Mutations would eventually lead to the extinction of a species

Thanks to Con for a concise opening. I will begin by clarifying that Loewe was using Muller’s ratchet, which is a theory of recombination. I will endeavour to use the same format as him.Addressing Con's arguments (Which does not prohibit extinction)C1: This contention has nothing at all to do with my argument. In fact, in regards to fitness in relation to environmental conditions, Con is correct. However, my argument is based on the fact that the genome codes for specific information, and that any mutation would degenerate the information within. This is widely accepted and thought everywhere. I will await a rebuttal of this before strengthening it. Also see my point regarding population size.C2: The source cited by Con was from 2000, my earlier source 4 is from 2004. From [R2: 4], it can be clearly seen that almost 40% of mutations (Including deleterious, but mostly just degradational) are lethal. Also, it is a known fact that slightly deleterious mutations accumulate in the genome, because they cannot be selected against, and are correlated strongly with large mammal extinction.[1] (VSDM only, not other types of mutations which I described in the previous round) I will put this point to rest. There are several categories of mutations. Very slightly degradational/deleterious/beneficial mutations cannot be selected for/against. Only that which is strongly effective can be selected. As such, small effect mutations (relatively few mutations have no effect) have the ability to contaminate the whole population before attaining sufficient power to cause a species to go extinct. (See [1] and sources of previous round, all of which expound on this) Con’s source actually talks about lethally and highly effective mutations, but ignore VSDM. (Let D stand for deleterious or degradational, depending on circumstances)C3: This has no source. Nonetheless, I will address it. The first objection is actually a strawman of normal objections. This objection only works for objective breeding, which has serious ethical considerations in terms of humans. To keep the human population from degenerating further than it already has, scientists have estimated the need to terminate (kill) one-third of the population. This is just to retain information, not to increase it in any way. (See R2 citations)For example, in plant breeding, a truncation line is drawn at a certain level in the list of plants, in terms of their fitness [2]. This obviously cannot be done for humans without serious ethical considerations. However, some have already written about the termination of humans. [3 for a discussion on the ethicality of genetic manipulation]The second objection has been thoroughly dealt with in [1]. Inside, it is shown that sexual recombination, or “shuffling” in the genome, delay the extinction in fast reproducing populations, but not in humans. Also, consider that in smaller genomes, or rather simpler genomes, a change in a single bp is more likely to be affected by natural selection than is those in a more complex genome (like that of humans). Hence, VSDM have lesser impact (Not to say there is none, see R1:4) on simpler organisms.C4: Con has brought up the infamous “junk DNA” argument. This argument has thoroughly been debunked by the ENCODE project, which has shown that the so called “junk DNA” is actually 50 times more active than coding DNA. It has since been renamed “regulatory DNA.”[4] This is not in any way a “hypothesis,” since it has been experimentally verified.Note that Con’s example in no way overturns this internationally collaborated research. Furthermore, it in no way overturns my arguments, which state that it usually is lethal.One more thing to note. Con’s source actually describes a case of deletion of redundant genes, or genes which have had a knockdown before. In fact, in the majority of cases, enough to cause extinction, deletions of this kind is known to be deadly. (See previous round) Con may object that by this “falsification” example, the theory of genetic extinction is bogus. In fact, this is not so. Let us suppose that if there are 15 hypothetical cases of unique deletions, and one of them is non-lethal, does this mean that the other 14 organisms will survive? Experimental evidence points to the contrary. (See previous round citations)C5: Con’s point does not at all address the problem of linkage blocks. In fact, Loewe L. (who did his paper in 2006, as opposed to Choi’s 1990) found that Muller’s ratchet is devastating to humans, which reproduce sexually. It is thus evident that Muller’s ratchet does not “cease” to work in terms of sexual reproduction. In fact, sexual reproduction only serves to slow down the process. Con must show that extinction is impossible in terms of mutation and genetics.Strengthening Pro ArgumentsThere has been vast experimental support for the fact that mutations will lead to extinction. In fact, even if we assume that 98% of the genome is “junk,” which it is not, Loewe L has shown that extinction will occur via Muller’s ratchet acting on just the mtDNA, which is a coding region of the DNA. In fact, it is the smallest of all the chromosomes, coding for the fewest genes and having the least base pairs. If we took the same mutation rates, which does not differ by much, and include all the other coding regions, (not to include the regulatory DNA, which Con considers, despite vast evidence to the contrary, junk DNA,) it would still lead to species extinction. Con’s points do not in any way address the fact that species on Earth will meet death by mutation. In fact, even if all of his current points are correct, it will still leave me with the Loewe L, Kondrashov, etc. papers which all work within the limits of his objections to show that mutations do indeed lead to extinction. Con must provide counters which are relevant to my arguments.Back to Con. I hope he will think outside of TalkOrigins and for the intellectually stimulating part!1. http://www.pnas.org... (PNAS August 14, 2007 vol. 104 no. 33)2. https://www.soils.org... (doi:10.2135/cropsci2007.04.0191Vol. 48 No. 2, p. 391-407) (See other crop breeding sources as well)3. http://www.sfu.ca... (Annu. Rev. Genet. 2001. 35:785–800) 4. http://genome.ucsc.edu... (ENCODE website)