A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument

Maybe you could drop the accusations as well. I began studying this subject with a very open mind in search of the truth. In fact, I started this with a "creationist bias" and found it seriously lacking - downright false. I am not offended that you hold a creationist perspective or believe in a recent creation, but to suggest that the only reason I or anyone else accepts the ToE is because of some inherent bias and not because we have studied it in depth and have come to an honest conclusion IS offensive.Now enough of this, back to the topic...If you concede that mutations are involved and that genetic diversity does increase due to mutation, then maybe we should focus on the nature of mutations and what we know about mutations. But in order to be this "never-failing" process, there would need to be some type of foreknowledge of what result any particular mutation would produce. What cellular process would "know" that? Much more complicated than that. I could give an example of how a gene works to produce a phenotypic effect, but it is not a quick and easy subject. "something that works" is incredibly vague. What if you have a gene product that represses activity at another site and a mutation makes that gene no longer functional. Would that "do something" or would it be a "dud?" - a disabled, dead gene? It would release activity at the target site allowing expression of that gene.One thing about biochemical process is that they work by a cascade of events, one event triggering another event, triggering another, etc. It becomes a network or processes, not individual effects.If you are interested in what we know about what causes mutations and what types of mutations we know about, we could discuss that, but it is not an easy subject.Or maybe you want me to explain better how molecular markers are used and what they mean?HBD

This is such faulty logic. Is the system precise or imprecise? How is the imprecise system not evidence that the Creator is also imperfect? You have never observed a "perfect" system, so you have no standard with which to compare this present "imperfect" system. Maybe this system is the "perfect" system. A leading question based on a false dichotomy. Mutations introduce variation; variation is necessary to survival. A beautiful and effective system. Unless you consider a static, unchanging world to be perfection... I don't. Life was designed to thrive, to persevere, to overcome. What am amazing system life is!!HBD

Something you may not be aware of, but in organic chemical reactions there are often (usually) impurities (side reactions) produced just because of the nature of organic chemical interactions. This is way beyond what we can cover here, but even this "chemical logic" is imperfect. Basically, it has to do with reaction energies and stochastic processes and though one product may be highly favored, other products occur simply by chance.In Organic Chemistry, when we drew a chemical reaction, we also had to also specify what side products were likely to be produced and in what proportion based on reaction energies.HBD

But DNA replication is not perfect, is it? SO it doesn't follow that everything should be perfect and without stochastic processes. But there is no evidence that He DID do such a thing. It is something you are making up. But that is assuming that the way life works is a "mistake."But this is all off topic - a distraction. Even if everything was created perfect as you suggest, we are discussing how things work NOW. Even if it is true that the fall is responsible for stochastic processes, they still exist NOW. Perhaps the fall put the processes of evolution into motion, but those processes ARE at work now, so if we want to understand biology, we study evolution.HBD

But you are not really answering anything, you are just making stuff up. Which is saying "making stuff up." There is no evidence of a mechanism that produces "reliable mutations." That is not the evidence. That is an exaggerated, misrepresentation of reality. That is not evidence either, but an opinion. And I did not impute error or incompetence to God, I said that what you think are errors and mistakes are not really so.So, the idea is that alleles increased by 350% in the dog kind by some unknown "reliable mutation" mechanism which then suddenly stop functioning and began making mistakes. This requires that this mechanism knows how to make mutations by intentionally manipulating nucleotides. To say I'm skeptical is an major understatement.HBD

There is a difference between looking at the evidence and saying this suggests such and such and saying things that go against the evidence because one has a preconceived notion about what the conclusion should be. Not only is there no evidence that there is a mechanism that can produce "reliable mutations" but there is evidence about how mutations ARE produced. There is not evidence that supports the idea that the original creation was perfect in the way you are describing it; that is an assumption you have based on preconceived idea of what perfect means (actually the Bible says the original creation was "very good" which is not the equivalent of perfect).You are free to speculate, I don't see a problem with that, but those speculations are hardly evidence against criticisms of your genetic depletion hypothesis.HBD

Yes! Excellent way to put it. Discussions like these are meant to challenge our preconceived ideas as is the scientific process in general. "Making stuff up" is answering criticisms of your preconceptions without having to actually address those preconceptions.