Science Disproves Evolution

[amdg]

Just got onto this post so I don't really know what the argument is. It sounds like the first poster is trying to argue that because Lamark was wrong (though he wasn't), there are certain non-inherited characteristics, and Mendel that we can' have evolution. I seems to be a rather absurd argument. Is there anything else provided by the Creationist side?

 

[amdg]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34095/title/Dogs-Adapted-to-Agriculture/

Here's an article talking about how dogs have 122 genes which are different from wolves. Those sound like beneficial mutations to me.

 

[IronChariots]

Even if evolution were disproved how does that prove creationism?

 

[basebool]

Even if evolution were disproved how does that prove creationism?

It doesn't

 

[amdg]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34095/title/Dogs-Adapted-to-Agriculture/

Here's an article talking about how dogs have 122 genes which are different from wolves. Those sound like beneficial mutations to me.

So to further expound on what I said last night. What we have here is a direct evidence of an increase in complexity of beneficial mutations. All of these mutations are based off already existing genes, but it is important to point out that that is the vast majority of evolutionary development. In fact, scientist only measure about 18 novel genes in the human genome and even these come from the non-coding areas shared with primates. So, even if there are limits in breeding (which haven't been demonstrated), I see no reason to suppose that humans are not the same kind as Chimps.

Here's the link about the 18 novel genes: Discovery Of Novel Genes Could Unlock Mystery Of What Makes Us Uniquely Human

 

[Pahu]

All of the info in this thread is from "intelligent design" websites.

“Intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

[etc.]

Intelligent design

Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When atheistand evolutionist Richard Dawkins was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.​

Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable[SUP][1][/SUP] theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.[SUP][2][/SUP] As Jonathan Wellswrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." [SUP][3][/SUP] Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory ofcreation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.[SUP][4]
[/SUP]
The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: design detection). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution [SUP][5][/SUP] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparentdesign, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.[SUP][6]
[/SUP]
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[SUP][7][/SUP] An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.[SUP][8]
[/SUP]
Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature

See also: Irreducible complexity

Phillip E. Johnson, Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus​

Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,[SUP][27][/SUP] observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the existence of design in nature, but the cause of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: unintelligent causes andintelligent causes. Unintelligent causes include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent Phillip E. Johnson illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA​

[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]“[/TD]
[TD]"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."[SUP][28][/SUP][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Intelligent causes include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. Cosmological evidence for design is described at Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology section. Biological evidence for intelligent design includes general evidence and special evidence, and both are discussed at General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the Evidence Filter.

Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science

Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.​

Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only unintelligent causes can be considered.

Forensic sciences: Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

Archeology: Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

Cryptanalysis: Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

Arson investigation: Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

Intelligent design - Conservapedia

 

[Pahu]

And from what do all the positive mutations come?

MUTATIONS: 1

​

Here are important scientific facts which disprove the notion that mutations can produce new species. The truth is that all mutations are harmful. They never accomplish anything worthwhile. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: MUTATIONS: 1

Introducing Neo-Darwinists: The evolutionists who pin all their hopes on mutations
Four Important Facts about Mutations: Four qualities which destroy their usefulness
Flaws in the Mutation Theory: 23 facts which make the situation even worse​

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, MUTATIONS, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

INTRODUCING NEO-DARWINISTS

Evolution requires that new kinds of plants and animals be able to be made. But changes within species are normal and do not show or prove evolution. Evolution of life forms requires that changes be made which cross over from one species—and produce a different one. According to evolutionists, natural selection and mutations are the only two ways that new species have ever been made. In the previous major article in this series (Natural Selection), a surprising amount of scientific information was given, which clearly disproves the idea that natural selection could produce even one new true species. In this article, you will learn that mutations cannot do it either.Evolutionists who believe that natural selection accomplished the task are called Darwinists. Evolutionists who believe that only mutations can make the evolutionary changes are calledNeo-Darwinists. Many evolutionists have recognized that natural selection could not possibly produce trans-species changes, so they declare that mutations must have produced the multitude of separate species found in our world today. But there are clear-cut facts which reveal that it would be totally impossible for mutations to produce even one new species.—pp. 11-12. Here are these facts:

