[_ Old Earth _] God Can Count - Can Evolution?

[Grazer]

Again, you seem to be pitching the choice of evolution or God as an explanation. As I've pointed out this is a flawed choice as they are 2 different categories of explanation. To quote John Lennox;

“To offer people a choice between God and science as explanation is like offering people a choice between Henry Ford and mechanical engineering as an explanation for a Ford motor car! In order to explain it completely, you need an explanation in terms of science and in terms of agency. It is the same with God and the universe.”

You're also appealing to the "God of the gaps" Science/evolution can't explain it therefore God did it. This is a very poor argument, one that was abandoned by Christians years ago for very good reasons.

 

[cupid dave]

The fact that a certain number keeps repeating in nature should be no surprise. Those numbers are the most efficient or otherwise offers the best chances of survival for a species. As an example, we have one mouth because having multiple mouths would be redundant; our single mouth serves its purpose just fine and spending energy on maintaining a second mouth would be wasteful. Another example is eyes. We have two of them, which allows us depth perception. One eye couldn't do that, and more than two would confer no additional advantage.

The species doesn't decide to "count" and copy everyone else in their species. It's genetically coded. Likewise for meiosis. The reason they produce exact numbers of gametes is because that's the most efficient way to reproduce.

They are the same numbers again and again, 3,7,12.

These numbers ARE in God's Book just in order that we would see what Nature does and realize that there is Pattern to nature.

The mind is a Pattern Seeking Device.

Hence, the things Jesus told the apostles but not the common people concerned a cabala that can be deduced by careful reading of the Old Testament.
It ties into the message that Christ is the euphemism for Truth as the saving Ideal of mankind.
Once we understandthe Pattern in nature by revealing the pattern our mind has developed thru evolution as a result of thinking about Nature, we will have the rubric that separates Truth from bad and incomplete ideas we still wonder about.


If we imagine that some fixed pattern has evolved that our mind unconsciously uses to assess the external environment of Nature, then we can relateto this idea.

Organization in, organized thinking out.
Imagine that such an unconscious veiled pattern seeker was at work which used the inputs into the seven sense to channel stimulus into 1w sets of cranial nerves that sent the data to 12 Cortex Functional Areas of the the brain and figured out almost imediately what was the real situation confronting man.
That would explain how we do it.

 

[cupid dave]

Again, you seem to be pitching the choice of evolution or God as an explanation. As I've pointed out this is a flawed choice as they are 2 different categories of explanation. To quote John Lennox;

“To offer people a choice between God and science as explanation is like offering people a choice between Henry Ford and mechanical engineering as an explanation for a Ford motor car! In order to explain it completely, you need an explanation in terms of science and in terms of agency. It is the same with God and the universe.â€

You're also appealing to the "God of the gaps" Science/evolution can't explain it therefore God did it. This is a very poor argument, one that was abandoned by Christians years ago for very good reasons.

Genesis is about Evolution, including Biological evolution in the larger picture of Cosmic Evolution.

Every verse of Genesis is dead right if you are willing to read it intelliegently and with a desire to see the point.

Like the Big Bang WAS the "In the beginning," and the 22 now extinct humans WERE the "22 begats:"

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[Asyncritus]

The Fibonacci Sequence describes a phenomenon, this does not mean that Fibonacci constructed that phenomenon.

You must have misread my post.

My intention was to completely deny that Fibonacci constructed the phenomenon,and that the discoverer was way inferior to the Designer of both the phenomenon AND the discoverer.

But this is way outside the OP's intention too.

We observe mathematical exactness in innumerable phenomena in the living world.

Describing one of them does not exonerate the evolutionist from accounting for their origin. Mutation and NS do not and cannot account for that mathematical exactness.

A description is not an account of the origin, and it is that origin that we are seeking, because evolution is incapable.

Just because you see the word 'design' in a paper does not mean that the phenomenon in question is the work of a supernatural intelligent designer. Nature is infinitely capable of producing structures that are mathematically complex, no supernatural intervention required.

You are denying the work of many astronomers and physicists who observe incredible mathematical precision in the construction of the physical universe, and ascribe it to the work of an Inteligent Designer.

Newton, having discovered the Laws he enunciated did not make the claim that Nature did it. He said effectively that God did it, as you must know.

A stone falls down, under the force of gravity. God, says Newton, created the gravitational laws that pull that stone down. The mathematical exactness of the law shows that its origin is beyond the work of chance.

