Key arguments for creation biologist?

[miamited]

Hi noted,

You responded:

If this argument was true (that most mutations are harmful and deleterious) life would grind to a halt very, very quickly, which would reflect badly on God as a creator.

Well, that's a fairly incorrect 'assumption'. It would only be true if there was evolution. If, as the Scriptures declare, that all the kinds were made exactly as God intended them and there has been no variation of kind, as is necessary for the full evolutionary theory to work, then there would be no breakdown. The DNA and genomes of 6,000 years ago at the creation event would be pretty identical to the DNA and genomes working today.

BTW, the word for a believer who refuses to accept unfounded 'facts' is 'perseverer' not 'stubborn'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Physical science is roughly equal to non-life sciences.

Sort of evidences. Yes.

Oh you mean chemistry and physics? I sort of remember hearing physicists saying the universe acted as though it was designed - but I don't know enough about either subject to debate very well.

If this argument was true (that most mutations are harmful and deleterious) life would grind to a halt very, very quickly, which would reflect badly on God as a creator.

Well, that's a fairly incorrect 'assumption'. It would only be true if there was evolution. If, as the Scriptures declare, that all the kinds were made exactly as God intended them and there has been no variation of kind, as is necessary for the full evolutionary theory to work, then there would be no breakdown. The DNA and genomes of 6,000 years ago at the creation event would be pretty identical to the DNA and genomes working today.

Genetics does not rely on the assumption that evolution is true - quite the opposite. Many YECs support our current theory of genetics and inheritance while still rejecting evolution.

When I say 'life would grind to a halt very quickly' I don't simply mean a few thousand or even a few hundred years, mean within a few generations, depending on the mutation.

 

[Papias]

After Mark denied that beneficial mutations accumulate, Juvi commented:

If it has been argued many times, why hasn't Mark been convinced?

NSP wrote (post #10):

On at least one other thread I (and other with greater knowledge of genetics than me) showed studies where beneficial mutations had a greater effect than deleterious ones ...... This wasn't an 'ad homenim' attack, it was what the data showed.

Yep, it can be frustrating. Mark regularly posts something blatantly false, then when corrected, and even when the evidence is staring him in the face (and even when he himself posted that evidence that showed him to be wrong), he still claims the falsehood is true. That goes for the fact you (NSP) posted above.

Some examples include:
Mark denying that 1 Cr and Mt contradict each other:

. http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-6/ See posts #55 and 56, and on

. http://www.christianforums.com/t7515625-5/ See post #42

Mark denying that his own evidence shows that most supporters of evolution are Christian:

. http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-3/ around post 29 and on.

. http://www.christianforums.com/t7521063/ on post #7.

Mark claiming that transcription errors are mutations, even when shown by an actual biologist that they aren’t.

. http://www.christianforums.com/t5090795-9/#post34148323 see post #83 or so.


Mark falsely claiming that natural selection can’t prevent harmful mutations from drowning out beneficial mutations:

. http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-5/ See post 48, and it appears that Gluadys has corrected him on this in the past also, and he ignored that too, then went on to post the same falsehood in this thread, in talking with NSP.




Apparently there is no fact that cannot be denied by plugging one’s ears and humming…….

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

To add weight to my arguments that a) not all deleterious mutations are damaging and b) an accumulation of highly harmful mutations would cause life to 'grind to a halt' within a few generations, here is an example which comes from MUTANTS by Armand Marie Leroi. I should mention I am leaving out a lot of information to keep this short and simple:

Without telomerase life ends within a few generations:

Enzymes which replicate chromosomes during cell division cannot replicate the end of the chromosomes. In other words there is a limit to the number of times a cell can divide. Telemeres are regions at the end of chromosomes which decides this limit - when they are gone, the cell stops dividing.
Not all cells lose their telemeres. Germ cells (sperm and eggs) contain an enzyme called telomerase, which prevents them from being eroded. In one experiment telomerase was removed from mice germs cells. The mice were still able to breed, but with each generation the mice aged faster. By the sixth generation the mice aged rapidly, died young and could no longer breed.
This is only one example of a devastating mutation. We could argue that this was an artificial example - but of course this mutation is so damaging it would naturally die out.


Cell death is beneficial:

If telomerase cause cell immortaily then why don't all cells have it? Because they can cause cancer, which occurs when cells fail to die. Often this is due to the presence of rogue telomerase - so we could argue telomerase is both a vital and devestating mutation.