FOUR IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT MUTATIONS

1: Rare effects. Mutations are very rare. They hardly ever occur in the natural world. Their very rarity dooms the possibility that they could produce the prolific number of plant and animal species found in our world. Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less millions. For each plant and animal has millions upon millions of specific characteristics.—p. 12.
2: Random effects. Mutations are always random—always! They are never purposive or directed. Yet the millions of characteristics in a living creature are very special: Each one is needed and serves an important function.A mutation is a random, wild, event. It is something like an automobile crash: It comes suddenly, when least expected, and no one can predict the outcome. But one thing you can be sure of: It will produce damage.—p. 12.
3: Not helpful. Evolution requires improvement, but mutations never help anyone. They only weaken or injure.—p. 13.
4: Very harmful effects. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, they weaken or damage the organism so seriously that it will not long survive. If it does survive, its offspring tend to eventually die out.—p. 13. Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.

Why mutations? Why then do the evolutionists cling to mutations as the means of producing species crossovers? They stay with mutations because, apart from the foolish theory of natural selection, they have nothing else!—pp. 13-14. At this point, someone might ask how we can be sure that mutations are always random and negative. This is known for a certainty because research scientists have spent decades carrying on research experiments with X rays, radiation, and chemicals, in the hopes of producing new species—and thus proving that evolutionary theory is true. But they have totally failed. More on this later.

FLAWS IN THE MUTATION THEORY

1: Not once. Not once has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation!There are instances of reshuffled genes, which produced better varieties of grapes, apples, and roses. But those were normal changes within species. (They were still grapes, apples, and roses.) None of these are mutations. A true mutation is a damage factor which produces injury or death.As a result of millions of fruit-fly experiments, under intense radiation, not one useful mutation has ever been found.—p. 14.
2: Only harm. Those organisms, which mutate and do not outright kill, are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Given enough mutations, not evolution into something better—but death—would come to everyone on earth.—p. 14.
3: Usually eliminate. Organisms which have mutations are so badly weakened, that they tend to die out or are weeded out by the problems of life.—p. 14.
4: Mutagens. For decades, scientists have been warning us about the dangers of radiation. What is that danger? It is X rays, radiation, and certain chemicals which can cause mutations in our body. How can such a terrible curse benefit us or produce new species?—pp. 14-15.
5: Dangerous accidents. It is only the rareness of mutations in the natural world (apart from X rays and atomic bombs) which protect the race from being destroyed by mutations.—p. 15.
6: Intertwined catastrophe. Each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes. This complicated interweaving of the DNA codes means that each mutation can result in damage to many things.
There is no way that a bunch of mutations could help anyone.—p. 15.
7: Only random. People can never predict in advance when or where a mutation will occur or what type of damage will result. It is a totally random event.—p. 15.
8: Small changes cannot do it. Evolutionists say that, given enough time, a few mutations, here and there, can produce new species. Each one changes one species a little more toward another. But that is not true, for we find no halfway species anywhere! All are distinct and different.—pp. 16-18.
9: Mathematically impossible. Not enough mutations could naturally occur to accomplish any trans-species changes. Mutations usually occur only once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.Assuming that all mutations were beneficial (which none are), the odds of even several mutations naturally occurring within one organism would be very unlikely. Four mutations, for example, would only occur once in a billion, billion times.—p. 17.
10: Time no solution. Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations, all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. This could not be done in a little amount of time or immense amounts of time. How long would a new type of animal last while waiting for millions of years of mutations to put it together?—p. 17.
11: Gene Stability. There is a reason we can know that mutations have been as infrequent in the past as they are now: the factor of gene stability. If mutations had been abundant earlier, then, during past centuries, our bodies would have been destroyed by them.—p. 17.
12: Syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it were already complete with all its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. Everything in a species has to work right, or it becomes weak and eventually dies out. Mutations do not strengthen; they only weaken. They do not produce new, stronger species; they only injure the ones which already exist.—p. 18.
13: Minor changes damage offspring the most. Most mutations are small, but it is those little changes which would hurt offspring the most. That is because major mutations kill too quickly for there to be offspring.—p. 18.
14: Single generation required. Hundreds and even thousands of positive mutations, working harmoniously together would be needed—and it would all have to occur very fast. It would be impossible for mutations, strung out over centuries or ages to produce the needed changes from one species to another.—p. 18.
15: Not big enough. Most mutations are so minor that, although they are damaging or deadly, they could not possibly change one species to another. They just do not make a large enough change.—pp. 18-19.
16: Reproductive changes too infrequent. Mutational changes in the reproductive organs occur far less often than elsewhere. Yet it is reproductive changes which would especially be needed for new species to be formed.—pp. 19-20.
17: Evolution requires increasing complexity. Evolution, by its very nature, must continually move upward. Yet mutations only tear down and disintegrate.—p. 20.
18: Evolution would require new information. Vast, new information banks in the DNA would be required, for a new species to be produced. Mutations could never accomplish that, any more than swinging a bat in a china closet would improve the glassware stored there.—pp. 20-21.
19: Evolution requires new organs and different structures. But mutations would not provide the new physical equipment and capabilities.—p. 21.
20: Not enough visible mutations. For every visible mutation (which changes a body part in a way to be seen), there are 20 invisible ones which generally kill the organism.—p. 21.
21: Never higher vitality than the parent. Geneticists tell us that each mutation weakens the organism. Never is its offspring stronger than the damaged parent. Soon the family line ends.—p. 21.
22: No evidence of species change. Mutations are not producing new species, yet we should see it occurring. In a later major article in this series (Fossils and Strata), we will learn that there is no evidence of new species production in the past. (We can know this, because we should be able to find the halfway species in between, yet they have never existed.)—p. 21.
23: Gene uniqueness forbids species change. Because there are millions of factors in every DNA code, it forbids the possibility of wholesale change by mutations.—pp. 21.

