A limit to the rate of evolution IS a limit on evolution. The research has found another indirect way to support Sanfords general theme.<quoted text>
If I link articles that show Sanford is full of it will you shut up about him?
And yes, it is easy to show that those articles did not support Sanford's work. His work said there was a limit on evolution. Those articles were only about limiting the rate of evolution. Two totally different subjects.
If a vehicle is tethered to a post the distance it can go is determined by the tether. The vehicle may be able to go many different speeds, but it can only go to the end of its tether. The articles you linked were about the speed of evolution and how that speed, not the distance was limited. It said nothing about the limit of that speed so it supported Sanford in no way at all.
In your example I'd say it is more like saying evos expect the car to get going but have found that the car is tethered and actually limited in its ability to get going as it should and as expected.
Evolutinary researchers expected to find an increase in fitness from the accumulation of beneficial mutations. However they found was...“The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,” and that was one of the “surprising” results. Surprise! Surprise for evos, but not for creos.
So.....No I won't shut up just because you demonstrate you can post links and get someone else to do your dirty work for you.
One load of baseless rhetoric was about the mutation rate John used being adjusted way too low. Sandfords used a mutation rate of 100 per geration and this value has been found to align with more recent findings perfectly well.
The refutes you will find are from many years ago. Indeed NOW, after all the wofflers ridiculed Sanford low and behold recent research that supports Sanford.
This article speaks to Sanfords theory in brief.
You'll note number 3....
3. Selection can’t stave off deterioration—there are a number of reasons for this:
What this work into epitasis has done is provide further research into the beneficial mutations, the evobuzz word, resulting in overwhelmingly negative results and a DROP in fitness, NOT an increase in fitness.
Although evolutionary researchers are not suggesting this research falsifies evolution, what it does do is support number 3 further by finding that an accumulation of even beneficial mutations will result in a drop in fitness and negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. In other words, even beneficial mutations do not stave off a deterioration in rates of adaptation over time. It is a deterioration even it does not directly relate.
Yet this declining rate of adaptation has continued for over 4 billion years without grinding to a halt? That is what a creo can extrapolated from that data.
Here is another creationist speak to the epitasis research and the implications it has for Johns work.
Here is the published research into epitasis. Note it is from 2011.
Mutation rate lower that thought in support of Sanfords value.
The assertion has been made that creos are unable to provide any support for a creationist paradigm. Not only have creos had two predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs supported they also have fossils that are out of alignment with TOE and more supportive of a creationist paradigm.
Now do please mount an appropriate refute to Sanfords work and present your evidence as I have bothered to do.