What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Tomk80]

Thanks Tom I really appreciate it!

Ah, I can never resist a good apology. Like cookies, when someone offers them to me I just have to have one.

 

[FishFace]

FishFace I owe you an apology also. See my post to TomK #371

 

[Inan3]

So you posted a bunch of phrases which you claim suggest evolutionary theory is incorrect. Now you admit you don't have enough knowledge to say why these things suggest evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Thanks for admitting you, basically, just pasted a list of things some creationist website said falsified evolutionary theory without understanding any of them or knowing why or how they do so.

Honesty has never been creationists' strong point.

That's right Bellman but aren't you asking me to do the same with evolution? I told you I am looking at both sides. When I came on here from the beginning I admitted I didn't know enough about science but one thing I do know about is God. You guys don't know about God. You accuse me of being insecure....Of being fearful, you make fun etc. but you don't really know about God. You don't even give Him a chance. You tell me that I can't take Genesis literally....that the evidence for evolution shows that it's all a fairy tale. But I've lived 36 years knowing Him and I know He is as real as you are, and to me He's even more real because I don't know you very well but that doesn't make you a fairy tale. What I'm trying to say is I've lived 36 years this way and after a couple of weeks here on the forum I'm not going to turn my whole life over to what scientists or anybody says is acceptable if it tries to say that a God Who has never let me down....has directed my life....healed my body and my family....given me peace during dark times...joy in the midst of turmoil. These aren't just words to some song this is my life and the life of many, many other Chrisitans I have met along the way. So yes I'm going to trust those that agree with me before those who do not. But I will continue to learn about the things you say. I won't accept them because you say it but I will look up things that you reference and I will consider them with an open mind. That's all I can tell you. If you can't accept that there's no more I can do.

You may not think Christians are honest but I'm sure I have met more "true" Christians than you have because I live amongst them and and I have found more honest than not. One thing I know is that I don't lie. I make mistakes but if I tell you something you can count on what I side as not being a lie. I might not know what I am talking about and I am open to change but I don't lie. So here is one Christian that you can say IS honest.

I have been accused of thinking I am superior to non-christians in this forum but I do not. I just think I accepted Someone Who is. I believe in Someone Who is. By doing that He has made me acceptable before the Father. Freely, not based on anything I have or haven't done. It's a free gift. Has is it changed my life? Yes, dramatically. Am I perfect? No. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how much better I am or how bad I still am. What matters is my faith in Jesus. The Father God accepts me on that merit only....I believe in Jesus so God accepts me and in so doing I reap the benefits.

That's why I know those involved in the witch hunts and the crusades and any other slaugters of people in the name of religion or God after Christ were wrong and actually against God because God set His Son to die for us while we were yet sinners. All of us....even the witches, etc. etc.

God is not an evil God. He is a good God and Father!

NOTE: The word YOU is used generally and not to you specifically Bellman

 

[Inan3]

TY much appreciated

 

[Inan3]

Nothing much. Little skirmishes tops

Skirmishes come and skirmishes go. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[Inan3]

Ah...it seems we have a new face. Welcome to our happy family BigD

 

[Inan3]

do you have any evidence to suggest evolutionary theory is incorrect?

You did ask me if I had any evidence to "suggest" evolutionary theory is incorrect, am I right? I gave you what others consider is evidence that does that very thing.

Ah, I see... so, you decided Creation is correct BEFORE looking at the evidence, and are now trying to find evidence to support your prior assumptions. I see.

No I decided Creation was correct before you were born, before you ever asked that question. I decided when I met the God of Creation. I decide every time I read Genesis. I decide every time I look at the world around me. I decide because evolutionary theories have been wrong in the past. I decide because no one on this forum has showed me anything to change my mind.

You are, of course, aware that evolution does not require a belief that anything "just "happen" from nothing."

I am aware that people have told me that. But I am also aware that someone on this very forum suggested that (and this will not be a quote) scientists now believe that it's possible that molecules have happened out of nothing. Tell me what is the generally accepted Theory of Cosmology? Can you tell me the origin of all things?