MUTATIONS - 1

 

[IronChariots]

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the U.S.[SUP][1][/SUP] The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[SUP][2][/SUP] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[SUP][3][/SUP] All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [SUP][n 1][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[SUP][n 2]

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intelligent design creationism (often referred to as intelligent design or "ID") is a pseudoscience that maintains that certain aspects of the physical world, and more specificallylife, show signs of having been designed, and hence were designed, by an intelligent being (usually, but not always, the God of the Christian religion). The concept is older than science, but only since the 1980s has the term "intelligent design" been in circulation. Supporters of intelligent design (termed design proponents, or, once, cdesign proponentsists) usually claim that the theory is not based on Christian creationism, although the existence of the Wedge Document is a pretty big hint that there is some link. Attempts to have ID taught in public schools have been defeated in court, and science papers proposing a "designer" usually cannot get past peer review - although not for reasons of prejudice against the subject matter. Intelligent design has been widely criticised for its failure to state what mechanism drives it, its lack of falsifiability, and many other problems that leave it lacking as a scientific theory.

Intelligent design - RationalWiki

Disproving Intelligent Design - RationalWiki
[/SUP]

 

[Pahu]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34095/title/Dogs-Adapted-to-Agriculture/

Here's an article talking about how dogs have 122 genes which are different from wolves. Those sound like beneficial mutations to me.

