Evolution, one more argument against

[Aussie Pete]

Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.

 

[SilverBear]

Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.

well let's say that one beneficial mutation occurs in each species somewhere on the planet, if we accept that just 1 in 1000 survive the repair process then we get one mutation per species every 1000 years.


Of course evolution is not completely dependent on mutation for advancement


The first known form of biological life lived 3.5 billion years ago 3,500,000,000 years ago.
the exact number of species that has lived on earth can only be guessed at. extrapolating from the number of species alive today and given that 99% of all species are extinct. We can get an estimate of 12127500000000 total species

doing a little math indicates that since the first life there have been 12,127,500,000 or just over 12 billion beneficial mutations that have survived. This is assuming that the CNA repair process has been consistent for the entire history of Earth, In all likely hood this is not the case and it is only in more recent times that the repair rate has gotten as high as it has if we guess that the repair mechanism start at a quarter of the efficiency that it enjoys today that would bring the total number of survivable beneficial mutations life on Earth has seen to 909,562,500,000,000,000,000 or about 900 septillion such mutations

 

[trophy33]

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process.

1 in 1000 is not 0 in 1000.

Therefore, life is not designed to prevent evolution, but to make it to be relatively slow (because of obvious reasons).

 

[sfs]

Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.

Holy cow was that a dumb article. We've had a pretty good idea of what the mutation rate is in various species for decades. What the article cites is various pieces of research (done by scientists, of course, not by creationists) expanding our understanding of why the mutation rate is what it is.

As for the mutation rate, it may be that less than 1 in 1000 mutations survive the repair process, but that still amounts to roughly 75 new mutations for every human birth (to take an example near home). If our ancestral population size was 100,000, that means there were 7.5 million mutations every generation. That's 300 million mutations every thousand years and 300 billion mutations every million years, which is roughly the time scale for substantial evolution occurs in mammals. Among other things, that gives the opportunity for every single base in the genome to have mutated many times. And if only 1 mutation in a million is beneficial (which is a ridiculously low estimate), that's still 300,000 beneficial mutations every million years.

Also, why are you posting this here? This forum is for discussion of theistic evolution, not for bad scientific arguments against evolution.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Holy cow was that a dumb article. We've had a pretty good idea of what the mutation rate is in various species for decades. What the article cites is various pieces of research (done by scientists, of course, not by creationists) expanding our understanding of why the mutation rate is what it is.

As for the mutation rate, it may be that less than 1 in 1000 mutations survive the repair process, but that still amounts to roughly 75 new mutations for every human birth (to take an example near home). If our ancestral population size was 100,000, that means there were 7.5 million mutations every generation. That's 300 million mutations every thousand years and 300 billion mutations every million years, which is roughly the time scale for substantial evolution occurs in mammals. Among other things, that gives the opportunity for every single base in the genome to have mutated many times. And if only 1 mutation in a million is beneficial (which is a ridiculously low estimate), that's still 300,000 beneficial mutations every million years.

Also, why are you posting this here? This forum is for discussion of theistic evolution, not for bad scientific arguments against evolution.

Because theistic evolution is a crock also.

 

[Aussie Pete]

well let's say that one beneficial mutation occurs in each species somewhere on the planet, if we accept that just 1 in 1000 survive the repair process then we get one mutation per species every 1000 years.


Of course evolution is not completely dependent on mutation for advancement


The first known form of biological life lived 3.5 billion years ago 3,500,000,000 years ago.
the exact number of species that has lived on earth can only be guessed at. extrapolating from the number of species alive today and given that 99% of all species are extinct. We can get an estimate of 12127500000000 total species

doing a little math indicates that since the first life there have been 12,127,500,000 or just over 12 billion beneficial mutations that have survived. This is assuming that the CNA repair process has been consistent for the entire history of Earth, In all likely hood this is not the case and it is only in more recent times that the repair rate has gotten as high as it has if we guess that the repair mechanism start at a quarter of the efficiency that it enjoys today that would bring the total number of survivable beneficial mutations life on Earth has seen to 909,562,500,000,000,000,000 or about 900 septillion such mutations

The maths depends on unproveable the assertion that the earth is billions of years old.

 

[sfs]

Because theistic evolution is a crock also.