 

[juvenissun]

L

ife grinding to a halt is the function of natural selection and like I keep telling you, it's an effect not a cause. Natural selection is nothing more then the death of the less fit. It speaks to the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.

It is the other way around. If no limit were placed on the inheritance of deleterious mutations, then the species would not likely survive long. It is because the fittest (or fitter) do survive, that the species keeps on living. But keeps on living as a somewhat changed species.

Do we have a proven example that mutation leads to a new species?

My guess is that we don't. May be one of the reason is that we don't have enough time to witness it. Right? Gluadys?

Now one step back, do we have mutant which survived the mutation?

My guess is that we do. May be one example is the white tiger? Could the white tiger be populated to become a "normal" type of tiger? I don't know, but I doubt it.

------

Anyway, it seems the argument is on the mechanism of speciation. From a creationist's point of view, there is no speciation. Right? Mark?

 

[juvenissun]

To add weight to my arguments that a) not all deleterious mutations are damaging and b) an accumulation of highly harmful mutations would cause life to 'grind to a halt' within a few generations, here is an example which comes from MUTANTS by Armand Marie Leroi. I should mention I am leaving out a lot of information to keep this short and simple:

Without telomerase life ends within a few generations:

Enzymes which replicate chromosomes during cell division cannot replicate the end of the chromosomes. In other words there is a limit to the number of times a cell can divide. Telemeres are regions at the end of chromosomes which decides this limit - when they are gone, the cell stops dividing.
Not all cells lose their telemeres. Germ cells (sperm and eggs) contain an enzyme called telomerase, which prevents them from being eroded. In one experiment telomerase was removed from mice germs cells. The mice were still able to breed, but with each generation the mice aged faster. By the sixth generation the mice aged rapidly, died young and could no longer breed.
This is only one example of a devastating mutation. We could argue that this was an artificial example - but of course this mutation is so damaging it would naturally die out.


Cell death is beneficial:

If telomerase cause cell immortaily then why don't all cells have it? Because they can cause cancer, which occurs when cells fail to die. Often this is due to the presence of rogue telomerase - so we could argue telomerase is both a vital and devestating mutation.

I heard that a cell can only divide so many times. Then it stopped and died. But, this would give a problem:

If a cell (A) replicates to two cells (B1, B2), which one is the old one? Or both are new ones? Or both are old ones?

If both are new, then when would any of them "stop dividing"?
If both are old, then when they replicated to generation P(n), would all Ps stop dividing (died) all together at approximately the same time? If so, the life of the life would be equal to the life of the original single cell.

 

[Greg1234]

Hi noted,

You responded:

If this argument was true (that most mutations are harmful and deleterious) life would grind to a halt very, very quickly, which would reflect badly on God as a creator.

Well, that's a fairly incorrect 'assumption'. It would only be true if there was evolution.

There are mutations which should have a big effect on the population but do not. So even without assuming that Darwinian evolution is true this is flawed. Living systems do have built in proof reading mechanisms to prevent the inevitable occurrences of errors. Additionally, even though most mutations are harmful, this does not mean that they necessarily kill the organism, yet does not digress from the fact that it is harmful and most mutations are deleterious.
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Video

Scientist, M. Behe has just published a paper on the first rule of adaptive mutation which shows that in the majority of the cases, even beneficial mutations arise through breaking down existing genetic components.

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades. I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations. (Chicago Journals - The Quarterly Review of Biology)
​

Criticisms from Coyne et al have come forward to which Behe has responded. It is a overall improvement to the ad hominem veil put up by Darwinists and would be interesting to follow this dialogue to see where it ends.

 

[juvenissun]

Something reminded me:

Creationist believes Adam and Eve are genetically perfect.

So, does that mean the cells of Adam and Eve do not mutate? It would mean their cell replication checking system is perfect.

If so, we can go from there to study the feature called mutation. For example, how to start the process of mutation from a perfect genetic system? (I think the first question should be: how does/should a perfect genetic system look like?)

 

[gluadys]

Do we have a proven example that mutation leads to a new species?

Of course not. No one mutation is likely to produce a new species.

But we have plenty of evidence that natural selection can produce different species. Just take a uniform population of fruit flies. Separate them into different groups. Give each group a different environment to live in. And after several generations they don't mate with each other any more, even when they are no longer physically separated. They are now reproductively isolated, and by definition, different species.

They also have accumulated genetic differences i.e. new mutations which occurred in one group are not found in the others. This may or may not have anything to do with them being different species.

