Look at this article :Genetic Load
Curler, you should also have a look at this:
The following are disallowed:
Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.
I am afraid I don't understand why you mention that, I fail to see any connection to anything that I wrote?
I am not familiar with anyone claiming that microevolution is proof of common descent. All microevolution is, it is fuel for the evolutionary process. Common descent is, AFAIK, a conclusion drawn from the study of genetics. According to science as far as I have been able to understand, those studies are strong evidence for common descent, and there would be no reason to expect that if common descent was not the case.
I know I am not able to determine what's true or not when people make different claims about this. My understanding of science, however, and the many years I have spent trying to penetrate into scientific thinking and making sense of it, has forced me to accept common descent as the best, and at least for the time being, the only reasonable explanation for the facts upon which that conclusion has been drawn.
Fine, as long as we have a definition of exactly what
According to Darwin, it is:
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
What remains is the mechanism/s: According to science, mutations, lateral gene transfer and, I presume, some other factors as well although not being a scientist myself, I cannot tell.
According to Michael Behe, Intelligent Design,although from what I have read it seems that he accepts evolution as far as common descent and age of Earth is concerned. Where he disagrees with mainstream science is on what he sees as complexity beyond what he calls 'the edge of evolution'. Meaning that things like the bacterial flagellum and others are not the result of natural processes; they weer implemented by the designer.
According to YEC creationism: God did it, read the Bible.
There are other varieties out there too, like Behe suggesting it may all have been front loaded at the beginning, and have just been unfolding according to plan.
That's what I can say, please correct me if I am wrong. I want to learn, but I want to learn what's true and that sometimes require consulting original sources.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor
To make it clear, I do not make that claim, never did. But to be fair, is it not considered possible for a guy to make that claim because he doesn't know better?
Am I right when I see that rule as a warning against being ignorant, less than optimally well read or schooled in a subject? Is there no room for being wrong? We may all be wrong whether creationist or evolutionist.
I suggest the best approach is to try to learn as much as one can about a subject, from reliable sources.
Personally, I am forced to rely on authorities since I have no means of investigation biology on my own.
I don't mind being corrected if I should make a dubious claim. If that should be the case, I am able to search for authoritative opinions and educate myself, hopefully arriving at a more correct understanding of a subject for future use.