If it were a crock, you'd think someone would be able to come up with a reasonable argument against it, wouldn't you? If it's so obviously a crock, why are you posting arguments like this, which are only convincing to those who don't know anything about the subject?

 

[eleos1954]

Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.

Theistic evolution, also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution, is a general term comprising views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

What the Bible says about creation and what science says about creation are incompatible ... the belief compromises His Word in regard to divine creation (6 days).

Indeed we have collected data ... but ... evolutionists interpret that data excluding the possibility of intelligent design so it is the only thing they consider and that being we evolved from animals.

We were created in His likeness ... not that of the animals.

Theistic evolution compromises His Word as it is written .... period.

God speaks things into existence and it happens .... He did create marvelous genetic systems that produce variations within family kinds ... so that reproduction can occur ... but He placed limitation on how that is allowed to occur through His genetic code.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Theistic evolution, also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution, is a general term comprising views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

What the Bible says about creation and what science says about creation are incompatible ... the belief compromises His Word in regard to divine creation (6 days).

Indeed we have collected data ... but ... evolutionists interpret that data excluding the possibility of intelligent design so it is the only thing they consider and that being we evolved from animals.

We were created in His likeness ... not that of the animals.

Theistic evolution compromises His Word as it is written .... period.

God speaks things into existence and it happens .... He did create marvelous genetic systems that produce variations within family kinds ... so that reproduction can occur ... but He placed limitation on how that is allowed to occur through His genetic code.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Personally, I think "theistic evolution" is an oxymoron.

 

[Aussie Pete]

If it were a crock, you'd think someone would be able to come up with a reasonable argument against it, wouldn't you? If it's so obviously a crock, why are you posting arguments like this, which are only convincing to those who don't know anything about the subject?

You will note (I hope) that I said that the article is one more argument against evolution. How many do you want? Bombardier beetle? A parasitic wasp that's learned how to bypass a spider's protective defence network? How many wasps died in an attempt to attack the spider? How did that learned behaviour get passed onto the next generation of wasp? My dad was a boxer. I could not fight my way out of a paper bag.

How about fruit trees that are fertilised by just one kind of wasp? How did the tree survive until the wasp somehow realised that it was supposed to burrow into the fruit? If there was no fertilisation, there would be no tree. If there was no tree, there would be no wasp.

I've pasted links to my sources from time to time. There is a vast amount of information available that destroys the evolution myth.

 

[SilverBear]

How about fruit trees that are fertilised by just one kind of wasp? How did the tree survive until the wasp somehow realised that it was supposed to burrow into the fruit? If there was no fertilisation, there would be no tree. If there was no tree, there would be no wasp.

this is actually evidence for evolution LINK

 

[sfs]

You will note (I hope) that I said that the article is one more argument against evolution. How many do you want?

Just one, but it has to be a good one. I've been seeing bad ones for decades but never yet a good one.

Bombardier beetle?

Ow. That one combines inanity with outright lying by a professional creationist. You can read about it here.

A parasitic wasp that's learned how to bypass a spider's protective defence network? How many wasps died in an attempt to attack the spider?

And how many succeeded despite the network (whatever that might be)? Without details it's impossible to judge the argument.

I've pasted links to my sources from time to time. There is a vast amount of information available that destroys the evolution myth.

And I've read large amounts of it. Everything I've seen is a mix of falsehood, misrepresentation about the actual claims of evolutionary biology, and illogic. Most of them are just plain dumb. Forget masses of arguments: present one good argument that will stand up to scrutiny and that you'll stand behind.

More relevant to this thread... You presented an argument here that was misleading at best. It claimed that there aren't enough mutations to explain evolution. That's wrong; in reality, there are far more mutations in every species than are needed to explain their evolution. You haven't defended the argument, nor have you retracted it. Do you care whether what you say is true or not?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Just one, but it has to be a good one. I've been seeing bad ones for decades but never yet a good one.

Ow. That one combines inanity with outright lying by a professional creationist. You can read about it here.

And how many succeeded despite the network (whatever that might be)? Without details it's impossible to judge the argument.

And I've read large amounts of it. Everything I've seen is a mix of falsehood, misrepresentation about the actual claims of evolutionary biology, and illogic. Most of them are just plain dumb. Forget masses of arguments: present one good argument that will stand up to scrutiny and that you'll stand behind.

