Hello Wardog25,
Sorry to disappoint. I'm only pointing out what I see.
Curiously what you see is irrelevant to reality.
... not from speaking with a creation scientist who is serious about their work.
Strangely, being serious about your work is no guarantee that you are any good at it. The number of people that have claimed to be creationist science type people on this forum can be numbered on one hand, and we generally find that their "science" background is something like engineering or architecture, certainly not in biological sciences.
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.
The problem with statements like this is that they can only be true if you deny all evidence to the contrary. When you consider the numbers of times on this thread that mutations have been shown to produce working results, one is left with either of the following conclusions:
- you don't understand the evidence,
- you deny the evidence show what it shows,
- you haven't really read any of the replies, or
- you are saying this out of some perverted intention, assuming that stating it will make people think you are right
Your conclusion is wrong, so your premise or your logic is wrong.
Point of fact: every mutation is just a random change. There is no need in evolutionary biology for it to be anything other than a random change in hereditary traits, because the rest of the process, selection, is reliable: if an organism is better at survival and reproduction than another then it will survive and reproduce better than the other.
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.
Make it 0.1% beneficial and evolution still works. The disadvantageous mutations will be eliminated each generation, the neutral mutations will survive and reproduce, the beneficial mutations will be better at survival and reproduction than the other organisms in their population and will increase.
If there were no beneficial mutations (as many creationist claim) then you would have stasis.
If only 10% of the offspring from any reproductive cycle survive to breed (those with neutral and the odd beneficial mutation), then this 10% is added to the existing population for the next round of reproduction. As long as this increases the total reproducing population, then evolution will occur. If it doesn't then extinction is likely, and room is made for other species to survive and breed, or some less fit organisms survive to breed that would otherwise perish. Variation within a population means that it is better able to adapt to new or different conditions, branch out into a different ecology.
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).
Well, according to the natural history of life on this planet, it probably would take over 3.5 billion years, assuming that the same kind of random walk occurred, including the millions of years exploring the world of dinosaurs, while mammals sat in the shadows.
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.
LOL. ya gotta love creationist maths. For one, your numbers are ridiculously
LOW, and for two, please consider that no mutation is impervious to later mutation. The other problem you face is that those "benign" mutations are only neutral in their original environment, whereas they can enable the organism to inhabit a new and different environment, at which point they become beneficial. What can be a beneficial mutation in one environment can be a deleterious one in another - and vice versa (can you live underwater?)
So where are they all?
They are all around you -- look at the actual vast variety in the human population.
Not only does the human body seem almost perfectly designed, it's even organized and symmetrical. Why would mutation care about those things?
ROFLOL. Ever compared your picture to the image in a mirror? Ever looked at the distribution of your organs? Do you know for a fact that the arteries and veins are exactly mirrored from one side to the other? Are your hands the same size?
The "organization" is the same for chimps - are they "perfectly designed" as well? How about a cat?
Now I realize that evolutionists point out vestigial organs and say those are the evidence. ... as the years go by, because we discover that they actually have a use.
Having
A use is not the same as having their
original 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)
They are not used for walking, and that is why they are vestigial. That they have a use for mating only means that this is why they have not disappeared completely, as they have in snakes.
Show me a whale that
walks with it's pelvic bones, and you
MAY have an argument. Of course this is rather difficult without legs ...
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.
Except that the creationist "explanation" does not explain the examples of beneficial mutations that exist, while evolution not only explains them, it explains everything the creationist "explanation" claims to explain.
Meanwhile this creationist "explanation" is contradicted, invalidated, and proven false by just ONE (out of the many known) beneficial mutation.
Denial of contradictory evidence does not make your belief valid.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
. The point is that any one of these explanations could be true and life would still evolve. Evolution is, by definition, what happens when you already have life. For evolution to take place all you need is a population of organisms which reproduce with modification and differential reproductive success; it doesn't matter how that life got there.
™ Version 4.2