Creationists

[LOki]

I thought interpretation of the biblical kind allowed for that broad interpretation.

We were talking about its use in the bible, I believe.

Well, I guess it's allowable ... if you think it's intellectually honest to assert, for instance, that all members of Felidae to have ever existed are the same "kind" of cat; to avoid admitting the presence (or evidence of existence in the past) of intermediate species.

The variations in each family are the product of interbreeding and cross breeding or I now prefer creation.

Not possible according to creation theory, or your demands that mutation is irrelevant. Different species do not successfully produce fertile male AND female progeny. Creation claims completed (not continuing) creation. And you specifically deny that (accumulated) differences in genotype are able to result in sufficient changes in phenotype to result in speciation ... that must apply even within a taxonomic family or your creationism collapses on evidentiary and logical bases.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your continued dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued (and predictable) refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[bigwern]

My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.

 

[koshergrl]

Really? Where did a creationist deny the existence of evolution?

 

[LOki]

Now for some quesions that went ignored.

Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?

In the fossil record of the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods respectively.

That wasn't hard.

And yes, they indeed are there, and you have seen them--no, your application of Zeno's Paradox is not a valid dismissal of the evidence you are seeing.

Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?

Fossils don't change; they're the mineralized remains of dead organisms.

Why would they change?

Or are you asking "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"

To which I answer: I have no idea why you ask. This condition simply does not exist. It is a question disingeunuously asked with an intentionally faulty premise.

It is a stawman attack.

How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?

Are you asking again, "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"

The answer hasn't changed.

All organisms have mutations,how come we don't see species in the process of evolving ?

We do. We have. You have pointed them out ... you call it "micro-evolution."

However, only the superstitious would demand that the proof of this must be an individual evolving. The theory of evolution does not make this prediction.

What evidence is there showing life can happen spontaneously from non-life ?

The obvious evidence that life is composed of, and sustained by the interactions of, non-living things. The verifiable fact of reality that chemical reactions occur without any verifiable direction of any verifiable intelligence.

More here, where you insist this question "was ignored."

Why do you hold the view that non-intelligence can produce intelligence ?

The evidence suggests it, and there is no logically valid, competing argument or verifiable contradictory evidence.

Can you produce evidence for mutations causing a feature change ? How did it benefit the organism ?

Yes. By allowing the organism a greater probabilty to live to reproduce.

Why are there more harmful mutations then beneficial mutations ?

This seems to be rhetorical. Seriously. Maybe genetics is consistent with the rest of the world in that there are more ways that something can happen than just the one (or few) you prefer for whatever reason?

Why ask this question? And I don't just mean generally, because I have no problem accepting as fact that mutation appears to be harmful more often than beneficial--the point is not in contention; I mean why are YOU asking? You don't think they're significant (or real apparently; particularly the beneficial ones).

Why is there life on only one planet ?

I don't know that there is life on only one planet. How have you come to the absolute unqualified certainty that there is life on only one planet? Evidence? Valid logic? Emotional attachment to your superstition?

Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."

It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

Why do you ask such questions as if your opponents make such claims?

How is ancestry proven today ? Why can't we use the same method for declaring ancestry from the past ?

Genetic similarity.

Are you suggesting that we don't use genetic similarity where the opportunity presents itself?

Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ?

They have not been proven to be unreliable. This claim of your is just another example of your penchant for intentional misinformation.

How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?[/QUOTE][ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY]Well Documented Creationist Dishonesty[/ame]

Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.

Straw-man. Again. So first (and hopefully for the last fucking time), MUTATION IS NOT THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!

GOT THAT??????? NOT THE FUCKING ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!!

Natual selection is the engine of evolution. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!!

Got that? NATURAL SELECTION.

Fucking creationist retards.

Mutation could be considered fuel, I suppose, if you wish to continue with the metaphor, but nobody says mutation drives evolution.

Secondly, mutation happens exactly the way actual evolutionists claim if not the way your straw-man evolutionists claim.

You're wrong, and the evidence is you disingenuously barking up the wrong tree.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Complex things need to be designed they don't simply create themselves.

