Mutations would eventually lead to the extinction of a species

Con has dismissed all of my arguments simply on the grounds that I am unable to access the full Kondrashov article. This is not so. Note that I have listed the two ways in which Kondrashov has answered his own question and have shown them to be wanting, he was even critiqued for his answers. If someone else indeed has answered the question, let Con cite him. I don’t see that anywhere. As the focus has since shifted from my arguments to his points, I will let it be. C1: Con once again is speaking phenotypically. I have shown that such is irrelevant to this debate. Even were one to have all fit phenotypes possible, genetic degradation will still occur. Con actually strawmans my argument here. Not all mutations degrade the genome. Most do. The very few that “upgrade” the genome were estimated from Nachman (R4:4). Indeed, such mutations occur. However, they are not in a large enough quantity, even though they may be more than thought. Hence, overall genetic degradation occur. Con is right that linkage blocks have a probability of forming with certain genes. This in fact does not oppose what I have said in any way. A linkage block with more degradational mutations than beneficial ones has the greatest probability of happening. This has been calculated multiple times through mutation rates, etc. (See previous round citations) As such, our arguments do not contradict here. In fact, even if in Con’s hypothetical case, a specific linkage block has no degradational mutations, that still leaves out all the other degradational mutations to the other linkage blocks, unless, of course, Con is willing to delete the rest of the genome. (See problems with deletion in above rounds) In fact, even if Con’s hypothetical case is right on every single possible point here, he will still be incapable of giving an explanation of how to remove degradational mutations from inside a specific gene. Gene splicing maybe? C2: Con is correct on everything here. I see not how my arguments have been refuted in any way! See above round for explanation of why Nachman et. al. does not refute my arguments. C3: I have already given an explanation for the delaying effect. Con does not like it, Con does not refute it. C4: Once again, this does not contradict my own. Like I said above, even if 98% of the genome was non-functional, Loewe L has shown that humans will still become extinct. (See C5 for discussion on the falsity of the proposed explanation, which will lead the readers to the above rounds) C5: I have conclusively shown in the last round that this “explanation” by Con has no experimental basis. Not only is recombination limited by both linkage blocks (see above) as well as the percentages of each category of mutation. It is highly disconcerting that if Con is right, then Loewe is wrong. There is no alternative between the two. I have already said at least twice in this debate that humans reproduce sexually. Loewe was calculating the time to extinction for humans, not some asexually reproducing organism. Con may indeed argue that Loewe did not indeed use a true ratchet, but I’m not so sure about that. Con has basically argued that his hypothetical recombination case, with no known experimental support, is indeed itself the experimental support for explanation (3). This is not so for the many reasons I gave throughout the debate. I am certain that Loewe mentions several possible retarding factors on the ratchet, but as far as I’m aware, he has not provided any experimental evidence for his case. He even mentioned that there are several possible solutions. He has indicated that future research might solve the riddle, but after six years and more papers from him, none actually do solve the problem. Now, Con might say that there is a solution. These solutions, however, have no experimental support, like Loewe mentioned in the paper. Indeed, he does mention possible solution, but show them to have no experimental support. Con’s argument still fails the recombination hurdle, which I explained in detail in the previous round. I have thus shown that mutation will lead to the extinction of the human population within 20 million years, from 2006. Notice that the calculation does not begin with the start of humans, but from the present. Hence, Con’s objections regarding oldness of species means absolutely nothing to this debate. Conclusion I will strongly urge a Pro vote for these reasons: Con has not provided any explanation for a retarding factor on degradational genomics outside of the hypothetical and no-experimental support areas. In more than one instance, Con has not contradicted my arguments. In fact, he actually strengthened them The whole debate centers around Loewe’s paper. Loewe has shown that humans will go extinct. Now, Con first tried to argue that junk-DNA would stop extinction by reducing the total degradational mutation rate, but I showed that the mtDNA is not junk. Instead, it is part of the coding regions. Con has not provided a good counter to this. I have shown that Con strawmans my argument on one occasion. It is a minor strawman, but a straw man nonetheless. I would request that voters vote solely based on information within this debate only.