I got my hand on a book on population genetics, a area more concerned with ecology (which I obviously am concerned with as a subject, but am completely unable to process as a discipline) and very abstract (meaning: arbitrary) in its axioms. But it appears to be the forefront of an ideological battle for Darwinist supremacy, for a few decades already. So I figured out quickly, I would have to get in touch with it.
The name is, Genetic entropy, by Sanford.
A Christian, though apparently not as staunch and parodical as most other creationists (of any creed).
It states that :
- that the quantity of mutations of all kinds (any change of sequence) from one generation to another is huge
- that most should be in all logic, and are in all actuality neutral to slightly harmful, because of the immeasurably complex nature and layered nature of our genetics, as an information system, complexity we can not yet really fathom... let alone intervene on it through genetic engineering.
- but the actual weight of each individual change is so tiny, that it can not be selected against. nor for, in the statistically unlikely change that it's genuinely beneficial (per se, and not just situationaly).
So according to him and many, many high-grade geneticists, we're all doomed, and more and more so, at that. And no amount of eugenicism or natural selection could remove such an amount of mutations.
Hence the "genetic load" grows more and more, but in everyone more or less equally, so selection can not "see" the bad sheeps among the good ones: if everyone's sick, what is health exactly ? Too much noise.
Hence the "genetic load" grows more and more, but in everyone more or less equally, so selection can not "see" the bad sheeps among the good ones: if everyone's sick, what is health exactly ? Too much noise.
If Neanderthals were brought back and competed with us, surely they would wipe us out, at least in a natural survival contest.
But since one generation doesn't show much variation inside itself, nor with the very one that came before, there is not much of a contest, and genetic drift ensures global degeneration.
To be kind to him he's mostly right - the fact that Darwinian natural selection hardly ever create innovations, and doesn't matter nearly as much as people think when it comes to maintain overall quality either.
But a bit wrong too, as a quantity of these mutations are not meant to be detrimental nor random. I mean Lamarckian selection, which must pass by a bunch of mechanisms which look like mutations events for the layman, but whose bias might their real nature if looked at without prejudices against certain ideas.
But since one generation doesn't show much variation inside itself, nor with the very one that came before, there is not much of a contest, and genetic drift ensures global degeneration.
To be kind to him he's mostly right - the fact that Darwinian natural selection hardly ever create innovations, and doesn't matter nearly as much as people think when it comes to maintain overall quality either.
But a bit wrong too, as a quantity of these mutations are not meant to be detrimental nor random. I mean Lamarckian selection, which must pass by a bunch of mechanisms which look like mutations events for the layman, but whose bias might their real nature if looked at without prejudices against certain ideas.
For an example of such highly commendable scientific endeavor, please refer to:
Mechanism of somatic hypermutation: critical analysis of strand biased mutation signatures at A:T and G:C base pairs and Lamarck and Panspermia: On the Efficient Spread of Living Systems Throughout the Cosmos page 3 to 10. The panspermia part is arguably an idiosyncrasy of the authors I do not condone, but is fun to read and wonder about nonetheless.
The figures on rates of mutations shown in the book do not detail for the different races up until now (third of the book ?) but given the Christian overtone, we can be sure it won't pop up further on either.
We are supposed to believe they apply for all people on Earth.
But since the primary source of mutagenic molecules is food, populations necessarily differ from one another. Arguably, populations good looking and healthy on the outside (Northern Europe...) must be better off inside too, whatever "noise" non-genetic influences add. Yet on the other hand, everyone without much regional variation, cook, so the author keeps his point.
All of this is why, among other reasons, that along with clearing the environment (removing mutagenic molecules), accentuated endogamy seems the only way to reveal "silent" mutations hard to select against, by forcing extensive homozygoty. Then some more harsh selection of a kind to give the chills even to the most coldblooded Nazis didn't dream of.
But since the primary source of mutagenic molecules is food, populations necessarily differ from one another. Arguably, populations good looking and healthy on the outside (Northern Europe...) must be better off inside too, whatever "noise" non-genetic influences add. Yet on the other hand, everyone without much regional variation, cook, so the author keeps his point.
All of this is why, among other reasons, that along with clearing the environment (removing mutagenic molecules), accentuated endogamy seems the only way to reveal "silent" mutations hard to select against, by forcing extensive homozygoty. Then some more harsh selection of a kind to give the chills even to the most coldblooded Nazis didn't dream of.
So, since the pace of bad mutation isn't God-given but can be nullified, and that nature has a few aces in her sleeve to correct damages and restore integrity, the future of mankind, all races included (as I wish only evolutive prosperity for Negroes and others cute Mongoloids !), isn't so bleak as to make me believe in the End Times and start praying... which is probably what the author would desire.
