The lie of evolution

Oh, so you're backing off from the claim that mutations are always detrimental and always result in loss of specificity? I want to be sure to get this nailed down, because often young earthers seem to make concessions and then go back to making the same claims the very next day.

There was just about 0% jargon in my response to what you posted. If you are unable to understand my post showing how the mathematical "proof" you posted is gibberish, how can you possibly understand the claimed proof itself? If you can't understand the evidence that UTEOTW and I post, how can you possibly claim evolution is groundless?

 

Petrel

I do not claim to be an expert on mutations. I am not an expert on any of this. But many in your own field say mutations are "almost" never good.

"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 accidentally 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.

You and UTEOTW will never listen to the Bible. Or at least YEs interpretation of it. Fine.

But there are many in this very field of study (evolution, genetics) who say evolution cannot come about through mutations.

And even I can understand this. An example, birds.

Now I don't really know for sure what evolutionists believe about birds. So I found an article. You may or may not agree with the information here.

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/

First, I find that evolutionists can't quite decide where birds evolved from. Some say 2 legged dinosaurs, some 4 legged reptiles.

Here is what I would like you (or anyone who has a deep knowledge of evolution) to explain:

Explain to me in layman's language how a dinosaur or reptile evolved into a bird.

Where did it start? The beak? The bones? The wings? The feathers?

Which features developed first?

How long did each feature take to evolve?

Were all features functional at all times?

Which feature developed next?

How long did this feature take to develop?

Was this feature functional at all times?

What about the breast or chest muscles? Everyone knows that birds have extremely strong and very quick muscles that control their wings.

How did the breast muscles of the dinosaur or reptile adapt to flying?

How long did this take?

How many steps were needed in this process?

How did the scales of the dinosaur or reptile change to feathers?

Are scales and feathers made of the same materials?

How long did this process take?

What about the hind legs? How did the relatively heavy legs of a dinosaur or reptile change into the very thin (generally), lightweight legs of a bird?

How long did this take?


What about the tail of the dinosaur or reptile, where did it go? How did it change into the feathery tail of a bird?

How long did this process take?

How did the nose of a dinosaur or reptile change into the beak of a bird?

How long did this take?

How did the skin of a dinosaur or reptile change into a hard beak? Are they similar materials?

I would like you to explain these questions in everyday language. No one understands your evolutionary jargon. It is not necessary to use fancy words to explain this. Just use common language.

Are there any examples of reptiles that are slowly mutating into birds today?

Are there any living reptiles with feathers? Or beak, or bird-like legs? Or muscles adapted for flying?

Are there any birds with reptilian skin? Or reptilian nose? Reptilian legs? Reptilian tail?

You see, you can't just have one little mutation that lasts for millions of years, and then another little mutation that lasts another few million years, and then another little mutation and so on.....

No, there's lots of differences between these animals. Explain how this happened, and how long it took.

 

It would really be helpful if you would try to use sources in full context that were written less than thirty years ago. Science is moving along so rapidly that anything over five years old is old, and anything over three years old is pushing it. I can tell you if I'd used sources that old for my proposal on my candidacy exam I would have failed completely. Most of the "proof-texts" your sources quote-mined for you are from the 70's at the latest. The one you posted above is from 1955--but the structure of DNA was only proposed in 1953!

Before this discussion goes any further, I would like you to tell me if you still think that all mutations are detrimental and result in loss of specificity in spite of the evidence I've shown from B cells. This is a very important point.

 

Petrel

I have said that I am no expert on mutations. I know almost nothing about the subject. If you say these mutations are good, what can I say? I can't say either way. Perhaps they are, perhaps not.

The point is, that within any field of science there is disagreement. In astronomy, many believe in the Big Bang Theory, while many others do not.

You say that some mutations are good. Perhaps you are correct. But this quote I showed seemed to disagree with you GENERALLY.

But that is just being evasive.

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of mutations are harmful.

But evolution depends on good and helpful mutations.

Perhaps you have found ONE cell that shows a good and helpful mutation. Good for you. I hardly believe that explains evolution and the many hundreds of thousands of different creatures on earth.

But I don't even believe this B Cell you are describing is what evolutionists are talking about. This B Cell seems to mutate frequently. This is not evolution. This seems more of an adaptation to me. Perhaps this B Cell has this ability. But that is not evolution at all. That is what this cell can do as a bird can fly.

It is still just a B Cell. It has not evolved into another type.

Is that a false statement??

Evasion.

Even evolutionists know that mutations are extremely rare, and a GOOD mutation would be even more so.

But for a substantial change, say the transforming of a reptiles front legs into the feathered wings of a bird would take many millions of GOOD mutations.

This is mathematically impossible. Do the math. Figure the time for one good mutation. Figure the time for another.

There has not been enough time even in many billions of years.

"glossing lightly over the difficulties"

You cannot explain how a bird evolved.

 

Petrel

Just one question before I forget.

Isn't this B Cell mutation INDUCED in the laboratory?

That hardly sounds like evolution.

 

I am absolutely not being evasive. You are definitely being evasive, but I think it's more because you don't really understand the arguments that you're trying to make. We need to be clear on what mutation is.