You are unrational in your thought process.

Where did the information come from that programmed our brain ?

Classic Christian paradigm: replace ignorance with religion.

Wrong, many scientist would agree with what i said only the irrational denies it.

Would you like to provide proof of something complex spontaneously developing itself ?

This should be interesting.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.

A believer trusts the Almighty's word, our faith is baseless without it.

Calling someone ignorant that disagrees with you only shows ignorance on your side.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Really? Where did a creationist deny the existence of evolution?

They just don't get it after all this time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now for some quesions that went ignored.

Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?

In the fossil record of the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods respectively.

That wasn't hard.

And yes, they indeed are there, and you have seen them--no, your application of Zeno's Paradox is not a valid dismissal of the evidence you are seeing.

Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?

Fossils don't change; they're the mineralized remains of dead organisms.

Why would they change?

Or are you asking "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"

To which I answer: I have no idea why you ask. This condition simply does not exist. It is a question disingeunuously asked with an intentionally faulty premise.

It is a stawman attack.

Are you asking again, "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"

The answer hasn't changed.

We do. We have. You have pointed them out ... you call it "micro-evolution."

However, only the superstitious would demand that the proof of this must be an individual evolving. The theory of evolution does not make this prediction.

The obvious evidence that life is composed of, and sustained by the interactions of, non-living things. The verifiable fact of reality that chemical reactions occur without any verifiable direction of any verifiable intelligence.

More here, where you insist this question "was ignored."

The evidence suggests it, and there is no logically valid, competing argument or verifiable contradictory evidence.

Yes. By allowing the organism a greater probabilty to live to reproduce.

This seems to be rhetorical. Seriously. Maybe genetics is consistent with the rest of the world in that there are more ways that something can happen than just the one (or few) you prefer for whatever reason?

Why ask this question? And I don't just mean generally, because I have no problem accepting as fact that mutation appears to be harmful more often than beneficial--the point is not in contention; I mean why are YOU asking? You don't think they're significant (or real apparently; particularly the beneficial ones).

I don't know that there is life on only one planet. How have you come to the absolute unqualified certainty that there is life on only one planet? Evidence? Valid logic? Emotional attachment to your superstition?

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."

It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

Why do you ask such questions as if your opponents make such claims?

Genetic similarity.

Are you suggesting that we don't use genetic similarity where the opportunity presents itself?

Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ?

They have not been proven to be unreliable. This claim of your is just another example of your penchant for intentional misinformation.

How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY]Well Documented Creationist Dishonesty[/ame]

Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.

Straw-man. Again. So first (and hopefully for the last fucking time), MUTATION IS NOT THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!

GOT THAT??????? NOT THE FUCKING ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!!

Natual selection is the engine of evolution. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!!

Got that? NATURAL SELECTION.

Fucking creationist retards.

Mutation could be considered fuel, I suppose, if you wish to continue with the metaphor, but nobody says mutation drives evolution.

Secondly, mutation happens exactly the way actual evolutionists claim if not the way your straw-man evolutionists claim.

You're wrong, and the evidence is you disingenuously barking up the wrong tree.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.[/QUOTE]


















You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.

If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?

Here let me help you,according to your theory.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.

3. then the magic ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.

What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.

This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.

Natural selection prevents macro-evolution. Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.

 

[LOki]

You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.

If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?

Here let me help you,according to your theory.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.

3. then the magic ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.

What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.

No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.

This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.

Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.

Natural selection prevents macro-evolution.

Absolutely false. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!

Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.

Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.

Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[LOki]

My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.

A believer trusts the Almighty's word, our faith is baseless without it.

Your faith is baseless regardless.

Calling someone ignorant that disagrees with you only shows ignorance on your side.

But his is not happening. You misrepresent again.

It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.

If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?

Here let me help you,according to your theory.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.

3. then the magic ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.

What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.

No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.

This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.

Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.

Natural selection prevents macro-evolution.

Absolutely false. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!

Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.

Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.

Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

Alright genius then point to one mutation that has been allowed to spread through the human population through natural selection ?

