Mutations (Honest science defends Hunter and Huckabee)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | September 2007 | Barney Maddox, M.D.

[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.

[Kurt Evans]

"One of evolution's best-kept secrets is that mutations don't work. They're not beneficial... One of the best ways to really combat the fortress of Darwinism is to allow people to wonder about it, to acquaint them with the controversy so that they know there is one."

--Frank Peretti

[ER Doc]

More wasted bandwidth...

[Rudder]

Without doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism cannot lay claim to any associations with science.

[vpintheak]

Hold on there fella, I’m calling the WAAAAAHbulance for ya!

[A. Morgan]

How much is Huckleberry paying you and dano1?

You and dano1 are part of Al Gore internet testing team, right?

[babygene]

“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...” That’s interesting... Never thought of it like that before. It does seem odd.

There’s little question that most mutations are negative. That’s interesting... Never thought of it like that before. It does seem odd. There’s little question that most mutations are negative.

Thanks for the post!

[Berlin_Freeper]

However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed...

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.

DEAD moths were GLUED to the trees! U-Mass biologist Theodore Sargent confessed to the dirty deed for a NOVA documentary. He also admitted that textbooks and films have featured “a lot of fraudulent photographs”.

[CarrotAndStick]

There’s little question that most mutations are negative. That’s interesting... Never thought of it like that before. It does seem odd. There’s little question that most mutations are negative.

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.

[Veritas_est]

One really can’t claim that evolution theory is “bad” science, since it is not science at all.

[babygene]

“For a male peacock, a large tail is a positive mutation, with regard to its chances of mating.”

What makes you think that the male peacock got it’s tail feathers by evolving? There’s no evidence of that...

[Kurt Evans]

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

[Rudder]

One really can’t claim that evolution theory is “bad” science, since it is not science at all.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Kurt Evans]

“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.

[Kurt Evans]

“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.

[Kurt Evans]

“Thanks for the post!”

Thank you.

[Rudder]

Empirical research using the scientific method has yet to demonstrate the unequivocally positive nature of a single mutation.

Far out...really. The extant life forms wouldn't like to hear that.

[CarrotAndStick]

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.

:)

[Kurt Evans]

“If stupidity is rewarded, it will become a positive trait.”

The liberal worldview in ten words.

[chuckles]

The most irrefutable evidence that evolution is impossible is mathematics. If you plug in the numbers that the wildest evo’s use for the age of the universe, and suppose a mutation every second, there hasn’t been enough seconds to even build the simplest virus DNA by chance. I don’t have the exact number, but it was something on the order of 10 to the 32 power to 1 for the off chance of life coming about by accident. The mathematician even gave evo’s a head start and said, OK lets assume the first few seconds a combo came about that created life. There still wasn’t enough time to mutate that life into anything else before now. To assume that a whale crawled out of the water and became a cow is mathematically impossible in the billions of years assumed by evo’s. Ergo, the new postulation that we had “hopeful monsters”. That is where a lizard lays an egg and a bird pops out. Kind of a stretch, even for evo’s.

[Veritas_est]

"Without doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism cannot lay claim to any associations with science."

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.