Mutation is simply a change in the sequence of DNA. That is all. All of this stuff about it still being a B cell is just extra baggage that you're throwing on.

Now you say that mutation is always bad. The fact is that in B cells mutation is absolutely required for proper immune system development. The failure of somatic hypermutation leads to immunodeficiency.

Not all of the mutations that occur are advantageous, but these nonbinding B cells are selected against and do not reproduce. The end product is a vigorous immune response to a certain antigen.

You have been saying that all mutations are bad and that they can never improve upon an organism. Are you now retracting this?

Added: Somatic hypermutation is a natural process.

 

Petrel

"Mutation is simply a change in the sequence of DNA. That is all. All of this stuff about it still being a B cell is just extra baggage that you're throwing on."

"The fact is that in B cells mutation is absolutely required for proper immune system development."

This sounds good to me. OK, this B Cell shows a beneficial mutation.

Are you really going to base your belief in evolution on this one example??

For a reptile to develop wings would take millions of GOOD mutations. The time would be required would be enormous. Even in evolutionist's estimates of a Universe 13-20 billion years old, there is not nearly enough time.

And I think you know this.

In the meantime, for every good mutation, there would be many more bad and harmful mutations.

And I still do not believe what you are describing
(Somatic hypermutation ) is the same mutation that evolutionists are talking about. This seems to be an ABILITY of this cell. This is something this particular cell can do as a regular function.

How does this apply to other types of cells????

 

Petrel

"All of this stuff about it still being a B cell is just extra baggage that you're throwing on."

Give me a break. This is the very issue we are discussing.

If a B Cell remains a B Cell, this is not evolution. Evolution means to "evolve" into something entirely different.

By the way, can you explain how fish who breathe in water through gills managed to craw up on land and develop lungs that breathe air?

 

*twiddles thumbs* We're talking about mutation. Now do you agree that it is possible for mutations to be beneficial? It's not a hard question--earlier you were emphatically saying no. You seemed to think this idea is of the utmost importance until the facts seem to be going against you. . .

The only thing unusual about the mutation in B cells is that they purposefully make mutagens to randomly damage it. It is a completely random, "aimless" process.

 

just-want-peace.
Isn't it funny how many people actually believe that fairy tale?

What isn't funny though is that many on this board do as well.

Speaking of fairy tales...

Once upon a time there was a frog that had a spell put on him by a witch.
Then along came a princess and she kissed the frog and he became a prince!

Once upon a time a few billion years ago there was a frog. And "given enough time" he also became a prince. It's the same fairy tale folks.

 

I think it's funny how many people who couldn't draw a Watson-Crick base pair to save their lives still claim a masterful intuitive understanding of genetics and mutation. Maybe we should hand out some honorary doctorates.

 

Petrel

First of all, the title of this thread is "The lie of evolution" , so we are not changing the subject.

But mutations do not create evolution. Evolution is more than just a few so-called good or beneficial mutations. It would take millions and you know it.

Evolution is not scientific fact and is not scientific whatsoever. It is a faith. A person must believe that millions of beneficial mutations would transform one type of creature into another.

Now I didn't ask about fish by accident. There are actually fish who have lungs and breathe air just like us. Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this.

Now, you might be able to crawl around on half-fins, half-legs for a few million years (yeah right)

But you cannot go that long without breathing.

So, just how fast did the African Lungfish's gills evolve into lungs??

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t013/T013696A.jsm

 

Petrel said,

"The only thing unusual about the mutation in B cells is that they purposefully make mutagens to randomly damage it. It is a completely random, "aimless" process."

How do you do something on purpose, and then say it is a random "aimless" process??

 

No, but I can guess where your Mr. Watson and Mr. Crick are now:

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

(Notice their religion folkshttp://www.nndb.com/people/322/000022256/

http://www.nndb.com/people/321/000022255/

I wonder how astute they were at theology?
Oh, I almost forgot. 1 Cor. 2:14

Care guess which side of the academic Light I prefer to be on?

So Petrel, how smart do you suppose your esteemed doctors feel now?

1 Cor. 1:26-29

 

Umm, because they don't purposefully change a G to a T at one particular point, for instance. They just blast the parts of their genome that code for antibodies with mutagen, causing random changes. It merely accellerates the rate of mutation.

Interesting how you think that since some knowledgeable people weren't Christians it's better to be ignorant. Ever heard the saying "All truth is God's truth"?

Oh, and evolutionists actually like lungfish. Sorry 'bout that.

Once again:

 

Petrel

If people do not understand genetics and mutations, much of that is due to the language and jargon used.

Computer geeks like to use fancy language too, but my 3 year old son gets around on the computer pretty well.

Here is a good article in simple straight-forward English that explains quite clearly why mutations cannot bring about evolution.

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_mutations.asp

 

Well, duh, why do you think it takes millions and millions of years to happen?

Hmmmm. Are you of the opinion that millions of beneficial mutations would leave one type of creature untransformed?

What's so hard about that, given that evolution does, after all, occur?

What makes you think the lungs came from the gills? I thought they came from the fish air bladder.

 

Some unsolicited observations:

Man designs his experiments to fit his paradigms.

God has no paradigms--neither does He experiment.

"Let God be found true--and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James