MUTATIONS: 2

​

Here is more scientific evidence clearly showing that mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: MUTATIONS: 2

The One "Beneficial" Mutation: One mutation which is touted as helpful, but which is actually as deadly as the rest
Mutation Research: It is the in-depth mutation research, carried on for most of this century, which has settled the matter
Mammoth Mutation Theory: As all the other theories shatter, in desperation a really wayout theory is grasped
Conclusion: Mutations cannot possibly produce evolutionary change​

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, MUTATIONS, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

THE ONE BENEFICIAL MUTATION

Yes, evolutionists have one beneficial mutation that they can cite—as proof that positive, helpful mutations do occasionally occur. It is sickle-cell anemia, which is a mutation which occurred in someone in Africa centuries ago. Was that mutation beneficial? Far from it; it damaged the red blood cells so they became quarter-moon shaped instead of round. This produced a special type of anemia. The person with sickle-cell anemia cannot properly absorb food and oxygen. How then can anyone call that mutation beneficial? Well, the evolutionists do it—on the basis of the fact that people with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to contract malaria from mosquitoes!Really now, that is begging the question! If I had bulbar polio, I would be less likely to be killed in an auto accident—because I would be paralyzed on a bed and less likely to be riding in a car. But one would not say that polio was, for that reason, beneficial! In return for the advantage of being 25 percent less likely to contract malaria, 25 percent of the children of people, in Africa, with sickle-cell anemia—will die! What advantage is that?—pp. 21, 23.

MUTATION RESEARCH

As mentioned earlier, researchers spent most of this century trying to get mutations to produce new species. The problem, of course, was the fact that they are so rare.—p. 23.

The new discovery. But a major breakthrough came in 1928, when *Muller discovered that X rays could speed up mutations. Whereas, in nature, there might be one mutation, now the number could be increased a millionfold—and focused on just one organism! How wonderful, the evolutionists thought! Now we shall be able to create new species!Instead, they damaged, mutilated, and killed experimental insects, animals, and birds for decades—without accomplishing anything worthwhile.—pp. 23-24.

The great fruit fly experiment. The humble fruit fly was selected as the best single creature to torture with radiation. The reason was its extremely short reproductive cycle. A new generation of fruit flies occurs every few days. In addition, the creature is large enough that it can be seen far easier than worms or microbes. Since the late 1920s, hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated with X rays and nuclear radiation. —Yet in all that time, two facts have emerged: (1) They have been damaged, not helped. (2) No new species have been produced. The fruit flies have remained fruit flies—in spite of experiencing countless millions of mutations.—pp. 24-25.

Resistant strains. It has been said, by evolutionists, that "resistant strains" of bacteria are the result of mutations. These are bacteria which are more resistant to the wonder drugs. Yet the truth is that every species has a variational range of traits. Some of those bacteria could resist the drugs while others could not. When the drugs were applied, the nonresistant strains died off, and the resistant strains survived. What the physicians were doing, by administering drugs, was to breed new, stronger strains of bacteria! Mutations had nothing to do with the process.—pp. 25-26.

The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s, *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly. As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful!In addition, they discovered that the slightest mutational change in the DNA ruins the code entirely. Even the simplest organism is damaged when its DNA is struck by a mutation.—p. 26.

MAMMOTH MUTATION THEORY

We noted earlier that some evolutionists adhered to the natural selection, as the cause of cross-species changes. Later, when mutations were discovered and the inadequacies in natural selection were realized, many turned to mutations as the solution. But, later still, several prominent evolutionists turned to a new variation on the mutation theory: They came up with the "hopeful monster" theory. This is the idea that, once every 50,000 years or so, a gigantic set of helpful, positive mutations occurs all at once: a lizard lays an egg and a beaver hatches from it!

