Mutations would eventually lead to the extinction of a species

While it is true that I am arguing based on Kondrashov’s abstract, it is not true that it is the crux of my arguments. Although to answer Con’s question, no, Kondrashov did not conclusively answer his question. In the abstract, he clearly gives a short description of several possible reasons, none of which were followed up on, or have experimental support.“This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.” (Kondrashov)Neither explanation has experimental support in the real world. For one, Kondrashov was criticised heavily for not sticking to real world parameters for his epistasis argument by MacCarthy and Bergman [1]. The former explanation, soft selection, fails in real-world terms as well because a supervising agent is needed to “soft select” for a particular trait. [2] Hence both explanations were termed “possible” by Kondrashov.Con graces my argument with only one point when in fact, it is much more than one point. He has made a far too hasty rebuttal of my points. His arguments against me are speculative at best, and not within real-world parameters either. I have given strong experimental support for my arguments, with which he deems a hypothetical, un-real-world like parameter-ed, with no experimental support, explanation is sufficient to refute. As such, I have to extend my arguments here.C1: This point is talking about phenotypical fitness and not genetical fitness. In fact, even if a population were to successfully breed, the combined effects of degradational mutations will lead to a phenomena known as “mutational meltdown,” about which my argument is all about. As such, this point is a mute point and should remain so. Phenotypical fitness=/=genetic fitness. The point about relative benefit is actually false in terms of genetics, but true in turns of phenotype for reasons I have already stated in the preceding rounds and in the following. (The problems with recombination have all been addressed in the earlier rounds) Even Kondrashov acknowledges the fact that environmental arguments will not do.C2: My opponent makes a grave mistake of logic and facts here. RNA is a nucleic acid, just like DNA. [3] In fact, this is such a well recognized fact that even Wikipedia has an entry on it. I will make this clear. Humans have RNA as well as DNA. As can be easily seen from my source, the two studies can correlate easily. I will not go into the calculations. Why would DNA viruses be accepted while RNA viruses are not?Going back to the TO entry. The entry’s logic is in the fact that since beneficial mutations are of a higher percentage than previously thought, then beneficial mutations outweigh degradational mutations. This in fact contradicts the Nachman study, which I will cite. [4] It clearly gives no space to that idea. Now, from Con’s study, it is clear that degradational mutations outweigh beneficial mutations by factors of magnitude. Don’t talk about environment. That has been refuted thoroughly earlier. C3: I cited three different new sources for this point alone. All Con has to offer is a hypothetical and unethical objection. Stating the word “False” prominently does not indicate the falsity of my objections. It merely states Con’s opinions on the matter. It is illogical for him to state that a faster reproductive cycle would reduce the delaying effect when the faster reproductive cycle is cited as the cause of the delaying effect. In the next round, I would request that Con actually provide a source for this point, or else I will drop it as it is purely hypothetical.C4: Actually, my opponent’s argument in no way contradicts my own! In fact, this is what I have been arguing for all along. Most mutations having no significant effect, but being an accumulative phenomena, this is widely held and experimentally supported even by Con’s sources. As such, I would like to know why Con is still arguing this point.C5: There are several things that I would like to point out that would mean that I have to extend my arguments here. I: There is no experimental support for (3). This is as obvious as the sun.II: Con has entirely ignored the fact that humans reproduce sexually. Going off-tangent to something about mutational meltdown does not at all prevent Muller’s ratchet from happening. In Loewe’s paper, he clearly states that he calculated the extinction time for humans. He calculated the date solely from mutation/recombination rates in the mtDNA, the smallest chromosome. Humans definitely exhibit recombination, but that is not enough to stop extinction, which I explained in tedious detail in the previous rounds. Pushing back the date of extinction does not lead to no-extinction, which Con is supposed to be arguing for. It still will lead to extinction. I am imposing no time frame to the time of extinction here. If indeed extinction can be experimentally argued against, then I most certainly welcome such an argument.Summary of Con Points1/5 of Con’s points does not at all work in terms of genetics. 3/5 of Con points actually are hypothetical, and the remaining point agrees with my own arguments.I find it of worth to note that Con has brought up arguments which in no way refutes the argument that species will eventually go extinct. At best, his arguments will work against a 6000 years old world. However, that is not what I am arguing for/against. My argument centers solely on the fact that genetic degradation will lead to extinction, against which he has not provided an argument showing it indeed is not so either of his own making, or through a study. At best he has merely shown that extinction can be delayed. Well, so what? Still death will find us. I hope Con will not be offended by my somewhat feisty arguments. I mean no disrespect. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 July 31; 104(31): 12801–12806.) 2. http://www.genetics.org... (Genetics August 2009 vol. 182 no. 41387-1389) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Wikipedia Entry on RNA) 4. http://www.genetics.org... (Genetics September 1, 2000 vol. 156 no. 1 297-304)