[Regarding what scientists’ think, we aren’t fixated on the numbers because they don’t tell the whole story—not even close.]
Boy howdy I’ll say- mutation rate catastrophe” no need to fixate on the numbers such as deleterious mutations outnumbering ‘benificial’ (used in the loosest of terms as I know very loose terms are needed for evolution) and creating a quagmire that end up negating the few ‘benificial’ mutations to the point of species collapse. No need to go there. Better to simply propose that nature ‘overcame the hurdles’ by being ‘robust’ enough to transcend these obvious limitations to the theory of evolution. Mutational load calculations were such a problem that Darwinists tried to tackle the problem, yet in the end had to declare ‘a ‘robust system’ must have been inplace to overcome the hurdles.’ Let’s also not forget that species have an amazing ability to correct errors over time- couple this with the deleterious mutational build-up, and we’ve got us one life-sn\uffing proposition. Being that mutational ‘progress’ is not a ‘dirtected event’ and not guided, the rates of ‘benificial’ to deleterious mutations would have reamined a constant. Besides, all this is is an attempt at ‘explaining’ a tree when a forrest of improbabilities surround that one sapling. The idea of slow accumulating (or even faster accumulating (I know you folk like to assume conditions could have sped up mutations) mutations couldjoin hands and ‘evolve’ new organs and move a species into another KIND altogether is a swell proposition, but the biological evidence is so vastly against such a proposal as to make it an irrational wish I’m afraid.
To think that evolution saved every blessed hail Mary in the process, until finally, all the perfect combinations formed to create new organs is unsupported in the evidence and nothing but a hopeful assumption built upon the idea that problems along the way only amount to a response worthy of ‘so what’. Numbers numbers, who needs em? It’s ‘just argumentative’ and ‘nitpicking’- Recombination has never been shown to prevent runaway mutational problems, but at best, only to delay the inevitable in a few cases.
[Both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome have been sequenced, and the similarity is in the mid to upper 90%’s, depending on what you are looking at.]
Ah, and the disimilarities are how large again? Billions? Numbers, numbers- who needs em?
[I’m amused they acknowledged that rearrangements occurred.]
If this amuses you then you obviously aren’t well versed in what creation/id scientists beleive.
[Besides my amusement, my reaction is “So what?”]
So what? We’re told that we’re ‘up to’ 98% similiar to chimps and ‘therefore must be related’ because of the powerful evidence of similarities, yet when the equally powerful disimiliarities are pointed out that seperate us from lower species, the reaction is ‘so what’? Wow!
[Oh, if only that were the evolutionists’ position!]
Oh but it was (and continues to be in most less reputable evo-science writings and publications) Straw-man indeed.
Alas, I just wrote a humongously long response to your other post and then accidentally killed it. But that’s ok, since in reading your latest post I am completely convinced that you avoid thinking as much as possible and rely exclusively on straw men. I guess they’re comfy, like bean-bag chairs. And reading this post, I see you could make a mountain of them. Saves on furniture!
Evolution = Using intelligently design models in an attempt to discredit intelligent design.