We observe in the floral formula of every flower equal mathematical precision and exactness. That precision and exactness demonstrates that the phenomenon is beyond the reach of chance - evolution in other words.

 

[cupid dave]

sorry for the double post.​

 

[cupid dave]

For anyone seriously interested in the almost ubiquitous appearance of Fibonacci sequences in nature, this site has a great deal of information explaining why the 'counting' that the OP finds so inexplicable as a natural phenomena isn't so inexplicable after all:

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

God may indeed be a mathematician, but this doesn't mean that he didn't use naturalstic processes to achieve his ends, despite the OP's vision of an interventionist supernatural divinity conforming to a toddler's idea of a God who directly causes effects the toddler cannot imagine a naturalistic explanation for. If this is not the case, perhaps the OP can explain why God could not have used naturalistic processes to produce his desired outcomes, the only supernatural intervention required being the initial creative act that began the Universe?

You hit on the reason for these numbers in nature.

Remeber that Fibonacci reasoned by usingthe idea of a rabbit, having babies.
Since the maturation period of the baby was one month, the rabbits would start multiplying in accord with the series he wrote out, 1,1,2,3,5,...13 etc.

In other words, this is the exact SAME thing that living things do on a cellular bais called mitosis.

(Now don't look for a source for this observation I bring to your attention unless you go to the site where it originated: http://kofh2u.tripod.com/kofh/id45.html​

 

[Grazer]

Genesis is about Evolution, including Biological evolution in the larger picture of Cosmic Evolution.

Every verse of Genesis is dead right if you are willing to read it intelliegently and with a desire to see the point.

Like the Big Bang WAS the "In the beginning," and the 22 now extinct humans WERE the "22 begats:"

Apologies, my comments were in response to Asyn

 

[cupid dave]

1) You are denying the work of many astronomers and physicists who observe incredible mathematical precision in the construction of the physical universe, and ascribe it to the work of an Inteligent Designer.

2) Newton, having discovered the Laws he enunciated did not make the claim that Nature did it. He said effectively that God did it, as you must know..

1) But even here, we see the Pattern pop up in virtually every human sociey that has notoriously group the stars in the Zodiac of 12 with 7 planets roaming thru them and thought to be Gods.

2) God IS the instantaneous creator of nature.
Nature is the present environment of the moment, which the ever unfolding force behind Reality changes eternally by means of His spirit in the Natural Laws at work, invisibly and reliably.

 

[lordkalvan]

You must have misread my post.

I read your post as suggesting that if I didn't think Fibonacci designed the sequence then the only alternative would be a supernatural intelligent designer who designed both.

My intention was to completely deny that Fibonacci constructed the phenomenon,and that the discoverer was way inferior to the Designer of both the phenomenon AND the discoverer.

Well, as you have failed to establish who or what that designer might be, your point is moot at the moment.

But this is way outside the OP's intention too.

Okay.

We observe mathematical exactness in innumerable phenomena in the living world.

Well, we observe natural phenomena that reflect patterns that can be described mathematically, which isn't quite the same thing.

Describing one of them does not exonerate the evolutionist from accounting for their origin.

Actually, there is no obligation on anyone to account to you for the origin of anything. This does not mean that naturalistic explanations are impossible, as in the case of pebble-sorting by wave action and ice crystals.

Mutation and NS do not and cannot account for that mathematical exactness.

Let's grant the 'mathematical exactness' as one thing other than a mantra in this case and that your stated limitations on the evolutionary process (mutation and natural selection) are the only ones we need to consider. Why not?

A description is not an account of the origin, and it is that origin that we are seeking, because evolution is incapable.

They didn't emerge fully-formed in their current incarnations. Did you read the article that discussed why these patterns are advantageous? Evolutionary theory indicates that advantageous traits will be selected for and become dominant. No further explanation required.

You are denying the work of many astronomers and physicists who observe incredible mathematical precision in the construction of the physical universe, and ascribe it to the work of an Inteligent Designer.

Can you cite these 'many astronomers and physicists' and the 'incredible mathematical precision' they observe and then explain why these phenomena cannot be the result of naturalistic processes?

Newton, having discovered the Laws he enunciated did not make the claim that Nature did it. He said effectively that God did it, as you must know.

Newton had several eccentric, not to say bizarre, beliefs. What leads you to suppose Newton was right about the origins of his laws as you assert?

A stone falls down, under the force of gravity. God, says Newton, created the gravitational laws that pull that stone down. The mathematical exactness of the law shows that its origin is beyond the work of chance.