Now one step back, do we have mutant which survived the mutation?

My guess is that we do. May be one example is the white tiger? Could the white tiger be populated to become a "normal" type of tiger? I don't know, but I doubt it.

No reason to doubt it. Provide an environment in which it is beneficial to be a white tiger and over time white tigers will become the norm.

 

[Biblewriter]

If this argument was true (that most mutations are harmful and deleterious) life would grind to a halt very, very quickly, which would reflect badly on God as a creator.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that most mutations are harmful and deleterious.

In my university days I did a term paper on what fraction of all mutations are beneficial. The actual data collected in my study of five thousand mutations that had been cataloged in drosophila melanogaster were that 90% of all observed mutations were lethal, and 90% of all non-lethal mutations were crippling. But of the entire five thousand observed mutations, I found only one allegation that a single beneficial mutation had been observed once. But as this allegation was not accompanied by documentation of any kind, it was discarded as hearsay.

Stastical analysis of this data showed that there was no more than a 50% probability that the rate of beneficial mutations to deleterious mutations exceeded one in ten thousand. The data contained no evidence as to how much smaller the actual rate might be, only that there was no more than a 50% probability that it exceeded one in ten thousand.

This is not theory, but actual data culled from many thousands of documented and published genetic experiments.

 

[Biblewriter]

Two things:
1. If natural selection (the environment) did not keep a tight rein on harmful mutations, Mark would be right and the deleterious effects would accumulate and doom the species.
2. If there were no mutations providing new variations, a species would have no resources to support adaptation to a new environment. So it would shortly become extinct.

This is typical of the elliptical reasoning of the typical evolutionist. If your theory were not correct, there could be no evolution, therefore your theory cannot be correct.

Why? Because we we know that evolution takes place. How do we know it? Because our theories are correct!

(And don't confuse people with actual observed data.)

 

[mark kennedy]

After Mark denied that beneficial mutations accumulate, Juvi commented

I never said that beneficial mutations don't accumulate. What I have always said is that the vast majority of mutations with an effect are deleterious. As usual you have twisted what I said:

On at least one other thread I (and other with greater knowledge of genetics than me) showed studies where beneficial mutations had a greater effect than deleterious ones ...... This wasn't an 'ad homenim' attack, it was what the data showed.

Rare events where beneficial effect outnumber deleterious ones in single cell organisms in a controled setting. You have divorced you slander from the content and context of the discussion again.

Yep, it can be frustrating. Mark regularly posts something blatantly false, then when corrected, and even when the evidence is staring him in the face (and even when he himself posted that evidence that showed him to be wrong), he still claims the falsehood is true. That goes for the fact you (NSP) posted above.

You have not proved a falsehood, what you have done is provide quotes out of context with a flaming ad hominem attack. Never mind that it's completely off topic, your rambling cut and paste attack is easily answered.

Some examples include:
Mark denying that 1 Cr and Mt contradict each other:

. http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-6/ See posts #55 and 56, and on

Your posts look like tennis shoes in a tumble dryer. You cut and paste the names from the geneologies but never made an informed statement about them. Want to call me a liar!

Matthew traces Jesus lineage through David's son Solomon while Luke traces his through David's son Nathan. Matthew is providing a legallineage from Solomon through Joseph while Luke provides a natural lineage from Nathan through Mary. I told you this and you ignored it just like you ignore the substance of Luke and Matthew. You are simply mimicking the same arguments Christian scholars have addressed a hundred times over the last hundred years.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515625-5/ See post #42

From post #42:

Mark, do you agree that both Mt and Lk explicitly say that their respective geneologies are those of Joseph?

The two geneaogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy, and Matthew's version represents Joseph's. Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and his physical descent from David is established by mary's lineage. Luke, unlike Matthew includes no women in his genealogy, even Mary herself, Joseph was 'the son of Heli' by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own, and thus is named in v.23 as the representative of Mary's generation. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12. The men listed from heli v. 23 to Rhesa v.27 are found nowhere else in Scripture. (John MacAurthur)

Any honset exposition of the text can reconcil this apparent contradiction. What you are seeing here is someone who is only interested in undermining confidence in the Scriptures.

Mark denying that his own evidence shows that most supporters of evolution are Christian:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-3/ around post 29 and on.

No I'm not, what I am arguing is that Creationists outnumber Theistic Evolutionists. I wasn't interested in your statement that most evolutionists are Christians because it's rhetorical jibberish. Here are the stats:

Beliefs on evolution and creation, conducted at least six occasions between 1982 and 2004.

