Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
While Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been described as “a grand narrative—a story of origins that would change the world”,1 ironically his book very pointedly avoided the question of the origin of life itself.
This ought not be surprising. Darwin’s theory of the origin of species “by means of natural selection”2 presupposes self-reproduction, so can’t explain the origin of self-reproduction.
Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They don’t acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. As leading 20th century evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky lamented: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
OF COURSE!
Because liberals project alot!
Your problem is the evidence.
Evidence like show us a high profile liberal that supports creationism.
“Question my scientific credentials again.
Question my math skills again.
Next step is to call me a liberal.”
This is exactly what liberals do!
And then you get sore because you’re called a liberal?
And there’s the projections again.
Because liberals project-alot.
Well, I definitely know of many liberals (actually, this is a cornerstone of the liberal mindset) who reject evolution, its principles and implications. Just ask James Watson (the ‘double helix’ guy, who got busted for suggesting that different groups of people may have evolved separately, to a different outcome with respect to IQ; his liberal opponents, on the other hand, seem to believe that humans were created ‘according to their kind’, in a biblical manner).
A recent article had much to say regarding mutations:
http://www.icr.org/article/3466/
Although I may have been wrong about my earlier stmt ‘approx 1 in a million mutations being beneficial’, evolution rarely discusses [smallest guess maybe 1 in 500] while the above article quotes approx 1 in 2500 [.00041].
The article and other related research reveals very little good, positive or beneficial information for mutations though:
“Positive” Mutations
“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 (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).
The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don’t apply that information to evolution. The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA.4 “The human genome contains a complete set of instructions for the production of a human being…. Genome research has already exposed errors |mutations| in these instructions that lead to heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration.”5 These diseases are crippling, often fatal, and many of the affected pre-born infants are aborted spontaneously, i.e., they are so badly damaged they can’t even survive gestation. However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare “positive” mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.
Mutations: the Human Toll
Polycystic kidney disease is a common mutation in humans. It is inherited in autosomal dominant fashion,6 meaning that one copy of the relevant gene received from the parents was mutant and the other copy was normal. The sufferers who inherit the mutated gene may die of kidney failure by late middle age if they don’t receive dialysis or a kidney transplant. As the disease progresses, the kidneys are gradually replaced by functionless cysts, which can cause continuous pain and enlarge the kidneys to the point where they bleed, get infections, and may even interfere with breathing.
Another instance of genetic mutation is cystic fibrosis, which is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion, meaning that both of the relevant inherited genes are mutant. Patients with this condition are burdened with mucous-plugging defects in their lungs and pancreas. Beginning in childhood they remain susceptible to frequent, sometimes very dangerous, pneumonias. Insufficient amounts of pancreatic enzymes are available to properly digest food, requiring pancreatic enzyme replacements. Sufferers of cystic fibrosis are usually sterile, and may die in young adulthood even with expert medical care.
The recent decoding of the human genome has allowed scientists to determine that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random change of three nucleotides in a gene that codes for a 1480-amino acid-long ion transport protein.7 The human genome has three billion nucleotides, or base pairs, in the DNA.8 Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human? The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides (some estimates of the disparity are much higher). Quantitative information in genetics today is proving evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational philosophical belief.
One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of “beneficial mutations” to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of “beneficial mutations” to harmful mutations is 0.00041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is “beneficial,” the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.”
Here’s some more mutation research from Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D.:
Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.a Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.b No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.c
a
“Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.” Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.
“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, ...” Ayala, p. 63.
b
“The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution. ... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.
“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)
“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.
“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.” Ibid., p. 103.
“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid., p. 100.
“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.” W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.
Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.
Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones. Winchester, p. 356.
John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.
“... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.
However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!
“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.
“The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration ...” [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,” The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.
Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.
In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:
Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.
c
“There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.
“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.
“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.
“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.
“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.
“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.
“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.
It's only *positive* in very limited scenarios, like in the presence of malaria. Take away the malaria and tell us about how positive it is.
Some *positive* mutation, that sickle cell. Ask anyone who suffers from it.
Alrighty. How about a list of all the positive, beneficial mutations that have occurred in humankind in the last some thousand years.
How about a list of any positive, beneficial mutations that occur within the human population at all in the present.
No, it doesn’t.
I’m asking you as evos who are adherents to the ToE.
That doesn’t mean I subscribe to it. You’re the ones who do. So, according to your belief system which posits a beginning to all life in the form of a first cell, tell us where the first cell came from instead of dancing around the issue and trying every which way to avoid answering the question.
