Folks here is an example of misuse and misrepresentation of references to real scientific work. Maz is citing an article about the link between micro- and macroevolution to refute my comment about the deteriorating genome. This is just slight of hand. Chicanery. She goes on to parrot comments about epistasis and other concepts she has no real notion of.<quoted text>
And it is somatic change and there are dozens of them... The ability to digest lactose is somatic change and no more of a big deal!
It is no different that the somatic change Darwin noticed in his finches that was somatic change being below germ line level.
It has nothing to do with anything I have spoken to at all.
Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature (NOT a creationist publisher)2009.
David N. Reznick1 & Robert E. Ricklefs2
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.
Hence, by the evolutionary researchers words above, these lab style experiments reflect adaptation and DO NOT demonstrate an unlimited ability to adapt as evos often like to misrepresent and chase their tails/tales around about. These experiments neither demonstrate an organisms limletless ability to adapt nor negative epistasis not the deteriorating genome. Get it?????
"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."
"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."
The above suggests the results of accumulating so called beneficial mutations (eg ability to digest lactose in your case) are negative.
How can life have gone on for billions of years due to the epistatic cost, as well as the deteriorating genome that has deteriorated despite, what evos call beneficial mutations? The data suggests negative results and on top there is plenty to support the deteriorating genome.
Your jabber and reference to adaptation does not address this AND you would have to be ignorant to suggest that such a simplistic reply does. Back to BIO101 for you!.
The point is that lactose digestion entered the human genome sometime in the last 10,000 years. It is a mutation not just of one gene, but more than one. It cast doubt on this so called "deteriorating genome." You can read the sources she has posted, they are very interesting, but don't refute my point.