 

[The Bellman]

That's right Bellman but aren't you asking me to do the same with evolution? I told you I am looking at both sides. When I came on here from the beginning I admitted I didn't know enough about science but one thing I do know about is God. You guys don't know about God. You accuse me of being insecure....Of being fearful, you make fun etc. but you don't really know about God. You don't even give Him a chance. You tell me that I can't take Genesis literally....that the evidence for evolution shows that it's all a fairy tale. But I've lived 36 years knowing Him and I know He is as real as you are, and to me He's even more real because I don't know you very well but that doesn't make you a fairy tale. What I'm trying to say is I've lived 36 years this way and after a couple of weeks here on the forum I'm not going to turn my whole life over to what scientists or anybody says is acceptable if it tries to say that a God Who has never let me down....has directed my life....healed my body and my family....given me peace during dark times...joy in the midst of turmoil. These aren't just words to some song this is my life and the life of many, many other Chrisitans I have met along the way. So yes I'm going to trust those that agree with me before those who do not. But I will continue to learn about the things you say. I won't accept them because you say it but I will look up things that you reference and I will consider them with an open mind. That's all I can tell you. If you can't accept that there's no more I can do.

I understand and happily accept all of the above. But you seem to be under a misapprehension. You are obviously very secure and confident in your belief in God as someone who is with you and who helps you every day. Good for you. But accepting evolution does nothing whatsoever to invalidate that belief. Evolution doesn't say anything about God; it doesn't say (or imply) that he doesn't exist. If you accept evolution, it need have absolutely no impact to your walk with God. The only thing it will mean is that you will have to abandon a literary interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. Literally billions of Christians the world over have already done this and remained committed Christians.

Despite what you may have heard/read, evolution is not a threat to Christianity (or any other religion).

By the same token, your confident belief in God is not an argument against evolution. Above you say (this is a paraphrase) "I don't know much about evolution, but I know a lot about God." That's great...but knowing about God and believing him to be what you believe him to be is not evidence against evolution. It's not a question of "I know God, therefore evolution is false, and I don't need to know much about evolution to make that judgement." Evolution is a scientific theory that stands (or falls) on its own merits, regardless of whether or not God (or any god) exists. Believe in God by all means - but do not dismiss evolutionary theory without actually studying it. And that means studying science, not religion, because evolutionary theory is science, not religion.

You may not think Christians are honest but I'm sure I have met more "true" Christians than you have because I live amongst them and and I have found more honest than not. One thing I know is that I don't lie. I make mistakes but if I tell you something you can count on what I side as not being a lie. I might not know what I am talking about and I am open to change but I don't lie. So here is one Christian that you can say IS honest.

I've said nothing about Christians being honest (or dishonest); I said it about creationists, a subset of Christians. In my experience honesty isn't something creationists are known for. This is not to say they all lie, or they lie all the time, but they are, as a general rule (particularly the 'professional' ones) less than honest when it comes to evolutionary theory.

I have been accused of thinking I am superior to non-christians in this forum but I do not. I just think I accepted Someone Who is. I believe in Someone Who is. By doing that He has made me acceptable before the Father. Freely, not based on anything I have or haven't done. It's a free gift. Has is it changed my life? Yes, dramatically. Am I perfect? No. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how much better I am or how bad I still am. What matters is my faith in Jesus. The Father God accepts me on that merit only....I believe in Jesus so God accepts me and in so doing I reap the benefits.

That's why I know those involved in the witch hunts and the crusades and any other slaugters of people in the name of religion or God after Christ were wrong and actually against God because God set His Son to die for us while we were yet sinners. All of us....even the witches, etc. etc.

All of the above is fair enough, and I accept and understand it.

God is not an evil God. He is a good God and Father!

I would disagree with this, but it's not really on topic.

