Um, Riiight. Somebody please educate this lass.


Friday, April 30, 2010


I had a recent debate (albeit one-sided like most end up being..yay
subjectivism!) about Evolution and mutations. Now, I do not object to
mutations. Those are evident. However, I oppose mutations to be used as a
grounds for Evolution. Mutations frankly do not help evolutionary
theory at all.

-One problem is the mathematical. Mutations occur on an average of once
in every ten million duplications of DNA. Humans have around 100
trillion cells.The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you
want a series of RELATED mutations. The odds of getting two mutations
that are related to one another is the product around a hundred
trillion. Any two mutations can produce something not very significant.
Two mutations are hardly enough to create a new structure or organism.
More mutations are required for that. You would have to have one in a
billion trillion to get three mutations in a row. The ocean is not large
enough to hold the needed bacteria to make three in a row related
mutations. Earth is not big enough to make four related mutations. It
would take way more to turn a fish into a scientist. Four mutations
don't even accommodate for real changes toward evolution.

-Mutations are going the wrong direction. Just about every mutation we
notice is identified by the disease or abnormality that it triggers.
Creationist scientists utilize mutations to explain the origin of
diseases and defects. Using mutations to explain the breakdown of
existing genetic order (called creation-corruption) is the opposite of
using mutations to explain the build up of genetic order (called
evolution). Mutations have attributed various genetic abnormalities
into the human population. Some people incorrectly assume that mutations
are a means of creation. Mutations, however do not create. They
corrupt. Evolutionists have a problem with trying to explain why
mutations do not go in the right direction and end up being 1000 times
more harmful than not. Since there are more harmful mutations, it is
strongly discouraged to marry a relative. People that do so increase the
odds that bad genes will show up. When you think of Cain and his wife,
we have to remember that mutations had to have time to accumulate in the
population. At that time, there were no such risks. Mutations are
difficult to eliminate by selection so they have to build up in
populations within time. Evolutionary geneticists, refer to the problem
as “genetic load” or “genetic burden” that describes clearly that the
term is meant to imply a burden that “weighs down” a species and lowers
its genetic quality.

-Mutations presuppose creation. Mutations are from genes that already
exist. Most are caused by replication errors. You need to have the gene
before you have the mutation. To make evolution even seem like a
credible scientific theory, they need to find a way to heavily increase
the genetic information. As of now, they're showing everyone that
evolution is nothing but a faith based system hiding behind a cloak with
the word "Science" painted on it.

Views: 22

Comment by Serotonin Wraith on May 6, 2010 at 6:03am
I'm having this debate with someone now about mutations in microscopic creatures.

He gave the statistics for the rarity of beneficial or neutral mutations and said a microscopic organism would have to be much bigger so there are enough cells for that lucky mutation to come along statistically.

Err, no lol. There can be more chance of it if there are more of the species, just like there's more chance of someone winning the lottery if there are more players.

He said then about so many mutations needed in a row too. Umm, no. As long as a mutation is beneficial or neutral it'll get passed on. The next beneficial mutation in a needed sequence could come along many generations later, in just one of it's millions of descendents, and be passed on again. Exponential growth soon gets these small changes out to more organisms.
Comment by Gaytor on May 6, 2010 at 9:43am
I wonder if he considers the mutation of Chromosome #2, in the form of Telomeric Fusion, as a negative result? Does he wish he were quadrupedal? It's an example of 1 single mutation = new species. Thanks for playing Ashley.
Comment by Mario Rodgers on May 6, 2010 at 11:42am
Oh man. Must suck to be a male. I'm pretty sure the Y Chromosome is a mutation of an X.
Comment by Serotonin Wraith on May 6, 2010 at 4:50pm
Johan, some weeks there is no grand prize given out in a lottery. At least in the UK. If there are 1,000 members in a species in one generation, and the chance of a mutation is 1 in 100,000, then some generations won't see a beneficial mutation.

When you say there's more chance if you have more tickets, that could confuse the issue with having more genes = more chance of a beneficial mutation, which is what the person thought when he said the organism would have to be bigger.
Comment by Gaytor on May 7, 2010 at 12:46am
Ashely didn't respond to my comment. Surprised someone actually read it and in shock, or unable to counter?


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service