Evolution is a lie?

[GlobeMallow]

!

 

[GlobeMallow]

!

 

[GlobeMallow]

I am astounded by most the responses on this forum. As a scientist I can attest to Hkizzle's sentiment. The scientific method is impenetrable - the people no, but the method, yes. Most importantly, as KTskater relayed, there are so many checks and balances to the scientific method that any personal biases in science are immediately destroyed by the review process. It appears many of you doubt evolutionary theory. This saddens me greatly because it has been tested and tested and tested so many times we are sick of it...and each time it has held up. By this point it deserves the designation of law. I do not mean to make a mess of your beliefs, I just wish the dissenters among you would take a step back and re-evaluate your stance on the scientific method, and by association, evolution. Let us love; the space between the stars is where our wonder resides. Let us keep an open mind towards it all.

 

[Adaephon]

I am astounded by most the responses on this forum. As a scientist I can attest to Hkizzle's sentiment. The scientific method is impenetrable - the people no, but the method, yes. Most importantly, as KTskater relayed, there are so many checks and balances to the scientific method that any personal biases in science are immediately destroyed by the review process. It appears many of you doubt evolutionary theory. This saddens me greatly because it has been tested and tested and tested so many times we are sick of it...and each time it has held up. By this point it deserves the designation of law. I do not mean to make a mess of your beliefs, I just wish the dissenters among you would take a step back and re-evaluate your stance on the scientific method, and by association, evolution. Let us love; the space between the stars is where our wonder resides. Let us keep an open mind towards it all.

The issue is just the fact that a lot of people are simply ignorant of science and the scientific method. It's an educational problem.

Take comfort in the fact that all that is important is known. Long live the Praxis!

 

[berachah]

I am astounded by most the responses on this forum. As a scientist I can attest to Hkizzle's sentiment. The scientific method is impenetrable - the people no, but the method, yes. Most importantly, as KTskater relayed, there are so many checks and balances to the scientific method that any personal biases in science are immediately destroyed by the review process. It appears many of you doubt evolutionary theory. This saddens me greatly because it has been tested and tested and tested so many times we are sick of it...and each time it has held up. By this point it deserves the designation of law. I do not mean to make a mess of your beliefs, I just wish the dissenters among you would take a step back and re-evaluate your stance on the scientific method, and by association, evolution. Let us love; the space between the stars is where our wonder resides. Let us keep an open mind towards it all.

I am sorry you are so disappointed that people dare challenge the mainstream belief.. Had this not been the case in every fields of science throughout the ages, we would have no progress at all. Thankfully Christians initiated and advanced many of these fields whilst professing Creation and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Although I happily accept variation and changes within species and survival of the fittest/best suited to environment etc I do not accept the theory of evolution where more basic species evolve into 'higher', more advanced species.

And I strongly doubt,
that life could spontaneously birth forth from non life and indeed can somehow survive long enough to develop the capacity to ingest, digest and utilize matter for survival and develop the capacity to reproduce before dying out.........

that out of a massive explosive bang came order and laws for nature and all living things...

that the original one cell could miraculously burst forth into life and thereafter somehow get all the genetic information into itself through mutation / sexual reproduction / other to eventually evolve into a human......

I wonder how internal and sensory organs could evolve, how knee joints could evolve and what came first; the chicken of the egg How does a creature develop an organ that is sensitive to colour when it is not aware of color at all..? And how do we evolve the concept of God?

There's a hundred more questions that no evolutionist cares to answer scientifically so at the moment I am not in the slightest way convinced.....

Mans wisdom is foolishness to God and for me evolution is a classic example of this...

 

[Adaephon]

I am sorry you are so disappointed that people dare challenge the mainstream belief.. Had this not been the case in every fields of science throughout the ages, we would have no progress at all. Thankfully Christians initiated and advanced many of these fields whilst professing Creation and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Although I happily accept variation and changes within species and survival of the fittest/best suited to environment etc I do not accept the theory of evolution where more basic species evolve into 'higher', more advanced species.

