Posted on 03/27/2009 3:36:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Neo-Darwinian Theory Fails the Mutation Test
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Darwin’s original conception of simple-to-complex evolution maintained that nature selected certain individuals with superior features, and in this way gradually, one tiny feature at a time, an entirely different creature could eventually form.
The source of new features or feature fragments for nature to select, however, eluded evolutionists for decades. To answer this, the Geological Society of America in 1941 formulated a new version of Darwinian evolution. They decided that genetic mutations should be considered the source of new information for nature to select, and thus the Neo-Darwinian Theory was born.
Since that time, however, science has revealed that mutations have fallen far short of the lofty accomplishments ascribed to them...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
On this thread, for example, I wasn't pinged, I just stumbled across it.
It almost seems that it's an every-other-day thing.
Please help.
He has none at all? Wow! That is simply incredible, unbelievable, and down right implausible.
You could’ve had a good/bad dream for 46 years. No?
“Oh come on, the pencil head Darwinian experts don’t know pooh about evolution. “
Evolution doesn’t exist according to Creatards. So really there is no argument, is there?
Mr. MS would know something about peer review and the documentation of the body of knowledge that is science if he had a PhD.
“It is a fiction that stands in the place of knowledge.”
You could say the exact same for faith. But fundamentaloids cannot understand that faith and science are different things - separate and distinct, but not mutually exclusive.
“his conclusion was based on claims of Jesus and others in the Bible.”
No they aren’t. If he truly believed in Jesus and the Bible, he’d not try to make his faith sound like science.
Mr. MS himself has a crisis of confidence. he lacks faith.
He thinks that if he doesn’t add science (as good he can understand it) to back up his faith that somehow he is being heretical. Mr. MS has no science, and he has no faith. Mr. MS is a true agnostic through incompetence. He is a man with nothing.
Lots of you Creatards on these threads are just incompetent Christians and incompetent scientists. Like Mr. M.S. you have nothing, so you attempt to gain grace through science. How stupid, really. Grace doesn’t work that way.
Isn’t it ironic that an engineer had to explain that to all you scientifically illiterate faithless fools that claim the mantle of Christianity.
That’s not what I meant. Maybe I should go into more detail from the get-go. Let’s put it this way:
You are correct in stating that the majority of mutations, at least those that affect fitness-related traits, are in some way harmful. Most of those that have any affect on fitness, only have a small deleterious effect and do not cause any noticeable problems for organisms except under certain environmental conditions. The relationship between fitness-affecting mutations and the population environment is critically important. [By environment, I also include the relationship with other populations]. If the environment shifts to allow for the small deleterious effects of mutations, then even the collective mutations in a population will not affect survivability. If the environment is not suitable, the accumulated small deleterious mutations can be worse for the population than the severe ones, which are quickly expunged by natural selection.
To get to the point with regards to my comment on not noticing mutations until you have a doctor-worthy problem:
An environment full of advanced medical care and health benefits will increase the survivability of human lineages containing heritable mutations.
There are also a few mutations that are particularly harmful, some particularly beneficial, and some mutations that have absolutely no effect on protein function. You can change a single nucleotide in a codon and wind up with the same amino acid. Also, mutations differ greatly in their rate of occurring at any particular loci. For example, the mutation of a homeotic gene does not occur at the same rate as a mutation in a regulatory gene. There is much more to this but hopefully this will give you an idea of how mutating populations may reproduce for many generations instead of all dying off from lethal problems.
ping
There is no need to call them names, that doesn’t speak well for evolutionary science.
“There is no need to call them names, that doesn’t speak well for evolutionary science.”
I merely respond in kind. But I’m also laughing when I do it. I’m sorry that everyone can’t see the humor.
sounds like the usual uninformed have already chimed in, see post #5.
Thanks for the ping!
The Bible is the literal Word of God. It always will be.
how in the world did you come up with that? We’ve not even begun to understand what every gene does, let alone know whether or not a mutation is beneficial or harmful to any organism.
Yes. And?
And what? Are you supporting failed “theories” like evolution?
Perhaps you are right about him having this fault, I'm not sure. I have my own faults, and perhaps even you have some.
My comment was about his conclusion that death is not the final word. That was the part you quoted. Can we agree he is not basing his belief in the resurrection upon anything other than the authority of Jesus and the teachings of the Christian bible? Certainly unlike the concept of a 6000 year old universe, the resurrection is an essential doctrine to Christianity.
Lots of you Creatards on these threads are just incompetent Christians and incompetent scientists.
You guessed a bit wrong about where I am coming from. I have a brief statement on my view of evolution on the my about page. I have not changed it for months.
Isn’t it ironic that an engineer had to explain that to all you scientifically illiterate faithless fools that claim the mantle of Christianity.
Perhaps you would find it ironic that I am an engineer myself (software in my case). Not that this makes me any kind of authority on the issues at hand.
I will agree with you in so far as I would prefer other Christians not to buy into the idea of a 6000 year old universe as an essential doctrine. But I feel no compelling reason to try to slam them for it. And will out of curiosity and courtesy consider their arguments, and even support them when they seem to make a valid point, or when a critic makes an invalid argument against them. I also will do the same for the evolutionists, as I think I have already demonstrated in other postings I have made regarding this article.
No. And?
No Problem then.
I’m greatly relieved that after a whole five days here you have no problem with me.
Thanks for that book review, I will have to pick up a copy. Time is running out for Darwin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.