[_ Old Earth _] Mutation, Evolutions last hope

[caseypayne1980]

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c10a.htm

 

[Quath]

It got some things right and some wrong.

(1) RARE EFFECTSâ€â€Mutations are very rare.
This is true, but sexual reproduction has speed up evolution by allowing for recessive genes to store mutations. So someone may get a mutation, but it is recessive, it is hidden. When that gene matches another recessive version of it (through inbreeding or random chance or with an even less dominant gene, that gene gets to test its mutation.

(2) RANDOM EFFECTSâ€â€Mutations are always random, and never purposive or directed
I agree.

(3) NOT HELPFULâ€â€Evolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.
This one is wrong. We can see mutations help bacteria and viruses to survive and fight off a body's defenses. Mutations could only always hurt if the body were perfect, and we know it is not.

(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS - Nearly all mutations are harmful.
Now they sound like they are backing down from #3. Have they even thought this stuff out?

It goes on to show lab experiments with mutations, which is not the best test of biological evolution. In biological evolution, there is a stable mutation rate that we have to evolve to deal with. If mutation rates were higher, then we would have had to evolve better DNA error checking. If it is too high, then we probably wouldn't get life.

The problem with these papers is they assume they know more about evolution than the 99.9% of biologists that believe evolution to be true. It would mean that somehow a90% of all scientists are too dumb to realize that evolution is false. If you meet some PhD's I assure you that they are not as dumb as web pages like this try to make them out to be.

 

[Barbarian]

(1) RARE EFFECTSâ€â€Mutations are very rare.
This is true, but sexual reproduction has speed up evolution by allowing for recessive genes to store mutations. So someone may get a mutation, but it is recessive, it is hidden. When that gene matches another recessive version of it (through inbreeding or random chance or with an even less dominant gene, that gene gets to test its mutation.

Well, right and wrong. Mutations are quite rare per gene, but there is so much DNA that almost all of us have a few.

Most mutations do very little. A few are harmful. And a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

 

[jwu]

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c10a.htm

Casey, this is about one of the worst sources which you can get. It lists many so called arguments which even creationist organizations like AiG say that they should not be used, and some of the arguments there are just outright idiotic. E.g. the population statistics argument against an old earth is my all time favourite...if one applies the same reasoning to bacteria, then the world cannot be much older than a week.

 

[caseypayne1980]

I thought it was a good read. Notice the mutations they talk about are done in experiments aka wouldn't happen in a real world evironment because the processes they use force a mutation. But this is not evolution.

 

[jwu]

Mutations happen in the wild just as they happen in the lab. In this experiment they merely increased the mutation rate so that it can be performed in a shorter timespan. Of course there is a limit to how far this can be done, but the mutations which happened were not in any way controlled other than being inducted.

I'll reply to the other threads later, i have to leave now.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Mutations happen in the wild just as they happen in the lab. In this experiment they merely increased the mutation rate so that it can be performed in a shorter timespan. Of course there is a limit to how far this can be done, but the mutations which happened were not in any way controlled other than being inducted.

I'll reply to the other threads later, i have to leave now.

No it doesn't, maybe in an organism like the bacteria of the flu, but its still the flu. I read up on oh Mutation was something Darwin did not talk about. Mutation is a new wave idea under Neo Darwinian.

I've read that birds were abserved over time of a shorting of beak. Evolution wants to cry mutation for Micro Evolution. Mutation is what they apparently consider a change in genes by chance, when actually change is just from the use and disuse. They used mutation on the fly to enlarge its wings, spread them apart, shrink them. Still a fly though, and this doesn't happen in the real world or we'd have flys that didn't fly they'd walk. lol

Since Evolution of darwin tree is flase now evolution leans on Mutation as the raw material for its occurance. So Mutation does happen but is it really evolution. Does it really turn a fish into a philosopher or moecules into men?

Three problems I've read on Mutation.

1.) Mathematical challenges. Even evolutionists know about the serious problem in there theory. Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (10^7, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (10^14). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 10^7 x 10^7, or 10^14. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (10^21). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.



What about trying for four related mutations? One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

It was at this level (just four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time. The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanismâ€â€and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.†Genetic variability was “built right into†the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn’t mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.


Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick9 calls such forms “evolutionary cripples.†The mutation typically damages a growth factor, so that the mutationally crippled bacteria can scarcely survive outside the lab. The antibiotic resistance carried by plasmids results from enzymes produced to break down the antibiotic. Such bacteria do not have their growth crippled by mutation. Their resistance is by design.