More relevant to this thread... You presented an argument here that was misleading at best. It claimed that there aren't enough mutations to explain evolution. That's wrong; in reality, there are far more mutations in every species than are needed to explain their evolution. You haven't defended the argument, nor have you retracted it. Do you care whether what you say is true or not?

The truth stares every evolutionist in the face every time they open their eyes. Evolution is impossible. There is no mechanism to explain it. The code for every creature is embedded. It does not "just happen". And the code does not change enough to produce a new species. Adapt, yes. Evolve, no.

To start with a reptile and end up with a mammal is not possible. The only argument that evolutionists present is that evolution is true so mammals evolved. Everything else is just fluff and puff.

 

[sfs]

The truth stares every evolutionist in the face every time they open their eyes. Evolution is impossible. There is no mechanism to explain it. The code for every creature is embedded. It does not "just happen". And the code does not change enough to produce a new species. Adapt, yes. Evolve, no.

To start with a reptile and end up with a mammal is not possible. The only argument that evolutionists present is that evolution is true so mammals evolved. Everything else is just fluff and puff.

All I see is a string of assertions. I take it this means that no, you don't have any arguments against evolution that you're prepared to stand behind.

 

[SilverBear]

The truth stares every evolutionist in the face every time they open their eyes. Evolution is impossible. There is no mechanism to explain it. The code for every creature is embedded. It does not "just happen". And the code does not change enough to produce a new species. Adapt, yes. Evolve, no.

To start with a reptile and end up with a mammal is not possible. The only argument that evolutionists present is that evolution is true so mammals evolved. Everything else is just fluff and puff.

how mammals evolved

 

[Buzzard3]

The truth stares every evolutionist in the face every time they open their eyes. Evolution is impossible. There is no mechanism to explain it. The code for every creature is embedded. It does not "just happen". And the code does not change enough to produce a new species. Adapt, yes. Evolve, no.

To start with a reptile and end up with a mammal is not possible. The only argument that evolutionists present is that evolution is true so mammals evolved. Everything else is just fluff and puff.

My position is that I neither reject or accept evolution. Are you saying Almighty God, who created the entire universe out of nothing and can raise the dead, could not make creatures evolve?

 

[Aussie Pete]

My position is that I neither reject or accept evolution. Are you saying Almighty God, who created the entire universe out of nothing and can raise the dead, could not make creatures evolve?

No, I'm not saying what could could or could not do. I'm saying that evolution as a theory is totally flawed. Also, God has already declared what He has done. He uses words like create, form and make. No evolution in that. Job 39 makes it clear that God created fully formed creatures, not a cell that randomly ended up as what we have today.

The greatest problem with evolution for Christians is man. If we evolved, how can we sin? We are simply a product of evolutionary forces outside of our control. Very few people will accept the logic, even atheists and evolutionists. Hitler is no better or worse than Billy Graham, if evolution is true.

 

[Aussie Pete]

All I see is a string of assertions. I take it this means that no, you don't have any arguments against evolution that you're prepared to stand behind.

I have no argument that will convince an evolutionist. I've learned that by much experience trying.

 

[Buzzard3]

The greatest problem with evolution for Christians is man. If we evolved, how can we sin? We are simply a product of evolutionary forces outside of our control.

I don't see any theological problem as regards the evolution of man if the story goes like this:

God guided evolution until he produced a (souless) creature called a human being ... at which point God infused that human being with a soul (as per Gen 2:7) and placed him (Adam) in the Garden of Eden. The infusion of a soul means that human being is now created in the image of God and now has free will. The rest of the Genesis narrative about Original Sin then proceeds as normal.

P.S. The above narrative is not necessarily what I believe.

 

[Buzzard3]

No, I'm not saying what could could or could not do. I'm saying that evolution as a theory is totally flawed.

I accept that Darwinian evolution is the best available scientific explanation for the fossil record, but I think it's certainly flawed and certainly a long way from the truth. I don't even think it's a good theory ... for starters, its claim of universal common descent is contradicted by the fossil record, namely the Cambrian explosion.

Mutations and natural selection may well go a long way to explaining evolution within "kinds", but I believe the overall history of life on earth defies scientific explanation ... because it involves God performing miracles.

I think the theory of evolution is basically a pseudo-scientifc story invented by atheists that aims to explain life on earth without any need for a Creator. Unfortunately it's been very successful in fooling a great many souls.