Gravitational forces are a naturalistic consequence of mass. What is this 'mathematical exactness' that cannot be explained naturalistically?

We observe in the floral formula of every flower equal mathematical precision and exactness. That precision and exactness demonstrates that the phenomenon is beyond the reach of chance - evolution in other words.

Not that you have demonstrated.

 

[cupid dave]

I read your post as suggesting that if I didn't think Fibonacci designed the sequence then the only alternative would be a supernatural intelligent designer who designed both.

Well, as you ave failed to establish who or what that designer might be, Yoyr point is moot at the moment.

Okay.

Well, we observe natural phenomena that reflect patterns that can be described mathematically, which isn't quite the same thing.

Actually, there is no obligation on anyone to account to you for the origin of anything. This does not mean that naturalistic explanations are impossible, as in the case of pebble-sorting by wave action and ice crystals.

Let's grant the 'mathematical exactness' as one thing other than a mantra in this case and that your stated limitations on the evolutionary process (mutation and natural selection) are the only ones we need to consider. Why not?

They didn't emerge fully-formed in their current incarnations. Did you read the article that discussed why these patterns are advantageous? Evolutionary theory indicates that advantageous traits will be selected for and become dominant. No further explanation required.

Can you cite these 'many astronomers and physicists' and the 'incredible mathematical precision' they observe and then explain why these phenomena cannot be the result of naturalistic processes?

Newton had several eccentric, not to say bizarre, beliefs. What leads you to suppose Newton was right about the origins of his laws as you assert?

Gravitational forces are a naturalistic consequence of mass. What is this 'mathematical exactness' that cannot be explained naturalistically?

Not that you have demonstrated.

Howard Gardner explained that we have seven Multiple-Intelligences, one of which is Mathematical/Logical Intelligence.

This form of Intelligence has shown that inside our own mind thier is a Pattern which we have been discovering, one defined by the Mathematics which we discover by playing around with math and analyzing what new mathematicalheories follow from those we have already constructed in accord with the twelve (12) Field Postulates.

In other words, once we have accept the premise that allmath is restrained or bound within 12 rules or Field Postulates, we are able to build a lattice of theorems which all follow from those initial constrainrts.
Then, we discover that our math actiually has a Physical relationship with what happens in Nature.

In regard to the Mathematical/Logical Intelligence, this is the PATTERN that I have ppostulated above.

 

[Sparkey]

Some things can not be known until the time that God appoints. There is an appointed time where both He and His saints who love Him will be revealed. But by its very nature, nothing can be revealed unless it is first hidden. The Lord reveals things, not us. We can not hope to accomplish what He prevents. No amount of discussion will "reveal" what God has hidden. God created Darkness. He's the one who hid stuff. This darkness is described as a prison house (in Isa 42:7 and other places) and even though Christians are called to bring people out of it, this simply can not happen without God.

The wit of man won't do it. It doesn't matter how smart we are or how eloquent. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is not the Christian model. God is light. None can come to Him without His call. None can understand without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Rom 1:19-25 KJV - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Consider the "mathematical" inexactness of the stars. I've read that at any given time, there are only 4,000 stars that are visible to the naked eye to all observers on the earth. Now, if (to them) the number of stars fails to declare the glory of God (His 'signature' in the heavens), how can the patterns seen in the earth and small things do more? This is marvelous to those who retain their childlike wonder and awe. Something wrong with adults who consider miracles observed millions of times per day "natural" and ordinary.
____________________________________________________

For those who like intellectual (interdisciplinary) studies - here's something I hope is interesting (thinking of you, LK). Margaret Wertheim: The beautiful math of coral found on Ted Talks:
http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_wertheim_crochets_the_coral_reef.html

It could be said that sea slugs and coral reefs and lettuce know more about hyperbolic math than I do. Of course this anthropomorphic carving isn't God, it is an (false) attempt to apply human attributes to things found in nature. Still, invisible things --clearly seen, do declare God.

 

[Barbarian]

It could be said that sea slugs and coral reefs and lettuce know more about hyperbolic math than I do.

If you've ever caught an outfield fly, your brain knows far more about conic sections and integration than that.

 

[Adam]

Howard Gardner explained that we have seven Multiple-Intelligences, one of which is Mathematical/Logical Intelligence.

Gardner's model has 8 intelligences and he considered adding a ninth.

 

[Adam]

Genesis is about Evolution, including Biological evolution in the larger picture of Cosmic Evolution.

Every verse of Genesis is dead right if you are willing to read it intelliegently and with a desire to see the point.

