Random Degradation and Natural Deselection
|January 18, 2007||Posted by Dave S. under Evolution, Biology, Science|
Truth in advertising would have random mutation and natural selection renamed to reflect what’s really happening.
Orthodox evolutionists tell us that mutations are random when plotted against fitness but this is not the case. Mutations are random when plotted against position in the genome. An error can occur anywhere and it’s pretty much an unpredictable location at this point. But the effect of errors are certainly not random. These errors in duplication are occuring in highly optimized systems and as anyone with common sense and a bit of insight into the behavior of complex machines knows, random failures seldom if ever result in improved performance. Random mutations are in fact random degradations. I have yet to see compelling evidence that any so-called random mutation resulted in improved performance except perhaps a few trivial and arguable examples of an organism escaping the effect of a toxin by minor change in an enzyme which may very well be a directed change. The vast majority of random mutations, if not all random mutations, are neutral at best and immediately fatal at worst.
Since natural selection must by definition act on changes in fitness (differential reproduction), and those changes in fitness caused by random mutation are always or almost always detrimental, natural selection is really natural deselection as it works in almost all cases to deselect organisms whose genome has wandered from its optimized incarnation through random degradation.
Orthodox evolution theory’s weakness isn’t survival of the fittest. That’s readily explainable by the theory of random degradation and natural deselection. The weakness is arrival of the fittest. If there were a law requiring truth in advertising for orthodox evolution theory the problem of arrival of the fittest would be more easily understood.