And I strongly doubt,
that life could spontaneously birth forth from non life and indeed can somehow survive long enough to develop the capacity to ingest, digest and utilize matter for survival and develop the capacity to reproduce before dying out.........

that out of a massive explosive bang came order and laws for nature and all living things...

that the original one cell could miraculously burst forth into life and thereafter somehow get all the genetic information into itself through mutation / sexual reproduction / other to eventually evolve into a human......

I wonder how internal and sensory organs could evolve, how knee joints could evolve and what came first; the chicken of the egg How does a creature develop an organ that is sensitive to colour when it is not aware of color at all..? And how do we evolve the concept of God?

There's a hundred more questions that no evolutionist cares to answer scientifically so at the moment I am not in the slightest way convinced.....

Mans wisdom is foolishness to God and for me evolution is a classic example of this...

Cool story bro. I'd take all of this a lot more seriously if I thought your skepticism had any informed merit. Science is answering all the things you "wonder" about already.

Take comfort in the fact that all that is important is known. Long live the Praxis!

 

[KTskater]

Let me explain my experience of how science works. Money is the key factor in the studies of the sciences and those that pay the money do not want to hear about creationism. They do not want archeological evidence that confirms the Bible or creationism, they want evidence of evolution. So currently there are billions of dollars being spent on the latter and nothing on the former.

One person starts by creating an hypothesis and without any scientific proof the next person builds on that. With thousands of people paid to build on that hypothesis you end up with 'fact.'

Anyone that dares to contradict the party direction is rediculed and scoffed at without looking at their contributions.

This has very recently happened with the global warming theory. About 2 decades ago large amounts of money started being paid to scientific bodies to study anthropogenic global warming. Those that disagreed with this theory were slowly sidelined, defunded and dismissed from positions of authority. Eventually there evolved a consensus on the subject.

A document was put out to all the respected scientists for their comments on the theory. Many voiced strong reservations, rejected the findings and actively opposed the conclusions. However all those that received the draft were listed as peer reviewers, although their comments were never added to the final draft. The UN then had a peer reviewed document that has ben used to draft legislation that has and will become binding on all nations.

Anyone that now disagrees is a 'denier', not scientific, in the lunatic fringe minority etc etc. The fact that the earth is actually cooling is irrelevant. Science has declared it to be warming and so a carbon tax is up ahead for all nations, the beneficiaries being the people that funded the initial research and those that are now employed to perpetuate the myth...
That is science as we now know it, so please excuse my suspicion on the matter....

Here is a little list of peer-reviewed articles, published by respected journals, by scientists who disagree with the evolutionary model:

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010)

William Lane Craig, “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38: 389-395 (1988).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

William G. Pollard, “Rumors of transcendence in physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 52 (10) (October 1984).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,” Cell Cycle, Vol. 6(15):1873-1877 (August 1, 2007).

Solomon Victor, Vljaya M. Nayek, and Raveen Rajasingh, “Evolution of the Ventricles,” Texas Heart Institute Journal, Vol. 26:168-175 (1999).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology, Vol. 1:601-607 (2006).


While you are definitely correct that the interests of those offering funding often set limitations on what studies will be done, the above list is evidence that if a someone is curious about another view point and they investigate it with solid science, it can get published. These ID scientists are the opposing view points that I can take seriously.

As far as Biblical archaeology goes...I'm pretty sure the History Channel routinely runs specials about new findings that prove events in the Bible took place or that the places they talk about exist. I've watched a couple on Sodom and Gomorrah, at least one on the Hebrews leaving Egypt, and there are probably a dozen that investigate Jesus. So, even the mainstream media is presenting the data that supports the Bible.

I am radical and uncompromising in what I believe but always attempt to study the references others quote. At the end of the day my faith does not stand by the creationism model so I do not have to die by it.