Flaws in the theory. Here are some of the reasons why this mutation theory is desperately impossible:

1: It never happens. We never see the theory in action.—p. 27.
2: Two required. Every time a hopeful monster is produced, two would have to come into being within a few miles of each other: a male and female. Yet, according to *Gould, this rare event only happens once every 50,000 years.—p. 27.
3: Massive mutations required. Multi-billion mutations would suddenly have to occur each time a hopeful monster was produced.—pp. 26-27.
4: All positive. Mutations are always negative and, generally, lethal; but these would have to be all positive.—p. 27.
5: All dovetailed and according to plan. All these mutations would have to fit perfectly together in a harmonious whole: body organs, bones, head, feet, DNA, and all the rest.—p. 29.
6: It is a mathematical impossibility. It sure is.—p. 27.
7: Not frequent enough. *Gould set the hopeful monsters 50,000 years apart, to help cover over the fact that they are not occurring today. But one new species every 50,000 years would only yield 20 new species every million years! Yet there are immense numbers of species in the world right now.—pp. 26-27, 29.

CONCLUSION

Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility. Only God can make plants and animals. No one else can, and senseless, random, harmful mutations cannot do it either. Give God your life, and He will give you a happier life than you could otherwise have.

MUTATIONS - 2

 

[Pahu]

Even if evolution were disproved how does that prove creationism?

Evolution teaches origins by natural, unintelligent processes. Creation teaches origins by Intelligent Design. These are the only possibilities and they are contradictory. If one is true the other is false.

 

[IronChariots]

Evolution teaches origins by natural, unintelligent processes. Creation teaches origins by Intelligent Design. These are the only possibilities and they are contradictory. If one is true the other is false.

This is a false dichotomy. In fact, both could be wrong and don't forget evolution doesn't explain
how life arose. That is abiogenesis.

 

[Pahu]

So to further expound on what I said last night. What we have here is a direct evidence of an increase in complexity of beneficial mutations. All of these mutations are based off already existing genes, but it is important to point out that that is the vast majority of evolutionary development. In fact, scientist only measure about 18 novel genes in the human genome and even these come from the non-coding areas shared with primates. So, even if there are limits in breeding (which haven't been demonstrated), I see no reason to suppose that humans are not the same kind as Chimps.

Here's the link about the 18 novel genes: Discovery Of Novel Genes Could Unlock Mystery Of What Makes Us Uniquely Human

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1

​

Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.

CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1

Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing

​

This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books thisEncyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.

INTRODUCTION

Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes."The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE

They almost never occur.

"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.

"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL

Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.

"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.

"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.

ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE

It would cripple or weaken the entire system.

"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.

"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.

"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.

AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS

So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.

"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer" (1972)].

"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.

"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.

"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.

"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1

 

[amdg]

[etc.]

Intelligent design

Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When atheistand evolutionist Richard Dawkins was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.​

Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable[SUP][1][/SUP] theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.[SUP][2][/SUP] As Jonathan Wellswrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." [SUP][3][/SUP] Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory ofcreation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.[SUP][4]
[/SUP]
The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: design detection). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution [SUP][5][/SUP] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparentdesign, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.[SUP][6]
[/SUP]
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[SUP][7][/SUP] An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.[SUP][8]
[/SUP]
Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature

See also: Irreducible complexity

Phillip E. Johnson, Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus​

Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,[SUP][27][/SUP] observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the existence of design in nature, but the cause of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: unintelligent causes andintelligent causes. Unintelligent causes include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent Phillip E. Johnson illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA​

[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]“[/TD]
[TD]"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."[SUP][28][/SUP][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Intelligent causes include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. Cosmological evidence for design is described at Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology section. Biological evidence for intelligent design includes general evidence and special evidence, and both are discussed at General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the Evidence Filter.

Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science

Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.​

Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only unintelligent causes can be considered.

Forensic sciences: Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

Archeology: Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

Cryptanalysis: Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

Arson investigation: Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

Intelligent design - Conservapedia

First off, intelligent design has literally failed in a court of law, thus it needs to go back into the lab for quite some time before it can call itself a legitimate theory.

Second, I don't see any paper mentioned at all for their claims, which isn't surprising as that is essentially what Behe testified.

Third, irreducible complexity was predicted to occur from evolution over 100 years ago. Men like Kenneth Miller have demonstrated that virtually ever example used by ID proponents such as the bacterial flagellum can be explained through evolutionary processes.