Like the Big Bang WAS the "In the beginning," and the 22 now extinct humans WERE the "22 begats:"

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

There are 29 extinct species.

None of them are spoken of in the bible.

 

[Barbarian]

Again, if you are evolution's prize representative on the forum, evolution's inability to answer simple questions is demonstrated once more.

As you learned, the numbers are rather clearly caused by genetic information, and the occasional mutation changes them. All natural, as God intended.

As pointed out above, there is definite, distinct, mathematically exact patterning being demonstrated in the plant AND animal kingdoms.

Hox genes show that the patterns change in the process of evolution. Would you like to learn more about it?

Mathematical exactness is contrary to all evolutionary premises.

Sounds interesting. Let's start at the beginning. Show us how Darwin's four basic principles say that mathematical exactness is forbidden. Then we can go on to more recent discoveries.

A random process cannot produce consistent, mathematically exact results.

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random.

Variation is inevitable if evolution is really the process which has produced the angiosperms.

Which is what we see. If you take the Bible literally, no land animal can have more than 14 alleles for any given gene locus (the "clean" ones, with seven pairs on the Ark). And yet we see most gene loci with dozens of alleles. Variation by mutation and natural selection.

The statisticians will tell you that very forcibly.

So will biologists. Lots of variation.

Plants counting in threes (as in the monocots), in fours and fives (as in the dicots).

Except clover, which is a dicot, and only rarely has four leaves, usually with three. Variation. Want to learn about some more?

All mitotic and meiotic divisions producing mathematically exact multiples of the chromosome complement in the parent cell: n X1 in the case of mitosis, and n x 0.5 in the case of meiosis.

Actually, that isn't quite true, either. Something like one human in 150 has a chromosome abnormality.

I call your attention to the fact that these two processes are fundamental to all life. If those multiples were incorrect, then life as we know it could not continue.

Wrong. Often aneuploidy is fatal. But often it is not. Want to learn about some examples?

All creatures have an exact chromosome complement: any variation producing deformity or death.

That's wrong, too. Mammals are rarely polyploid, but horses, for example, have different numbers of chromosomes. Plants are frequently polyploid. There's nothing magic about chromosome number; it just needs to be consistent so the same genes get passed on to each cell.

That is mathematically exact counting

It's just nature. No different than snowflakes having their particular symmetry.

Now it should be obvious that a cell could not have figured out those mathematically exact ratios by itself.

Snowflakes can't either. So it can either be magic or laws of nature.

Mathematical exactness is a death blow for evolution.

The findings of geneticists seem to show it's a requirement for evolution.

But consider also, the fact that the human genome contains approximately 3.9 BILLION bits of information - and every time a cell divides, mitotically or meiotically, that amount of information is copied precisely and exactly.

If we had 3.9 billion chromosomes, that would be a problem, wouldn't it? But we only have 23 pairs. A much more manageable number.

Meiosis re-arranges some of it along the chromosomes - but the AMOUNT of information is static, and copied exactly.

Not exactly. Precisely. We all have copying errors.

This is a pair of processes which cannot have evolved by mutation and natural selection.

Show us that. Sounds like it would be quite easily evolved. But let's look at your evidence.

Such counting precision is beyond the reach of chance, and therefore of evolution.

As you learned, Darwin discovered it wasn't about chance.

It fails to account, again, for another monumental feature of living creatures.

Well, let's see the evidence, just to be sure, um?

 

[lordkalvan]

Some things can not be known until the time that God appoints. There is an appointed time where both He and His saints who love Him will be revealed. But by its very nature, nothing can be revealed unless it is first hidden. The Lord reveals things, not us. We can not hope to accomplish what He prevents. No amount of discussion will "reveal" what God has hidden. God created Darkness. He's the one who hid stuff. This darkness is described as a prison house (in Isa 42:7 and other places) and even though Christians are called to bring people out of it, this simply can not happen without God.

The wit of man won't do it. It doesn't matter how smart we are or how eloquent. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is not the Christian model. God is light. None can come to Him without His call. None can understand without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.