However I have seen too much deceipt practised by evolutionists to not be extremely cautious when studying their claims and their so called 'science'. And unless evolutionists move past the "we do not know' responses everytime they have to face the hard questions they bombard Bible belieiving Christians with, I will continue to consider evolution to be a Godless theory without a truly scientific basis.

A hundred years ago medical science was subjecting patients to horrendous procedures to treal heal them. Now we have moved to more subtle scientific treatments such as lazer treatment and microscopic surgery and as I write their are articles in the media about healing through placebos, positive thinking etc.

My guess is the future we will 'evolve' to speak healing into existence, (like Jesus) we will recognize all the current science as false science (as Paul describes it in the NT) and we will understand the creation model fully and without the misinformation of the lie of evolution and its false science.(as stated in Genesis)

But until then, let us debate..

Interesting thoughts/predictions. I'm also glad to hear that your faith doesn't rest upon Creationism (Capital "C" = young earth, special creation). Mine does not rest upon evolution. A think those are both good positions to have.

 

[Ronald]

DNA is not information: it's a molecule.

Yes, a molecule,(DiRiboNucleicAcid), that carries genetic information --if you want to split hairs.

Organs and systems can change bit by bit, as can easily be seen by all of the slight variations they have in related species.

"Any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function." Michael Behe

Geneticists, the people who study mutations, certainly think that some of them are beneficial,

I guess you feel comfortable with the idea that nature selection mutations and over millions of years, here you are! The concept that nature designs itself by an accummulation of billions of good mutations and collectively and simultaneously doing so within each eccential organ and system is far-fetched. You go ahead and think that way.

This is just silly.

I'm silly sometimes but God fearing people say that He who says there is no God is a fool!

Do you have any idea what natural selection is? It has nothing to do with a mind consciously choosing something.

Then what is designing and ordering the eco-system if it is not designing itself? This kind of order speaks to a designer. You wouldn't think that the watch on your hand happened by chance? Or the genetic code in the DNA molecule happened by chance? It's like saying an explosion in a print shop occurred and the enclycopedia was created.

But you just said that the two most important components that make up microevolution -- beneficial mutations and natural selection -- don't exist.

I said basically changes that occur WITHIN A SPECIE are adaptive mechanisms that are already programmed into the genetic code and that can be viewed as microevolution --however, not based on mutations and natural selection, but based on how God designed the organism.

Please don't go on. You don't understand evolution. You should try learning about it before you attack it; otherwise your comments will have nothing to do with reality

.
OK, but my comments may help those who seek God but not those who don't.
Reality = truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life ..."
Life comes from HIM. BYE

 

[miamited]

!

Hi globemallow,

Let me see if I understand your basis of 'truth'. Your icon says that you're an atheist. Now, that does mean that you don't believe there is a god, right? That's the truth to you, right?

And you want those who know that what you believe about a god to then trust that you know the 'truth' in other things. Well, I'll just let you know right from jump, I'm not much convinced that an atheist knows the truth about anything. Especially, those things that relate to how and why we're here. They, by the very foundation of their belief, must believe in some sort of 'evolutionary' process for their existence because the only other explanation is that a god created them and that's just complete nonsense, right?

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[KTskater]

I'm silly sometimes but God fearing people say that He who says there is no God is a fool!

OK, but my comments may help those who seek God but not those who don't.
Reality = truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life ..."
Life comes from HIM. BYE

You make an awfully big assumption about theistic evolutionists and their relationship with God. I can't speak for them all, but I the "theistic" aspect of the description means that they acknowledge God's role in the process.

I personally consider God to the be Creator. I remember sitting in my first physics class in college, and we began talking about astrophysics and the vastness of the universe. I felt moved to worship right in the middle of class. Science enhances my wonder of God and his Majesty. The laws of physics, evolution, mathematics...all of these things leave me in awe of my Creator and the universe that He ultimately knew would come into being.

