I'm sorry but you are muddling everything, and not getting the gist of the quotes.<quoted text>
Can you hear yourself? How do you suppose scientists come up with all this stuff and add up mutations when they keep changing their mind about the mutation rates of species alive now eg humans? LOL! They don't actually have dna billions of years old, you know. You're fluffing about, you silly looser, wanting to post for the heck of it.
Nothing you have said does a thing to address any claim I made. You are the one that does not understand or just likes to play the idiot to save face on forum.
These researchers have no idea what happens in life past bacteria and organisms outside the study. The DATA clearly says that when more than one so called beneficial mutation is in the presence of another in the genome the fitness landscape drops and there is less adaptive choice. Don't tell me I don't understand the research, you evo quacker!
Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations.....Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.
Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation......These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.
This above is exactly what creationists expect to find, with credible research and observation, limits to the genomes ability to adapt. It is a bonus when your flawed rubbish also supports us.
Limits is what we find in research data and breeding. It is NOT what evo researchers expected to find and the articles themselves say so. They have plenty of stories to try to hammer the data into an evolutionary paradigm, when clearly it supports a creo paradigm.
So you can dance and jump up and down as much as you like to maintain your ignorance, but I have taken this point. The same goes for your rubbich above that says nothing about anything I am claiming. All that's left is to mess around with you evos now.
Apart from the context.
This is going to cause confusion again.
None of us denies that extinctions happen.
What the research is all about is to find break-of points in specific allready specified populations actually species in specially selected conditions.
So no natural imput of normally polymorph variations.
Every creation arguement sofar relies on evolution.
You are telling me that after adam and eve no evolution occurred.