News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

It might be fun to ask sometime: "Do you believe any individual creature has a 100% survival chance?" The world is a dangerous place, after all. There are all sorts of disasters: volcanos, tornados, forest fire, prairie fire, flood, etc. But in spite of all this, there is one creature "guaranteed" to always survive: the first one to possess a beneficial mutation. Or so I've been told... I think more honest answers are available.

The evolutionists have a lot of faith in their luck god. A little actual experience with probabilities goes a long way toward understanding these things. A roll of pennies is 50 cents, so it's not expensive to play around & see how many heads or tails one can get in a row.

For those who can program a computer at all, the job is easier. One can put twists on it too. I did some myself one time, testing out gambling. The most noteworthy thing I found is that a small edge is not enough for the house. At 50.5% to 49.5%, for example, it freqently happens that the house is beaten in a series of 10,000 bets. The results look the same as the results of 50/50 tests. This explains why the smallest house advantage in real-world casinos is always over 52%. Smaller advantages should still eventually add up in their favour, but they don't intend to wait around 100 years or more to make a profit.

For anyone with any experience or knowledge about probability, the evoarguments are pretty funny. Some of them'll say a mutation that hurts a lifeform's survival chance by 1/10 of a per cent will be immediately detected and result in death, whereas a "beneficial mutation" of the same magnitude will always be passed on. Now such is untrue. It's just an attempt to sell the selection god(ess).

By definition, improving survival chance by a whole percentage point means the selection god(ess) has only one chance in 100 of getting it "right". 1/10 of 1% reduces this to one chance in 1000.

Now if you call them on it, most often they'll say "Oh yes, it could take 3 or 4 generations, but..." Nonsense! No thinking person can believe you'll hit a 1 in 1000 shot in 3 or 4 tries, and this overlooks the fact that in the case of a defect, the defect is being reproduced. In 3 or 4 generations, you're talking about eliminating at least 8 or 12 decendants (or many thousands in the case of insects & plants), and the selection god(ess)' chances are still only 1 in 1000 for each one. (S)he's never going to catch up. Never ever EVAR! It's mathematically impossible.

And that's not all. In sexually reproducing life, there's a 50/50 chance the mutation in question will be unavailable for "selection". (It's actually worse.) Genes are inherited from both parents and form pairs, only one of which is used. If the mutation isn't used, how can the selection god(ess) "select" the individual? Actually, they've observed a strong tendancy for mutations to be "recessive", so it's worse than 50/50; but even at 50/50 it's not hard to see that the selection god(ess) needs supernatural knowledge in order to the job.

Evolutionists rely heavily upon this supernatural knowledge, whether or not they admit it. The luck god(ess) needs to help the selection god(ess) every step of the way, and that's just not plausible, let alone "scientific".

Even supposing detrimental mutations outnumber "beneficial mutations" by as little as 30 to 1, it is too big a job for both god(ess)s put together. This is a better rate than any of their experts dare to claim, but the math here is certain. The detrimental mutations simply cannot be detected on the first try, and this is exactly what is required. Once they spread, it doesn't become easier to eliminate them - just the opposite. The "good mutations", if they spread, will be likely to remain, but they're going to be outnumbered by 29 to 1. Extinction will occur long before transformation.

The math isn't hard. Assign an average value to mutations. It doesn't matter if you pick a high value or a low value. Neither favors evolutionism. You can say the average mutation effects survival chances by 1% or 0.1%, and it won't change the final outcome.

29 x .01 = .29 > 1 x .01 = .01
29 x .001 = .029 > 1 x .001 = .001

See? It makes no difference at all. They can't win either way. I have simplified this ever so slightly - IN THEIR FAVOUR. (I have rounded DOWN to 29 from the actual numbers which would be 29.xxx, and the mantissa will in any case work AGAINST the evogod(ess).) The only value that works is 100%. If the average bad mutation absolutely guarantees death, and the average good mutation is guaranteed to survive, "natural selection" would work. That's the point of my original question. Do you remember your response?

Actual investigations by evolutionists don't support anything near an 100% figure. Not even 50%. Nor 10%. Think about it: if you evolved a whole new organ, something wonderful and innovative, would it improve your survival chances by 10%? A mutation isn't an organ, and nobody's ever seen any new organ evolve, so they can only estimate/guess at the requirements. Anyhow, the average survival/fitness change supposed for mutations is very, very small.

Observations are all in agreement with what I've just said. The math dictates that defects must pile up far faster than anything good, and the educated person already knows this has happened. Fire up a search engine and see how many heriditary disorders there are - not just among humans; but everywhere they've looked. See how many "beneficial mutations" have been found (even if you don't look critically at what they're trying to pass off). The selection god(ess) is not getting the job done. It is an impossible task for any entity short of supernatural, and as for this selection god(ess), I don't think s/he exists.