I am humbled and broken over my sin, just as you are. I enjoy the presence of God in worship just like anyone else. I eagerly read the Word to know more of the character of God. I spend time in prayer allowing God to build our personal relationship. My belief on how species came to be doesn't mean that I cannot connect with my Creator.

 

[Ronald]

You make an awfully big assumption about theistic evolutionists and their relationship with God.

I didn't do that. I said, He who says there is no God is a fool! If they believe in Jesus, they aren't. My implication was directed the atheists that planted the evolutionary theory seed that grew and spread.

I can't speak for them all, but I the "theistic" aspect of the description means that they acknowledge God's role in the process.

Process? He made everything finished in a week and it was good. A peacock was always a peacock, a rose was always a rose and man was always man, every creature and kind unique and finished. You can have this idea of a gradual creation --your choice.

I personally consider God to the be Creator. I remember sitting in my first physics class in college, and we began talking about astrophysics and the vastness of the universe. I felt moved to worship right in the middle of class.

Good man. At 21 I was studying evolution and believing it until 14 years later.

Science enhances my wonder of God and his Majesty. The laws of physics, evolution, mathematics...all of these things leave me in awe of my Creator and the universe that He ultimately knew would come into being.

Wonderful.

I am humbled and broken over my sin, just as you are. I enjoy the presence of God in worship just like anyone else. I eagerly read the Word to know more of the character of God. I spend time in prayer allowing God to build our personal relationship.

Well, you seem like a spirit filled Christian who is passing through. May God give you further enlightenment about His creation.

My belief on how species came to be doesn't mean that I cannot connect with my Creator

True, I never said otherwise. God Bless

 

[berachah]

Here is a little list of peer-reviewed articles, published by respected journals, by scientists who disagree with the evolutionary model:

thanks for the references...

 

[BazAussiekid1173]

Evolution has never been oserved. It's based on repeated benevolent mutations which are incredibly rare and contends that such is the driving force of nature. It points to adaptation; a conservative process; and uses it as evidence of increasing complexity. Increasing complexity is not observed in nature. Even the simplest life forms have complex DNA.

Here's a question in logic. If creation happened by a miracle of God in violation of nartural law, could a science based on the study of natrual law ever possibly get the right answer regarding the process?

But they ARE biased in that they demand all answers be framed using natural processes. Miracles defy natural processes.

More accurately, we take the position that the Bible is the literal word of God. We understand that many of the things that were recorded in the Bible could not possibly have happened in accordance with natural law. We recognize that natural law has no constraint on a supernatural Creator, and we understand that God could have created the universe in any manner He saw fit. He would not, however, lie about how He did it. We further recognize that the forth Commandment was given in recognition of the six day creation and the subsequent day of rest.

Creation is a fact of our existence, not a scientific theory.

Uhh, what do you mean Evolution hasn't been observed? What about the transitional species fossils, evidence of speciation/ring species? Or do you mean that NO, the scientists haven't been able to physically observe a biological process which takes millions of years to produce a visible change in an organism's phenotype? The ridiculous argument aside, scientists actually define Evolution as "...change in inherited characteristics of a biological population over successive generations...".
Ever wonder why insects develop a certain resistance to pesticides? Congrats, you've made your first "observation" of evolution in work.

Here's a question in logic. If creation happened by a miracle of God in violation of nartural law, could a science based on the study of natrual law ever possibly get the right answer regarding the process?

That's a big IF. Basically, speculation there.

But they ARE biased in that they demand all answers be framed using natural processes. Miracles defy natural processes.

...so what you're saying is that science, a study of natural things in the natural world is biased because it doesn't adhere to your unsubstantiated beliefs?

 

[sfs]

"Any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function." Michael Behe

Yes, I'm aware of Behe's definition. Combine his definition with my previous comment (that major organs always have different versions, with slightly or significantly different components) and you will find that major organs are not irreducibly complex.

