Do the math, mutations don't add up.

[TheBear]

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.

Both favorable and less favorable mutations occur. Less favorable mutations are removed by natural selection, but favorable ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations do not affect the organism and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as Punctuated Equilibrium - a modern variation on classic evolutionary theory.

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?

What are the odds that Jesus was raised from the dead? But He was. Therefore, I don't get into the 'odds game'.

 

[dctalkexp]

Both favorable and less favorable mutations occur. Less favorable mutations are removed by natural selection, but favorable ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations do not affect the organism and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as Punctuated Equilibrium - a modern variation on classic evolutionary theory.

I find your use of the words "less favorable mutations" interesting. Why not call them what they are, harmful mutations.

I think that you are using blind faith to say that beneficial mutational errors can add up and then produce a brand new species of animal with a new and improved, changed anatomical structure. Where is evidence of this, rather than the "just-so" stories. Sure, it's a fine theory, but it's one that is clearly unsubstantiated.

 

[TheBear]

I find your use of the words "less favorable mutations" interesting. Why not call them what they are, harmful mutations.

I think that you are using blind faith to say that beneficial mutational errors can add up and then produce a brand new species of animal with a new and improved, changed anatomical structure. Where is evidence of this, rather than the "just-so" stories. Sure, it's a fine theory, but it's one that is clearly unsubstantiated.

"Less favorable", "harmful" - whatever. Either term you use, they don't last for very long.

I find it interesting that YEC's accept science and the scientific process in just about every other area. But, when it comes to this specific area of science, the same scienctific process is called into question. In this specific area, they always try to reduce sound science to blind faith. I guess this is an attempt to level the playing field with the actual blind faith that Genesis is to be taken literally.

Amazing.

 

[dctalkexp]

I find it interesting that YEC's accept science and the scientific process in just about every other area. But, when it comes to this specific area of science, the same scienctific process is called into question. In this specific area, they always try to reduce sound science to blind faith. I guess this is an attempt to level the playing field with the actual blind faith that Genesis is to be taken literally.

No TheBear, it's because it is blind faith. I asked you to provide evidence or an example of mutations changing the anatomical structure of an animal. You have failed to do so, thus furthering the notion that you use blind faith and then call it science. I am appalled that you and others would do such a thing, and then accuse YECs of not using science.

 

[TheBear]

[/size][/font]

No TheBear, it's because it is blind faith. I asked you to provide evidence or an example of mutations changing the anatomical structure of an animal. You have failed to do so, thus furthering the notion that you use blind faith and then call it science. I am appalled that you and others would do such a thing, and then accuse YECs of not using science.

You are not arguing with me personally. You are arguing with the scientific body as a whole. There are already a plethora of threads discussing this topic ad infinitum. There are already plenty of links to scientific findings on this topic.

Tell you what, I'll do your homework for you, search through the forums and dig up the links for you, and post them here - if you try to keep this discussion from getting personal and 'in-your-face'. This way, we can have a more pleasent experience in these discussions, and there will be no need for anyone to be appaled or upset.

Deal?

 

[seebs]

By the way, could someone help me out with the exact numbers that apparently "don't add up"? I would like to understand this argument, and I was hoping someone could present the calculations used and explain where the numbers used come from. Without that, I don't feel that this argument is very compelling; you could say that "the math" disproves just about anything, but unless you show your work, it's hard to take that kind of claim very seriously.

If Ark Guy hasn't got the time, perhaps someone else could show me the numbers? I would like to understand this argument better.

 

[Lonnie]

"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."

God never mentioned evolution, all you can do is theorize.

Good Luck Ark Guy I am with ya!

 

[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."

God never mentioned evolution, all you can do is theorize.

Good Luck Ark Guy I am with ya!

Indeed He did not not - because He was writing to people who would not have understood what He was talking about, as I pointed out in post 12, paragraph 1. I also pointed out in the same place that God promised (through Paul in 2Tim 3:16-17) that all scripture was breahed by Him, and is useful for correcting, rebuking and training in rightousness, so that the man of God may be prepared for every good work. He did NOT promise it to be a science or history textbook, or that it was all literally true.

I also wish Ark Guy good luck. If I am wrong, then I hope I am convinced of this so I may change my views.

 

[seebs]

I'm afraid my post must have been missed with the other discussions going on.

Could someone please post the exact numbers used to reach the original claim that "mutations don't add up"? I have not seen any concrete numbers; I would like to see numbers with an explanation of their sources, and how they are being combined.

In the absence of such support, I must respectfully request that the claim be retracted, as it has gone nearly seventy posts without being supported.

 

[seebs]

I think I'll take silence for consent in this case.

HEAR YE HEAR YE:

Whereas, it has been two weeks and more, and detailed numbers supporting the initial claim have not been offered, and
Whereas, several polite requests have been made for the person or persons advancing that claim to produce some numbers,
We now conclude that the initial claim was without merit, and offered as pure speculation, and that no actual numbers were crunched during the production of said claim.
Therefore, the initial claim shall be considered false, and any use of it in support of an argument shall be considered invalid, until such time as the supporting mathematics are actually presented for consideration.

Thank you.

 

[notto]

Maybe TheBear deleted the posts where Ark Guy gave the numbers he used when he 'did the math'. It's a conspiracy to further the persecution.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I am also waiting for a reply.

Ark Guy, it is two weeks since, in post 57, I gave a detailed reply to your response (post 17) to an earlier post of mine (12). You were rather dismissive, saying

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.

but as soon as I provide a more robust defense of my position you have ceased the discussion. Could you please reply.

God bless,
YN.

 

[seebs]

This discussion is already over; we have a concession by default that, in fact, the original claim was unsustainable.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Well, sometimes it does just take a long time to reply to things. You can be buisy, or just taking a while to think about things or compile facts and arguments.

 

[seebs]

If there's enough time to start several other threads on other topics, there's enough time to show the numbers.

 

[seebs]

Because I'm such a generous guy, I think I'll reopen this for a few days.

Anyone care to offer actual numbers in support of the original claim? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[Seb7]

...
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?
...

Just wonder what you are trying to say. The Bible also does not record how God created other creatures. Do you mean that they are not created from dust just because the Bible does not say so? I think there is no dispute that 'dust' refers to the elements of matters. Ain't we made up of 'dust'? Therefore the Bible does record correctly. Evolution is just a tool God use in his creation. Just like God use the gravitational force to make earth go round the sun, but the Bible is silent on this either.