Creationist view: God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

• 1982- 44%
• 1993- 47%
• 1997- 44%
• 1999- 47%
• 2001- 45%
• 2004- 45%

Theistic Evolution: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

• 1982- 38%
• 1993- 35%
• 1997- 39%
• 1999- 40%
• 2001- 37%
• 2004- 38%

Now it's true enough that mosst evolutionists are Christians (not that I ever denied it) but by far the largest demographic are Creationists.

You are calling me a liar by putting words in my mouth. So far you have failed to prove a single falsehood while misrepresenting what I actually said.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7521063/ on post #7

The link had this message at the other end.

Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link

Mark claiming that transcription errors are mutations, even when shown by an actual biologist that they aren’t.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5090795-9/#post34148323 see post #83 or so.

Point mutations in the underlying DNA or errors during transcription can activate a "cryptic splice site" in part of the transcript that usually is not spliced. This results in a mature messenger RNA with a missing section of an exon. In this way a point mutation, which usually only affects a single amino acid, can manifest as a deletion in the final protein. RNA splicing

Transcription errors are valid mutations. A mutation is a change in an organism's genome, regardless of cause, be it internal or external. DNA transcription errors can spontaneously occur during replication. Here we see that destabilizing deleterious mutations arise from transcriptional errors and even increased tolerance to genetic mutations:

by increasing TEM-1's tolerance to destabilizing deleterious mutations that arise from transcriptional errors. The stabilized TEM-1 variants also showed increased tolerance to genetic mutations. Thus, although phenotypic mutations are not individually subjected to inheritance and natural selection, as are genetic mutations, they collectively exert a direct and immediate effect on protein fitness. PNAS 2009​

Steve (sfs) and I have a running debate on various subject and he has a stricter definition of what a mutation is then most. You have to understand, he is a staff scientist at MIT, he is pointing out a subtle but important distinction.

You are 0 for 3!

Mark falsely claiming that natural selection can’t prevent harmful mutations from drowning out beneficial mutations:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-5/ See post 48, and it appears that Gluadys has corrected him on this in the past also, and he ignored that too, then went on to post the same falsehood in this thread, in talking with NSP.

That's a lie!!! I am arguing nothing of the sort. This is what I said:

Epigenetics happens without the gene being altered, this is where I think the vast majority of adaptations are going to occur. That's one of the reasons I despise Darwinism, it keeps getting in the way of things I'm trying to learn about how populations adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

We know that natural selection is instrumental in the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. I'm not trying to be cliche here, does it seem reasonable to speculate that there may well be a molecular mechanism that has external and internal triggers causing adaptations?

She quibbles a little about what it means to be the 'fittest' but really doesn't engage me on it. Then she decides earlier in this thread to put words in my mouth:

Mark thinks this does not happen. He claims natural selection is a fairy tale.

To which I responded:

I claim no such thing, what I tell people is that natural selection is an effect not a cause. What eliminates mutations are either the force of the effects or a repair mechanism in the DNA.

• cells use the unmodified complementary strand of the DNA or the sister chromatid as a template to recover the original information
• Cells are known to eliminate three types of damage to their DNA by chemically reversing it
• Base excision repair (BER)
• Nucleotide excision repair (NER)
• Mismatch repair (MMR),
• Three mechanisms exist to repair double-strand breaks (DSBs): non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) and homologous recombination
• Translesion synthesis

Here is a DNA ligase repairing chromosomal damage, it is an enzyme that joins broken nucleotides together by catalyzing the formation of an internucleotide ester bond between the phosphate backbone and the deoxyribose nucleotides. DNA Repair

These are causes of DNA repair, not affects.

Since you can't answer the substance of the post you go around it with your spam attack and bury the discussion thinking no one will notice.

Apparently there is no fact that cannot be denied by plugging one’s ears and humming…….

Apparently trying to bury it in a cut and paste spam attack works just as well.

I concuded with this:

Functional constraint and DNA repair mechanisms keep mutations to a minimum. Life grinding to a halt is the function of natural selection and like I keep telling you, it's an effect not a cause. Natural selection is nothing more then the death of the less fit. It speaks to the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.

Natural selection is also an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes and evolutionists love to blend the two meanings as if they were one and the same. It's an effective way to win points in a debate but it should never be confused with the genuine article of science.

