Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[Justatruthseeker]

A shame evolution isn't true. Maybe some could evolve out of the need to attack the poster instead of addressing the subject of the post.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution via random mutations is impossible

I am unconvinced by explanations of how random mutations operating with natural selection can account for the complexity of chemical biological life. The basic answer I encounter is that calculating the probability is too complex, and so it is merely assumed that randomness was sufficient. But if something unproven and unseen is the cause, why object when people claim that God intervenes (which is also unprovable)?

I should mention: I believe in evolution. If it can be demonstrated that random mutations is sufficient, I will wholehearted accept it.

Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act are overwhelmingly deleterious I would agree. If your looking for a straight forward argument to the contrary I wish you lots of luck.

 

[mark kennedy]

Can God created a universe where "Evolution via random mutations is POSSIBLE"?

Please consider this question. It will help you understand the difference between epistemological methods of science and faith. If you continue with the attitude you are having you will believe that science can disprove your faith. That is not the case, excluding ridiculous ideas such as the Earth being 6000 years old is an article of faith. Though those YEC people are making the same error you are.

The Scriptures don't tell us that the earth was created 6000 years ago, it teaches that life was created 6000 years ago. Science as evolutionary biology isn't about how life originated but what happens when life is already started, evolution starts there, it's a living theory. Science cannot extend itself into matters of faith because God and miracles are out of bounds.

 

[HitchSlap]

A shame evolution isn't true. Maybe some could evolve out of the need to attack the poster instead of addressing the subject of the post.

It’s a shame you don’t understand why evolution is true.

 

[mark kennedy]

A shame evolution isn't true. Maybe some could evolve out of the need to attack the poster instead of addressing the subject of the post.

I've never known a creationist to deny evolution happens, only that it's naturalistic assumptions of natural law being the whole explanation for how life originated is flawed. Universal common ancestry in general and the evolution of man from apes are essential points of departure and using the term 'evolution' without qualification blurs the issues back into the stone age.

 

[mark kennedy]

It’s a shame you don’t understand why evolution is true.

It's a shame no one ever bothers to define evolution before attacking or defending it.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's a shame no one ever bothers to define evolution before attacking or defending it.

Lol

If only everyone were as confused as you think they are.

 

[mark kennedy]

Lol

If only everyone were as confused as you think they are.

Yet, there was no definition of evolution, just a lot of circular debate around what it is.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yet, there was no definition of evolution, just a lot of circular debate around what it is.

I don’t share your opinion.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don’t share your opinion.

And you've never offered a definition or made much of an effort to learn my opinion.

 

[HitchSlap]

And you've never offered a definition or made much of an effort to learn my opinion.

Shoot.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you claiming to be unaware that the human genome is less functional over time because of damaging mutations? Or are you claiming almost all mutations that are not neutral are not damaging?




And yet this is just hypothesis, not actual observational data.


No, it doesn't logically follow, when such has never been observed. It may logically follow in fantasy land, but not in reality.


i do believe that if you took 1 inch steps, under the definition of running, you would not meet it.


Except that during that time 10,000 disasters happen (deleterious mutations) and so your dead before you get there.

New Research Suggests at Least 75% of The Human Genome Is Junk DNA After All

"The rationale for Graur's model is based on the way mutations creep into DNA, and how as a species we weed these mutations out for the benefit of all.

These kinds of genetic variants, called deleterious mutations, appear in our genome over time, subtly shifting or reordering the four chemical bases that make up DNA – adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine – in parts of our genetic code.

When mutations take place in junk DNA, they're considered neutral – since that genetic code doesn't do anything, anyway – but when mutations occur to our functional, defining DNA, they can often be harmful and even ultimately lethal, as they mess up the instructions that code for healthy tissue and biological processes.

On that basis, it's better for our evolutionary prospects if less of our DNA is functional, because less of it is then exposed to the risk of mutation and the increased chances of early death it invites."

But you want the exact opposite to be true, and to increase the chances of survival, when fact dictates the opposite. The more mutations occur over time, the more chances the species will die out due to damaging mutations.


Then why are you not being intellectually honest and keep insisting something never observed is more important than what you observe? Why be intellectually dishonest and rely on unproven theory over what you see happening all around you?

How is admitting someones claim of mutations over millions of years causing variations when it has never been observed being unimportant being dishonest? Wouldn't it be more honest to just admit it has never been observed (unlike interbreeding causing change)?

So you want me to lie to myself and ignore how we actually observe variation to occur and instead accept an unproven method that can never be observed and is known to cause serious harm to an organism over time?

Mutation - Wikipedia

"One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state."

Hmm, a built in correction routine to repair those mutations you want to be the cause of everything. Imagine that.

The denial and delusion is strong in this one.

I don't have the time nore the energy to address all these PRATTs.
So tiring.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've never known a creationist to deny evolution happens...

You must have missed post #17

... Evolution never happened.

But then maybe Heissonear isn't a creationist; I don't keep track of people's religious tribalisms - does it make a difference?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's a shame no one ever bothers to define evolution before attacking or defending it.

How about: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules." [wikipedia]

Does that help?

 

[mark kennedy]

How about: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules." [wikipedia]

Does that help?

Oh I knew what the definition was, the point was it's not mutually exclusive with God acting at the point of origin.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh I knew what the definition was, the point was it's not mutually exclusive with God acting at the point of origin.

I agree, but that's not what you said:

"It's a shame no one ever bothers to define evolution before attacking or defending it."
"Yet, there was no definition of evolution..."
"... you've never offered a definition..."

And evolution doesn't deal with the point of origin...

If you actually say what your point is, rather than saying something different, people will be able to get what your point is.

 

[Jimmy D]

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African evolve into the Afro-Asian by mutation or any other method. The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. This can be observed with every single species. And such is why every single fossil ever observed remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest found.

No such things a variation due to mutations, OK.

Even the Grants had to finally admit this after studying actual changes in animals.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So variance is introduced by mutation after all?

LOL, I'm used to your nonsense but this is a good one, even for you!

 

[Job 33:6]

Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act are overwhelmingly deleterious I would agree. If your looking for a straight forward argument to the contrary I wish you lots of luck.

So, in recent times i had been reading about the ecoli experiment over 50+ thousand generations. I have to ask, with respect to that research (im assuming you are aware of it), how can you state that genetic mutations that the ecoli are accumulating, are overwhelmingly deleterious, when it is those same mutations that are resulting in the increasing fitness and success of the ecoli populations with respect to their ancestors?

What do you mean with your above statement?

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh I knew what the definition was, the point was it's not mutually exclusive with God acting at the point of origin.

Or Thor, or Ba'al, or Vishnu, or Odin, or Obama, or Tuesday purple farting pixies...

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread was moved to the Creation & Evolution subforum from Physical & Life Sciences.