The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

This is the point. You "SEE" no such thing. This is completely inferred from your theory, and YET you talk about it as if it were fact. This is DECEIT!What is actually SEEN is better explained on the basis of pre-existing alleles. You have NO evidence that a normal allele was ever created by mutation.

Perfect DNA replication, obviously. This can be judged without reference to the Creator. Even evolutionists call mutations "mistakes" in this process.But despite evidence galore that these mistakes have produced thousands of genetic diseases in human beings as well as apparently only incoherent effects otherwise --that only destroy a previously functioning allele -- you all PRONOUNCE them the means of making functioning alleles (functioning meaning producing something coherent that isn't harmful) and then you call it FACT and talk as if every variation is the result of mutations -- you actually DESCRIBE variations as mutations -- and again, this is DECEIT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK by me to discuss it with you on the other thread. Please don't spend time on mutations though.

I have changed the title to list you and ZenMonkey as the participants: If beneficial mutations truly don't exist then you should have little difficulty demonstrating this during the discussion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Everything's all set for you over at the Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only) thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There is nothing assumed about the differences between humans and chimps. The DNA differences are a fact. Those differences add up to 2% for homologous sequences and 5% if you consider insertions and deletions. If memory serves there are about 60 million differences at the nucleotide level. So are you really telling us that humans are suffering from 60 million genetic diseases? Are you really expecting us to believe that none of those differences are beneficial to humans? It doesn't matter how those differences go there for your argument, by random mutation or by design. The fact still stands that changes in DNA are beneficial and do not necessarily cause disease.Or perhaps you can tell us which differences between humans and chimps could not have been produced by random mutation. How does one determine this?

According to this logic we should find the exact same gene in every species, down to the base. Is this correct? Afterall, any deviation will result in disease, right?

OK. Zen Monkey will have to begin over there, from where he left off here. How can one be expected to demonstrate the nonexistence of something for starters? As well as something that exists only in the minds of evolutionists that they adamantly and automatically insist is real? What a task!The simple fact that alleles exist already AND that you only have bacteria and a few fluke type events along with thousands of genetic diseases and otherwise a lot of coding gobbledygook is plenty of evidence, and about all that is practically possible.

What I'm saying is ASSUMED is that mutations are the source of (all normal) alleles. Excuse me? I'm talking about the KNOWN number of genetic diseases in human beings that you can find listed in various places on the internet. Not a fact, an assumption. If it causes disease or simply nullifies an existing allele it's a mutation.

Huh? NO idea where you get this out of what I said.

I once encountered this term in psychology classCognitive DissonanceI think that sums it up, unless we assert this occur ultimately to 99,99% of all scientists on this specific subject and not to you.

What pre-existing alleles? What are you talking about? What reference are you using to determine if an allele, a trait, or whatever other genetic terminology is normal or not.The term 'normal' can be used in many context. Mutational changes at the DNA is not one of them since mutations have been occuring throughout the life tree for millions of years. There is no way to judge what is 'normal' and what is not 'normal' at this level. All we can do is use preceding genomes to determine what changes have been made. That is because no one is claming that a 'normal' allele is created by mutation and no geneticist uses your convaluted and contrived terminology.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Cognitive dissonance is what I experience here on a routine basis. Argument from authority, pulling rank, another typical way to dismiss the evidence.Most creationist scientists don't agree with the evolutionists and an ordinary intelligent person ought to be able to recognize the problem with treating a mere assumption as if it were a fact. They just don't get the chance. You call it a fact so they believe you, poor things. I too have found it hard to believe that evolutionist scientists are this easily self-deluded, but unfortunately they are.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Proved my point. You rationalize to prove you are right. You are never wrong. Always right. Actually you cannot be wrong. Isn't that right?

All those you see when you sequence DNA. LOTS of them. If it produces a normal trait. You know, something like green eyes or calico fur. Do tell, and you can be sure that evolutionists will use it to describe abnormal events like mistakes in DNA duplication among others. And you have no idea that this is merely an assumption and not a fact, do you? I'd be happy if you'd just start by looking at the sequences of the genomes of that family Bluejay linked to on the other thread, and see if any of the 70 mutations that were found actually code for anything useful. That's right, they have no terminology for what is REALLY going on because they're besotted by evolutionism and ASSUME it in everything they do -- when you do that you insulate yourself from any information that might falsify the assumption -- and that includes the ridiculous assumption that normal functioning alleles are produced by a process that is ACTUALLY known ONLY to produce mistakes, disease, nonfunction and so on....except in bacteria, since they need their beneficial mutations to kill off the rest of creation. (no junk DNA = lots of genetic potentials lost to most of the rest of creation)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.