Replies

Indeed. Mutations create new things, and natural selection eliminates the vast bulk of mutations, those which are harmful to the creature or hinder its ability to reproduce.

Well, that is the 'revised' version of evolution, but it does not work either. We see mutations all the time - and they result in death or decreased abilities. There is a famous example which shows the problems with the mutation theory brilliantly, it won a Nobel Prize for its discoverer. A mutation in a developmental gene resulted in a fly with a second set of wings replacing the stabilizers the fly had. Now the evolutionists claim this as proof of evolution however it proves the opposite. The fly needed the stabilizers. The second set of wings was totally useless because the mutation had created just wings, it had not created the support system necessary to make those wings useful. It is so with any function in an organism. It takes more than one thing to make a new function, therefore any mutation creating a new feature, even if it could be beneficial under the proper circumstances, will not be beneficial because the new feature will in all cases require a vast support system which in no way could have happened at random.

it takes more than one thing to make a new function

It only takes a single point mutation to "make a new function" that allows people to resist malaria.

The fact that a new wing would not be immediately useful is an interesting counter-example, but I bet it's self-evident to most readers that using a new wing is going to take neural and other changes due to the complexity of aeronatics, whereas lengthening a body part, or even adding a new limb for ground locomotion, is not nearly so complicated.

And since when is it "the 'revised' version of evolution," as you call it, that mutations create novelties and natural selection chooses from among the successful novelties? It's in Darwin. Have you even bothered to read the original text?

As I stated, most mutations are harmful. Everyone agrees. So what's the point of your harping on that fact? As long as not all mutations are harmful, evolution can occur. And the sickle-cell/malaria example shows that not all mutations are harmful. So any number of harmful mutations that you might pratt on about aren't really relevant, are they?

We see mutations all the time - and they result in death or decreased abilities.

Blonde hair and blues eyes are both fairly recent mutations. I think you'd find some argument over whether this decreases the owner's chances of passing on his or her genes.

Methinks you have a twisted (go figure) idea of what a mutation actually is.