It is not hard to see that even when one bends over backwards to accomodate the evofantasies, they don't work. I have been lenient in assuming "beneficial mutation". I have been extremely generous in the rates. I have not bothered with the tendancy of mutations to be "recessive", and hide themselves from the selection god(ess). I have rounded DOWN the mantissa. But you can't climb a mountain if you fall 29 feet for evey foot you ascend. Genetics purely IS antithetical to evolutionism. Prior to Mendel, folks didn't know about mutation. Even if one (falsely) assumes they had an excuse then, they certainly don't have one now.

It has been said more than once that I don't understand 'natural selection'. I understand what Darwin and other have written about it. I may not understand the god(ess), but I really don't care too much about that. I have no use for blind faith and magic.

I don't have the time to go through this thoroughly at the moment but I do notice that there isn't any reference for your probability claims here -- no references for any claims here at all. Linear said something similar to you in another post -- start with faulty assumptions and you end up with faulty results. Can you show us where there figures came from please?

Interesting that I was waiting for replies from you in other threads but instead of doing so, you've simply started more threads. Anyway, apart from awaiting a reply for where these figures came from, I have a few additional comments.



I've read on this topic in different places and have never come across such a claim. Source please.

Unless you can provide this, then subsequent conclusions are meaningless.

You also need to bear in mind what natural selection actually is. In a reproducing population, organisms that have a beneficial mutation will tend to produce more offspring than those which do not, and over time the mutation will become a feature of the population. There's no requirement for how often a beneficial mutation has to occur, nor is there a requirement for how quickly natural selection has to work (it depends on the environment and whether it is changing).

Where did you get the idea that all harmful mutations have to result in death? Who said this? Most mutations are on a molecular level and are not even noticeable; the vast majority of mutations are simply neutral. Conferring no particular advantage, they are not selected for in the environment.

Essentially this post is expressing incredulity that harmful mutations can be eliminated in a population due to selection pressures. I'm not sure what this is driving at. Just ask yourself if there are major populations of diseased and deformed organisms out in nature, because the "luck goddess" of evolution hasn't eliminated them yet. If you can find some, then you can claim the ideas in this post are correct. If you can't, then you might consider that this is because they were de-selected for in their environment. You might also consider the fact that selection pressures on humans have been greatly decreased since civilisation dawned, so anyone who does not take this into consideration is not understanding the role of the environment in the process.

I'm still waiting elsewhere for you to explain how bacteria whose lactose-digesting gene was removed could in subsequent generations digest lactose, and how bacteria could digest a human-made substance like nylon.

Please provide a source reference for your "one creature "guaranteed" to always survive" statement.

Maybe the house doesn't intend to wait because the owner wants to see a profit in his lifetime. Evolution doesn't have a time limit.

What do you mean by "the house is beaten in a series of 10,000 bets"? Are you saying that in 10,000 bets with a 50.5 to 49.5 advantage the house loses money overall? Is that always true? What about 1 million or 1 billion bets? Does the house still lose? Can I see your source code on your program that gave this result?

Who are these "some" that say these things...people you interviewed on the street? Perhaps a quote from an actual science publication or an actual biologist would be more appropriate here.

Again a reference for your quote regarding this miniscule amount of "tries" would be good here since it is in quote marks. Otherwise the only "Nonsense!" is your assumption.

Additionally, why do you think that defects will be reproduced? Are you talking about harmful mutations? You haven't defined your parameters very well.

"In 3 or 4 generations, you're talking about eliminating at least 8 or 12 decendants (or many thousands in the case of insects & plants), and the selection god(ess)' chances are still only 1 in 1000 for each one. (S)he's never going to catch up. Never ever EVAR! It's mathematically impossible." Your own statement refutes this. 8 or 12 were already eliminated so "impossible" while having nice emotional appeal, is not an accurate descriptor.

The gene can get passed on even if it is recessive, so it still spreads in the population. I think this would be a good time for you to define your terms:
1. Mutation:
2. Beneficial Mutation:
3. Harmful Mutation:
I asked for this in a different thread when you brought the subject up. I realize your current responsibilities make it easy to overlook these minor requests so I repeated it here. Please provide your reference for the definitions that you state.

If this statement is to make any sense at all you need to define your terms, which I requested above.

Your ambiguous inference as to what a "detrimental" mutation is, makes this statement unsupportable.

Nope because this is the first time you have brought this up.

which might be why you won't find an evolutionist that says this...hence your statement saying so above is incorrect.

I don't see how a reference makes any sense. By definition, if you improve the odds of survival by 1%, the lifeform involved will have a 1% better chance of surviving. You want a reference for such? How could you possibly need one? What good would it do to provide it if you can't fathom this from the get-go? Surely you'd be forced to rely upon authority alone.

