[CottShop]

[[Wouldn’t this mean that humans today would be greatly inferior to humans from 6000 years ago, and less numerous?]]

Inferior? No- more corrupted? Yep- The Mitochondrial EVE project bears this out perfectly, the further back they went, the less mutations they found, until they cameto what they called ‘the first women’ or hte “EVES” as they’ve dubbed them who showed remarkably pure genetics. so yes, it’s an established fact that species degrade over time, and do not, as claiemd by macroevolutionists, improve improve improve until miraculously, somehow, new morphological features and organs pop out of seemingly nowhere. Deleterious conditions are not conducive to massive gains in new organs and systems- nor do ‘neutral’ mutaitons help the cause any I’m afraid.

[Moonman62]

Inferior? No- more corrupted?

Shouldn't we see effects of that on a larger scale. Shouldn't humans be less accomplished and less numerous now than they were then? Creationists have stated over and over again that mutations are a loss of information, and the article that anchors this thread claims that genetic degradation causes species to go extinct over time.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Mitochondrial EVE project bears this out perfectly, the further back they went, the less mutations they found, until they cameto what they called ‘the first women’ or hte “EVES” as they’ve dubbed them who showed remarkably pure genetics.

How do they tell the difference between "pure genetics" and impure genetics?