Consider the "mathematical" inexactness of the stars. I've read that at any given time, there are only 4,000 stars that are visible to the naked eye to all observers on the earth. Now, if (to them) the number of stars fails to declare the glory of God (His 'signature' in the heavens), how can the patterns seen in the earth and small things do more? This is marvelous to those who retain their childlike wonder and awe. Something wrong with adults who consider miracles observed millions of times per day "natural" and ordinary.
____________________________________________________

For those who like intellectual (interdisciplinary) studies - here's something I hope is interesting (thinking of you, LK). Margaret Wertheim: The beautiful math of coral found on Ted Talks:
http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_wertheim_crochets_the_coral_reef.html

It could be said that sea slugs and coral reefs and lettuce know more about hyperbolic math than I do. Of course this anthropomorphic carving isn't God, it is an (false) attempt to apply human attributes to things found in nature. Still, invisible things --clearly seen, do declare God.

Thought-provoking points and an entirely fascinating link. Thanks. As you would expect, I disagree with the implications you draw, but appreciate the elegance with which you have expressed them.

 

[Asyncritus]

Let me put paid to this piece of nonsense which you continually parrot:

[...].As you learned, Darwin discovered it wasn't about chance.

"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance." (THE BLIND WATCHMAKER; 1986)

Amazing stupidity:

"Whereas people used to think of meaning coming from on high and being ordained from the top down, now we have Darwin saying, No, all of this design can happen, all of this purpose can emerge from the bottom up, without any direction at all." (http: //216.92.11.9/portal/Daniel_Dennett/)

Sounds like chance to me!

Even more amazing stupidity:

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm

[FONT=&quot]"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

[/FONT] Sounds like chance to me!

But what the hey, that's only Dawkins, Dennett and 38 Nobel Laureates. What do they know about what Darwin said?

You certainly know better. Don't you?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, Darwin discovered it wasn't about chance.

"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance."

Even Dawkins admits that the process isn't by chance, as you inadvertently admitted here. Your argument is like saying a top salesman was just lucky because he happened to find people ready to buy.

If you tossed a coin a hundred times, but only counted the heads that appeared on odd tosses, would the result be random? No, it wouldn't. Nor is the natural selection of random mutations a random process, which is what Dawkins is admitting in your quote.

Async admits:

Amazing stupidity

No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.

Even more amazing stupidity:

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm

"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Sounds like chance to me!

Well, that might be stupid. Many unguided unplanned processes are not random. And a random process, winnowed by a non-random process, is not random. I gave you an example, above.

But what the hey, that's only Dawkins, Dennett and 38 Nobel Laureates. What do they know about what Darwin said?

They actually read what he wrote. So they have a considerable advantage on you.

You certainly know better. Don't you?

Surprise.

 

[Grazer]

It seems were not the only ones discussing this:

http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249&Itemid=124

Would love to go

 

[Asyncritus]

There are 29 extinct species.

None of them are spoken of in the bible.

I think you might with profit look at this link:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm

The author shows that the human mutation rates are simply too high, and in fact, regression rather than advancement is the more likely scenario.

If it takes 40 births per female to simply keep up with the deleterious mutations, then it is impossible for the human race to survive. One author said species extinction, rather than advancement is the more likely scenario.

Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates

Fred Williams
April 2000*
(Featured in Creation Digest, Autumn 2002)​

[An abridged and updated version is available here (April 2003)]​

Abstract​

Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry. Over the last 20 years, studies have shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3. These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting evidence.

Exposing the cards​

Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later).
What is not adequately conveyed to the reader is just how bad this problem is for evolution. It is related to the renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's reproductive cost problem that Walter Remine so eloquently elucidated in "The Biotic Message"4. What we will determine is how many offspring are needed to produce one that does not receive a new harmful mutation during the reproduction process. This is important since evolution requires "beneficial" mutations to build up such that new features and organs can arise (I say "beneficial" loosely, since there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome, though there are some that under certain circumstances can provide a temporary or superficial advantage to a species5). If over time harmful mutations outpace "beneficial" ones to fixation, evolution from molecules-to-man surely cannot occur. This would be like expecting to get rich despite consistently spending more money than you make.
So, to determine the reproductive impact, let
p = probability an individual's genome does not receive a new defect this generation
A female is required to produce two offspring, one to replace herself and her mate. So, she needs to produce at least 2/p to pay this cost and maintain the population. Let B represent the birth threshold:
B = 2/p
The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution,
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female!
What pray tell does this mean? What are the authors failing to make crystal clear? It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! A rate less than 10 means certain genetic deterioration over time, because even the evolutionist's magic wand of natural selection cannot help (in fact Eyre-Walker & Keightley had already factored in natural selection when they arrived at a rate of 1.6)
Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7).
Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get:
B = 2e^3 = 40 births before we get one offspring that escapes a new defect!

Now that's a serious problem - ANOTHER serious problem, I would say.