What good would it do for you to provide a source for all the figures and assertions from "evolutionists" you introduced in your post, and which both Linear and I have asked for? Maybe to confirm that they haven't been pulled out of your hat? Start with a faulty premise and all else that follows is faulty. If you continue to refuse to provide your source then I will assume you don't have one and you are making stuff up.

No doubt if I should state that day is generally brighter than night, those who can think of nothing better will demand sources. I shall have to consider the entertainment value vs. the time involved in producing sources for things everyone already knows very well.

However, in an atmosphere of moderation, it may be that stalling is the only common tactic that comes to mind. This is an improvement over false accusations. We are making progress.

1% = 1% is not a faulty premise. 1% ? 100% isn't either. I don't intend to provide a source on that issue. Pat yourself on the back if you think you've won.

Please go back to the posts written by LinearAQ and myself and answer our questions. Stop playing games and trying to wriggle out of it. We've made it very clear what we are asking.

Yes. I did some studying & composed a little while I was away. I waited a little while, but it didn't seem that a time was rapidly approaching when it would be convenient to you for me to post. I gave up waiting, you see.

It is odd that you complain so when you're "ahead" in the "get the last post" game.

Well I've seen plenty of such garbage in forums, and it's very frequently on TV. I might wonder what planet you live on. But most likely you just take such statements for granted when you encounter them.

LOL! Really? Now I'm tempted. You seem to have overlooked something. Either that, or you're just jabbering to jabber.

This premise isn't a critical element in my reasoning. It could be totally wrong, and my argument does not suffer a bit. My conclusions do not depend upon evolutionists being idiots. That some demonstrably are is what it is, but it does not have an impact on the soundness of my conclusions.

Is there a more politically correct/less offensive smiley you'd prefer me to use when it's time for the ? I do want to be a good moderator, and it's not good to give offense when appropriate alternatives can be found.

False. When the bad mutations pile up too much, extinction occurs. Evolution must outpace devolution if it is to succeed. There have been several terms for this. You might google "genetic load" as a start. I haven't kept track of all the trends in terminology, so you might be able to make me look up some synonym if you can guess right.
Hold that thought. I'm combining responses.

Trying to work in the "argument from incredulity" junk again? Not recommended.

Your portrayal of mutants is just funny. On the flip side, one could ask how many X-Men have ever been spotted demonstrating helpful mutations.

I guess humans don't have mutations, since we don't look like the sewer-dwellers on Futurama. Plenty of harmful mutations have been found everywhere they've ever looked. Everywhere.

Mutants? Yep. Harmful mutations? More than you can count. Side-show freakazoids? Not so many.

Such are actually a dream of evolutionism which isn't openly confessed. Were new limbs & organs popping up left & right, it'd be a lot easier to argue that some might by mere chance, just happen to come in handy. It's just what they used to say, but now it only survives in the comics. Another retreat that isn't publicized. But the old-timers who started those comics didn't make it up on their own, not by a long shot.

Care to define "selection pressure"? It's a much less commonly-encountered term than mutation, and I still wouldn't ask; but you've demonstrated inconsistent understanding.

That's okay. You don't care. If you did, you would have considered what I have said more than once about such things. If they repeat like clockwork, they ain't random. They do, therefore they ain't.
Since there's unanimous desire among evolutionists to see common knowledge presented, and since presenting it will serve to further demonstrate just how stupid evolutionism gets people to become; I am seriously considering doing just as you both suggest.

Naturally, I'll begin my search with the usual suspects & work outwards. I may not have time to do much responding to other ...'stuff', I suppose, is the polite term.

We'll see how the priorities go. I have to moderate, and I don't plan to let anything important slip by. If the project proves boring or impractical I'll give up on it. I know what I've seen. You all know you've seen the same thing countless times; and it's just a matter of locating it. Everyone knows.

But I can comply with silly suggestions when it promises to be fun.

"4.6 billion years" ring any bells? The age of the Earth has been pushed back time after time after time to try to supply enough time, and they still want much more.

Haven't conducted many street interviews. Just stuck with the same encounters everyone else has had.

Well, now. That's a worthy goal: find an actual evopro saying such stuff. There is a bit of a problem: lots of posers on the forums. Oh, but you can't admit to their existence either - I forgot. Makes it a little easier for me.

Just imagining you calling some EvC regulars posers is worth a chuckle. Shoot! I gotta quit. I can't break the smile, and my face is getting sore. Oh, goodness... That is way, way, way funnier than I noticed at first. Please, oh please don't do it if I dredge one up and you get the chance. I'd never quit laughing if it actually happened.
I do not make this stuff up. I have seen just such absurdities. We all have.

