Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

You are terribly confused over evolution. Evolution isn't random. There are two random elements to it. In one case mutations are random in relation to fitness--not in occurrence as they are probabilistic events. Neutral drift is also a random process expected by genetics. Natural selection is quite clearly not random.If you want to criticize evolution I would suggest you first take the time to understand the science.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Larry, I understand the theory quite well. In a nutshell, NeoDarwinism is

​

1) random mutation
2) natural selection

---

Actually that is quite insufficient. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. This is done through a series of processes including:
Natural Selection
Genetic Drift
Recombination
Mutation
Lateral Gene TransferThe processes of evolution are quite diverse and occur in a variety of circumstances largely dicated by the environment a population lives in and the stability or instability of that environment. Your description is both innaccurate in that it doesn't fully describe the mechanisms of evolution as well as insufficient.

quote:

---

It is a fundamental tenet of NDT that non-random, adaptive mutations do NOT occur.

---

And you completely missed the point. Drift is random in what it selects (of neutral traits), but a well understood and predictable process from a probability standpoint. Mutations are random in relation to fitness, not just random. Random in relation to fitness means that they occur randomly in relation to the affect on the likelihood for reproduction--not that the occurrence of mutations is random.Your repeatedly use only by chance or by random occurrences and this is simply incorrect. Random is used in specific context and the does not make the entire process random.You should do some basic reading on the subject that is based on the peer reviewed literature before assuming to understand what you are discussing. Louann Miller provides a good list of reasons why here:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun99.htmlOn randomness in evolution see:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.htmlOn the basics of evolutionary biology:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.htmlNow, each of the above is based in peer review literature and has the appropriate citations. Before claiming they are wrong, you need to explain why and cite sources from the scientific literature that agree with that explanation.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
1) There is not a geneticist in the world who believes 1 in 100 mutations are beneficial. It’s hard enough for geneticists to come up with even one compelling example of a mutation that is beneficial to a population.

---

Then what literature have you read? I'm curious because it is rather trivial to find.For beneficial mutations and modern rates of mutations please see:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.htmlSpecific mutation rates are in Appendix OneHaldane's Dilemna hasn't been a dilemna for some time:Essentially ReMine and some other creationists misinterpret the problem. If Haldane's conditions are met, that is a speed limit, but many of those conditions often aren't met or aren't present: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=beneficial+mutations+haldane&hl=en&rnum=2&selm=903tsu%24ih1%241%40darwin.ediacara.orghttp://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rnum=6&selm=ze1DO78dRvWkDx1kJirmliNwPK%3D5%404ax.comCheers,
Larry

fred: Larry, I’m not interested in your condescending remarks about what evolution teaches.
And I'm not interested in your misrepresentations of science. If you stop doing that the condescension will stop. Not condescending to one who is clearly not interested in an honest dialogue concerning what scientists actually state is very hard given they are in need of being corrected.
fred: I am interested in science.
No, you are interested in apologetics.fred: I posted some evidence that runs counter to your theory in another thread. Here again is the link:And I responded to it. Essentially you are making an argument that we don't fully understand the rates as they are found in one article. This isn't a falsification it is an appeal to the God of the Gaps.
fed: I welcome your comments on it, not side shows and links to the great and wonderful Talk.Origins.
Which also contains citations to the peer reviewed work and highlights the blatant misrepresentations you made about evolution. Either you understand or you don't. If you do understand it, you are misrepresenting it. That isn't exactly something to be proud of.
fred: I’ve read most if not all the FAQs there. I am also well-read in population genetics.
ROTFL.
fred; So stop sending me to Talk.Origins and let’s discuss science.
Then stop making up what evolution claims. Understand? When you lie about what the theory of evolution states, as you have, you will be corrected. Understand?
fred: I don’t have much time to spend on boards, so if you keep up with this rhetoric you going to end up talking to air.
Why is that a threat to me? It sounds more like a predecessor to you pulling the famed creationist disappearing act. Now if you don't like being called for misrepresenting the literature, DON'T MISREPRESENT IT?fred: Regarding your claim that Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, I discuss that here:
That isn't all I said now was it? The definition is what I quoted. Then I provide a list of mechanisms in evolution and a link to a good layman's level description that specifically refutes your claim that the essence of evolution is only random mutation and blind selection. Instead of responding substantively to being caught in a misrepresentation you whine.Your evidence to date is nothing but pointing out the complexity of mathematical models and claiming that this is a refutation of common descent. It isn't a refutation it is an area we don't fully have answers for. Nothing you have presented even resembles a scientific theory of creation and indeed your claims regarding it fit whatever you find.Cheers,
Larry