But why, you might well ask, would God create antibiotic resistance? It’s possible God designed antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and antibiotic production by fungi, to balance the growth of these prolific organisms in the soil. Only after the corruption of creation did some bacteria become disease causers, making antibiotic resistance “inadvertently†a medical problem.


Contrary to popular opinion, drug resistance in bacteria does not demonstrate evolution. It doesn’t even demonstrate the production of favorable mutations. It does demonstrate natural selection (or a sort of artificial selection, in this case), but only selection among already existing variations within a kind. It also demonstrates that when the odds that a particular process will produce a given effect get too low, good scientists normally look for a better explanation, such as the plasmid explanation for resistance to multiple antibiotics.


At this point, evolutionists often say that “Time is the hero of the plot.†That’s what I used to say to my students. “Sure, the odds are low, but there’s all that time, nearly 5 billion years!†But 5 billion years is only about 10^17 seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 10^80 atoms. So even by thewildest “guesstimates,†the universe isn’t old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 10^3,000,000 that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Way back in 1967, a prestigious group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.10 All present were evolutionists, and they agreed, as the preface clearly states, that no one would be questioning evolution itself. The only question was, could mutations serve as the basisâ€â€with natural selectionâ€â€as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the mathematicians: no. Just plain no!

Emotions ran high. After a particularly telling paper by Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, the chairman of the gathering, C. H. Waddington, said, “Your argument is simply that life must have come about by special creation!†The stenographer records, “Schutzenberger: No! Voices: No!†Anything but creation; it wasn’t even fair (in spite of the evidence!) to bring up the word.

Unfortunately, we also have evidence that the transcendent ingenuity and design Denton sees has been marred and scarred. In that sense, mathematics isn’t even the most serious challenge to using mutations as the basis for evolution.

2.) Upward or Downwrd?
Even more serious is the fact that mutations are “going the wrong way†as far as evolution is concerned. Almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality that it causes. Creationists use mutations to explain the origin of parasites and disease, the origin of hereditary defects, and the loss of traits. In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just what we normally expect: tear things down and make matters worse. Using mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order (creation-corruption) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the build up of genetic order (evolution). Clearly, creation-corruption is the most direct inference from the effects of mutations that scientists actually observe.

By producing defects or blocking the normal function of certain genes, mutations have introduced numerous genetic abnormalities into the human population. The hemophilia (bleeders’ disease) that afflicted the royal houses of Europe may have arisen as a mutant of a clotting-factor gene in Queen Victoria, for example; and the dread Tay-Sach’s Disease may have arisen in Czechoslovakia in the 1920’s as a mutation in the gene for producing an enzyme crucial to brain function.


Some people like to call mutations “the means of creation.†But mutations don’t create; they corrupt! Both logically and often observationally, as in the examples above, the ordered state must come before mutations can disorder it. Mutations are real, all right, but they point to a corruption of the created order by time and chance.

As a matter of fact, human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. Fortunately, we don’t show as many defects as we carry. The reason they don’t show up is that we each have two sets of genes, one set of genes from our mothers and another set from our fathers. The “bad genes†we inherit from our mothers’ side are usually covered up by our fathers’ genes, and vice versa. We can see what is likely to happen when an animal is born with only one set of genes.

based on a description in a genetics textbook, represents the rare case of a turkey that was hatched from an unfertilized egg, so it had just one set of chromosomes. The poor bird couldn’t hold its head up; instead, it bobbed up and down from a neurological disorder. The feathers were missing in patches, and it finally had to be transferred to a germ-free chamber because its resistance to disease was so low.

Now here’s the basis for a good horror story. Picture a mirror at the end of a dark hall. You claw your way through the spider webs to reach the mirror, and then you press a button. The mirror then splits you in two halves, so you can see what you would look like if you had only your mother’s genes or only your father’s genes. In the next scene, you’re writhing there in agony, your hair turning white as you fall over backward and die of fright! Unfortunately, that picture exaggerates only slightly what mutations have done to human beings and to the various kinds of plants and animals as well. If it weren’t for having two sets of genes, few of us would be able to survive.


Evolutionists recognize, of course, the problem of trying to explain “onward and upward†evolution on the basis of mutations that are harmful at least 1000 times more often than they are helpful. No evolutionist believes that standing in front of X-ray machines would eventually improve human beings. No evolutionist argues that destruction of the earth’s ozone layer is good because it increases mutation rates and, therefore, speeds up evolution. Evolutionists know that decrease in the ozone layer will increase mutation rates, but they, like everyone else, recognize that this will lead only to increased skin cancer and to other harmful changes. Perhaps a helpful change might occur, but it would be drowned in the sea of harmful changes.