 

[Inan3]

NOW I know what happened! TWICE I tried to reply to The Bellman and BOTH times I was brought to the following quote by TomK80. Then, when that failed, I went to the top of the page, to the Post Repy button, over all threads, 5 times I was brought again to TomK80's quote below. This happened even after refreshing my window.

(I deleted the body of the quote because that is not the focus of this post.)

I surmise that this is how I ended up at FishFace when I thought I was posting to TomK80 but I never noticed who's name was in the quote. I just assumed I had the right person. I will be submitting this error to the webmasters here at ForU.ms.

I couldn't understand how I could have done that the other night but figured I was just tired but now I know.

I'll be watching from now on and suggest you all do, too.

I certainly feel a whole lot better about it. I hate being wrong.

 

[Inan3]

I understand and happily accept all of the above. But you seem to be under a misapprehension. You are obviously very secure and confident in your belief in God as someone who is with you and who helps you every day. Good for you.
But accepting evolution does nothing whatsoever to invalidate that belief. Evolution doesn't say anything about God; it doesn't say (or imply) that he doesn't exist. If you accept evolution, it need have absolutely no impact to your walk with God. The only thing it will mean is that you will have to abandon a literary interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

TB I assure you that I am in no way under a misapprehension. It seems to me, though, that you are. You see a "true" Christian believes the whole Bible to the inspired and literal Word of God. We believe it was penned by men who were inspired by God to write down the words that He instructed them to write. The several authors, through the centurys of its writing, wrote, that it is not to be added to or taken away from, down to the smallest jot or tittle. If men were able to take out the parts that they didn't understand or didn't want to follow, we would have nothing left but a book of error.

If we don't see that the WHOLE is the Word of God then how could we believe any of it?

Literally billions of Christians the world over have already done this and remained committed Christians.

Well TB, the highest statistics I can find for ALL the Christians of the World is 2.1 Billion. I find it difficult to believe that the bulk of these just cast off the first few chapters of Genesis. (And when it comes to the "true" Christian this figure will be much smaller) I don't know even one that is even remotely "thinking" about doing that.

I don't deny that there may be some people who call themselves Christians, when in fact they are not, who have not problem with doing this but these are the same people who have no problem with slaughtering people and going on witch hunts and twisting the Word of God to fit their doctrinal errors. They are religious but they are not true born again Christians. These are those creationists who you will find lying not true born again Christian creationists.

Despite what you may have heard/read, evolution is not a threat to Christianity (or any other religion).

I hope that because I admit when I am wrong and apologize for so doing or when I tell the truth about what I may or may not know, that you would NOT confuse that with my being naive or easily swayed. If you knew me you would know that that is very much to the contrary. I don't form my opinions by what I read or hear from other people about evolution. (And evolution could NEVER be a threat to Christianity.) I am not afraid to believe in evolution. All on my own, with my own reasoning based on BOTH sides of the issue, with what I have learned, I still conclude, I do not see the credibility of evolution.

By the same token, your confident belief in God is not an argument against evolution. Above you say (this is a paraphrase) "I don't know much about evolution, but I know a lot about God." That's great...but knowing about God and believing him to be what you believe him to be is not evidence against evolution. It's not a question of "I know God, therefore evolution is false, and I don't need to know much about evolution to make that judgement."

My belief in God is not intended to be an argument against evolution nor have I ever used it to be. What I have said is that understanding what I believe and my limited hearing of both the sides I would tend to trust those who hold the same beliefs in creation as I do. I have read their scientific explanations and I believe them to contadict AND demontrate the error of the evidence of the argument on the other side.

Evolution is a scientific theory that stands (or falls) on its own merits, regardless of whether or not God (or any god) exists. Believe in God by all means - but do not dismiss evolutionary theory without actually studying it. And that means studying science, not religion, because evolutionary theory is science, not religion.

