Posted on 10/05/2009 9:03:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Plant geneticist Dr John Sanford began working as a research scientist at Cornell University in 1980. He co-invented the ‘gene gun’ approach to genetic engineering of plants. This technology has had a major impact on agriculture around the world...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
ping!
And his brief conclusions were???????
Impossible? Perhaps.
But I had to laugh last week when someone declared the Genesis account of creation “impossible that it happened like that.”
OF COURSE IT’S IMPOSSIBLE THAT IT HAPPENED LIKE THAT.
Duh, we’re talking about God here.
Thanks for the ping!
‘Selection does help. Selection gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration.‘Additionally, very rarely a beneficial mutation arises that has enough effect to be selected for—resulting in some adaptive variation, or some degree of fine-tuning. This also helps slow degeneration. But selection only eliminates a very small fraction of the bad mutations. The overwhelming majority of bad mutations accumulate relentlessly, being much too subtle—of too small an effect—to significantly affect their persistence. On the flip side, almost all beneficials (to the extent they occur) are immune to the selective process—because they invariably cause only tiny increases in biological functionality.
‘So most beneficials drift out of the population and are lost—even in the presence of intense selection. This raises the question—since most information-bearing nucleotides [DNA ‘letters’] make an infinitesimally small contribution to the genome—how did they get there, and how do they stay there through “deep time”?
‘Selection slows mutational degeneration, but does not even begin to actually stop it. So even with intense selection, evolution is going the wrong way—toward extinction!’
That’s funny. So they say it’s possible for a blind unguided process to create the Universe and everything in it, but that it is impossible for God to create the Heavens and the Earth according to Genesis. How utterly and totally laughable!
God has a good sense of humor doesn’t He?
Why would they need to? 2K years of "Because the Bible says so!" has worked fine so far.
...and He always has the last laugh!
Hey, you read the article. Good job! Of course, now God will hold you accountable for what you have learned. So if you have not already accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you might want to start thinking about it. A soul is a terrible thing to waste.
Romans 10:9-13 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Excellent.
24 "This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,
25 who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense,
Genetic algorithms, for example. It seems that, more generally, Dr. Sanford has quite poor mathematical background, especially with respect to the probability and statistics problems. Moreover, as someone who claims to be formerly "religious" with respect to evolution, he seem not to understand its principles:
"While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings),1 bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one."
Bad mutations make individuals die. Good mutations make them to thrive and pass the mutation to the progeny. Nobody is saying that the evolution is the net effect of bad and good mutations without taking into account this dying and proliferating!
I find a flaw in the degenerative mutation Vs. the natural selective enhanced mutation that drives the all important survival of the fittest dogma.
Mutations in all species are quite common. Only a few are recognizable. When good mutations enhance the being of a species, they pass the mutation on. There are 5 legged goats out there and two headed snakes. There are Siamese twins born in all species. There are species born without limbs, extra fingers and appendages etc.
There are fish that use extra strong fins to kind of walk on land and can breath out of water for short periods of time. There are birds with non functional wings and real strong legs.
The point is, if you were to find two goats that were both born with 5 legs, what do you think the chances of their offspring having 5 legs would be? The genes may be initially recessive but if you continued interbreeding I would bet a species of 5 legged goats could be established. While there is no conceivable use for a goat with 5 legs in nature, it is an example of how a mutation stands and becomes part of the natural gene pool for that species.
Humans have gotten larger and larger over the past few thousand years. Many tall men marry tall women and pass on those genes. It is subtle but genetic. Negative mutations make a species weaker and those subjects don't live as long, hence they don't breed as much and natural selection through survival of the fittest sets in.
God created the heavens and the Earth.
How? Are you going to hell if you ask that question?
Good find Charles- But inevitably, you’ll be hit with ‘You just don’t understand how science works (or evolution works)’. I’ve stated over and over and over again that there is a compelte lack of evidnece supporting what would have HAD to be a massive influx of purely positive mutaitons EVEN IF mutaitons could bring about macroevolution- which it can’t- The only slight hope for Macroevolution is lateral gene transference, because mutaitosn can ONLY work within species specific parameters, on info already present, it can NOT create new non species specific info- ONLY introducing info laterally between species, artificially, can do so- but htis has big big problems associated with it as well-
While Macroevos struggle to find even scant few ‘benificial mutations’ the hypoithesis of Macroevolution DEMANDS that trillions of positive mutaitosn had to take place (being unduly generous and allowing the idea that mutaitons could bring new info- which again, it can not)- Everyone just waves this fact and complete lack of evidnece away, and just attacks those who don’t accept the wild assumptions of Macroevolution liek they do, but at hteend of the day- the lack of evidence still plagues the hypothesis- Trillions of purely positive mutations would HAVE to have happened, yet we can’t even describe any today that were even remotely capable of doign what Macroevolution claims happened.
Despite my tagline I do read the articles usually. I don’t agree with them at times, but I see people who start a debate on a topic going in blind and it’s kind of embarrassing to watch.
[[The genes may be initially recessive but if you continued interbreeding I would bet a species of 5 legged goats could be established. While there is no conceivable use for a goat with 5 legs in nature, it is an example of how a mutation stands and becomes part of the natural gene pool for that species.]]
Actually no- the species specific info WILL revert back to hte ‘norm’ when left to itself- The genetic info tends toward self-correction, to keep a species fit- Microevolutionary changes can occure, but these al lfall within species specific paramters- which was again, designed to keep species fit and viable and thriving.
And, while more 5 legged goats may be born, in a few successive generations, you will not find those legs turnign into wings, or arms with oposable thumbs etc- What you are describing is microevolution- mistakes that fall within the parameters of species specific information- Macroevolution DEMANDS that non species specific information be itnroduced, on a massive scale- from outside sources- to move species beyond their own kinds
Something can’t come from nothing.
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.