But if you think about it, I could go to another forum, tell of RAZD's claim that compounding periods are all the same, and folks would be pretty reluctant to believe. That'd be a harder sell than something straight out of common experiences like selection goddess claims. They're a dime a dozen.

Not so. The classic definitions of all terms, definitions well-established and recognized throughout the English-speaking world, work perfectly well. You need evotwisted definitions to even begin to obfuscate what I said. The potential to even feign misunderstanding is lacking as evidenced by... Well, see for yourself...

I don't think there's anything ambiguous there. Maybe if you assert it a few more times some lurker or another will look it up. That's sure to work to the good as they read their way around this forum.

"My original question" refers to the first question in the post. In the future, is there some way I can communicate such things more clearly than I have?

Absolutely. They can lose a lot, too.

What do you mean "always true"? Do they always lose? Of course not! If they did, we'd have casino games favouring the player 50.5% to 49.5% and the house would always win.

Do they always have the potential to lose? Yes. That's the problem with such a small edge. It isn't reliable. It takes really, really, really big numbers to get a payoff out of small advantages with certainty.
Largest series of bets I ever ran was 80,000. It took a long time, like 3 hours or something.

Rather than worry about my source code, if you know what source code is, it'd be much, much more practical for you to write your own. It doesn't take long.

The reason they say it'll be nipped quickly is because they reason from implication. If it isn't eliminated right away... come on... come on... you can do it...
I was wrong! Simple fundamental logic forces me to understand that the offspring of mutants will be mutants. You just...

Sorry. I can't help you with this.

Just used plain, ordinary English. No Greek or Latin. No doubletalk. What would lead me to believe any definition could be understood? I would have to use more of this unfathomable plain, ordinary English, would I not?

You're asking me to waste my time digging up examples of evolutionists saying the things they say every last single day.

Be patient, and you may get your wish.

It is good that you recognize the soundness of my reasoning, and have to quibble over such issues. Believe it or not, it is very good.

No, I didn't have to look far. Here's an example right under everyone's nose.
Look closely. There are 8 - 12 offspring, descended from an ever-so-slightly defective mutant. And Linear just magically claims they're already eliminated!

This could be just an empty, utterly baseless claim generated just to be contrary and waste time. If there is any rationale behind it, it has to be that mutants with defects are assumed to always be eliminated 100% of the time. Could be some genuine, real-deal, you-can-look-it-up cognitive dissonance involved too.

No reason exists for them to be "already eliminated". None! Mutant survived, reproduced, offspring resulted. They weren't statistically detectable in such a short timeframe, so they reproduced and... Linear says they're dead already. Just by a.) his say-so b.) selection magic.

Looks like some part of him can see implications, for sure!

One of the main points I am trying to make here is that evolutionists can't just declare lifeforms selected. Well, not and get away with it. They'll sure try, if you don't watch 'em. Every time. It's not a mutation; it repeats like clockwork.

By definition, a critter with such a small decrease in fitness has, for all practical purposes, the same chances as its fellows. Selection cannot be said to kill it off 100% automatically. Neither can you retroactively try to assume it dead. Or its offspring. No way no how!

Look again. I'll change the format a bit, and bring it in line with convention.
He says my statement refutes this. What part of my statement mitigates against 8 to 12 surviving mutants with defects? Why, the part that says 8 to 12 ever-so-slightly defective mutants existed, of course! Who couldn't see that? If they're born, hatched, sprouted, you name it - evolutionist religion decrees they'll be eliminated 100% of the time, and the only explanation required is to chant 'natural selection' a few times.

All that remains is for LindaLou to get on my case for not understanding this aspect of 'natural selection' in the first place. I can hardly wait.

Since it is my question to which you gave this response, I have to conclude that you are calling me stupid. I am registering my complaint to the moderator of this forum concerning your constant maligning of my intelligence and character.
Now to answer the statement. The theory of evolution and the mechanisms by which it is considered to occur are recorded in papers and books written by evolution biologists. I am not one. Linda is not one. I don't think RAZD is one either. Certainly most of the people you read on forums such as this are not evolution biologists. If you want to say that "the theory of evolution" says this or "the theory of evolution says that" you need to provide a source for your statement. Otherwise your statement isn't worth the pixels it is printed with.

Yes, maybe you will start actually answering questions when it becomes fun for you. I'm still waiting for your definition of "harmful mutation".

Not street interviews...forum interviews!! Note the lack of substantiation with scientific publications.

I never claimed to be an "evopro" so I guess I am not one of the posers you are referring to. Since you can't find a professional evolution biologist on a forum then perhaps you should research elsewhere before you assume that wild statements on a forum constitute professional conclusions.



