Beating a dead horse: mutations don't add up!

EarthScientist

Posts: 3,298

May 13, 2012 -- 4:57PM, EarthScientist wrote:

In addition, certain poster(s) demand a beneficial mutation rate or percentage (as if it's a static number and not environment/selection dependent). When those certain poster(s) are asked what their model is for the number, what dimensional units it should be in, and whether it's a published model, one gets...nothing.

I predict this post will be unanswered even though the thread will be responded to by a certain poster(s).

Hmmm...

McAtheist

Posts: 6,289

The YEC team has been asked repeatedly to give one single example complete with data that supports their claim that "mutations don't add up." The majority of biologists maintain that evolution is sufficient to explain the development of life on Earth.

Let's see the evidential basis for the YEC amateur claim to the contrary.

Let's see the supporting math and science --- let's see the actual numbers.

If the YEC team doesn't have that information, then their opinion is scientifically baseless. So, YECS, what is your very best defense of this tired YEC "argument?"

Got anything?

rsielin

Posts: 2,811

May 15, 2012 -- 10:31AM, 57 wrote:
If mutations do indeed add up....

I don't quite understand 57's fixation on point mutations. It has been known for several decades that point mutations are not the only source for variation. There's a whole lot more biological mechanisms making variation and novelty that are considerably more problematic for creationists.

Why this feeble attack just on point mutations? That's just the tip of the iceberg that has sunk creation science. But that's what a simplistic and naive science perspective will do for you. Go after the mouse while in the room is the elephant fixing to stomp you dead. Talk about intellectually blindsided. LOL

Some interesting current research is exploring evidence that genome rearrangements large and small create a natural genetic engineering feedback system that has been as important, if not more important, than point mutations in the emergence of new and novel life forms. Why is 57 ignoring all this devastating evidence?

The age of Biology is upon us.

Creationism is dead. Done in by the fast accumulating empirical evidence.

McAtheist

Posts: 6,289

Since the YEC team can not provide a single example of a trait or suite of traits for which evolution is an insufficient explanation, the YEC team can lay this tired and ill-formed "argument" to rest in some cozy attic of the YEC gestalt.

This "argument" is finished, done, discredited and decommissioned.

McAtheist

Posts: 6,289

Where is the science and math to back up these loser YEC arguments?

Come on, 57 --- this is your favorite argument of all time -- can't you come up with a SINGLE real-world example that supports your opinion?

And we are supposed to teach this crap as science, huh? Is that so EVERYONE is as ignorant of science as YECs are?

lucaspa

Posts: 557

May 15, 2012 -- 10:31AM, 57 wrote:

If mutations do indeed add up....link us to a web site that shows us how.

evolution.berkeley.edu/

NABT Teaching Guide on Evolution www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution9...

Evolution is cumulative. That is, the variations do indeed "add up". Once a favorable mutation is in one lucky individual, that individual will have more offspring than the others in the population. Thus, in the next generation, the proportion, or frequency, of individuals with the mutation goes up. It goes up each generation (I can give you the mathematical equation -- in high school algebra -- if you like). Eventually, the frequency = 1. That is, all the individuals in the population have the mutation. Now comes mutation #2 and we start all over again. Then mutation #3, etc. So mutations do "add up" over generations.

Currently the sysyem of eolutionism is based upon faith. I know this because no one here has been able to provide a consice model that shows evolutionism in action.

What is "evolutionism"? What is "system of evolutionism"? I ask because evolution does not have a "cosmic model". Instead, evolution -- especially the evolution we are talking here with mutations and their accumulation -- isn't "cosmic".

Atheism has a "cosmic model": the physical universe is all there is and there is no supernatural. Are you mistaking atheism for evolution?

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

Abner1

Posts: 6,037

Lucaspa wrote:

> Atheism has a "cosmic model": the physical universe is all there is and there

> is no supernatural.

That's not atheism in general, that's a specific type of atheism called materialism. Materialists are atheists, but not all atheists are materialists ... indeed, in my experience, most atheists do not make the above claims. Some atheists are neutral on whether or not the physical universe is all there is; other atheists specifically believe in something other than the physical universe, they just don't think that something other is a god.

rsielin

Posts: 2,811

Jun 5, 2012 -- 1:18PM, lucaspa wrote:
evolution.berkeley.edu/

NABT Teaching Guide on Evolution www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution9...

Our creationist poster has already been given those specific links more than once. He did not avail himself of the opportunity to educate himself.

He prefers his uneducated rant as a pejorative insult to modern science. And uses that rant whenever he gets intellectually creamed as a diversionary tactic away from his embarrassment; which BTW is on most threads he posts on here.

steven_guy

Posts: 11,049

Folks, if 57 thought that his "mutations don't add up" mantra has any real merit he'd be eager to get more information and develop a better understanding of genetics and various microbiological processes to reinforce his argument.

The mantra is repeated to bait people and troll this forum.

That's all.

lucaspa

Posts: 557

Jun 5, 2012 -- 1:51PM, Abner1 wrote:

Lucaspa wrote:

> Atheism has a "cosmic model": the physical universe is all there is and there

> is no supernatural.

That's not atheism in general, that's a specific type of atheism called materialism. Materialists are atheists, but not all atheists are materialists ... indeed, in my experience, most atheists do not make the above claims. Some atheists are neutral on whether or not the physical universe is all there is; other atheists specifically believe in something other than the physical universe, they just don't think that something other is a god.

All atheists must be materialists. If they don't think nature acts on its own, but instead needs a deity to work, then they can't be atheists. It gets back to this statement:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Atheists must believe this statement is in error. If they think the statement is true, then they can't be atheists, can they? Believing that statement is in error is materialism.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot