Posted on 07/24/2009 8:24:50 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery. Life’s error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay. The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay. Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out. The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot ‘see’ them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to damage as our body cells. Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
What a concept! Liberalism is a mutation that could lead to extinction of the human race. Something gets cross wired in the host’s DNA causing blind “faith” in Globalwarmism, GovtHealthcarism, socialism, marxism, communism... the host votes for like-minded mutants, until the society collapses.
Very depressing for those who have no hope in Jesus Christ.
Well, I think many biologists are secretly hoping to find the mutation that leads to the creation of Nightcrawler or one of the other X-Men.
Mutations being beneficial is akin to Stan Lee’s idea that Gamma Radiation creates superheroes :)
Cells are irreducibly complex - meaning that ALL parts must be present at the ‘same time’ for the cell to ‘operate’. The cell is either ‘complete and alive’, or it is not.
If you honestly believe that ALL of the quintillions x quintillions of parts and processes of the cell just fell together one day, making the cell alive - then you are an ‘evolutionary cult member’ with a very high degree of ‘FAITH’ in your religion/cult.
It is sad to see you have chosen a heartless and hollow, scientific messiah. You live without hope. Sadder still to see you being deceived, by the very heroes you have chosen to worship.
“Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out.”
“You never studied.”
- Ghostbusters
Ran across that site today- it perfectly fits with how shallow and sicence ignoring Macroevolution beleif really is
That's pretty much the flaw I read in this story. It is the assumption that a mutation only leads to a negative trait. For example, the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia also makes it where you can't get malaria so it would be a beneficial mutation in areas where malaria is prevalent. While sickle cell anemia is harmful, it isn't even as a fraction as deadly as malaria and could result in a stronger population in malaria prone areas.
I learned the other day—here on FR—that President Obama is actually: http://marvel.com/universe/Magneto !!!
There was an AP article pointing out that The 0ne as Magneto was using personal magnetism to accomplish all sort of superhuman/mutant types of feats!
So I guess the cat is out of the bag now.
This statement alone, would get this guy an “F” in any freshman biology course. Why do these people continue to play “dress up” as scientists? I know, they hope to save us, but there are many of us that are already there. It makes it terribly embarrassing for educated people (that are already saved, thank you very much) to have to make excuses for the logically challenged.
Before writing this stuff, it might be best to go back and review some freshman life science. Even if you've never attended college, these texts can be obtained at a campus bookstore at very reasonable cost if they are used. Failing that, perhaps simply going to a library and reading would assist your writing efforts, but do it BEFORE publishing. It would certainly improve your credibility as a scientific writer, which this author seems to be desperately seeking.
This statement alone, would get this guy an “F” in any freshman biology course. Why do these people continue to play “dress up” as scientists? I know, they hope to save us, but there are many of us that are already there. It makes it terribly embarrassing for educated people (that are already saved, thank you very much) to have to make excuses for the logically challenged.
Before writing this stuff, it might be best to go back and review some freshman life science. Even if you've never attended college, these texts can be obtained at a campus bookstore at very reasonable cost if they are used. Failing that, perhaps simply going to a library and reading would assist your writing efforts, but do it BEFORE publishing. It would certainly improve your credibility as a scientific writer, which this author seems to be desperately seeking.
Anyone have any idea what this is referring to? :
“Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to damage as our body cells.”
—Is this referring to gametes? If so, who ever thought that? Certainly not evolutionists, as such a thing would make evolution impossible. It’s ONLY mutations within gametes (i.e. the germ line) that get inherited.
I don't believe they know the difference between a genetic "mutation" and genetic "damage".
How is that wrong?
Aren’t all cancers and even benign tumors a result of mutation?
If so that would mean that mutations are visible within a single human lifetime.
The author employs multiple statistical models, all of which point to the same thing—extinction. Tell me, now that we know genes are polyconstrained, and that a beneficial mutation for one gene will be harmful to many others, how is natural selection supposed to select for the beneficial mutation without fixing the harmful mutations as well?
Look up the difference between somatic and germ line mutations.
Your freshman biology course has long since been outdated. Did you perchance check out his references???
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.