Posted on 12/04/2007 10:09:39 PM PST by Kurt Evans
In 1986 I read my first creationist article, written by a biologist. By the time I finished, I knew I could no longer justify my evolutionary thinking. Was it Scripture that convinced me? Actually, no. The author did not mention God or the Bible once. She simply pointed out, armed with modern scientific facts, that practically everything I had learned in medical school--especially in genetics--directly conflicted with Darwin's theory...
The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation, and specifically mutation that is beneficial to life. Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number. However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed...
In humans there is one equivocally beneficial mutation, out of 4,000 devastating mutations: sickle cell anemia... Could this be a limited example of evolutionary progress? Not really. When the mutant sickle gene is latent (sickling isn't occurring), there is a survival advantage in areas with malaria. But whenever sickling occurs, in the heterozygote or the homozygote, it obstructs blood vessels and causes pain and death to organs...
Sickling is always negative when it occurs, so it remains a very poor example of evolution, and in fact refutes it. Evolution theorists have yet to demonstrate the unequivocally positive nature of a single mutation...
Observational (i.e., scientific) evidence, as seen in medical research every day, leads one to be skeptical of the claims of evolutionary biology. How does science explain that mythical first bacterial cell three billion years ago? Did it transform itself--by random mutations in the DNA--into all the "wondrous profusion" of life forms (one million species), and all their wondrous functional organs, over an imaginary time period? The evidence says no.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
--Frank Peretti
More wasted bandwidth...
Without doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism cannot lay claim to any associations with science.
Hold on there fella, I’m calling the WAAAAAHbulance for ya!
How much is Huckleberry paying you and dano1?
You and dano1 are part of Al Gore internet testing team, right?
The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation, and specifically mutation that is beneficial to life. Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number. However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed... Thats interesting... Never thought of it like that before. It does seem odd.
Theres little question that most mutations are negative. Thats interesting... Never thought of it like that before. It does seem odd. Theres little question that most mutations are negative.
Thanks for the post!
It's a shame that we are moving into the year 2008 and the richest country in the world still fails to produce honest and accurate textbooks for its children.
The question whether mutations are "negative" or "positive" cannot be answered by looking at the mutation alone. It needs to be looked at, relative to the environment. For a male peacock, a large tail is a positive mutation, with regard to its chances of mating. But if you look at it in the context of its predators, a large tail is a particularly disadvantageous trait, simply because it drastically reduces the peacock's chances of escaping from the predator.
This leads to the ultimate idea that evolution, or mutations, needn't necessarily be positive or negative. How it fits the species in question, depends on what use it provides the species, during the particular time the mutation arises. If stupidity is rewarded, it will become a positive trait. Evolution is not always progressive, in the conventional sense.
One really can’t claim that evolution theory is “bad” science, since it is not science at all.
What makes you think that the male peacock got it’s tail feathers by evolving? There’s no evidence of that...
Congressman Hunter on evolution:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934888/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1874862/posts
Governor Huckabee says humans are unique creations of God:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1934882/posts
America’s identity is rooted in the Creator:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934903/posts
You couldn't be more wrong.
“Without doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism cannot lay claim to any associations with science.”
Empirical research using the scientific method has yet to demonstrate the unequivocally positive nature of a single mutation.
“How much is Huckleberry paying you and dano1?”
Governor Huckabee isn’t paying me anything, and all I know about “dano1” is what I’ve read here.
“You and dano1 are part of Al Gore internet testing team, right?”
Definitely not.
“Thanks for the post!”
Thank you.
Far out...really. The extant life forms wouldn't like to hear that.
I was mentioning peacocks with the genetics to grow long tail-feathers, as opposed to those that could grow shorter ones. I wasn’t talking about the origin of the tail-feathers themselves.
Nice try, BTW.
:)
“If stupidity is rewarded, it will become a positive trait.”
The liberal worldview in ten words.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. What you're really saying is that; by doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism CAN lay claim to an association with science. Did I get that right? I thought for a minute there we were in disagreement.
No I guess you're really saying it is impossible to use empirical research using scientific method to prove creation theory.
My friend, using the worst case scenario we are on equal footing because the same is true of the religion of evolution.
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.