In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Papias has but one function, he attacks, insults, derails and slanders creationists. He has shamelessly attacked the veracity of Scripture and in the face of a reasonable explanation for the apparent contadiction called me a liar. He spams links to other conversations he does not even bother to quote. Then he makes pedantic railing accusations that are false while claiming I am making arguments I never made.

You sir are a liar!

 

[Biblewriter]

Of course not. No one mutation is likely to produce a new species.

But we have plenty of evidence that natural selection can produce different species. Just take a uniform population of fruit flies. Separate them into different groups. Give each group a different environment to live in. And after several generations they don't mate with each other any more, even when they are no longer physically separated. They are now reproductively isolated, and by definition, different species.

This is a nonsensical argument. For it is obvious that when the artificial barriers that caused the "speciation" are removed, the population will quickly revert to its original genetic make-up, and the mutations that occurred in the disparate groups will quickly spread through the entire population.

 

[SimonD1]

you could just accept the truth that, despite what your all important bible says...

Evolution is truth. It's real, and very much in progress. Sorry it doesn't fit into your faith.

 

[mark kennedy]

you could just accept the truth that, despite what your all important bible says...

Evolution is truth. It's real, and very much in progress. Sorry it doesn't fit into your faith.

First of all define evolution. More importantly what exactly do you believe?

Do you believe in the historicity of any of these events or doctrines?

• Red Sea divided; Israel passes through (Ex. 14:21-31)
• Waters of Marah sweetened (Ex. 15:23-25)
• Manna sent daily, except on Sabbath (Ex. 16:14-35)
• Water from the rock at Rephidim (Ex. 17:5-7)
• Nadab and Abihu consumed for offering “strange fire” (Lev. 10:1, 2)
• The conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35)
• The Incarnation (John 1:1-12)
• The transfiguration (Matt 17:1-8)
• The resurrection (John 21:1-14)
• The ascension (Luke 2:42-51)
• Inspiration of Scripture by God (2 Tim. 3:16)

If not what are you doing here? If so then what is so different about these passages and the opening chapters of Genesis?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If a cell (A) replicates to two cells (B1, B2), which one is the old one? Or both are new ones? Or both are old ones?

If both are new, then when would any of them "stop dividing"?

The daughter cells (B1 + B2) are not 'new' - would have less telemeres than their parents cell (A). So eventually each new generation of cells would be able to divide less. Just like the mouse experiment.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that most mutations are harmful and deleterious.
...
This is not theory, but actual data culled from many thousands of documented and published genetic experiments.
...
If your theory were not correct, there could be no evolution, therefore your theory cannot be correct.
Why? Because we we know that evolution takes place. How do we know it? Because our theories are correct!
(And don't confuse people with actual observed data.)

We're already having this conversation with Mark, and repeatedly shown this [the idea that most mutations are harmful] is not the case. There is indeed data proving Gluady's argument is correct - as I mentioned earlier, genetics does not rely on evolution being true.

Many YECs (both on and off CF) claim that most mutations are harmful and / or deleterious, in other words too to damaging for life to be sustained by itself. Life was created by God and is now decaying - 'entropy'.
However if indeed this idea was true, life would not deteriorate within a few millenia or a few centuries, it would die within generations.

When this was pointed out both Mark Kennedy and Biblewriter mentioned that mutations can limit or contain their damaging effect with 'functional constraint'. Theoretically this means these damaing mutations cannot be pased on to the next generation. If this were the case it would actually be evidence for natural selection, as it prevented this damage from being passed on. We know however this is not the case as harmful mutation can indeed be passed on.

Would proving most mutations are damaging actually prove Creationism is true?

 

[juvenissun]

This is a nonsensical argument. For it is obvious that when the artificial barriers that caused the "speciation" are removed, the population will quickly revert to its original genetic make-up, and the mutations that occurred in the disparate groups will quickly spread through the entire population.

But there is very likely an isolated environment, which provide a chance of avoiding the re-mix.

From this example, I can see another common type of argument here:

Human can control a small environment, in which some mutations can be preserved and populated (don't know if this is true or not). But that does not mean the experimental result can be applied to the natural environment.

There could be (in fact, I think there ARE) serious and fatal differences between lab environment and natural environment. So, to stretch it a little bit, even speciation is possible in the lab, it may still not be possible in the nature. To see speciation under controlled environment is hard enough with today's technology. We will never be able to actually observe any single example of speciation in the nature.

How good is this argument for creationist?

 

[juvenissun]

The daughter cells (B1 + B2) are not 'new' - would have less telemeres than their parents cell (A). So eventually each new generation of cells would be able to divide less. Just like the mouse experiment.