Remember these mutations must be found in the whole population For macro-evolution to occurr

 

[Youwerecreated]

You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.

If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?

Here let me help you,according to your theory.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.

3. then the magic ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.

What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.

No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.

This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.

Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.

Natural selection prevents macro-evolution.

Absolutely false. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!

Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.

Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.

Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

Wrong never denied this,listen dummy what do you think happens with mutations ? when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.

You have been brainwashed to believe that traits change through mutations thats not true ,traits change through sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction. This is where we go back to the genes of each parent decide what the offspring will look like and be.

Your ignorance is a beautiful thing to watch.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.

A believer trusts the Almighty's word, our faith is baseless without it.

Your faith is baseless regardless.

Calling someone ignorant that disagrees with you only shows ignorance on your side.

But his is not happening. You misrepresent again.

It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

You can take it up with YAHWEH when he appears on your door step.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

You are entirely wrong.

You have a poor understanding of genetics and what they do and how they spread through the population.

 

[PredFan]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Creationist: The Bible says so.

Skeptic: Who wrote the Bible?

Creationist: God.

Skeptic: How do you know he did?

Creationist: The Bible says so.

And on and on ad nauseum.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Creationist: The Bible says so.

Skeptic: Who wrote the Bible?

Creationist: God.

Skeptic: How do you know he did?

Creationist: The Bible says so.

And on and on ad nauseum.

Agreed,but there are things contained in the bible that man did not know at the time of the writing of the bible that leads you to believe those men were inspired by someone superior.

Man has failed in trying to show all things are a product of a natural process. They are going on faith to hold such a view.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

Look how parents genes have an effect on the offspring the genetics not mutations.

Beefalo image by snowyridgeranch on Photobucket

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

 

[Youwerecreated]

Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.








Introduction



Before we take on the ten reasons evolution is wrong we must first define what we are talking about. Evolutionists will say the word evolution to you and you may think you know what they are saying, but you probably don’t. There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.


As creationists we may not agree with all these as being evolution and so it helps to understand what we are saying. In this article I agree that microevolution occurs, but the other four are imminently debatable.



Now another issue needs to be face before we go on. Evolutionists are fond of talking down and attacking creationists as being less “scientific” than they. They use ad-hominen attacks and accuse creationists as being stupid and unable to understand their “science”. We need to understand what science is and how our arguments fit in its’ framework.



Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."



The process is for a postulate to be first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

The postulate must be observable.
The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.


When you talk with evolutionists make sure you have these points covered. They will talk circles around you and call you stupid if you don’t know what they are talking about. As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five! The constantly point out microevolution as being the proof of all the other four. The sooner we creationists figure this out the sooner we can win this debate.



From the points given above is shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates. Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable. When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about microevolution and they are bluffing because the lack real proof.



What we are left to do then is look forensically into such things as fossils, microbiology, biochemistry, information theory, etc. to try and see if we can catch the process in its’ act. We will talk about all these things in this article.



.Microevolution Defined



We now need to define carefully the concept of microevolution as we and the evolutionists both understand it differently. Microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a “species’ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.



The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.



Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the amoeba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.



For instance sugar beets in the early 1800’s had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878. That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didn’t create a potato from the sugar beet.

Another instance of microevolution is the English peppered moth (Biston betularia). In pre-industrial England the peppered moth lived on the white bark of the birch tree. The moth came in two basic varieties, peppered white and dark. These two varieties hatch out at about a 50% ratio. But when the dark variety landed on the white birch bark, the birds saw them and ate them at a higher rate than the peppered white moth. But as industrialization occurred and coal dust darkened the birch trees, the peppered white moth became rarer because the birds ate them and the dark variety blended into the tree. But they still hatched out at a 50% ratio. (This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks - so much for evolutionists objectivity)

Other microevolution issues we look at are selective breeding in dogs, cats or cows for example. If we let these all breed together they would all fall back to some common denominator animal. But you can see how far the genome will stretch when you look at a teacup poodle and a Rottweiler. But they never created another species.

In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success. Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success. Come to think of it these would be really good falsifiability experiments too wouldn’t they?



