Do the math, mutations don't add up.

[Ark Guy]

In order for the mutation to occur and advance an animal into a more complex structure as claimed happens by the evolutionist, a repeated series of extremely rare benifecial retained mutation is required that effect the same area of the DNA sequence, with the pinpointed accuracy of a skilled bowsman attempting to hit the bullseye.

The many mutations required to pull off such a remarkable feat must be pinpointed. In other words, a mutation that effects the developement of a proto-dolphins echo-location will not effect the morphological evolution required to change a leg into a flipper. The mutation must be pinpointed an occur in an area that will directly effect the DNA components that makes up the echo-location system.

So what are the odds of a mutation occuring with in the future offsprings same DNA strand again and again, repeatably, in such a fashion to produce these small micro changes?



That's the first part of the equation that shows us mutations don't add up.

 

[Ark Guy]

Another part of the equation that shows us that mutations won't add up over time is that most mutations are non beneficial.
Other mutations have no effect, while an extremely small value are theorized to produce a change that enhances the fitness of an animal.

So, what are the odds of a mutation occuring again and again in the same strand of DNA responsible for the changing body part...then add to that the odds of it being beneficial.

How many bad mutations would have occured in the same strand, tearing down any advances, prior to receiving a beneficial mutation?

 

[Ark Guy]

An other part of the equation is that each beneficial change must then be retained and passed of to future generations.
This mutationally generated micro-differance must then survive the DNA error correcting steps.

 

[Ark Guy]

To add to the must be retained portion of the equation that shows evolution won't occur is that after it occurs and is retained, it must be naturally selected so it can be retained in future generations.

Just the varying elements within a changing biome over shadows and small change presented to be naturally selected.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

None of this is a problem for thiestic evolution if you believe that God set up the initial conditions to make sure that these events occured and/or intervened at various points in history in ensure they occured. The odds might seem vanishingly small, but in fact they were one - because God made them so.

 

[Ark Guy]

None of this is a problem for thiestic evolution if you believe that God set up the initial conditions to make sure that these events occured and/or intervened at various points in history in ensure they occured. The odds might seem vanishingly small, but in fact they were one - because God made them so.

Your point is valid, in order for evolution to have occured, it HAD to have been guided with exacting precision.
As shown above, the odds of it happening all by its self renders it impossible.

To address the God used evolution scenario to create man from the primordial ooze...this is not what the book that tells us of this creative God and his nature claims.

If God formed us from a series of primative animals..why not say so?

 

[notto]

Ark Guy, all of your probablility and analysis seems to use a sample of one as a guide.

Mutations can happen to a single individual out of a population of 10, 100, 1000, 100000, 1 Million. There is no great statistical problem with mutations becoming fixed in a population. Populations can be quite large. EVERY individual has different mutations. Natural selection has a lot of variation in a population to work on.

The probability that beneficial mutations won't happen in a large population is what would be mind boggling.

How would a population size of say 1 million affect your probability in saying that these things are impossible? Unless you show your math and the population size you are using in your example, your examples are meaningless.

You have basically asserted a lot but have done nothing to show how you arrived at your conclusions. Speciation has been observed in the lab and the wild. What would stop speciation from continuing again and again and again in a population?

 

[Vance]

The odds are not a problem. If they were, then micro-evolution would not occur either, and we all agree that this happens all the time. Mutations creating morphological changes among populations is not a disputed fact, and this is the process is what you are saying can not happen.

The problem with your analysis is that once a mutation occurs in an individual and that mutated gene will pass on to its offspring and their offspring and since this mutated gene they all possess is beneficial it will lead to higher numbers of offspring than those without the beneficial gene (soon increasing exponentially, of course, due to the "he told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on . . ." phenomenon). And, since these slightly improved members of the population are competing for food more successfully, those without the benefit will tend to reproduce less, thus you have a double-whammy effect in favor of that mutation eventually becoming present in every member of the population.

Again, this entire process is not only accepted by creationists on the micro level, they DEPEND upon it for their theory of diversity since the flood. In fact, they have to argue that it not only happens, but that the odds are SO in favor of it happening that it happens really fast!

 

[Ark Guy]

The population of 1 million would only increase it slightly.

Remember that the mutation MUST occur in the same region of DNA responsible for the area under going the morphological change....time and time again.

Now if it should against all odds occur and get selected and retained...the numbers start back a 1.

 

[Ark Guy]

You have basically asserted a lot but have done nothing to show how you arrived at your conclusions. Speciation has been observed in the lab and the wild. What would stop speciation from continuing again and again and again in a population?