We have also seen crazy stuff provided by professed Christians on these and other forums...stuff that you would never agree with. Would it then be valid if I then quote them and say that "Christianity means this" and "Christians believe that" as if these people were venerated theologists? No it would not be valid. However, that is essencially what you are doing here. Perhaps you should raise your research standards.

Almost as difficult to sell as your concept of the working of exponential decay functions.

Incorrect. Terms used in a theory must be defined. The theory of relativity has words that mean a particular thing within the framework of that theory. The theory of evolution is the same way. If you are criticizing the theory of evolution then you need to use the same definitions that they use. Otherwise you are not really criticing evolution.

I think it would be easier for you to define the term rather than act as if it is understood by all who are reading this. The request has been repeated several times because you haven't answered it. You act as if you want your statements to be ambiguous.

CTD,

The first sentence of your founding thread does an excellent job of exposing a principle that diminishes the chance of evolution beyond absurdity.



It is always assumed by evolutionists that a one-in-a-million beneficial mutation guarantees the survival of the modified form, but this is simply not the case.

If you consider that a certain percentage of "beneficial" mutations are never carried on because of this principle, we are forced to recognize that the odds of evolution occurring are even less than originally believed.

Another glaring hole in the crumbled wall called evolution.

Let's be honest here. What part of Darwin's writings state the a beneficial mutation "guarantees the survival of the modified form"?

If not that, then how about any paper or book by an evolution biologist that states that a beneficial mutation guarantees the survival of the modified form?

You've done a vast amount of research so you must have come across a scientific paper that states this or implies this. I'm sure you wouldn't make such an sweeping statement unless you had read it in a journal, paper or book by a professional biologist. So, all you have to do is point me to it and I will read if for myself.

You have pretty much agreed that it is stupid to think any lifeform is guaranteed to survive or guaranteed to be selected. We all know there are people who believe exactly such. There is no doubt that they exist, yet you ask me to prove that these stupid evolutionists exist. I acknowledged your request. How do you get from that to calling you "stupid"? Your request is stupid, and the people in question are stupid.

The only way to get there comes later. If you weren't just saying the 8 to 12 were dead to be saying it, but because you believe the evogoddess automatically slays mutants no matter what. If you mean that I called a group stupid and then discovered you were a member... how can that be helped? It's not like you didn't say quite a few things to exclude yourself from that group, now.
This is a logical fallacy. You intend to require evidence which does not and cannot exist. There is no "pope" of evolutionism. The only recognized prophet was dead wrong, so much so that the religion has changed and nobody takes his writings seriously any more, except symbolically.

There is no text which officially documents the beliefs of evolutionism, so asking me to prove the religion officially says one thing or another is a logical fallacy.
I am allowed to bear witness to that which I have seen and heard. It is your objection which isn't worth pixels.

And you know why. My patience is finite.

Ah right. Do any of those contain the "official" version of evolutionism? There is no such thing. If you don't hold to a particular belief, you shouldn't be upset when it's debunked.

But we see your response.
Huh? So all LindaLou's talk about the vast knowledge I miss out on when I don't buy Dr.Adequate's and jar's and all such stories is just empty? Cool! I didn't believe them anyhow.

Actually, looking at this again, this is even sillier. You ask for a "reference for my quote", but I wasn't directly quoting an individual. The reference is myself, as this is my testimony. Your own experience confirms it, as you've made abundantly clear.
There's a big difference. Christians have a Bible. Practically anyone can identify an heretic if they try.

And the church has, since the time of the Apostles been infiltrated by agents of the enemy. Everyone knows this.

You misportray things when you say "quote them and say that "Christianity means this" and "Christians believe that" as if these people were venerated theologists?" Have I in any way indicated I was talking about venerated evolutionary atheologists? I don't think so.

This is false. Evolutionists - professional ones - employ all their terms with variable meanings. There is not even a single standard version of the "theory" itself, and never has been. Not even Darwin penned one. It can be confusing as all get-out for the unprepared. They use three definitions of 'mutation' alone, so much so that many of their writings appear to directly contradict each other when this may or may not be the case.

I have made clear that I use the classic English definitions. That excludes last week's fad evohype bar-lowering, obfuscation-promoting twist.

Baloney! I can express myself using any terms I choose. If what I say is valid, it's valid. If it ain't, it ain't.

That's one of the silliest things you've ever claimed. Non-English-speakers can't discuss evolutionism? Non-English-abusers can't? What cowardly "science" this is! No other science has to be protected in such a manner. No other concept, for that matter. Well, Islam. I forgot. The policy is there on paper, but I've never seen anyone claim it in a real-world discussion if Islam.

