God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Taz]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator. If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

 

[Hollie]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator. If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.

On the other hand, we’re forced to ask about creation of some alleged creator. Otherwise, we’re forced to believe that nothing created the creator.

 

[K9Buck]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator. If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

Simple logic proves it.

 

[K9Buck]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator. If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.

On the other hand, we’re forced to ask about creation of some alleged creator. Otherwise, we’re forced to believe that nothing created the creator.

Something had to come first that did not require a creator. Again, simple logic.

 

[Hollie]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator. If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.

On the other hand, we’re forced to ask about creation of some alleged creator. Otherwise, we’re forced to believe that nothing created the creator.

Something had to come first that did not require a creator. Again, simple logic.

There’s nothing “logical” about an uncreated creator.

 

[Taz]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator. If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

Simple logic proves it.

Simple logic is how they determined that the world was flat.

 

[james bond]

Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.

It means you don't know about tallness. Tallness isn't necessarily better in terms of health. For a man, it is key because women are attracted to taller men.

What it boils down to is the Bible and Romans. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25

We know this because the majority of scientists and people who believe in evolution are atheists. It isn't evolution that drives atheism, but atheism that drives evolution. That's why I state it starts with your faith in no God/gods.

 

[Taz]

Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.

It means you don't know about tallness. Tallness isn't necessarily better in terms of health. For a man, it is key because women are attracted to taller men.

What it boils down to is the Bible and Romans. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25

We know this because the majority of scientists and people who believe in evolution are atheists. It isn't evolution that drives atheism, but atheism that drives evolution. That's why I state it starts with your faith in no God/gods.

I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?

 

[james bond]

But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?

God would not need evolution. He already created natural selection, migration, and genetic drift. What God didn't have in his plan was mutation.

It was evolutionists who created "beneficial" mutations when there were mostly neutral and few bad ones.

 

[james bond]

I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

Yet, you believe in evolution. Most people who support and believe in evolution start out as atheist and liberal. I think you just call yourself agnostic.

Anyway, what many don't believe are humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs, i.e. macroevolution. Microevolution by mutation doesn't happen either, but that's more a deeper science argument that most people avoid. For example, ask an evolutionist to give you an example of beneficial mutation.

 

[Taz]

I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

Yet, you believe in evolution. Most people who support and believe in evolution start out as atheist and liberal. I think you just call yourself agnostic.

Anyway, what many don't believe are humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs, i.e. macroevolution. Microevolution by mutation doesn't happen either, but that's more a deeper science argument that most people avoid. For example, ask an evolutionist to give you an example of beneficial mutation.

So apes existed long before humans came about, and then humans just popped into existence?

 

[james bond]

So apes existed long before humans came about, and then humans just popped into existence?

That's the weird and strange scientific atheism. Humans didn't just pop into existence, but the apes became some strange common ancestor that no one knows what they looked like and have no evidence whatsoever. It was good mutation that did it, but no one has ever seen a good one. This is the evolution of the gaps. They just assumed evolution happened because they said so.

 

[Hollie]

But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?

God would not need evolution. He already created natural selection, migration, and genetic drift. What God didn't have in his plan was mutation.

It was evolutionists who created "beneficial" mutations when there were mostly neutral and few bad ones.

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.

 

[Hollie]

I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

Yet, you believe in evolution. Most people who support and believe in evolution start out as atheist and liberal. I think you just call yourself agnostic.

Anyway, what many don't believe are humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs, i.e. macroevolution. Microevolution by mutation doesn't happen either, but that's more a deeper science argument that most people avoid. For example, ask an evolutionist to give you an example of beneficial mutation.

Most religious extremists are people who simply parrot the dogma they are indoctrinated with.

You should learn the meaning of terms and definitions you don't understand.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or...

www.talkorigins.org

Here's an example of a beneficial mutation.

Examples of Beneficial Mutation

Mutation, a change in the sequence of genes, is divided into various types such as beneficial, harmful, and neutral, based on their effects. We are here to discuss beneficial mutation in detail.

biologywise.com

Here's another from a high school level study course.

Beneficial Mutation | Overview & Examples - Lesson | Study.com

Learn about beneficial mutations. Understand what is a beneficial mutation, how mutations can be beneficial, and see the examples in humans and...

study.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

The "God of the Gaps" concept is a joke! Science can't explain bedrock phenomenon:

• Why does the Earth still have a spinning magnetic core?
• How did something as large as the Moon come into orbit around the Earth
• Why is the Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the Sun's surface?
  • Notice the only time the corona is visible is during a total eclipse and the only reason we have a total eclipse is because we have an impossibly gigantic Moon orbiting the Earth at the perfect size in the sky to perfectly eclipse the Sun

 

[james bond]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

 

[james bond]

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.

Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.

If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land. Mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.

 

[Hollie]

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.

Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.

If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land. Mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.

The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.

If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.

You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.

When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.

 

[james bond]

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.

Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.

If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land. Mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.

The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.

If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.

You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.

When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.

You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations. I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.

Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells. Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell. For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins. They may be larger than the previous version. The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim. I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do. Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet. Why? They're not that type of cells. The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet. Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.

Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .

 

[Hollie]

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.

Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.

If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land. Mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.

The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.

If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.

You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.

When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.

You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations. I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.

Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells. Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell. For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins. They may be larger than the previous version. The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim. I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do. Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet. Why? They're not that type of cells. The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet. Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.

Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .

You could not explain how the beneficial mutations were not, in fact, beneficial mutations so you were left to make unfounded claims.

You made some unfounded claim about cells being preexisting yet that is simply another of your “... because I say”, claims. That is a standard tactic of the hyper-religious / non-scientific types.

News Feature: Genetic mutations you want

To cure disease, researchers are starting to scour the genomes of the abnormally healthy. In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altshuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t...

www.pnas.org

Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection

When beneficial mutations are rare, they accumulate by a series of selective sweeps. But when they are common, many beneficial mutations will occur before any can fix, so there will be many different mutant lineages in the population concurrently. In ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bacteria Show Capacity for Rapid, Beneficial Mutations

Researchers discovered that bacteria can evolve much more efficiently than once thought, which might help develop better ways to treat nasty infections.

news.utexas.edu

Soooo.... here we have additional data from leading science organizations and teaching / research universities refuting your unsourced, “... because I say so” claims. I would have thought you could offer some competing testing and research data from one of your ID’iot creation ministries. However, we both know that ID’iot creation ministries do no research.

Once again we’re left to to the hyper-religious denying science and deny the research data in attempts to protect their sacred cows.