so quiet... mutations

[FallingWaters]

It's so quiet here.

I invite my fellow Creationists to read an article.

I just got my latest copy of Acts & Facts and I enjoyed the article on Mutations.
I was especially intrigued because some folk on this website have claimed that there are some beneficial mutations thereby nullifying the Creationist position that there are no beneficial mutations.

It turns out the difference is between "equivocally beneficial" and "unequivocally beneficial".

The article explains in more detail and satisfies me that in no possible way could "beneficial mutations" account for the great diversity of life in the earth,
and rather demonstrated to me the incredible wisdom of God our Creator.

The article can be found in its entirety here:
http://www.icr.org/article/3466/

 

[Floodnut]

On top of that, the rate at which "species" are dying off and becoming extinct is astounding. One would think we would see NEW species by the hundreds arising over the past "50 million years." If positive mutations can account for the rise of all variations and speciation today then it would seem that we should be seeing such new birth in the fossil record, rather than fewer and fewer new species.

 

[FallingWaters]

I don't know very much about that, but it makes sense.

 

[busterdog]

Interesting article.

I think what we see with arguments about unequivocally beneficial mutations is the naked polemic. It is shocking that thinking people take this bait hook, line and sinker, because they think it ought to be so.

One very funny example is the temperature adaptation of e coli. Survival of the fittest is NOT an example of mutation, any more than the long neck giraffes surviving best in a drought. My doggy got a good home because he has a really cute wrinkly face. But, he is still a dog and is no danger of giving rise to speciation.

There is a huge difference between 1. selecting for inherent genetic traits and isoloating those traits by manipulating the environment; and 2. seeing new traits due to mutation.

Number 10 in the following example claims to have found mutations as the cause of tolerance of certain environments. THat is not necessarily a beneficial mutation, since we are talking about a lab environment. Nor I do I trust the assertion that mutation is responsible for the adaptation.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

[FallingWaters]

How do they know a random mutation occurred?
Or did they cause a "random" mutation?

 

[busterdog]

How do they know a random mutation occurred?
Or did they cause a "random" mutation?

Well, apparently most of DNA is junk, meaning we don't know what it does, but we know for sure when a "mutation" is a "random" change. Yeah. I am not buying it.

 

[FallingWaters]

Well, apparently most of DNA is junk...

It's amazing to me the scientists have the audacity to call things "junk" or "vestigial" just because they haven't yet learned what it does.

It's a good thing my mechanic doesn't work that way!

 

[busterdog]

It's amazing to me the scientists have the audacity to call things "junk" or "vestigial" just because they haven't yet learned what it does.

It's a good thing my mechanic doesn't work that way!

Yeah, and think of all the neighbors and relatives we would have to euthanize just because we don't know what they do!!

And what about all those guys in Congress?

 

[imind]

The article explains in more detail and satisfies me that in no possible way could "beneficial mutations" account for the great diversity of life in the earth,

why couldn't they? have you taken the time to read any papers that suggest they could account for the diversity we see today?

 

[imind]

It's amazing to me the scientists have the audacity to call things "junk" or "vestigial" just because they haven't yet learned what it does.

audacity? who cares what they call it? its not like it will simply be dismissed.

 

[Floodnut]

why couldn't they? have you taken the time to read any papers that suggest they could account for the diversity we see today?

Whether they COULD or not is somewhat irrelevant. Mutations do not account for the diversity in the earth. God created all living things to reproduce after their kind. All of the variations within these kinds are an outflow of the original design of God for each of the kinds.

 

[Floodnut]

why couldn't they? have you taken the time to read any papers that suggest they could account for the diversity we see today?

Whether they COULD or not is irrelevant. Mutations did not cause all the variety, rather the various kinds were originally created by God and did not arise over millions of years. Then the variations within the kinds (e.g. variations within the BEAR kind or within the CANINE kind) were also part of the original design of genetic potential that God created about 6000 years ago.

 

[imind]

Whether they COULD or not is irrelevant.

apparently, it is relevant, and is the subject of the article in the OP which makes it entirely relevant.

what is a 'kind'?