This issue is a dead giveaway, too. All the real sciences strive to refine their terms and make them specific, more clear. Only when evolutionism is involved to we find the exact opposite. I think this rule is so consistent it can be used to make predictions. Should one happen to notice a redefinition in any field of science that blurs meaning, obstructs clear communication, and promotes misunderstand, it should be investigated. If this field were aerodynamics, for example, you can bet your britches there's some implication somewhere that has an impact on evolutionism. Pterodactyl analysis or something to do with an imagined "evolutionary path" of some flying insect would be behind the change, although it might take some digging to find it.

Oh, I thought you were debating and trying to debunk the theory of evolution. Since you are only trying to highlight misunderstandings stated by lay persons who believe evolution to be true, then more power to you. I don't like it either when the science behind evolution is inadvertently misrepresented by those who say they believe it to be true. Thank you.

Thanks again. Those who misunderstand evolution should not try to debate it. They just wind up saying things that make the theory look rediculous.

You might be overstepping your bounds a little bit. I doubt that you are the final arbiter of what is valid and what isn't. Well, unless you want to claim that your moderatorship allows you to judge the validity of claims on this forum.

I agree wholeheartedly. Down with evolutionism. That darn religion is slinging mud on the science of evolution. It is a mockery and a sham whose participants don't have the guts to submit it to the cutthroat world of scientific peer review the way the theory of evolution has.

That's the way to slam them!! Let's see those evolutionism claims be put before real scientists like the theory of evolution has. The biologists who study real evolution will make mincemeat out of those evolutionism religious fanatics.

Oh? Well I thought what I said made perfect sense before you snipped it out of context.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said these misunderstandings were restricted to laypersons. I do not check the credentials of every evopusher I encounter, and neither do you.

I doubt if they know they don't understand it, so this advice isn't terribly practical. But it would make for a drastic shift in the numbers.

Another classic. I overstep my bounds when I say "If what I say is valid, it's valid. If it ain't, it ain't."

You do a good job of conveying your desire to be contentious, but beyond that... well, what have you accomplished? Everyone can see what you've said ain't valid.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=43591#Post43591

Found another example. I'll add bold.
The author contradicts himself several times, but unless challenged, I don't intend to go into all of that.

I just present this as an example of an evolutionist assuming harmful mutations automatically result in death.

I don't think it's unfair to point remind readers that according to LindaLou, this individual understands "evolution"/"natural selection" and I do not.

I was lucky, and chanced to find this.

Perhaps it will be helpful to any who have trouble understanding what a mutation is. It's in plain English, but whether that is good or bad seems to be something we cannot agree upon.

What fields of biology do Linda and Russell2 work in again?
Criticizing them doesn't criticize the theory of evolution.

If they're presenting the theory from a standpoint of apparent understanding and accurate portrayal - how does criticising the content of their posts then not criticise the theory?

If the opposition (creationists) are in fact as ignorant in our understanding of these things as has often been made out - one wonders why the need for such a backpeddle here to excuse the evolution members own possible errors, for fear it might poorly reflect or expose the theory itself?

I'm considering that evolution is a game the opposition can never win - based upon the excuses and changes of definitions that game makers/marketers continue to apply to it.

First, I still remember who requested, nay insisted there was a need to demonstrate that evolutionists say these things. Have you forgotten so soon?

Second, it does not follow that an idea cannot be criticized just because it has no official publication describing it. Were that the case, one couldn't criticize astrology, the moon hoax theories, or any other idea that lacked an official, universally acknowledged document, detailing its content. Evolution is not exempt from criticism, just because Darwin was wrong and his book has been abandoned. Live with it. Neither is it correct to think there aren't several varieties of evolutionism.

Could have worded that better. You make it sound ad hom. The merits of the idea(s) were criticized in my post - not the individuals.

If you like, I can demonstrate that even professional evolutionists misunderstand 'natural selection'. We have no evidence that you care. Why shouldn't you just say "well, they subscribe to a different version than I do"? Or "not everyone with a degree and a career in evolution really understands it"? As there is no longer an official reference for what evolutionism is about, there's always an excuse.

Then if I criticize the posts that a Jehovah's Witness presents as their idea of apparant understanding and accurate portrayal of Christianity (They are Christians) then I am rightly criticizing your religion? Somehow that doesn't seem like an accurate statement.

Because CTD only concentrates on the outlandish statements and ignores the basics of the theory. If he was actually trying to debunk the theory of evolution, he would attack the basics of it, not questionable fringe statements made by non-professionals.

So now it's your turn to demonstrate where the definitions have been changed in the professional literature of evolution biologists? You may as well get in the queue. Just don't wait for the others to show you where to look.

Agreed. Were those ideas the ideas of professional evolution biologists? Since I asked for quotes from professionals in the field and you said you didn't intend to get information from the professional, I assumed that you were not debating the theory of evolution. Are you now saying that you intend to debate the theory?

