Below are a series of quotes from leading human geneticists, including the only geneticist to have ever won a Noble Prize, on the devastating implications of the ever-increasing mutational load on the future of humanity. Their admissions are candid, with one even asking why we have not died out a 100 times over with our current rate of skyrocketing mutational load. These quote are clear evidence of a human species in decline, not evolutionary advancement.
Herman Muller (Nobel Laureate)
It becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1…if, to make matters worse, u (the mutation rate) should be anything like 0.5…our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements. (From the article: Our load of mutations. American Journal of Human Genetics 1950, 2:111-176) Muller assumed that our mutation rate was only 0.1 per individual per generation. We now know it is 1,000 to 10,000 higher than this.
…an asexual population incorporates a kind of ratchet mechanism, such that…lines become more loaded with mutations. (From the article: The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research 1:2-9) We now know that the massive number of mutations, the near-neutral nature of most of them, the presence of Y chromosomes in men, mitochondria in all humans, and the presence of large linkage blocks create the same ratchet for all sexually reproducing populations.
James Neel (American national medal of science for biological research)
“…gamete rates for point mutations…on the order of 30 per generation…The implications of mutations of this magnitude for population genetics and evolutionary theory are profound.”
(From the article: The rate with which spontaneous mutation alters the electrophoretic mobility of polypeptides. PNAS 83:389-393) This statement was made on the assumption of 30 mutations per generation. We now know it is at least 10 times that figure.
Alexy Kondrashov (Professor of evolutionary genetics, University of Michigan)
“Accumulation of VSDM’s (very slightly deleterious mutations) in a linage…acts like a time bomb…the existence of vertebrate lineages should be limited to 106-107 generations. (From the article: Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology 175:583-594) Confessions don’t come much better than this. He is clearly admitting we are on an exponential biological decay curve leading to the extinction of all vertebrates in 100,000 to 1,000,000 generations.
Michael Lynch (Professor Population Genetics and Genomics, University of Indiana)
Our results provide no evidence for the existence of a threshold population size beyond which a population is completely invulnerable to a mutational meltdown. (Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. The American Naturalist 146:489-518) This reference is to all current endangered species, but admission is made that it is an issue for all populations.
“We should increase our attention to the broader question of how (or whether) organisms can tolerate, in the sense of evolution, a genetic system with such a high mutational burden.” (From the article: Evolution of Human DNA. How rapid does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? American Journal of Human Genetics 59:501-509) Howell was only looking at the mutation rate inside human mitochondria when he made this statement, which has a mutation rate of only one per person per generation! This statement ignores all other types of mutations.
James Crow (Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)
“It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating…the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation, “I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse.” (From the article: The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386) Another great confession. Without using the term, he is admitting genetic entropy.
Fred Hoyle (Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University)
“When the environment is not fixed there is a slow genetic erosion, however, which natural selection cannot prevent.” (From the article: Mathematics of Evolution. 1999) Hoyle attacked neo-Darwinian evolution with the logic of physics. As a committed atheist, he, along with Francis Crick, believed the origin of DNA had to be alien panspermia.
Adam Eyre-Walker & Peter Keightley (Professors of Biology and Evolutionary Genetics. University of Essex and Edinburgh)
“…deleterious mutation rates appear to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive…” (From the article: High genomic deleterious mutation rates in humanoids. Nature 397:344-347) This statement was made in reference to protein coding regions only, which is some 3% of our genome. What about the rest, where 80% of all mutations occur?
Kaitlyn Higgins and Michael Lynch (University of Tasmania, University of Indiana)
“We find the accumulation of new mildly deleterious mutations fundamentally alters the scaling of extinction time, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large meta-populations may be at risk of extinction.”(From the article: Meta-population extinction caused by mutation accumulation. PNAS 98: 2928-2933). This research paper is particularly interesting, and honestly admitting to genetic entropy.
“Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents in the industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries.” (From the article: Rate, molecular spectrum and consequences of human mutations. PNAS 107 (3): 961-968). This dramatic decline is due to modern medicine suppressing the natural selection of most human major mutations. Modern medicine is actually accelerating genetic entropy.