As I have noted in my posts, I am studying it on both sides of the issue and from a scientific standpoint. I have been to Christian sites which state their beliefs or hearsay about evolution and though, I may agree with them, if they do not collaborate this info, I just skip over them and continue my search. I am finding more and more scientific information for creation and it seems to show the errors of the actual scientific evidence offered by evolutionists. Will I tend to side more with the creationists? Sure, because they show creation as a credible entity.....something that I have believed by faith for years.

I've said nothing about Christians being honest (or dishonest); I said it about creationists, a subset of Christians. In my experience honesty isn't something creationists are known for. This is not to say they all lie, or they lie all the time, but they are, as a general rule (particularly the 'professional' ones) less than honest when it comes to evolutionary theory.

Seeings I do not know of the incidents that you speak of I cannot offer opinion but I do know that they do say the same of evolutionists. Now, who is one in the middle supposed to believe. I will prove and falsify you both.

I would disagree with this, but it's not really on topic.

Perhaps another thread sometime.

 

[The Bellman]

TB I assure you that I am in no way under a misapprehension. It seems to me, though, that you are. You see a "true" Christian believes the whole Bible to the inspired and literal Word of God. We believe it was penned by men who were inspired by God to write down the words that He instructed them to write. The several authors, through the centurys of its writing, wrote, that it is not to be added to or taken away from, down to the smallest jot or tittle. If men were able to take out the parts that they didn't understand or didn't want to follow, we would have nothing left but a book of error.

I'm sorry, but you are, indeed, under a misapprehension. You think that a 'true' Christian believes the whole bible to be the inspired and literal word of god. That's not true. It's not even close to true. Nobody believes the whole bible to be literal. Jesus calls himself a door, and a vine. Do you believe he is literally those things? Of course not. You realise he was talking allegorically. But in doing that, you fail to take the whole bible literally. That is all that a great many other christians do when the recognise that other parts of the bible should be interpreted literally, rather than figuratively. Most Christians hold that the opening chapters of genesis are not literally true. That doesn't make them not Christians (not by any commonly-accepted definition). They may be wrong, but that doesn't mean they're not christians.

Also, it's been noted by many that this is a very dangerous view to hold. A great many ex-Christians were taught, like you, that Genesis must be wholly literally true. When they realised (based on evidence) that it wasn't (because evolutionary theory is so overwhelmingly evidenced) the entire bottom fell out. They couldn't accept that all of the spiritual claims of the bible might be true and its opening chapters be allegorical - if the opening chapters weren't literally true, the whole thing couldn't be trusted. And so they abandoned Christianity.

It's one of the reasons you'll many times hear atheists say that creationism is a great thing for atheism, because it drives so many people away from Christianity.

If we don't see that the WHOLE is the Word of God then how could we believe any of it?

The whole can be the word of god without the whole being literal.

Well TB, the highest statistics I can find for ALL the Christians of the World is 2.1 Billion. I find it difficult to believe that the bulk of these just cast off the first few chapters of Genesis. (And when it comes to the "true" Christian this figure will be much smaller) I don't know even one that is even remotely "thinking" about doing that.

Well whether you find it difficult to believe or not, it's true. Creationists are a minority among the world's christians. For starts, the largest Christian denomination, Roman Catholics, happily accept evolution and accept the figurative/symbolic nature of the opening chapters of Genesis.

I don't deny that there may be some people who call themselves Christians, when in fact they are not, who have not problem with doing this but these are the same people who have no problem with slaughtering people and going on witch hunts and twisting the Word of God to fit their doctrinal errors. They are religious but they are not true born again Christians. These are those creationists who you will find lying not true born again Christian creationists.

You do not have authority to determine who is and isn't Christian; particularly on something as trivial as a literal interpretation of a few chapters of the OT.

I hope that because I admit when I am wrong and apologize for so doing or when I tell the truth about what I may or may not know, that you would NOT confuse that with my being naive or easily swayed. If you knew me you would know that that is very much to the contrary. I don't form my opinions by what I read or hear from other people about evolution. (And evolution could NEVER be a threat to Christianity.) I am not afraid to believe in evolution. All on my own, with my own reasoning based on BOTH sides of the issue, with what I have learned, I still conclude, I do not see the credibility of evolution.

