experiments. They know Darwinism is true even when the facts don’t support it. They are busying themselves tending the altar of the Beard.
Can a population adapt during genetic meltdown? Well, if it can, Sharp and Agrawal certainly do not prove it; they don’t attempt to. Similarly I do not aim to refute the intended purpose of the authors’ work, but simply to point out that scientists can and often do make claims that are completely unsupported by their science. And AITSE is here to help you sort out the science from the bunk.
Yes, a sanity preserver for people drowning in official bunk.
Follow UD News at Twitter!