I guess you feel comfortable with the idea that nature selection mutations and over millions of years, here you are! The concept that nature designs itself by an accummulation of billions of good mutations and collectively and simultaneously doing so within each eccential organ and system is far-fetched. You go ahead and think that way.

I'm quite comfortable thinking that way. I've yet to encounter a credible reason to reject the idea.

Then what is designing and ordering the eco-system if it is not designing itself?

We can watch ecosystems change themselves as conditions change. No direction from outside is required; mutation and natural selection (and various other natural processes) do the job.

This kind of order speaks to a designer.

The presence of order in the universe, and especially the fruitful order we see in biology, may speak to a designer. As a Christian, part of my faith is that it does. That nothing to do with your claim that natural selection requires a mind to work; it doesn't. All it requires is for some organisms to reproduce more often than others.

I said basically changes that occur WITHIN A SPECIE are adaptive mechanisms that are already programmed into the genetic code and that can be viewed as microevolution --however, not based on mutations and natural selection, but based on how God designed the organism.

Yes, I know you said that. The problem is that it's wrong. We can take a bunch of genetically identical organisms, let them reproduce for many generations, and observe how they adapt to their environment. They do adapt, and the changes are indeed the result of new mutations that have become common because of natural selection.

 

[sfs]

Firstly according to your doctrine all genes of current species are a result of millions upon mutations anyway.. Over millions of years the entire dna structure of any creature is as a result of a mass of mutations of mutations.. In the 1st reference Tomkin was saying that if you mutate any part of a gene it affects the whole dna in some way, which will eventually leads to its death, so I dont agree with what you are trying to say.

No, that's not what Tomkins was saying. He said that evolution predicted that organisms should be fine if you knock out genes. What he said was wrong. Why do creationists find it so hard to speak accurately about science?

And why must the Duffy genetic variences be a mutation?

It doesn't have to be, but where else would it have come from -- propose an alternative explanation and we can evaluate it. Why wouldn't it be a mutation, though? It's just a single-base difference, just like one of the millions of mutations that occur every day.

I believe and accept adaptation as quite in line with creationism. At the end of the day, those individuals will not mutate into another species because they have this allele. Rather the body because of its dynamic state, its defense mechanisms and through breeding with other survivors of malaria has reacted to its environment.

People in Africa are immune to vivax malaria for a very specific reason: a single base in their DNA -- a single letter in their genetic instructions -- is different. They have a C (cytosine) where others have a T (thymine). Nothing to do with the dynamic state of their bodies, defense mechanisms, or anything else.

With your logic people who live in Africa are in the early stages of evolving into another species because they have responded to produce large amounts of melamine to protect from the sun.

If a Norwegian moves to the tropics and is exposed to the sun every day for 70 years, will his skin turn as dark as an African's? When an African moves to Minnesota, does her skin turn pale after a few years without the sun?

Well I have recently developed lactose intolerance...Does that mean my mutated gene has reversed itself.. Every response of the body to the environment is not a mutation.

It's certainly true that not every response of the body is a mutation, and not all lactose intolerance has the same basis. It is just as true, however, that some differences between bodies are the result of mutations, and it is equally certain that a mutation caused Europeans (among others) to develop lactose tolerance in adults.

So if changing the genes of the dna does lead to the evolving from one species to another what does? Please dont say natural selection and adaptation to the environment....

Mutating one of the handful of core developmental genes is not involved in one species evolving into another. Mutating some of the 10,000+ other genes is involved. The paper in question was only looking at that handful of genes, not at genes in general.

Essentially they grew better because of the changes of the more suitable and favourable environment they were placed in. Just like any organism would.

False. The environment was identical throughout the experiment. Yet bacteria from later generations grew better than ones from earlier generations, in the same environment. (And the environment was not at all favorable, in fact.)

In my opinion the body has all the data, capacity and inbuilt ingenuity to respond to various changes in its environment and these are not mutations but responses and adjustments.