When you have some scientific knowledge of the subject, then that conclusion will be worth something. No offense, but you yourself have admitted you couldn't explain all the supposed evidences you came up with to disprove evolution.

My belief in God is not intended to be an argument against evolution nor have I ever used it to be. What I have said is that understanding what I believe and my limited hearing of both the sides I would tend to trust those who hold the same beliefs in creation as I do. I have read their scientific explanations and I believe them to contadict AND demontrate the error of the evidence of the argument on the other side.

Again, you say this even as you admit that your scientific knowledge is insufficient.

As I have noted in my posts, I am studying it on both sides of the issue and from a scientific standpoint. I have been to Christian sites which state their beliefs or hearsay about evolution and though, I may agree with them, if they do not collaborate this info, I just skip over them and continue my search. I am finding more and more scientific information for creation and it seems to show the errors of the actual scientific evidence offered by evolutionists. Will I tend to side more with the creationists? Sure, because they show creation as a credible entity.....something that I have believed by faith for years.

And there you go. You are already biased to side with creationists - of course, you'll find what you're looking for. I wouldn't say you're afraid of evolutionary theory, but you clearly want it to be false. No doubt with that preconception, you'll find plenty of evidence that it's false. Fortunately, the world's scientists are a little more objective.

Seeings I do not know of the incidents that you speak of I cannot offer opinion but I do know that they do say the same of evolutionists. Now, who is one in the middle supposed to believe. I will prove and falsify you both.

You'er not supposed to believe either. You're supposed to investigate both and make your own determination. Sadly, I have little confidence that you will be able to be objective enough to do so.

 

[Inan3]

I'm sorry, but you are, indeed, under a misapprehension. You think that a 'true' Christian believes the whole bible to be the inspired and literal word of god. That's not true. It's not even close to true. Nobody believes the whole bible to be literal. Jesus calls himself a door, and a vine. Do you believe he is literally those things? Of course not. You realise he was talking allegorically. But in doing that, you fail to take the whole bible literally. That is all that a great many other christians do when the recognise that other parts of the bible should be interpreted literally, rather than figuratively. Most Christians hold that the opening chapters of genesis are not literally true. That doesn't make them not Christians (not by any commonly-accepted definition). They may be wrong, but that doesn't mean they're not christians.

I don't refute the fact that there are analogies in the Bible but you can take their meaning literally. Jesus is the Door and Way into Salvation. He is the entrance, the passage way, the means to get there. You can take that literally. It's the message that is to be taken literally, and the message of Genesis 1-11 is that GOD CREATED the Heavens and the Earth and all that is therein AND His origianl creation was good. I am not going to deny that or take that out of the way to satisfy the non-belief of so-called-christians or out-and-out atheists.

You said "most" Christians, what evidence do you have to back that up? I mean you do base all of life on evidence don't you?

Also, it's been noted by many that this is a very dangerous view to hold. A great many ex-Christians were taught, like you, that Genesis must be wholly literally true. When they realised (based on evidence) that it wasn't (because evolutionary theory is so overwhelmingly evidenced) the entire bottom fell out. They couldn't accept that all of the spiritual claims of the bible might be true and its opening chapters be allegorical - if the opening chapters weren't literally true, the whole thing couldn't be trusted. And so they abandoned Christianity.

Now WHO are these many that note this as a dangerous view? Could you cite your references for this please?

Well they must have had a "bottom" of sand. Jesus said,

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

And then Paul says that Jesus is the foundation on which we should build if these had done that they would not have had their bottom fall out.


1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

And again Peter says,

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.

So I surmise they didn't have the right foundation.

It's one of the reasons you'll many times hear atheists say that creationism is a great thing for atheism, because it drives so many people away from Christianity.

It does not surprise me that "some" so-called-christians turn to atheism because they were not Chrisitans in the first place.