" Hey, you know if we get good enough with the ad-hominems, we might could get by with just trying to defend one indefensible brain-dead ideological doctrine instead of two of em!! "
I DO NOT KNOW the origin of life, so I am not going to present beliefs as facts. I only state that scenarios that you reject based on your beliefs (chance self-assembly) are in fact viable. But I also consider the alternative involving God viable.
ICR is not a credible source for matters of science.
Really?! Is that how you speak to all correspondents who disagree with you, or mention something inconvenient?
You like quotes? Well, here are quotes from Berkeley showing that their “Evolution 101” website accords special treatment to the origin of life. From the website: “However, within the field of evolutionary biology (emphasis mine), the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.” I don’t see where any other subject is described “within the field of evolutionary biology” as is the origin of life.
Within that website, under the heading from soup to cells – the origin of life, we see a whole array of topics for inspection: 1)When did life originate? 2) Where did life originate? 3) How did life originate? 4) Under Studying the origin of life (itself making reference to “the tree of life”), we have; Origins and DNA evidence, Origins and biochemical evidence, Origins and experimental evidence, then finally, 5) A knotty problem.
At this point from soup to cells – the origin of life continues with the following, “You've reached the end of this section, but if you'd like to continue reading about the relevance of evolution (emphasis mine), try these:” (and the site follows up by giving some links)
Whatever Darwin thought in the last half of the Nineteenth Century, some 150 years later Berkeley clearly believes that theories of the origin of life are fueled and directed by Darwin’s ToE in its various configurations.
Berkeley is not alone. A number of university websites and science association websites carry “Evolution 101” as a link on their own sites (why a majority of those links haven’t been ‘disappeared’ before now is beyond me – they’re embarrassing for anyone who argues no one in the Science Community is making a connection between Evolution and the Origin of Life). Moreover, the problem is not limited to institutions. There are any number of eminent scientists who see a connection between Evolution and the Origin of Life and, worse, use science generally and the ToE specifically as a basis to conclude, as William Provine argues: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (those being, among others, Dawkins, Hawking, Weinberg, Dennett, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Lewontin, Hauser, Stenger Provine, Rachels, et al).
Small wonder that you find it so exasperatingly difficult to convince any Christian on this forum that the ToE has no significance beyond its scientific implications when it is obvious that scientists like Dawkins now believe (see The God Delusion) and, in his day Marx then believed, that a naturalistic explanation for life to be sufficiently assured that they now feel, as Marx then felt, secure in declaring that there is no God. If Darwinians weren’t trying so hard to improperly preempt Christian philosophy with conclusions drawn from a scientific theory, then they and their god Darwin would not be under so much severe criticism. Instead of ragging Christians about their supposed scientific ignorance, if you went about getting your own ideological house in order you might find the headwinds you’ve been bucking to be considerably less fierce. But, if you instead prefer engaging in political shin kicking, then don’t complain when you find yourself in a shin-kicking contest.
“Small wonder that you find it so exasperatingly difficult to convince any Christian on this forum...”
No. Christians have no problem reconciling their faith with evolution. The members of this forum to whom you refer represent instead a small minority of weak-in-faith literalists. They close their mind to logic and science, and constitute little more than a source of entertainment.
Thank God they only teach science to their own education-deprived kids.
Thanks for the ping!
Most of these threads are not discussions of 'science' anyway.
It's mostly about faith, belief, and theory.
Buck W. is not to be considered a credible source either.
That’s right, these discussion are much more deep and profound than mere science.
And I stopped considering evolution as science after I began to ‘see behind the curtain’ b/c you can win almost any argument if you are allowed to limit its scope.
Is that at the same site in TX where the “fossilized” leg and cowboy boot were found in that creek?
You have something to say?
Or is “you’re a liberal” the end of your intellectual ability?
Sure a true Christian would because the conflict comes in as to whether to believe man or God's word.
The number of evos who claim to be Christians and yet who deny much of the Bible as true and the fact that Jesus Himself, on whom Christianity is based, treated the OT and its events as facts; have to decide whether the Bible is true and Jesus is telling the truth about it, or whether evolution is true and Jesus is lying. You can't have it both ways.
And not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one.
Matt 7:15-23 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
There are plenty of other places in the Gospels where Jesus makes comments like this as well.
You should try reading them sometime.
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.