Fourth, taking quotes from a scientist /= proof. I have a deep respect for Crick, but that doesn't mean I hold his random statements as scientific fact. By that logic we should believe in panspermia.

Fifth, the problem with these "examples" is that they don't apply in the creation of life as there is only one event of that. We look for evidence of a man-made arson by looking at past cases of man-made arson. For such a theory to hold we would have to know what ID life would look like. Furthermore, the nested hierarchy of our genes strongly points against ID.

 

[amdg]

MUTATIONS: 1

​

Here are important scientific facts which disprove the notion that mutations can produce new species. The truth is that all mutations are harmful. They never accomplish anything worthwhile. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: MUTATIONS: 1

Introducing Neo-Darwinists: The evolutionists who pin all their hopes on mutations
Four Important Facts about Mutations: Four qualities which destroy their usefulness
Flaws in the Mutation Theory: 23 facts which make the situation even worse​

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, MUTATIONS, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

INTRODUCING NEO-DARWINISTS

Evolution requires that new kinds of plants and animals be able to be made. But changes within species are normal and do not show or prove evolution. Evolution of life forms requires that changes be made which cross over from one species—and produce a different one. According to evolutionists, natural selection and mutations are the only two ways that new species have ever been made. In the previous major article in this series (Natural Selection), a surprising amount of scientific information was given, which clearly disproves the idea that natural selection could produce even one new true species. In this article, you will learn that mutations cannot do it either.Evolutionists who believe that natural selection accomplished the task are called Darwinists. Evolutionists who believe that only mutations can make the evolutionary changes are calledNeo-Darwinists. Many evolutionists have recognized that natural selection could not possibly produce trans-species changes, so they declare that mutations must have produced the multitude of separate species found in our world today. But there are clear-cut facts which reveal that it would be totally impossible for mutations to produce even one new species.—pp. 11-12. Here are these facts:

FOUR IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT MUTATIONS

1: Rare effects. Mutations are very rare. They hardly ever occur in the natural world. Their very rarity dooms the possibility that they could produce the prolific number of plant and animal species found in our world. Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less millions. For each plant and animal has millions upon millions of specific characteristics.—p. 12.
2: Random effects. Mutations are always random—always! They are never purposive or directed. Yet the millions of characteristics in a living creature are very special: Each one is needed and serves an important function.A mutation is a random, wild, event. It is something like an automobile crash: It comes suddenly, when least expected, and no one can predict the outcome. But one thing you can be sure of: It will produce damage.—p. 12.
3: Not helpful. Evolution requires improvement, but mutations never help anyone. They only weaken or injure.—p. 13.
4: Very harmful effects. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, they weaken or damage the organism so seriously that it will not long survive. If it does survive, its offspring tend to eventually die out.—p. 13. Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.

Why mutations? Why then do the evolutionists cling to mutations as the means of producing species crossovers? They stay with mutations because, apart from the foolish theory of natural selection, they have nothing else!—pp. 13-14. At this point, someone might ask how we can be sure that mutations are always random and negative. This is known for a certainty because research scientists have spent decades carrying on research experiments with X rays, radiation, and chemicals, in the hopes of producing new species—and thus proving that evolutionary theory is true. But they have totally failed. More on this later.