The whole can be the word of god without the whole being literal.

Spoken as a true atheist who knows nothing about God or His Word. Now, I should just take an atheists word about the things of God? I think not!!!!

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Well whether you find it difficult to believe or not, it's true. Creationists are a minority among the world's christians. For starts, the largest Christian denomination, Roman Catholics, happily accept evolution and accept the figurative/symbolic nature of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Evidence??

Roman Catholics are NOT Christians the are so-called-christians.

I was brought up Roman Catholic. They don't even teach HOW to become a Christian. They teach if you go to the Catholic Church and are baptized as a baby you are a Christian. This is not so. Christianity is a heart choice. Christianity is a commitment to Christ and a belief that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world but even more than that....You MUST receive Him as YOUR Saviour. You must make a decision to accept Him a your PERSONAL Saviour. Not based on any merit of your own. Catholics don't even KNOW that this is what they must do. They are taught they must do their own penance to get into Heaven....like suffering in purgatory for a while. They pray to the saints to help them make it. They pray to Mary to save them. All these false teachings take away from what Christ did for mankind. It's a FREE gift, nothing that can be earned ONLY believed and accepted.

I have studied the scriptures for many years now, which by the way was taught in the Roman Catholic church that people couldn't understand the Bible so they needed to leave it to their leaders to interpret it for them. This was designed to keep the people in the dark away from the truth and about what God had done for them. This way they could control the people and keep them under the thumb of the church.

Again, the Roman Catholic church is not Christian and they do not teach the "whole" message of Christ. The "take away" and "add to" such as fits their agenda. Anyone or church who has a potentate that can change the scriptures at will is NOT a follower of Christ. They are NOT Christian. They may be religious but they are not Christian, no matter what they call themselves. Religion kills but true Christianity brings life, just as the Lord and Saviour does. The do this "on behalf" of Him as His representatives. The Roman Catholic church has falsely represented themselves as His voice and or people bringing much distain on His Name.

And Roman Catholics are not the only ones, there are many so-called protestan Christians who do not KNOW Christ. They know religion but they are not true Christians. Following or going to a church, being religious, believing that Jesus walked on the face of the earth, or even believing that He was a good role model and what He said were good principles to follow does not make one a Christian. A Christian is one who gives His life to Christ and becomes His disciple. It's a decision to make Christ the LORD of your life and put Him before all else.

Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

You do not have authority to determine who is and isn't Christian; particularly on something as trivial as a literal interpretation of a few chapters of the OT.

No but the scripture does and it is very clear. As an atheist I would say you have no understanding as to what is trivial and what is not in regards to Christianity.

When you have some scientific knowledge of the subject, then that conclusion will be worth something. No offense, but you yourself have admitted you couldn't explain all the supposed evidences you came up with to disprove evolution.

I don't need to because there are many who have and be assured I will provide that information when I do have more knowledge on it.

And there you go. You are already biased to side with creationists - of course, you'll find what you're looking for. I wouldn't say you're afraid of evolutionary theory, but you clearly want it to be false. No doubt with that preconception, you'll find plenty of evidence that it's false. Fortunately, the world's scientists are a little more objective.

That is true I am biased in regards to creationism and you have given me no proof to believe otherwise.

You'er not supposed to believe either. You're supposed to investigate both and make your own determination. Sadly, I have little confidence that you will be able to be objective enough to do so.

Well, don't worry about it too much TB becaue even without your advice I had made that determination of what I "should" investigate or not. You remember don't you ... I said "I" would falsify or prove both?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't refute the fact that there are analogies in the Bible but you can take their meaning literally. Jesus is the Door and Way into Salvation. He is the entrance, the passage way, the means to get there. You can take that literally.

Err... no, you can't. Taking it literally means believing Jesus is an actual door: a rotating segment of wall, usually with a handle and hinges, usually made of wood.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't refute the fact that there are analogies in the Bible but you can take their meaning literally. Jesus is the Door and Way into Salvation.