It has been shown to you that speciation REQUIRES NO MUTATIONS.

 

[Vance]

OK, I am missing something you are trying to say. The mutated gene would be *inherited* by the offspring, so of course they would automatically be in the same spot.

Also, you would have to explain how micro evolution works through genetic mutation and natural selection (which you have conceded occurs) if your "odds" are true? We have seen INCREDIBLE morphological change even within species, in size, color and even specific useful features. AIG and other Creation Scientists argue that this occurs through microevolution (and really FAST, thus directly contrary to your idea of poor odds).

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Ark Guy.

Remember that Genesis is not God's infallible letter to you. It is a translation of God's infallible scriptures written to nomadic herders ~3-4000 years ago, who would have read it in a completely different way. I do not know ancient Hebrew, but I would be very extreamly suprised if they had a word for 'science', or anything like it. You would not expect Genesis to deal with those kind of issues. God told the story of creation in the myth-like way they would have been used to. Jesus did the same when he taught in parables. Note Mat 13:3 'Then he told them many things in parables, saying "A farmer went out to sow his seed".' Not '...saying "Here is a metaphorical story to teach you things. A farmer..."'. Matthew noted it was a parable, but Jesus saw no need to specifically say it was, he just started teaching that way. This shows his (Jewish) listeners were used to that kind of teaching and would not assume stories to be litteral unless told otherwise.


Now if our observations of God's creation matched up with a litteral creation account then there would be no reason to believe it was not litteral, but as our observations are totally opposed to it, it is reasonable to assume it is not litteral, as you would not expect God to have given a scientific account.

Examples are:-
1. We can see stars and galaxies much further away then 6,000 light years (i.e. the distance light could have travelled since the start of the Unvierse if YEC is true). These distances have been measured by various different techniques - the ranges of which overlap and so can verify each other - and extend out to over 10 billion light years.
2. Or what about the cosmic microwave background? Everwhere we look in the sky we observe a nearly uniform (fluctuations of much less then 1% of 1 kelvin) background of radiation at 2.7 K ( -271 celcius). Where on earth did that come from, if it is not the radiation from when the Universe was small, dense and hot enough for he matterial in it to be ionized? There is no mention of God putting it there in the literal creation account.
3. Radio-carbon dating, which can be callabrated on things a few thousand years old that we know the rough ages of for historical reasons, observes dates older then 6,000 years (I think it's range is up to 50,000 years). Various other kinds of radioactive dating techniques also show ages older than 6,000 years.
4. The number of none aquatic species we observe today and food for all of them for 40 days and nights could not have fitted on the ark. Also, where did the dinosaurs and other extinct species go? The Bible makes no account of extinctions. Gen 6:20-22 'Two of EVERY kind of bird, of EVERY kind of animal and of EVERY kind or creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." Noah did EVERYTHING JUST AS GOD COMMANDED HIM.' i.e. everything alive before the flood was alive after, so where did the dinosaurs go?

There is a bit in Kings where the dimensions of a cylidrical container are given to be a circumference of 30 cubits and a diameter of 10 cubits. Not about 30 and 10, not roughly 30 and 10, it says 30 and 10. i.e, saying that pi (the circumference of a circle divided by the diameter, which is the same for all circles) is exactly 3. We KNOW pi is not exactly 3, it is 3.14159265..., so an account for which there is no textual indication of it not being literal is shown by science to be not literal - it is not a maths text book so God did not need to give exact dimensions. Nor did He say that they were not exact, the people to whom he was writting were not expecting it, and people (like us) used to reading things and assuming they are literal unless told otherwise have the ability to work out that this is not litteral. I believe the creation account to be analogous.

If you wish to hold to YEC there are two options in response to this:-

1. Reject science altogether, at least in relation to this topic, and say you will believe the literal account of Genesis whatever observations are made. You may believe that God deliberately put false evidence there as a test of faith.
Fair enough; you are welcome to that view, it is self consitant and it cannot be falsified - although I would suggest that is a very odd thing for God to do; one might call it lying. HOWEVER, if you are rejecting all scientific arguments out of hand, then it is inconsistant to try and use scientific arguments agianst thiestic evolution. If you are not willing to accept scientific arguments against your own position, you should not use them against others.