Reality doesn't care what your opinion is. In real organisms, mutations occur all the time, and some of them lead to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Even creationist organizations recognize this fact.

 

[berachah]

No, that's not what Tomkins was saying. He said that evolution predicted that organisms should be fine if you knock out genes. What he said was wrong. Why do creationists find it so hard to speak accurately about science?

Please reread the article I posted as you clearly did not understand it.

It doesn't have to be, but where else would it have come from -- propose an alternative explanation and we can evaluate it. Why wouldn't it be a mutation, though? It's just a single-base difference, just like one of the millions of mutations that occur every day.

When you speak of mutations you (because of your belief system) believe the organism is mutating due to its inbuilt capacity to mutate and evolve to a higher species. The reality is that mutations in the overwhelming majority produce nothing good (ignoring the fact that statistically the odds of creatures evolving through mutations is so low as to be zero) and the mutations you refer to (as other have stated) largely result in cancer, disease, the ageing process and other negative changes within the body.

There is clear evidence showing vaccinations cause downs syndrome, another mutation, so clearly there are influences without that cause mutations that do not come from the body itself. I would suggest this is probably the same for any mutations you might be thinking of...

People in Africa are immune to vivax malaria for a very specific reason: a single base in their DNA -- a single letter in their genetic instructions -- is different. They have a C (cytosine) where others have a T (thymine). Nothing to do with the dynamic state of their bodies, defense mechanisms, or anything else.

Malaria is the biggest killer in Africa by far. The fact that some people have survived the disease and over generations built an immunity against the disease (which is manifest in their genetic makeup) does mean this is a mutation, just the same as westerner resistance to flu does not mean they have mutations. Far more likely the internal resistance and defense to a disease cause a change in the genetic makeup which should not be referred to as a mutation.

If a Norwegian moves to the tropics and is exposed to the sun every day for 70 years, will his skin turn as dark as an African's? When an African moves to Minnesota, does her skin turn pale after a few years without the sun?

How about 10 generations...how about 100 generations? You dont know the answer do you? The fact is white people emigrated to Africa 150 years ago from Holland and their (those in Southern Africa) complextion is far darker their forefathers and that alone suggest that this is quite possible.

It's certainly true that not every response of the body is a mutation, and not all lactose intolerance has the same basis. It is just as true, however, that some differences between bodies are the result of mutations, and it is equally certain that a mutation caused Europeans (among others) to develop lactose tolerance in adults.

Well I guess when it suits the theory it a mutation...

False. The environment was identical throughout the experiment. Yet bacteria from later generations grew better than ones from earlier generations, in the same environment. (And the environment was not at all favorable, in fact.)

so you missed the part about increasing the temperature of the environment or just chose to ignore this?

Reality doesn't care what your opinion is. In real organisms, mutations occur all the time, and some of them lead to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Even creationist organizations recognize this fact.

Your reality...
Im afraid your take on mutations is birthed out of yielding to a godless doctrine that blinds you to sound scientific discernment, common sense and the truths of the Bible.

A Look at Some Figures - Answers in Genesis

Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the book Evolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
​

Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 1021 complete universes!
This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.
Coppedge’s book makes fascinating reading in other respects and is one of the few works that really comes to grips with this matter of molecular biology and probability mathematics.
Evolutionists would have us believe that modern molecular biology lends its support to their world view, but the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes.

 

[sfs]

Please reread the article I posted as you clearly did not understand it.

I read it carefully. Please point out where I misunderstood it.

When you speak of mutations you (because of your belief system) believe the organism is mutating due to its inbuilt capacity to mutate and evolve to a higher species. The reality is that mutations in the overwhelming majority produce nothing good (ignoring the fact that statistically the odds of creatures evolving through mutations is so low as to be zero) and the mutations you refer to (as other have stated) largely result in cancer, disease, the ageing process and other negative changes within the body.

