- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
That's because biologists have given up on mutations as concerning reproduction long ago in real life versus imaginations of the mind. The only place mutations were studied as respecting reproduction is in plant and animal husbandry. Where every single biologist involved agreed mutations were not viable as a new source of information. Where every single experiment failed to produce the outcomes expected.
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf
No, we are talking about individuals - not populations. A random mutation would occur in an individual - and not be passed on to the rest of the population unless that individual or its descendants mate with every single other one - or all the others die off and only those with the mutation survive. Don't try those strawmen please, I have asked you this several times. Random mutations do not spread to the population by magic. If someone in LA had a random mutation - at most it would only pass to their descendants - leaving those in New York completely unaffected. In a population of billions, the random mutation will always be limited to those who belong to that particular family line and will never become fixed in the general population.
No, in the beginning we have two breeds - one male, one female - each one containing half the genetic code for everything that exists or will exist. Some may be lost through the ages - but nothing new is ever added. What already exists is merely transcribed into a new dominant or recessive order. There was no mutation involved - merely the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits as observed in every single reproduction experiment performed in plant and animal husbandry. (above citation)
And yet we see exactly those nested hierarchy's at exactly the level of breed mating with breed. You observe them nowhere else but at the family level, no matter how much you might dream it to be otherwise.
You can make all the claims you want - but in the end they are just claims and wishful thinking - countered by the direct empirical evidence. Only when two things mate - does a hierarchy tree come into existence. No tree exists from one individual anywhere on the planet.
You have no choice but to expect large divergences - just look at your claimed whale evolution for example. There's nothing gradual about it. So now you go against your own claims - when gradual changes is what is expected from mating pairs as genes recombine into new dominant and recessive traits - gradual as in the picture above - only minor differences between parent and offspring.
So now you are promoting spontaneous generation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Belief in the present ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century. This belief was paired with a belief in heterogenesis, i.e., that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g., bees from flowers). Classical notions of spontaneous generation, which can be considered under the modern term abiogenesis, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.
So now you propose the decent of living organisms without the descent from similar living organisms????? Are evolutionists really that lost, that they would resurrect an obsolete body of thought to defend their falsified theory? All you have done is changed bees from flowers into humans from chimps.
Last edited:
Upvote
0