We're already having this conversation with Mark, and repeatedly shown this [the idea that most mutations are harmful] is not the case. There is indeed data proving Gluady's argument is correct - as I mentioned earlier, genetics does not rely on evolution being true.

Many YECs (both on and off CF) claim that most mutations are harmful and / or deleterious, in other words too to damaging for life to be sustained by itself. Life was created by God and is now decaying - 'entropy'.
However if indeed this idea was true, life would not deteriorate within a few millenia or a few centuries, it would die within generations.

When this was pointed out both Mark Kennedy and Biblewriter mentioned that mutations can limit or contain their damaging effect with 'functional constraint'. Theoretically this means these damaing mutations cannot be pased on to the next generation. If this were the case it would actually be evidence for natural selection, as it prevented this damage from being passed on. We know however this is not the case as harmful mutation can indeed be passed on.

Would proving most mutations are damaging actually prove Creationism is true?

I like this question. I don't know what to say about it at this moment. Help!

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

From this example, I can see another common type of argument here:

Human can control a small environment, in which some mutations can be preserved and populated (don't know if this is true or not). But that does not mean the experimental result can be applied to the natural environment.

There could be (in fact, I think there ARE) serious and fatal differences between lab environment and natural environment. So, to stretch it a little bit, even speciation is possible in the lab, it may still not be possible in the nature. To see speciation under controlled environment is hard enough with today's technology. We will never be able to actually observe any single example of speciation in the nature.

How good is this argument for creationist?

Not quite, as it does not prove Creationist claims (that the world ws created in six days). However how different species are created is still a puzzle for evolutionists. Seeing one species become two in nature would be very difficult because there are too many uncontrolled variables.

 

[mark kennedy]

We're already having this conversation with Mark, and repeatedly shown this [the idea that most mutations are harmful] is not the case.

Even Talk Origins says that most mutations are harmful, that is of course, the ones that are not neutral:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007). Claim CB101: Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.​

Of course with evolutionists if they prove anything they think they have proven everything.

There is indeed data proving Gluady's argument is correct - as I mentioned earlier, genetics does not rely on evolution being true.

Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time. Genetics does not depend on evolution as natural history to be accurate simply because it deals with living systems, not dead ancestors.

Many YECs (both on and off CF) claim that most mutations are harmful and / or deleterious, in other words too to damaging for life to be sustained by itself. Life was created by God and is now decaying - 'entropy'.

I don't claim that as you state it, but with some qualifications is a readily defensible claim.

However if indeed this idea was true, life would not deteriorate within a few millenia or a few centuries, it would die within generations.

The fact that most mutations with an effect on fitness are deleterious in no way indicates mass extinction. The statement is absurd, confused and just plain wrong.

When this was pointed out both Mark Kennedy and Biblewriter mentioned that mutations can limit or contain their damaging effect with 'functional constraint'.

That's right, to say nothing of DNA repair mechanisms that exist in abundance within the functioning genome.

Theoretically this means these damaing mutations cannot be pased on to the next generation.

No it doesn't. The question does come up 'why is the mutation rate not 0'. The opening statement of this paper would seem familiar to anyone who reads the scientific literature on the subject regularly:

The rate of mutation is central to evolution. Mutations are required for adaptation, yet most mutations with phenotypic effects are deleterious....

It is crucial to understand the cost/benefit balance that must be reached. If you learn nothing else from me, learn this one invaluable lesson. It greatly improved my understanding of genetics and will not in anyway change your opinion about origins:

...It is important, however, to note that these two forces operate at different timescales. The costs of genetic load are continuously paid in the short-term, whereas the payoffs of adaptation come in the long-term. Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes ​

If this were the case it would actually be evidence for natural selection, as it prevented this damage from being passed on. We know however this is not the case as harmful mutation can indeed be passed on.

Natural selection is not a cause it's an effect. The fact that harmful mutations can be passed on is irrelevant.

Would proving most mutations are damaging actually prove Creationism is true?

No and proving the existence of beneficial effects from mutations, even if they outnumber deleterious effects (and they do under special circumstances), does not disprove creationism. There is no need for creationists to 'prove' that deleterious effects from mutations out number beneficial ones, there is ample research indicating exactly that. Add to that the fact that evolutionists readily admit this leaves your position indefensible. That is not to say it's important, just that you are defending a position that has been conclusively demonstrated, through the overwhelming abundance of genetic research, to be wrong.

Have a nice day
Mark