When I speak of mutations, I mean mutations: any change to DNA that can be passed on to descendants. It doesn't matter whether they are good, bad or neither: they're all mutations. We know that mutations happen all the time because we observe them happening all the time; we also know the mechanisms by which most of them occur. Yes, most mutations in humans have no effect on fitness, and of those that do affect fitness, the overwhelming majority are deleterious.

None of this has anything to do with the question I asked: why couldn't the Duffy null trait be the result of a mutation? The difference between those who have that trait and those who don't is a single-base change to their DNA, the kind of change that happens all the time in the mutations that we observe. So why couldn't this have started out as a mutation?

There is clear evidence showing vaccinations cause downs syndrome, another mutation, so clearly there are influences without that cause mutations that do not come from the body itself. I would suggest this is probably the same for any mutations you might be thinking of...

I'm aware of zero evidence that vaccinations cause Down syndrome. Are you thinking of autism? There's also zero evidence that vaccinations cause autism, but at least that's a popular belief, unlike your claim about Down syndrome. It's also simply not true that all mutations cause problems, since I've pointed out multiple cases in which a known mutation is beneficial for humans.

Malaria is the biggest killer in Africa by far. The fact that some people have survived the disease and over generations built an immunity against the disease (which is manifest in their genetic makeup) does mean this is a mutation, just the same as westerner resistance to flu does not mean they have mutations. Far more likely the internal resistance and defense to a disease cause a change in the genetic makeup which should not be referred to as a mutation.

I'm afraid this paragraph is meaningless. A mutation is defined as a change in the genetic makeup. What would a change in genetic makeup be that should not be referred to as a mutation? Where are you getting these ideas?

How about 10 generations...how about 100 generations? You dont know the answer do you? The fact is white people emigrated to Africa 150 years ago from Holland and their (those in Southern Africa) complextion is far darker their forefathers and that alone suggest that this is quite possible.

Well, yes, I do have a pretty good idea about the answer; coming up with such answers is one of the things I do for a living. 10 generations is impossible, 100 generations is quite unlikely, and 1000 generations is likely.

Well I guess when it suits the theory it a mutation...

No, when it's a mutation it's a mutation. Do you know anything about the genetic basis for lactose tolerance, or are you just trying to be randomly insulting?

so you missed the part about increasing the temperature of the environment or just chose to ignore this?

I missed it because it wasn't there. Quoting from the paper describing the experiment: "Twelve E. coli populations were propagated at 37 °C for 6,000 days in minimal medium supplemented with limiting glucose." Constant temperature for 6000 days -- not much of an increase, was it? Where did you get the idea that the temperature changed?

Your reality...
Im afraid your take on mutations is birthed out of yielding to a godless doctrine that blinds you to sound scientific discernment, common sense and the truths of the Bible.

What rubbish. My take on mutations is birthed out of my long professional experience as a geneticist. In contrast, your take on mutations seems to have been birthed out of thin air. If you will recall, my complaint was that creationists misrepresent science all the time. I'm afraid you're doing a fine job in this thread of proving my point. (Even Answers in Genesis lists "There are no beneficial mutations" as one of the arguments that creationists should never use.)

[Irrelevant material deleted -- it has nothing to do with mutations or even evolution, for that matter.]

 

[berachah]

I read it carefully. Please point out where I misunderstood it.

In the majority of cases, the disruption of single genes reduced the fitness of the nematode populations. This was an effect that kept increasing with successive generations. Theoretically, this would have eventually led to extinction.
As a result, researchers concluded that most every gene tested was essential to survival of the nematode. Because the mutant worms' fitness decreased over successive generations, the researchers also concluded that even single mutations negatively impact entire gene networks.
The researchers wrote,
In contrast to previous estimates, we find that, in these multigeneration population assays, the majority of genes affect fitness, and this suggests that genetic networks are not robust to mutation. Our results demonstrate that, in a single environmental condition, most animal genes play essential roles.1
In the biological evolution model, the process of genome mutation not only involves the hypothetical alteration of gene sequences, but the idea that not all genes are essential to life. In other words, there is room in the cell system for DNA to randomly change, so that once in a while it can spit out some useful new gene sequence to advance evolutionary progress. However, this new study shows that even though the cell systems in roundworms are dynamic and environmentally responsive, the fine-tuned DNA-based informational system that underlies it cannot be corrupted without diminishing its ability to survive.