Because harmful mutations so greatly outnumber any supposed helpful ones, it’s considered unwise nowadays (and illegal in many states) to marry someone too closely related to you. Why? Because you greatly increase the odds that bad genes will show up. By the way, you also increase the odds of bringing out really excellent trait combinations. But did you ever hear anybody say, “Don’t marry your first cousin or you’ll have a genius for a child?†They don’t usually say that, because the odds of something bad happening are far, far, far, far, far greater.


That would not have been a problem, by the way, shortly after creation (no problem for Cain and his wife, for example). Until mutations had a chance to accumulate in the human population, no such risk of bad combinations existed. Mutations are often carried as “hidden genes†(recessives) that are difficult to eliminate by selection, so they tend to build up in populations. The build-up of mutations with time poses a serious problem for plants and animals, as well as for human beings, and time, evolution’s “hero,†only worsens the problem of mutational decay.

Geneticists, even evolutionary geneticists, refer to the problem as “genetic load†or “genetic burden†In their textbook on evolution, Dobzhansky et al.12 state clearly that the term is meant to imply a burden that “weighs down†a species and lowers its genetic quality. In an article paradoxically titled “The Mechanisms of Evolution,†Francisco Ayala13 defines a mutation as “an error†in DNA. Then he explains that inbreeding has revealed that mutations in fruit flies have produced “extremely short wings, deformed bristles, blindness, and other serious defects.†Does that sound like “the raw material for evolution?â€Â


It’s not that beneficial mutations are theoretically impossible. Bacteria that lose the ability to digest certain sugars, for example, can regain that ability by mutation. That’s no help to evolution, however, since the bacterium only gets back to where it started, but at least the mutant is helpful.

Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia. Sickle-cell anemia is a disease of red blood cells. Why would anyone call that a beneficial mutation? Well, in certain parts of Africa, the death rate from malaria is quite high. Malaria is caused by a tiny, one-celled organism that gets inside the red blood cells and eats up the hemoglobin. Now, that particular germ doesn’t like sickle-cell hemoglobin. Carriers of one sickle-cell gene produce about half normal and half sickle-cell hemoglobin, and the malaria germ leaves them alone, too. So, carriers don’t get malaria. But the cost is high: 25% of the children of carriers can die of sickle-cell anemia, and another 25% are subject to malaria. If you want to call that a good mutation, you’re welcome to it! It seems doubtful to me that real improvement of human beings would result from accumulating that kind of “beneficial†mutant, and certainly hemoglobin’s ability to carry oxygen was not improved.


The gene for sickle-cell anemia has built up to high levels in certain African populations, not because it is “beneficial†in some abstract sense, but simply because the death rate from anemia in those areas is less than the death rate from malaria. Natural selection is a “blind†process that automatically accumulates genes for short-term survival, even if it reduces the long-term survival of the species. For that reason, evolutionists recognize that natural selection can occasionally lead to “mischievous results†detrimental to genetic quality.

Suppose I told you I had found a way to make cars run uphill without using gasoline. Then, as you watched in eager anticipation, I showed you how applying the brakes would make the car run downhill more slowly. Would you believe I had discovered a means for getting cars to run uphill without fuel? Similarly, natural selection can and does slow the rate of genetic decay produced by accumulating mutations (as it does with sickle-cell hemoglobin), but that hardly proves that mutation-selection produces upward and onward progress!
A better example of favorable mutation might be the one possibly involved in the change from teosinte into corn, as described by Nobel laureate George Beadle.14 But as Beadle points out, the mutation was favorable to people, not to corn.

Corn, he says, is a “biological monstrosity†that could not survive on its own, without man’s special care. There are many other examples of mutations “beneficial†to people: seedless grapes, short-legged sheep, hairless dogs, but these would all be harmful to the organism in its own environment and, hence, harmful in evolutionary perspective.


While taking a graduate course in evolution on his way to a master-of-science degree in biology, one of my graduates asked his professor a simple question during a lecture on mutations as the raw material for evolution: “Would you please give us some examples of beneficial mutations?†After an uncomfortably long pause, the professor finally replied, “I can’t think of any right now, but there must be hundreds of them.†He did not come back to the next class with a listâ€â€but, to his credit, he didn’t try to use sickle-cell anemia to illustrate helpful mutations.