FLAWS IN THE MUTATION THEORY

1: Not once. Not once has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation!There are instances of reshuffled genes, which produced better varieties of grapes, apples, and roses. But those were normal changes within species. (They were still grapes, apples, and roses.) None of these are mutations. A true mutation is a damage factor which produces injury or death.As a result of millions of fruit-fly experiments, under intense radiation, not one useful mutation has ever been found.—p. 14.
2: Only harm. Those organisms, which mutate and do not outright kill, are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Given enough mutations, not evolution into something better—but death—would come to everyone on earth.—p. 14.
3: Usually eliminate. Organisms which have mutations are so badly weakened, that they tend to die out or are weeded out by the problems of life.—p. 14.
4: Mutagens. For decades, scientists have been warning us about the dangers of radiation. What is that danger? It is X rays, radiation, and certain chemicals which can cause mutations in our body. How can such a terrible curse benefit us or produce new species?—pp. 14-15.
5: Dangerous accidents. It is only the rareness of mutations in the natural world (apart from X rays and atomic bombs) which protect the race from being destroyed by mutations.—p. 15.
6: Intertwined catastrophe. Each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes. This complicated interweaving of the DNA codes means that each mutation can result in damage to many things.
There is no way that a bunch of mutations could help anyone.—p. 15.
7: Only random. People can never predict in advance when or where a mutation will occur or what type of damage will result. It is a totally random event.—p. 15.
8: Small changes cannot do it. Evolutionists say that, given enough time, a few mutations, here and there, can produce new species. Each one changes one species a little more toward another. But that is not true, for we find no halfway species anywhere! All are distinct and different.—pp. 16-18.
9: Mathematically impossible. Not enough mutations could naturally occur to accomplish any trans-species changes. Mutations usually occur only once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.Assuming that all mutations were beneficial (which none are), the odds of even several mutations naturally occurring within one organism would be very unlikely. Four mutations, for example, would only occur once in a billion, billion times.—p. 17.
10: Time no solution. Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations, all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. This could not be done in a little amount of time or immense amounts of time. How long would a new type of animal last while waiting for millions of years of mutations to put it together?—p. 17.
11: Gene Stability. There is a reason we can know that mutations have been as infrequent in the past as they are now: the factor of gene stability. If mutations had been abundant earlier, then, during past centuries, our bodies would have been destroyed by them.—p. 17.
12: Syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it were already complete with all its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. Everything in a species has to work right, or it becomes weak and eventually dies out. Mutations do not strengthen; they only weaken. They do not produce new, stronger species; they only injure the ones which already exist.—p. 18.
13: Minor changes damage offspring the most. Most mutations are small, but it is those little changes which would hurt offspring the most. That is because major mutations kill too quickly for there to be offspring.—p. 18.
14: Single generation required. Hundreds and even thousands of positive mutations, working harmoniously together would be needed—and it would all have to occur very fast. It would be impossible for mutations, strung out over centuries or ages to produce the needed changes from one species to another.—p. 18.
15: Not big enough. Most mutations are so minor that, although they are damaging or deadly, they could not possibly change one species to another. They just do not make a large enough change.—pp. 18-19.
16: Reproductive changes too infrequent. Mutational changes in the reproductive organs occur far less often than elsewhere. Yet it is reproductive changes which would especially be needed for new species to be formed.—pp. 19-20.
17: Evolution requires increasing complexity. Evolution, by its very nature, must continually move upward. Yet mutations only tear down and disintegrate.—p. 20.
18: Evolution would require new information. Vast, new information banks in the DNA would be required, for a new species to be produced. Mutations could never accomplish that, any more than swinging a bat in a china closet would improve the glassware stored there.—pp. 20-21.
19: Evolution requires new organs and different structures. But mutations would not provide the new physical equipment and capabilities.—p. 21.
20: Not enough visible mutations. For every visible mutation (which changes a body part in a way to be seen), there are 20 invisible ones which generally kill the organism.—p. 21.
21: Never higher vitality than the parent. Geneticists tell us that each mutation weakens the organism. Never is its offspring stronger than the damaged parent. Soon the family line ends.—p. 21.
22: No evidence of species change. Mutations are not producing new species, yet we should see it occurring. In a later major article in this series (Fossils and Strata), we will learn that there is no evidence of new species production in the past. (We can know this, because we should be able to find the halfway species in between, yet they have never existed.)—p. 21.
23: Gene uniqueness forbids species change. Because there are millions of factors in every DNA code, it forbids the possibility of wholesale change by mutations.—pp. 21.