2. Accept scientific methods as valid for this topic and try and argue against these points just made by myself, and those made by many others in inumerable posts in this forum.
Two points must then be made.
I. Finding a study where scientists made a hash out of things does not disprove the basic principles they were working on - it shows that people are fallible and can make a hash of things and mearly discounts the results of their particular study. To disprove a particlar method you must show that it is intrinsically flawed.
II. If you are going to use scientific arguments against (what is claimed as) evidence for a ~10-20 billion year old Universe (13.7 is current best value) with a ~5 billion year old Earth on which life evolved slowly (guided by God for thiesic evolutionists) then you must provide scientific evidence FOR a ~6000 year old Universe and Earth. Attacking evidence for the currently accepted scientific model does nothing to prove an alternative - positive evidence must be supplied.

God bless,
YN.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Amen to Vance and notto's replies. I started writing my last post before they arrived!

 

[Ark Guy]

The odds are not a problem. If they were, then micro-evolution would not occur either,

Wrong. Micro-Evolution is just a variation with in already established genes.
In a previous post I showed that the differance betwen siblings is nothing more than a genetic variation.

and we all agree that this happens all the time. Mutations creating morphological changes among populations is not a disputed fact, and this is the process is what you are saying can not happen.

Care to prove that mutations have caused morphological changes in a population. If you could then you would win a Nobel prize.
Note: by morpholgical changes I mean the evolution of one body part into another...not some finch beak wich required no mutations.

The problem with your analysis is that once a mutation occurs in an individual and that mutated gene will pass on to its offspring and their offspring

As I have shown in my opening post..this won't happen. All you have done is CLAIMED that it does with absolutly no proof that it does.

and since this mutated gene they all possess is beneficial it will lead to higher numbers of offspring than those without the beneficial gene (soon increasing exponentially, of course, due to the "he told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on . . ." phenomenon). And, since these slightly improved members of the population are competing for food more successfully, those without the benefit will tend to reproduce less, thus you have a double-whammy effect in favor of that mutation eventually becoming present in every member of the population.

The differances caused by a mutations according to the evos are small. These small differances would have no over all effect in the grand scheme of evolution. The biome surrounding the rate of mutation would out pace the small mutational changes. In other words, this ever so slight advantage would not be an advantage for long as the environment would change quicker than the mutations occur.
A differance in already established genes would be able to keep pace with the enviroment but even that has it's limits.
For example the size of the finch's beak has a limit.

Again, this entire process is not only accepted by creationists on the micro level, they DEPEND upon it for their theory of diversity since the flood. In fact, they have to argue that it not only happens, but that the odds are SO in favor of it happening that it happens really fast!

I have no argue with micro-evolution and the recombination possibles of the chromosones...the argument is when the mutations are said to occur, again and again and again and again in the same DNA sequence responsible for the development of said body part.

 

[Ark Guy]

Amen to Vance and notto's replies. I started writing my last post before they arrived!

Your amen was to soon....logic has just proven them wrong.

bettr luck next time

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Care to prove that mutations have caused morphological changes in a population. If you could then you would win a Nobel prize.
Note: by morpholgical changes I mean the evolution of one body part into another...not some finch beak wich required no mutations.

Evolution is not one quick jump to another. It is a series of micro-evolutions through genetic variations with mutations thrown in. It would be virtually impossible to accurately prove it because the human race has not directly seen such a mutation. Beneficial/negative mutations or genetic variations (such as in siblings) could play a vital role. Mutations rarely occur alone, and even being non-beneficial to the creature in question is not the point. The point is how does the mutation help it survive. The mutation could be crippling... for example:

A bizarre and mutated animal in a negative way decreases the chances of survival in most cases. However, it could be that very mutation that will help it in the specific scenario that it is required. Let us say, hypothetically, that a creature is born with yellow skin. Normally, this may be a bad mutation, because it decreases the chance of mating in order to pass on the variation. However, let us also say that the predator is xanthophobic (fearing the color yellow). Thus, the non-yellow beings are quickly devoured, leaving most of the yellow beings still alive and a lesser amount of normal creatures alive.

Therefore, macro-evolution (in this case) takes this one step further:

Perhaps the non-mutated creatures are pushed out of the land by the predators, while the yellow creatures can stay. Thus, we have a genetic gap, the yellow creatures develop while the normal creatures develop as well. Eventually, through a series of intermediate evolutions amongst their groups, they will become incapable of mating with one another due to enough variations to make them seperate organisms entirely.


The point is that evolution, in its many mutations and changes, is forced upon a community (mostly) due to an external factor. A smaller amount of food vs a larger amount of penguins will mean that the stronger penguins will survive the famine. However, evolution does not always play fairly when giving mutations out.

For example, in today's community of humans, evolution can function differently. Survival is not always based on geno/pheno types, for we have developed ways of getting around our incapabilities. Thus, a true evolution of any form may or may not occur.