So with all that said we are now ready to begin our ten reasons evolution is wrong.



Reason Number 1

Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend



Genome – the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool.
Mutation – a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals.
Recombination – the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction
Gene – the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA
Allele – variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes.
Taxon – Category in classification such as species, phylum.
Phylogeny – The (supposed) evolutionary history or family tree of a species or other group.


As we stated before evolution depends on beneficial mutation, natural selection and enormous amount of time for it to occur. Therefore we will now look at genetics and see if this is true.



But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.



“EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety.” From a debate on talkorigins.org



Ummm a little double talk. Well it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intelligent designer. But it is also a tautology or circular reasoning to say that “evolution causes random mutation” because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution.



But to be correct, evolution is a philosophy that masquerades as a science . So evolution isn’t necessarily any more random than the person’s thoughts and it certainly cannot be some kind of force driving the random mutation. Nor can it cause mutations random or otherwise.



Mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution. Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power.



Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Mendel is the father of modern genetics and Darwin is the father of evolution. In Darwin’s day genetics was just starting and Darwin knew really very little about how genetics worked. His idea of change in species was based on erroneous and untested ideas of inheritance. Mendel’s ideas were based on careful experimentation and showed that individual characteristics were surprisingly resilient and constant.



Darwin believed in the idea that variations caused by environment could be inherited. Thus the giraffe’s long neck was a result of the “inherited effects of the increased use of parts”. The Origin of Species, 6th ed, London 1902, p 278. Darwin believed that if parent giraffes strained their necks to reach the top leaves then the progeny would inherit longer necks. While even evolutionists today would see this a patently false, they still accept with apparent ease the change in the genetic structure it represents and throw that change to the magic of mutation. It wasn’t until much later that mutations were used as the change agent in evolution because it became apparent this idea of Darwin didn’t work.



In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. I will explain why in a bit. First the types of mutations:



1. Duplication or Amplification of a segment of DNA

2. Inversion of a segment of DNA

3. Deletion of a segment of DNA

4. Insertion of a segment of DNA

5. Transposition of a segment of DNA from one place to another.

6. Point Mutation of a single nucleotide.



The first five are interesting genetic processes. Each is a complex and precise process that has much biochemical signaling and purpose. We don’t really know much about why the genes do this as we are still very weak in our knowledge of how our genome works. But none of these processes can add any data to the genome, they just move data around. I must add another point here: some evolutionists place recombination in this list, but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome. Recombination just takes the genome and mixes what is there. There are tens of maybe hundreds or trillions of combinations in our genome to recombine. We are wonderfully and fearfully made.



The type of mutations called point mutations are the only genetic processes that can actually add information to the genome and that is why evolutionists have chosen point mutations as the mutational driver of evolution. We will hereafter call point mutations simply mutations to simplify the writing.







Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?



What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part. But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden. The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not. The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation! It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.



What About Mutations?



But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be beneficial? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a compare – correct process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation “gets out” so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don’t happen.



The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very small mutations are the basis of the “goo to you” hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.



1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.

2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.



To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.



The smallness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get. So a positive mutation cannot add but a single bit of information to the genome or one nucleotide’s worth. But is that enough? And if that truly does occur will natural selection grab and go with it?

Population Genetics Factors

Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the “noise” of random events in the population. In a stable population of organisms each organism must reproduce one of itself to keep the stability of the population. But we see in nature that animals must produce many more than one for themselves because of the randomness of death. Even elephants produce 5 to 10 offspring to overcome this random noise factor. Some organisms produce thousands or even millions to assure replacing themselves. Evolutionists want many mutations to occur so positive mutations can be captured by natural selection but a high mutation rate for a population is not good as the overwhelming number of mutations can destroy a population.