But once again, let me say that it’s not that good mutations are theoretically impossible. Rather, the price is too high. To explain evolution by the gradual selection of beneficial mutations, one must also put up with the millions of harmful mutations that would have to occur along the way. Even though he has been one of the “old guard†defenders of classic neo-Darwinian evolution, Ayala15 faces the problem squarely in his article in the Scientific American book Evolution. He is talking about variation within species (not kind, but species, the smallest possible unit). He says that variation within species is much greater than Darwin postulated. He speaks of such variation as “enormous†and “staggering.†Yet when he gets to the actual figures, the variation is less than I, as a creationist, would have expected. (Ayala did say his figures underestimated the real variation.)

For creationists, all this variation poses no problem at all. If living things were created to multiply and fill the earth, then great variation within kind is simply good design. There would be no price to pay for created variability, since it would result from creation, not from time, chance, and mutation. (Mutations have introduced further variability since creation was corrupted, but it’s the kind of variability a bull introduces into a china shop!)


What problem did Ayala, as an evolutionist, see with all this staggering variability? Just this: for each beneficial mutant a species accumulated, the price would be a thousand or more harmful mutations. When genetic burden gets too great, offspring are so likely to have serious hereditary defects that the ability of the species to survive is threatened.

Time only makes this evolutionary problem worse. Thanks to our accumulated genetic burden, serious hereditary defects are present in perhaps 5% of all human births, and that percentage greatly increases among the children of closely related parents. All of us have some genetic shortcomings, and it’s really only by common consent that most of us agree to call each other “normal.â€Â

Natural selection cannot save us from this awful situation either. Selection can and does eliminate or reduce the worst mutationsâ€â€but only when these mutants come to visible (phenotypic) expression. Most mutations “hide†as recessives, “invisible†to selection, and continue to build up in secret at multiple loci, somewhat like a “genetic cancer†slowly but steadily eating away at genetic quality.

If early evolutionists had known what we know now about mutations, it’s most unlikely that mutations would ever have been proposed as the pathway to evolutionary progress.

# Mutations point back to Creation.
Mathematics and genetic load are huge problems for evolution, but the biggest reason mutations cannot lead to evolution is an extremely simple one. It’s so simple, I’m almost afraid to say it. But really, mutations presuppose creation. After all, mutations are only changes in genes that already exist.

Most mutations are caused by radiation or replication errors. But what do you have to have before you can have a mutation? Obviously, the gene has to be there first, before the radiation can hit it or before it can make a copying mistake. In one sense, it’s as simple as that: the gene has to be there before it can mutate. All you get as a result of mutation is just a varied form of an already-existing gene, i.e., variation within kind.


Genes of the same kind, like those for straight and curly hair or those for yellow and green seeds, arc called alleles. There are over 300 alleles of the hemoglobin gene. That’s a lot ofiation, but all those alleles produce hemoglobin, a protein for carrying oxygen in red blood cells (none better than the normal allele). By concept and definition, alleles are just variants of a given gene, producing variation in a given trait. Mutations produce only alleles, which means they can produce only variation within kind (creation), not change from one kind to others (evolution).

To make evolution happenâ€â€or even to make evolution a scientific theoryâ€â€evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer†to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors†that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all.




Gotta love the AiG research.

 

[Barbarian]

Three problems I've read on Mutation.

1.) Mathematical challenges. Even evolutionists know about the serious problem in there theory. Fortunately, mutations are very rare.

Wrong. Most of us have a few of them.

They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (10^7, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare.

You've been misled. It is rather rare for any particular gene to mutate, but there are a lot of them, and so few organisms have no mutations at all.

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations.

Ah, Hoyle's Folly. The fallacy is in supposing that all of them have to happen in sequence. But they don't. So one can happen, and then a little later, another, and so on. Try this:

Shuffle a deck of cards and deal them out, one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that order is one divided by 52!, which is such a tiny probability that most statisticians would regard it as effectively impossible. Yet you did it, and would do it every time you tried it. Likewise, you are astoundingly improbable. And yet you and card games exist.

It was at this level (just four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time.

Someone's had a little fun with you on that one. In fact, people like Barry Hall are now predicting how mutation will produce new resistance.

The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanismâ€â€and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.†Genetic variability was “built right into†the bacteria.

