EvC Forum: What i can't understand about evolution....

I don’t want to be offensive and start a mud-slinging contest here, but I think, if you study a little bit more, you’ll find that it’s the creationists who really don’t fathom their own point of view.

And, it never ceases to amaze me how many clueless people say exactly what you just said. I’m a little surprised to hear it from you, because you certainly don’t strike me as one of them.

Sorry to disappoint. I'm only pointing out what I see. How many times have I seen people in this thread mention things like "blind faith without reason". That would be the viewpoint someone would get from watching "The Simpsons", not from speaking with a creation scientist who is serious about their work.

I would like to point out the neither “reliability” nor “healthiness” is required of mutation. Mutation is simply a random generator that produces hundreds of random, small changes each generation, some subset of which get passed on.

If mutation is the primary mechanism of change for evolutionists, it had better be reliable.

Lack of reliability is the reason scientists have trouble demonstrating it. If you subject fruit flies to radiation to get them to evolve, it is far easier to kill off the entire strain than to get them to change.

There lies the problem with the Theory of Evolution's primary mechanism. It doesn't work.

Scientists have been watching fruit flies for 100 or-so years. Yes, they have documented thousands of mutations. Of those, the vast majority are either detrimental or benign. A few are claimed to be beneficial. Not many can you even make an argument that they would give the fruit flies any survival benefit.

Here is the problem with those results when you try and compare them to the evolutionary model: As an example, assume that 10% of the mutations that are passed on are "beneficial" mutations (EXTREMELY generous from the numbers I've seen). That would mean 90% are benign (they give no advantage or disadvantage). The detrimental mutations cause the organism to die off (according to evolutionists), so they aren't passed on.

How many beneficial mutations would it take for something the size of a virus to become a human? 1 million? 1 billion? (Remember these are MINUSCULE changes, we are talking about. The men who were studying the flies said 1000 of these mutations would not even make a new species of fly). I will use 1 million just for a round number, though I'm sure it's more. So if evolution from virus to human produced 90% benign mutations and 10% beneficial, that means a human should have some 9 million "benign" mutations.

So where are they all? Not only does the human body seem almost perfectly designed, it's even organized and symmetrical. Why would mutation care about those things?

Now I realize that evolutionists point out vestigial organs and say those are the evidence. But they find a meager few per organism when you shouldn't even have to look hard. If your evolutionary mechanism matched up with fruit fly mutation that has been observed, the human body should be a TREASURE TROVE of vestigial structures.

Yet all evolutionists can scrape up is a handful, and even those are "disappearing" as the years go by, because we discover that they actually have a use. (i.e. someone brought up the "vestigial" pelvic bones in whales earlier in this thread, but those are used in mating, so they are not vestigial)

Oddly enough

, the results of the fruit fly mutation experiment are exactly what you would expect if the creation model is true. The EXTREME majority of mutations were negative or benign, supporting the creationist viewpoint that all organisms STARTED essentially perfect and are slowly deteriorating. Not the other way around as evolutionists suggest.

5 online now:	AZPaul3, kjsimons, Omnivorous, PaulK, Percy (Admin)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0