Correct... Secular geneticists understand the data does not fit their beliefs.
As you learned just now, even Dr. Crow admits the data does fit evolutionary theory. You just don't want to accept what he says.
The Discovery Institute keeps a list of scientists who don't agree with evolutionary theory. The statement:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”This waslast publicly updated February2019. Scientists listed by doctoral degree orcurrent position.
There are 24 pages of people, including degrees in "reliability engineering" "nutrition", and so on. Lots of engineers. But not so many geneticists. Here they are:
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum)University of Perugia(Italy)
Richard Gunasekera Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics Baylor University
Martin LaBar Ph.D. Genetics & Zoology University of Wisconsin, Madison
Seyyed Imran Husnain Ph.D. Bacterial Genetics University of Sheffield (UK)
Jeff Tomkins Ph.D. Genetics Clemson University
Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School
Chad Dechow Assistant Professor of Dairy Genetics Penn State University
That's it. Seven is it. Notice that even here, they don't assert what you do. They don't even deny evolution.
As you should know, there are tens of thousands of geneticists in the United States. Hard say how many in the world.
So there you are. A tiny fraction of 1% of geneticists don't accept evolutionary theory. As I said, they know better than you. As do other biologists. Those of us who are Christian and understand science, usually don't have any problem with it.
And... you are an exception?
No. I don't even have enough courses in genetics for a minor in the subject, but I know enough to realize that they overwhelmingly reject your new doctrines.
As I just showed you. Guess how I know you've never taken a college-level course in genetics.
BTW, here's a list of geneticists who are on record as accepting evolutionary theory.
Steven C. Bakker***Ph.D., Molecular Genetics, Utrecht University
Steven K. Beckendorf Professor of Genetics and Development, University of California, Berkeley
Steven S. Branda***Ph.D., Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine
Steven M. Carr Ph.D., Genetics, University of California, Berkeley
Stephen F. Chenoweth******School of Integrative Biology,Ph.D., Physics, Genetics, Griffith University
J. Steven de Belle** Ph.D., Genetics, York University
Stephen P. DiFazio* Ph.D., Forest Genetics, Oregon State University
Steven F. Dowdy**** Ph.D, Molecular Genetics, University of California, Irvine
Stephen Freeland Ph.D., Genetics, Cambridge University
Stephen Gasior******Ph.D., Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago
Stephen Gregory Ph.D., Genetics, Adelaide University
Steve Haase******Ph.D., Genetics, Stanford University
Steve Haber*******Ph.D., Plant Pathology, University of Illinois, Urbana
Coauthor, "Epigenetics serves Genetics: Furarium Head Blight (FHB) resistance in elite wheat germplasm," Americas
Stephen M. Hedrick Ph.D., Molecular Genetics, University of California, Irvine
Steve E. Humphries Ph.D., Molecular Genetics of Human Disease, University of Glasgow
Senior Editor of The Annals of Human Genetics
Stephen A. Karl* Ph.D., Genetics, University of Georgia
Stephen Kearsey******D. Phil., Molecular Genetics, Oxford University
Steven J. A. Kimble******* Ph.D., Conservation Genetics, Purdue University
Steven C. King***** Ph.D., Animal Genetics, Cornell University
Steven T. Kosak******Ph.D., Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago
There's 20. To save space, I only included those named "Steve" or some variant of that name, and I stopped at the "K"s. So you can compare, about 1% of Americans are named "steve."
So, assuming there are no geneticists named "Steve" with last names starting with letters after "K", you've got less than 4% of geneticists even slightly skeptical of evolutionary theory. Does that help you understand why your argument is such a loser? Why do you have a problem with the science?
Barbarian observes:
Indeed, the "genetic load" issue came up when I was an undergraduate student. And as you also learned, it's not the problem you were told:
What you learned in the 60's
Hmmm..
functions of noncoding DNA (that's what creationists call "junk DNA")
epigenetic effects
epistasis
Observed increases in fitness as a result of changes in population genomes
(lots of other things creationists don't get)
has been proven false by science.
As you just learned, all of those are observed facts. Would it be asking too much for you to read an intro text on genetics so you had at least an idea of what it's about?
Creationists understand that modern genetics is a problem for their new beiefs. That is why so many creatioinists continue trying to quote-mine real scientists, trying to shoehorn data with their beliefs. You either did not read Crow's article, or don't understand it. Which is why you are trying to find a way to cite his work, but to change his findings. It's very obvious; why not find someone whose work actually agrees with your revision of Genesis?
Although some of his article is very out of date ('97), let's look at some of his statements. Re gene mutation
"if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful."True... But the problem is worse than he thought.
"the typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viability or fertility" Later in the article He suggests a possible decrease of 2% viability with each successive generation[/quote]
The problem for creationists is twofold:
1. Fitness only counts in terms of environment. So alleles that are very slightly harmful in one environment, may be useful in others. The HbC allele, for example, causes very mild symptoms of anemia, but is rapidly spreading in some areas, because it provides very good immunity to malaria. (We're not talking here of the HbS allele)
2. Epistasis is often positive:
We found that negative epistasis occurs mainly between nonessential reactions with overlapping functions, whereas positive epistasis usually involves essential reactions, is highly abundant and, unexpectedly, often occurs between reactions without overlapping functions. We offer mechanistic explanations of these findings and experimentally validate them for 61 S. cerevisiae gene pairs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.524
And epistasis between two mildly harmful alleles can increase fitness.
I]"most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."[/I]
This is true, but as you learned, science has long known that non-coding DNA is not junk DNA. Much of it actually has function. Crow is referring to the DNA that is truly non-functional, not all non-coding DNA.
The creationists call all of it "junk DNA", but that's wrong.
I can see your confusion in reading the Crow article. Read it again, remembering that not all non-coding DNA is "junk DNA."
And please get a basic text in genetics and read it so you aren't further confused.