Ah! I love the smell of a good quote mine in the morning.

My objections to your criticizing the theory of evolution based on the statements of people you met on the internet are quite valid. However, I see that I don't have to worry about it since you're just criticizing evolutionism, as your latest statement says.

I should like to see examples of "scientific peer review" of the "theory of evolution", cutthroat or otherwise.

(emphasis added)
Source.

Of course a little thought, and nobody'd believe mutations only accumulate at an alarming rate among humans. The selection goddess can't select critters automatically, you see. That's my whole point. Without automatic 'selection' eliminating them, mutations must accumulate, and all observations support (and will continue to support) this inescapable conclusion.

I don't see much way to prevent you from assuming whatever you want to assume.

What I have done was to demonstrate that harmful mutations must accumulate at a far faster pace than beneficial mutations, even if one grants every benefit of doubt to the evolutionist cause. The only doubt I do not grant is 100% automatic selection when a fitness change of less than 100% is involved.

Have you given me any reason to think my conclusion is erroneous? Certainly not.

You and LindaLou have instead insisted I must provide proof of trivial, commonly-known facts. You practice the art of refuting an argument by never addressing it. Such as are fooled by this technique cannot be helped much by the likes of myself. They have no interest in facts and are not concerned with science or truth.

Not a very direct response. I shall proceed at my own convenience.

Those are zoo populations that have been bred amongst each other for long spans of time. The limited variety of the gene pool in that population coupled with the tendency of zoos to keep even the less adapted animals alive, unlike nature, will result in an increase in undesireable traits.
You've essencially agreed with the theory that animals with those traits will be eliminated more by natural selection than animals without those traits.
Humans have had an increase in inherited sickness since medical science has been able to treat those diseases and the people who would have died young can now live to have children. Hemophilia, and childhood diabeties have increased.

And I don't see much way to prevent you from avoiding a direct answer to a question.

No you haven't. You have merely claimed that harmful mutations accumulate faster than beneficial ones.

You claim that harmful mutations must necessarily be passed on to the next generation at a greater rate than beneficial mutations. Yet you fail to define or at least provide the theory of evolution's definition of harmful and beneficial mutations. You also have not shown any study, paper, or book by anyone in the field of biology or genetics that states harmful mutations even occur at a higher rate than beneficial ones much less remain in the population at higher percentages.

You conclusion is erroneous only if your premise is erroneous. Prove the premise and then we'll see about the conclusion.

I did address the facts of your premise which you have not shown are true facts. If these "facts" of yours are so "commonly-known" then you should have no problem providing documentation of such from someone that works in the field of evolution biology.

Not a very direct response. I shall proceed at my own convenience. [/quote]You've never shown any likelyhood of doing otherwise.

Really? Just how many million years have the zoo populations been bred "amongst each other"? When do you intend to prove this? And finally, so what if they have?

Kinda the opposite of that business about small isolated populations evolving rapidly then? Is that an official part of the "theory" you believe in?

I have? I don't recall agreeing that 'natural selection' even exists.
You do make me smile. Modern medical science has been around for how long? How many generations?

"More people" is rather an off-target thing to say. There are more people period. It's safe to assume there are more people with any xyz thing you care to dream up. More people wearing bluejeans, more people eating pie, more people dancing.

If you wanted to be relevant, you'd demonstrate a larger percentage of people with harmful mutations, and demonstrate that the percentage of people with harmful mutations does not naturally grow on its own at the observed pace without medicine.

Nonsense. You might take another look at the first post in the thread. I did everything I said I did. Such a denial is just... well, folks can see for themselves how meaningless it is.
I used quite a few words in the English language to make that post. I have no intention of defining every last single word I used. If you maintain that this is needful, you can start setting an example and provide definitions of every single word you use.
You've already grossly misidentified the premise(s) in the post. Now you talk of a conclusion? You just got done saying I up & claimed harmful mutations must outnumber beneficial mutations. I did nothing of the sort. I provided a simple, reasoned demonstration that this must happen. But because you don't like the outcome (even 'though you say it has no bearing on your belief) you can't even discuss it accurately.

But I do have a problem. I have a problem allowing my time to be utterly and unquestionably wasted. And you have a problem convincing me to waste my time. So far, you've failed.

For instance, would you have me believe you're actually so ignorant that you don't know I'm being very, very, very generous with the ratio of good to bad mutations? Does anyone doubt you'd take offense if I assumed you were so ignorant?

I'll tell you what I do assume. I do assume you've found no actual flaws in what I said. You can beat around the bush if you want, but so what? None of it can make evolutionism work.