But let’s say that one point mutation occurs and gives an individual a positive value of 0.1 percent for survival and passing on that positive gene. Let us also say that this population needs 5 offspring to keep the population stable or 20 percent growth. The survival rate increase would be 20.02 for the mutation. Sir Ronald Fisher was a mathematician and one of the world’s experts on the mathematics of evolution and one of the founders of the field of population genetics. He was also one of the architects of the Neo Darwinian Theory. He calculated that most mutations with positive survival values would not survive, and he believed that the answer was many positive mutations. He said: “A mutation, even if favorable, will have only a very small chance of establishing itself in the species if it occurs once only.” Fisher R.A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford, Second revised edition, New York: Dover.



Let us continue our example above with Fisher’s calculations. Our organism with a 0.1% survival factor would have one chance in 500 of surviving. If there were 500 organisms with the mutation their odds would be about 5 out of 8. With 1000 with the same mutation their odds would be about 6 out of 7 and with 2500 organisms with the same mutation the odds are about even. What are the odds of 2500 organisms having the same point mutation (it has to be the same for that particular information to get into the genome) in a population? The chances that 500 organisms would have the very same point mutation in the very same nucleotide is 1 in 3.6 x 102,738. Lee M. Spentner, Not By Chance – Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judica Press, New York, p. 103.



A mutation almost always involves a loss of information or just a copy of information. They have never added new information to the genome, so it appears that they can never bring that genome added complexity. Are there beneficial mutations? Yes there are for certain environments. Blind cave catfishes are the result of the mutation that lost the information of an eye. This mutation caused the eye, which was useless and prone to disease and injury in the cave to be lost and it actually helped the catfish survive in the cave. But the catfish genome did not have any new information added for it to become a perch genome or any other genome. In fact the eye genes were lost to the genome. If that blind fish were to be swept out of the cave by a flood, and that does happen, it won’t survive to pass on those no eye alleles. So natural selection, working in the cave worked to keep the eyeless catfish going, outside the cave it will quickly die. The important thing to keep in mind is that we all along were only working with the genome of the catfish and at no point was there any new information to change that genome to another. Genomes are like rubber bands that you can stretch out very far, but they will always snap back to the original when released.



If we look at the accelerated fruit fly experiments that used radiation to accelerate the copying errors of DNA to try to produce another species, we have only seen fruit flies with parts missing or dead flies or flies too crippled to pass on its genes. They never got a house fly out of the deal. Why? Because the mutation lost information in the fruit fly genome and did not add the information to become a house fly.



Beneficial verses Positive Mutations



How do we define “beneficial” mutations? It is interesting that a mutation such as an orange without seeds is considered useful, that is to orange eaters like me, but to oranges it is not such a good idea, for the seedless orange cannot pass on its genes. It is a useful mutation, but not a positive mutation. A positive mutation would enable the species to pass on its genes more efficiently and would add information to the genome. Evolutionists get this definition confused too.



Another problem is that evolutionists confuse mutations with recombination and alleles. They are not the same. Some variant alleles in a genome are the result of mutation, but most are from recombination and were there at the beginning of that species. All alleles that arise from mutation are either neutral or excessively deleterious. There are not really any positive mutations in literature today, even evolution literature. In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide. This herbicide was made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nullified its effectiveness.



Was this a positive mutation? We have no way of knowing if this was the result of a mutated allele or the expression of an allele in the genome that was already there. It may have been a very rare, neutral mutation of an allele that had been in the genome too. But it was specific to the man-made herbicide and had no selective value outside of that. It did not create another function and did not help the weed to adapt any other way. It added no information to the genome and thus no new complexity. There was no evolution here.



So you see, mutations can produce an allele of a gene that is neutral (rarely) or produce alleles that are dangerous, but cannot be the driver of massive amount of change that needs to occur to change one species into another. Most people don’t appreciate the massive amount of point change that must occur. For that to occur we should be seeing many positive mutations in the population. Instead we are seeing massive information loss mutations in the population. The X-Men just couldn’t happen outside of the movies


http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1

 

[Dragon]

Would you like to provide proof of something complex spontaneously developing itself ?

"Spontaneously developing itself" is the wrong phrase. "Developing without being planned deliberately by a conscious intelligence" is the right one.

All forms of life. Also, the planet Earth. Also, the solar system. Also, anything complex in nature. Complexity does not require intelligence.