That is not taking it literally, that is taking it metaphorically. If Jesus literally were a door, he would not be a person, he would be a board with dimensions of approximately 7'x3'x2" with a latching device on one edge that is operated by a handles or knobs on both faces. This board would be attached by hinged devices to a framework, usually that of a building. Jesus is not any of those things, so he is not literally a door. He is metaphorically represented as a door.

 

[NailsII]

We are all mutants, we probably acquire over 1000 mutations per individual.

Plenty of evidence. Kondrashov, many others, very few creationists. Do you want the actual science publications where the original research has been published?

Kondrashov estimated 100-300 nucleotide substitutions per person in 2002

This would not include mutational hotspots such as microsatellites which throw another 100-300 in.

It is also estimated that another 4-12% (4 to 12 out of every 100) are deletions plus insertions.

Its unknown how many inversions/translocations and conversions must occur. Crude estimates place the human genome at over 1000 mutations per individual.

Actually, the figure could be much higher.
It has recently been estimated (sorry, can't find a link, but I will look for one if required) that cellular activity itself produces enough mutagens to attack the DNA around 1000 times per 24 hour period.
Because of this inherent design fault, living cells have DNA checking mechanisms that keep the cells functional long enough to reproduce.
But it is still irrelevant to the discussion, because I do not pass on my cells to the next generation - but let's not lose sight of the fact that genetic change in the form of mutaion is the raw material for evolution.
Without mutation we would all be genetically identical, and that would not serve us well as I am sure you would agree.
Germ cells are those which produce offspring, and those alone. It is the mutation rate in these cell lines that you need to be concerned with, and ovu (eggs) are created in the female before birth - this minimises the reproductive damage of the cell lines as we age.
Sperm, to counteract this deleterous effect, are produced by the million - so the odds are on that there are fully functional sperm available for fertilisation.
It has been estimated that only 1 in 7 fertilisations result in viable pregnancy - so much for the wasteful excesses of a loving god.

 

[NailsII]

Questions that I am still waiting to be addressed by the theists:

Why did Adam have multiple and redundant haemoglobin genes then?
He must have done, because we all do and because other mammals have.
why was his chromosome 2 two chimp chromosomes lumped together like ours are?
Why was his his genome littered with viral insertions (strands of DNA that code for viral proteins, inserted as the virus attacks a host in order for it to reproduce) - homologous to those found in chimpanzees, our closest living primate relative?
Why did perfect Adam have a non-functioning Vitamin C synthesis gene, as all primates have?

Also, if Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, how come their son was a cold-blooded murderer?
Is this biblical evidence that murder is not a genetic trait?
Also, where did their daughter-in-laws come from?
There was one man, one woman. They have two boys.
Where did the two other females come from?
Is it possible that genesis is just a story, that god didn't actually reveal his plans of creation to man?
Think about it.....

 

[Inan3]

Err... no, you can't. Taking it literally means believing Jesus is an actual door: a rotating segment of wall, usually with a handle and hinges, usually made of wood.

Very weak argument WC. You forgot the rest of the definition.

1 : a usually swinging or sliding barrier by which an entry is closed and opened; also : a similar part of a piece of furniture
2 : DOORWAY
3 : a means of access or participation : OPPORTUNITY <opens new doors> <door to success>

Can I ask you a question are you between birth and puberty or are you #3?


child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.

 

[Inan3]

Error

 

[BigDug]

Why did Adam have multiple and redundant haemoglobin genes then?

I wouldn't think Adam would have had aforementioned redundant genes, they would have somehow became that way from an ideal state(as I already said)

He must have done, because we all do and because other mammals have.

I don't follow the logic here, are you asserting that these genes would be detrimental? helpful or nuetral, or excess baggage? Please break down you point into some type of digestible package for the common man. I'm really not impressed with big words, my only wish here is that you make some sense.

Also, what possible way can you say that the genes "must have" been in Adam's genome based on the fact that they are found presently?