None of this has anything to do with the question I asked: why couldn't the Duffy null trait be the result of a mutation? The difference between those who have that trait and those who don't is a single-base change to their DNA, the kind of change that happens all the time in the mutations that we observe. So why couldn't this have started out as a mutation?

Well you arrogantly dismissed my point that it is possible that the genetic make up of an organism could already include all the material that could lead to the changes in the DNA (in response to the influences of the environment), so I doubt you would receive anything except what your puffed up geneticist mind already believes.

In fact as a follow up to the E coli experient by Lenski (and in agreement with my comment above) you might be dare yourself to read this article. Bacterial 'Evolution' Is Actually Design in Action The conclusions showing that the Ecoli's ability to import citrate was through the amplification (of existing genetic material) and changes to the DNA order.

Besides that after 50 000 generations they were still E coli after another 5 000 000 generations they will still be.

I'm aware of zero evidence that vaccinations cause Down syndrome. Are you thinking of autism? There's also zero evidence that vaccinations cause autism, but at least that's a popular belief, unlike your claim about Down syndrome. It's also simply not true that all mutations cause problems, since I've pointed out multiple cases in which a known mutation is beneficial for humans.

Yes I am referring to autism and there is more than anough material to show the link between this / other diseases and vaccines, but clearly you have a filter on what material you are prepared to engage.

I'm afraid this paragraph is meaningless. A mutation is defined as a change in the genetic makeup. What would a change in genetic makeup be that should not be referred to as a mutation? Where are you getting these ideas?

read my above comments

Well, yes, I do have a pretty good idea about the answer; coming up with such answers is one of the things I do for a living. 10 generations is impossible, 100 generations is quite unlikely, and 1000 generations is likely.

And let us say after 1000 generations the offspring moved back to the North pole, do you suppose that after another 1000 generations there would be reverse mutation? (important considering -and according to evolutionists - there is evidence of cyclical weather patterns of a severe nature)

What rubbish. My take on mutations is birthed out of my long professional experience as a geneticist. In contrast, your take on mutations seems to have been birthed out of thin air. If you will recall, my complaint was that creationists misrepresent science all the time. I'm afraid you're doing a fine job in this thread of proving my point. (Even Answers in Genesis lists "There are no beneficial mutations" as one of the arguments that creationists should never use.)

I wouldnt beat my chest so loudly because you're a geneticist. Last I heard your ilk were professing that people were gay because of their genetic makeup....

One only need read the ongoing contradictions of prominent geneticists and the failure of the profession to offer any meaningful breakthrough against disease and sickness to know that this field is in its infancy and is still like a blind man feeling his way in the dark..

You would do well to broaden your study and perhaps read a book by Henry Wright called "A more excellent way."

But one thing that your profession will no doubt one day 'discover' is that reborn Christians have a genetic flaw and in the not so distant they should be removed from society to advance the human race....

 

[sfs]

Apparently the fact that I bothered to learn about genetics before discussing the subject represents a grave character flaw on my part. I see no point to further discussion here.

 

[berachah]

Apparently the fact that I bothered to learn about genetics before discussing the subject represents a grave character flaw on my part. I see no point to further discussion here.

Just before you go, perhaps you can, from a geneticist's point of view, answer this.....?

If it took 1000's of generations for the Ecoli to develop the ability to take in citrate how did the first creature that spontaneously burst forth into life (to start the process of evolution) actually survive as surely it would take more than 100 000's of generations to develop the ability to take in anything?

'...iron sharpens iron'