Um, no. They lied about that, too. There's a very simple test to show why this is false. Start with a bacterium taken from a culture which is sensitive to antibiotic. Take a sample of the bacteria and dilute it so that each colony on a plate from the sample is from one bacterium. Then using a pad of velvet, press gently on the plate to copy the colonies and replate on new ones some of which have antibiotics. You will find some of them have mutated to be resistant, and others have not. In some cases, we have directly observed which mutation caused the resistance.

Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation?

Yep. The orginal bacterium in the study above had no resistance, but mutations in some of the progeny gave rise to resistance.

Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way.

It's a very primitive form of sexual reproduction. That's part of evolution, too. Recombination is a way of speeding evolution up.

Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick9 calls such forms “evolutionary cripples.â€Â

Doctors don't think so. Resistant staph and other bacteria are taking over, and they are currently winning against our best efforts. These supertough bacteria represent a very serious threat.
http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/ ... facts.html

Notice that they are spreading rapidly, taking over from weaker nonmutated strains. "Novick9" doesn't know what he's talking about.

At this point, evolutionists often say that “Time is the hero of the plot.†That’s what I used to say to my students. “Sure, the odds are low, but there’s all that time, nearly 5 billion years!†But 5 billion years is only about 10^17 seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 10^80 atoms. So even by the wildest “guesstimates,†the universe isn’t old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 10^3,000,000 that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse.

Or you, given your great, great grandparents. But here you are. Even if evoluition is random, the argument fails because it's mathematically unsound. But, of course, evolution is not random.

Maybe you should do a little study of probability and think this one over.

 

[Quath]

If all you read were flat earth web pages, you could easily think the world was flat. Check out some evolution pages and see what you think of their article. They can easily show you some of the mistakes in the stuff you cut and paste. For example, with a few minutes search, I found Talk.origin webpage that shows the mutation rate in humans. It shows there are about 1.6 mutations per sperm cell. You can even follow the math they give.

 

[Barbarian]

Because harmful mutations so greatly outnumber any supposed helpful ones, it’s considered unwise nowadays (and illegal in many states) to marry someone too closely related to you. Why? Because you greatly increase the odds that bad genes will show up.

Actually, it's not about mutations. It's about harmful recessives. We all have many of them, because evolutionary theory shows that they should persist in populations at very low levels. And they do. The problem with marrying a close relative is that you greatly increase the likelihood of producing offspring who are homozygous for a harmful recessive.

 

[jwu]

I read up on oh Mutation was something Darwin did not talk about. Mutation is a new wave idea under Neo Darwinian.

Of course he didn't. DNA was discovered about hundred years after Darwin.

Evolution wants to cry mutation for Micro Evolution. Mutation is what they apparently consider a change in genes by chance, when actually change is just from the use and disuse. They used mutation on the fly to enlarge its wings, spread them apart, shrink them.

The surrounding can have phenotypic effects by switching genes on and off, but actual use and disuse have little to do with that. What you're talking about resembles Lamarckism and was disproved long ago.

Still a fly though, and this doesn't happen in the real world or we'd have flys that didn't fly they'd walk. lol

Would you like some examples of beneficial mutations in humans?

Since Evolution of darwin tree is flase now evolution leans on Mutation as the raw material for its occurance.

That sentence doesn't make any sense.

The Barbarian already dealt with the rest ;)

 

[caseypayne1980]

Or you, given your great, great grandparents. But here you are. Even if evoluition is random, the argument fails because it's mathematically unsound. But, of course, evolution is not random.

Maybe you should do a little study of probability and think this one over.

Barbarian the non scientist pledging against evolution scientist that condemn the theory as false teaching of evolution. This is funny stuff. The all knowing Barbaarian. Jwu same goes for you, blind sheep of satan that you follow.

Yes we have tons of mutations in us, and we aint changing a bit. Let me know when ur foot turns hard as a cows or horses. Because your foot should evolve to help you out. Let me know when you grow wings and webbed feet or grow as hairy as an ape. None of which has happened in the writing of man. Over 4k plus years. Mutation is a negative thing that leads to diseases, it does promote improvement in life, but for every improvement there are thousands of deprovements which would cause evolution by mutation to be invalid. Don't be me, thats fine ask an evolution scientist about this. Ask him if the odds are so much against beneficial mutation then how is it possible.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian the non scientist

Actually, my degrees are in science. I'm a biologist.

pledging against evolution scientist that condemn the theory as false teaching of evolution. This is funny stuff. The all knowing Barbaarian. Jwu same goes for you, blind sheep of satan that you follow.

You got misled by people who told you they were Christians. That's unfortunate. But you can get over it.

Yes we have tons of mutations in us, and we aint changing a bit.