On a second note, despite the difficulties, it is after the fact. The fact that we do exist at all means that we are unbelieveably lucky. The probability of it occuring seems rare, but such unlikely events occur most commonly. Every single action and reaction, from microscopic to macroscopic, can play a role in a single response. These form a series of interconnected chain reactions, each unique even though certain basimilarities may occur. In the end, the chances of each and everything acting out the way it has is nearly impossible to replicate or even imagine. However, that is after the fact, because it has occured. To say that it is virtually impossible sed on a matter of possiblity is meaningless, because obviously it has occured in the right sequence, or else we would have not existed in the first place.

 

[Ark Guy]

I will answer the following post in brief statements.
The reason for this is because of the amount of arguments brought up by Yahweh Nissi would take to long to answer in detail.
The concept it to show Yahweh Nissi that there are answers to the questions presented.
I just wish Yahweh Nissi did some homework prior to presenting these easily refutable so-called problems.

Ark Guy.

Remember that Genesis is not God's infallible letter to you.

The bible teaches that all scripture is God inspired....you have read that verse? yes?

It is a translation of God's infallible scriptures written to nomadic herders ~3-4000 years ago, who would have read it in a completely different way. I do not know ancient Hebrew, but I would be very extreamly suprised if they had a word for 'science', or anything like it. You would not expect Genesis to deal with those kind of issues. God told the story of creation in the myth-like way they would have been used to.

It would have been very easy to write in this myth of yours that God formed man from the primates...rather than dust. So why is it not recorded that way?

Jesus did the same when he taught in parables. Note Mat 13:3 'Then he told them many things in parables, saying "A farmer went out to sow his seed".' Not '...saying "Here is a metaphorical story to teach you things. A farmer..."'. Matthew noted it was a parable, but Jesus saw no need to specifically say it was, he just started teaching that way. This shows his (Jewish) listeners were used to that kind of teaching and would not assume stories to be litteral unless told otherwise.

But a parable told by Jesus tells of actual events that could occur. Now, for some reason you then try to say Genesis was a parable..of an event that COULD NOT occur....do you see the differance and hence the problem with that line of logic you are using?

Now if our observations of God's creation matched up with a litteral creation account then there would be no reason to believe it was not litteral, but as our observations are totally opposed to it, it is reasonable to assume it is not litteral, as you would not expect God to have given a scientific account.

But you can make excellent scientific argument that science does agree with Genesis.

Examples are:-
1. We can see stars and galaxies much further away then 6,000 light years (i.e. the distance light could have travelled since the start of the Unvierse if YEC is true). These distances have been measured by various different techniques - the ranges of which overlap and so can verify each other - and extend out to over 10 billion light years.

Why couldn't the light have been created in place? or what if the speed of light has slowed down? Barry Setterfield ahs done some fantastic work on this subject.

Is you theory the only theory? Besides, measurements of an object 10 billion light years away is extremely inaccurate.

2. Or what about the cosmic microwave background? Everwhere we look in the sky we observe a nearly uniform (fluctuations of much less then 1% of 1 kelvin) background of radiation at 2.7 K ( -271 celcius). Where on earth did that come from, if it is not the radiation from when the Universe was small, dense and hot enough for he matterial in it to be ionized? There is no mention of God putting it there in the literal creation account.

The bible says God spread out the heavens...what do you suppose it would look like?

3. Radio-carbon dating, which can be callabrated on things a few thousand years old that we know the rough ages of for historical reasons, observes dates older then 6,000 years (I think it's range is up to 50,000 years). Various other kinds of radioactive dating techniques also show ages older than 6,000 years.

Has the formation of C14 always been the same? Prior to the flood the amount of cosmic radiation entering the earth atmosphere was much less than todays rate.
This means that less nitrogen would have been converted to C14...making items dated prior too and for a time period after the flood appear much older than they really are.

4. The number of none aquatic species we observe today and food for all of them for 40 days and nights could not have fitted on the ark.

There was no need for the aquatic animals to have been aboard the ark. I could reply in great detail why thhat is so, but for this post this should be sufficient.

Also, where did the dinosaurs and other extinct species go?

Dinosaurs are seen in pottery, cave drawings, folk lore..and even in the bible

The Bible makes no account of extinctions. Gen 6:20-22 'Two of EVERY kind of bird, of EVERY kind of animal and of EVERY kind or creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." Noah did EVERYTHING JUST AS GOD COMMANDED HIM.' i.e. everything alive before the flood was alive after, so where did the dinosaurs go?

They went the way of the carrier pigeon and the doe doe bird.
I would suggest they did not fair well in the new environment or were hunted into extinction.