MUTATIONS - 1

Please quite cutting and pasting from sources which don't provide any evidence and just assert. Several of these statements are just not true.

 

[amdg]

MUTATIONS: 2


​

MUTATIONS - 2

So I provide a link to some actual science and then you just through up random excerpts from an ID textbook. Debate the claim. 122 significant differences all of them beneficial to their niche.

 

[amdg]

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1

​

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1

And argument from authority. Wow, you are truly fulfilling the creationist/ID stereotype. Please address the points I actually made. 1) Dogs have several genetic differences from their Lupine counterparts. 2) Humans have a very small number of genetic differences from their primate counterparts.

 

[Grey]

Pahu is deaf, he is incapable of forming his own arguments. Merely a mouth piece.

 

[amdg]

Pahu is deaf, he is incapable of forming his own arguments. Merely a mouth piece.

I hope not. But so far all he has done is quoted large volumes of text from other sources which neither directly address my comments and barely address any actual studies (and the one's that they do address far from current). I hope maybe he will see the error in his form of rhetoric so far and will change to a more appropriate form of discourse.

 

[amdg]

takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation and God;


Did EVOLUTION directed the human eye???


EVIDENCE OF GOD:


the human eye:


The light reaching our eyes from nearby or distant objects arrives as billions of photons streaming from billions of data points from the light-giving object. We might say that each atom of those light-giving objects, complete with its vibrating electrons, is the source of a light data point. From each data point flows photons of electromagnetic light energy.


Therefore, we have the form of plentiful light generation and effective transmission of light energy through space. What remains is the function of light detection, that is, our sensory organs of light detection. Initially, light is transmitted through the layers and substances of our eye—the cornea, aqueous humor, lens, and vitreous humor. However, the most spectacular functional organ, or, if you will, body tissue, is the specialized retina with its millions of rods, cones, and other specialized cells.


These cells are triggered by photons to begin their work of sensing messages of light to the brain.the eye has over 130,000,000 light-sensitive rods and cones. They cause photo chemical reactions which transform the light into electrical impulses. Every second, one billion of these impulses are transmitted to the brain. These are also replaced ever 7 days. 70% of the sensory neurons in our body are located in the retina. The retinal tissue is just over 1000 square mm in area.


Roughly, this converts to the area of a teaspoon. In this small area there are well over 100 million rod cells and four million cone cells. This gives 150,000 cones per square millimeter in the central retina, the area providing clear, color vision of our central visual field. Cone cells function for humans in bright light. In the periphery of the human retina, there are many more rod cells which provide us with effective colorless vision even in extremely dark conditions.


It has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the image even gets to the brain. It is sobering to compare this performance with the best output of the worlds most powerful computer: to simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing on a super computer; and because there are about 10 million such cells interacting with each other in many complex ways, it would take something like one hundred years of computer time to crudely simulate what takes place in the eye, MANY TIMES EACH SECOND.


So out of "necessity" all these intricate parts were all placed into exact positions to enable it to work through process of time called evolution?.......ONLY IN THE MOVIES.


Perhaps this is why some scientists today are now referring to evolution as a myth.......

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

You do know the human eye was covered by Darwin of all people within the origin of species. It's been well explained and transitional species have been found.

 

[amdg]

Precisely. The word "theory" seems to mean "guess" to some people as if someone somewhere is just pulling all this out of thin air or making it up as they go when the reality is when it pertains to science it more or less means our understanding based on the evidence we currently have. It's not called a "fact" because we don't know all the details yet and when more evidence arrives there needs to be wiggle room for change based on the new evidence we receive. And that's really what makes it beautiful. Facts are absolute, but theories have things still within them we haven't uncovered yet and until we have all the evidence they shall remain theories.

No. That's not what the word theory means in scientific context. For example, the Theory of Gravity is a theory, germ theory is a theory, etc. There is no magical amount of evidence that will make the theory of evolution called a fact of evolution. It will always be a theory because it is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (Wikipedia)