Actually, we are. For example, we have some humans who have evolved a rather good resistance to arteriosclerosis. In this particular case, we even know to whom the mutation happened. Would you like to hear about it?

Don't be me, thats fine ask an evolution scientist about this.

I've done graduate work under "evolution scientists." I know what they say, and what evidence they use to support it. You've been had by people you never should have trusted.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Actually, my degrees are in science. I'm a biologist.

At least now I know what your blinder is. Social science and fits right in with finance. Both guessing games, playing with statistics. As for me I'm in an exact science. I have a degree in Accounting and Professional services, because I knew I didn't want to spend my whole life guessing. Will the start market go up or down finance can only be 30% sure. Biology tries to help evolution but none of it is based on hard facts of first hand viewing of time, its all theories, ideas, and assumptions. Finally, all these things get soed into a magical idea that sounds simple, everyone believes and thus you have a strong idea and theory. Though still false. I've seen studies were the scientist did something that pegged young ages and they scrapped there work because hey dinosaurs couldn't live 2 to 6k years ago right? Right so scrape the work and use the numbers of past scientist so you don't look stupid.

Go ahead and tell me scientist follow up on each other as well, and there studies. Since the first guy created the tool that he uses for his misguided guess, the second checkin his work is gonna use that same corrupt instrument.

 

[caseypayne1980]

I've done graduate work under "evolution scientists." I know what they say, and what evidence they use to support it. You've been had by people you never should have trusted.

Your getting a degree around people you shouldn't trust.
Explain to me how evidence of the flood have been found and how the they tested the age of a piece of wood off it dating back around 5k years? And how that fits perfect and how no tree's are near that moutain. Simply can not think against it.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Actually, we are. For example, we have some humans who have evolved a rather good resistance to arteriosclerosis. In this particular case, we even know to whom the mutation happened. Would you like to hear about it?

Mutation is not evolution but yes we have lots of mutations and help us adapt to diseases and such. These mutations do not make us a new creator in any manner. The earth won't be around that long but "if" we lived a billion years the human then would look like the same one now. With enternal changes in defence against disease.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, my degrees are in science. I'm a biologist.

At least now I know what your blinder is.

Normally,knowing about a subject is considered an advantage. But perhaps not for the creationist mindset.

Social science and fits right in with finance.

I doubt very much if you have a "social science" degree. Or a degree of any kind, for that matter. And "finance" (you mean accounting?) requires more than a degree in the social sciences.

Both guessing games, playing with statistics.

Your "social sciences" maybe. I sure wouldn't want my accountant playing guessing games. So far, he's had solid mathematical reasoning behind his advice.

As for me I'm in an exact science. I have a degree in Accounting and Professional services,

I rather doubt that. "Professional services" is the "social science" part, I assume? Accounting isn't regarded as a science at all.

I've seen studies were the scientist did something that pegged young ages and they scrapped there work because hey dinosaurs couldn't live 2 to 6k years ago right?

For that, I'd have to see a checkable source. Show me. My guess is you went to one of those tinfoil hat websites, and never actually read the study.
Show me.

Peer review? Yep. And it works. Remember when National Geographic bought a "feathered dinosaur" fossil? And the paleontologists advised them to wait until after peer review to publish? And they didn't. And when it was checked out, it was a fake, composed of two different (albeit very valuable) specimens. That's the advantage scientists have.

 

[Barbarian]

Explain to me how evidence of the flood have been found

News to me. Tell me about this find.

and how the they tested the age of a piece of wood off it dating back around 5k years?

You're surprised there was wood 5,000 years ago? Show me it came from Noah's Ark, and then you have something.

And how that fits perfect and how no tree's are near that moutain.

I bet if you tried hard you could think of several explanations.

 

[caseypayne1980]

I bet if you tried hard you could think of several explanations.

http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/noahark/laminated.htm

Scan page 1 and 2. The error on page two is when some guy mentioned how it would be impossible for a ship to be on a mountain at 13,000 feet even if both polar caps melted. But what the non bibical scholar doesn't know is that during the flood is when the mountains WERE created nearing the end of the flood. Read in the bible were it talks about the earth moving.


The Ark it's self may never be discovered but pieces of it could be preserved in the icy mountain ranges that are blocked off by the local gov. From what I've researched so far there is two mountains one in turkey and one in Iran that could be holding whats left of it. The stuff I read on the man with the piece of wood was a paid actor, so some claim that soaked a pine tree in sap and heated it to increase its age.