There is a bit in Kings where the dimensions of a cylidrical container are given to be a circumference of 30 cubits and a diameter of 10 cubits. Not about 30 and 10, not roughly 30 and 10, it says 30 and 10. i.e, saying that pi (the circumference of a circle divided by the diameter, which is the same for all circles) is exactly 3. We KNOW pi is not exactly 3, it is 3.14159265..., so an account for which there is no textual indication of it not being literal is shown by science to be not literal - it is not a maths text book so God did not need to give exact dimensions. Nor did He say that they were not exact, the people to whom he was writting were not expecting it, and people (like us) used to reading things and assuming they are literal unless told otherwise have the ability to work out that this is not litteral. I believe the creation account to be analogous.

From what I have read it depends on where you take the measurements from. from the inner lip or the outer lip..going from memory...changes the results.

Other have also suggested that the bible just presents a rounded off numerical value....but to be so dogmatic like yoou are is also equated with being ignorant on that subject. Once again you should have done your homwork.

If you wish to hold to YEC there are two options in response to this:-

1. Reject science altogether, at least in relation to this topic, and say you will believe the literal account of Genesis whatever observations are made. You may believe that God deliberately put false evidence there as a test of faith.
Fair enough; you are welcome to that view, it is self consitant and it cannot be falsified - although I would suggest that is a very odd thing for God to do; one might call it lying. HOWEVER, if you are rejecting all scientific arguments out of hand, then it is inconsistant to try and use scientific arguments agianst thiestic evolution. If you are not willing to accept scientific arguments against your own position, you should not use them against others.

My answers to your above cut and paste questions shows you that i don't hhave to reject science.

2. Accept scientific methods as valid for this topic and try and argue against these points just made by myself, and those made by many others in inumerable posts in this forum.

But you made no valid ppoints....

Two points must then be made.
I. Finding a study where scientists made a hash out of things does not disprove the basic principles they were working on - it shows that people are fallible and can make a hash of things and mearly discounts the results of their particular study. To disprove a particlar method you must show that it is intrinsically flawed.
II. If you are going to use scientific arguments against (what is claimed as) evidence for a ~10-20 billion year old Universe (13.7 is current best value) with a ~5 billion year old Earth on which life evolved slowly (guided by God for thiesic evolutionists) then you must provide scientific evidence FOR a ~6000 year old Universe and Earth. Attacking evidence for the currently accepted scientific model does nothing to prove an alternative - positive evidence must be supplied.

I trust that you now stannd corrected.

God bless,
YN.

 

[Ark Guy]

I keep hearing the same old argument that assumes that mutations are passed along...yet have seen no refutation to what i have posted.

I read all these reasons as to why they might be passed along...but that is not evidence that they do/can occur...and add up over long time frames.

 

[Vance]

Ark guy, are you saying that morphological changes we have seen within species (huge size and shape differences, longer or shorter apendages, immunities and other traits) have NOT occured through microevolution as explained by the theory of evolution, including genetic mutation, natural selection, etc? You do know that micro-evolution is described by means of mutations as well, don't you?

A mutation is not a deformity, as used in the common parlance, it is just a variation giving rise to a very slight change which can be passed on to the next generation. A series of small changes lead to a large change.

And, btw, morphological changes refer to any difference in the outward form, not just new apendages, etc.

 

[Ark Guy]

OK, I am missing something you are trying to say. The mutated gene would be *inherited* by the offspring, so of course they would automatically be in the same spot.

It sounds like you are missing the point of my argument.
If a mutation did occur an somehow was able to clear the hurdles I presented, then you would be correct. The change would be in the same spot.
THE PROBLEM OCCURS when there is a need for ANOTHER beneficial muutation to occur in the same DNA strand of one of the offspring to produce a change that adds to the already established small differance. Considerind that mutations are considered as random, the likelyhood of a repeat mutation would be unlikely. Now considering that many many mutations are required, it is easy to see that evolution is impossible and that the bible is the best answer as to how we got here.

Also, you would have to explain how micro evolution works through genetic mutation and natural selection (which you have conceded occurs)

I have conceded that point. i was just presenting the evo model, which according to your statement, shows I understand what it says.

if your "odds" are true? We have seen INCREDIBLE morphological change even within species, in size, color and even specific useful features.

These changes are due to an already established gene pool and not a bunch of mutations occuring and producing the change.......please understand that point and stop bringing it up

AIG and other Creation Scientists argue that this occurs through microevolution (and really FAST, thus directly contrary to your idea of poor odds).

yes, they argue for genetic variation has the abiliy to bring about change...NOT MUTAtION adding up over long time frames.