I think that you are trying to use similarities of defect as an argument which might provide evidence of a common ancestor. And indeed it certainly does provide such evidence. However, the evidence is certainly not conclusive, it would be better IMO to first make the observation(which you have done) and find more direct causes of the redundant gene rather than saying that a common ancestor passed it down. The question I would pose to you is: 1)What ancestor passed it down first? You mentioned that it appeared in other mammals; 2)what other mammals? and what connection do they have with us (what alleged connection is what Im asking) and 3) probably the most pervasive question I might have is what, specifically caused the gene redundancy? mutations obviously, but under what condition? in what time period? I am just more or less helping you present a more understandable argument. I feel that I already answered the question yesterday. Why do redundant genes exist? mutations. What more can I tell you here? As it is I think the scenario your outlining is pretty vague and general to warrant any type of direct answer.

why was his chromosome 2 two chimp chromosomes lumped together like ours are?

Well, I would simply say that similar processes caused similar genetic changes... I mean basically I can only give a general answer to a general question. I, like anybody else, need specifics. Therefore it is somewhat asinine to think that because someone hasn't answered your questions that no answers exist.

Why was his his genome littered with viral insertions (strands of DNA that code for viral proteins, inserted as the virus attacks a host in order for it to reproduce) - homologous to those found in chimpanzees, our closest living primate relative?

This is definitely evidence of a common ancestor but once again, is it conclusive? Your going to see similar designs across the board and your going to see similar defects, that would certainly be within the realm of a created biosphere.

It has recently been estimated (sorry, can't find a link, but I will look for one if required) that cellular activity itself produces enough mutagens to attack the DNA around 1000 times per 24 hour period.

Right, but Im not talking about mutagens, though mutagens cause mutations, they dont always cause mutations. Therefore your incorrect if you are assuming that human dna mutates 1000 times per 24 hours. So yes I suggest you produce a link for further discussion please.

But it is still irrelevant to the discussion, because I do not pass on my cells to the next generation

Well correct, your cells will rot in the ground, but if you have children your dna will be passed on, and since I am talking about mutations in dna, then it is very relevant to the population as a whole. All those little sperm cells we were talking about yesterday carry a full copy of your dna to the target.

How long do you thing the population can sustain the mutational burden?

The degeneration of the genome is not only evidence against evolution, but it is conclusive evidence. Evolution cannot explain it.

 

[BigDug]

Also, if Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, how come their son was a cold-blooded murderer?

How do you know that genetic perfection does not entail a genetically perfect willpower which Cain chose to exersize? Adam and Even being made "in Gods image" had the perfect God-like willpower, which man still retains today, providing evidence that it is independent from the genome.

Also remember that Cain was born AFTER the fall, and that plus the environment changes that no doubt accompanied a not-Eden environment would have unknown but probably devastation to the first couple's genome.

Is this biblical evidence that murder is not a genetic trait?

Sort of. See above. I see no difference between the willpower of any race of any human in any time period, yet there are marked differences in their phenotypes.

Briefly summarized, the willpower has endured in its perfect state, whereas other aspects of the soul, and certainly the body have degenerated, partly as the result of environmental changes. Never resulting from random-chance mutations.

Also, where did their daughter-in-laws come from?
There was one man, one woman. They have two boys.
Where did the two other females come from?

This is basic theology, the question has been asked and answered a million times, but I think most people wonder this. Basically the sisters/daughters werent mentioned. In old testament culture, female offspring were rarely if ever mentioned, even in the royal lineage chronicles. Apparently the writers of the day didnt deem them important enough to write about.

Also remember that the murder of Able could have occured 100 years after he was born, or longer, creationists believe that people lived a lot longer before the flood, this would give plenty of time for another city to be established.

Is it possible that genesis is just a story, that god didn't actually reveal his plans of creation to man

Well I believe Genesis. You have the option to disbelieve, the same way that Cain had the option to murder his brother, it is your God-given trait to believe whatever you want.