Yet you still avoid answering the questions I asked at the beginning of this thread. Are you this obtuse when you are teaching your children or is it just when you are trying to impart such an abjectly stupid hypothesis to your adoring fans that you resort to these kinds of tactics?

You haven't asked for any. I only asked you to define 3 phrases yet you bluster about how difficult it is instead of simply stating what you meant by it. Some readers might interpret this as reticence on your part to allow any clear understanding of this grossly misinformed and silly characature of evolution that you parade around on this board.

You say it must happen yet you fail to say what harmful and beneficial mutations are. So how are we to research this and come up with the same conclusion as you if we don't know where you started from?

It seems like you are wasting more time replying that you don't want to waste time than you would spend providing a few simple explanations of what you mean by harmful and beneficial mutations.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. That means that a particular piece of knowledge is not held by the person who is ignorant of it. We are all ignorant of something. Besides, even if I did know you were being generous, which I don't, others reading this might like to have a clear understanding of this earth-shattering scientific rebuttal to the theory of evolution. You are putting forth the idea so you should try and make it clearly understood. The fact that you find reasons not to do so, seems indicative of the low value that you really place on this silly hypothesis.

I'm not beating around the bush. I asked for a little clarification of the starting assumptions for this misanthrope of a proof and I don't see how anyone can be asked to subscribe to it on its extremely hollow face value.

Hi Bex, ((( Smiles )))

Evolution and politics.
One can't ever seem to really win with politics either.
You never really get all or sometimes any of that
that a person has actually voted for.
They keep dragging it on till the next election..
Till the next election to the next election till people just finally wear out.
If they do that enough, thats how they win out and we lose out.
Thats why they do it..
They know it..
And they will continue to do it till the end of this system
of things that is to come.
I guess thats why Jesus said he was no part of this world.
It's just hopeless at times.
As the world is now.
Hows your stress level doing..
Stay well..

I'm considering that evolution is a game the opposition can never win - based upon
the excuses and changes of definitions that game makers/marketers continue to apply to it.

Take Care Bex
Lynn

Hi Lynn,

Stress levels aren't "too" bad, thanks for asking.

Debating can be stressful, I've already been doing a bit of that elsewhere but nothing too bad and got into it a bit on youtube recently. So yeah, that plus the relief teaching is probably not a good combination at the moment. Hehe. But if you get involved, that's what one should expect I guess.

Hope you're doing ok yourself. Nice to see you over here by the way.

Take care too.

A faith (evolution) that cannot survive collision with the truth (observation) is not worth many regrets.

Science has observed zero transitional forms, zero "beneficial" mutations, and zero evidence for mutational symmetry.

I have observed answered prayers that required an invisible party conducting advanced, silent surveillance:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M001G

Russ,

Please define what you believe a "transitional form" should look like and your justification for that definition.

Please define what you believe is a beneficial mutation. Since evolution scientists claim that beneficial mutations occur they must have a definition of that term. How does yours differ from their definition.

What is mutational symmetry?

The link goes to your post relating a religious experience you had in answer to your prayers. I, too, have had similar experiences. I don't see how your experience eliminates evolution as the means that God used to create the diversity of life we see on Earth.

Get real. You ask me to waste time "proving" all sorts of things we all know. I've already told you I'm using classic English definitions - nothing sneaky. Do you understand English?

Do you speak English?

I don't know what resources are available in your area for learning English. I know I can't teach you the language over the internet.

But this time isn't wasted. This is amusing and instructional. Amusement and instruction are worthy to spend a little time pursuing.

We have a fine example of just how people behave when they have no worthwhile response, but want to appear to argue.
I see you don't intend to answer my questions. You have a very one-way approach to discussions.

I see you're unfamiliar with the phrase "beating around the bush." It does not have to do with literal bushes. Perhaps you can find a translator who can provide an equivalent saying in your native language.

No. Scroll up and see. You ask me to verify facts of common experience and common knowledge. You asked me to verify that evolutionists believe even the smallest differential in fitness can be immediately detected and "selected"; then you proved it for me. You ask me to define commonly-used, simple terms. You do not demonstrate that there's any need, beyond wasting time.

For example, is there any difficulty at all which arises from using the classic sense of the term 'mutation' in the manner I have used it? There is not. If there were, you would have jumped all over it. I have not used ambiguous language; I have used clear, ordinary English. So do you speak English, or not?

Also, is there any premise involved in my reasoning which you would like to get around to disputing, after so many posts?

I submit these results in case you're as ignorant as you profess to be. But I should caution you that most of the results are in English.

Please define what you believe a "transitional form" is Linear - so that one can give a definition of what they would expect based upon your own explanation.

Interesting evasion tactic.

Transitional forms are organisms that contain some traits of one type of organism and also traits of another type of organism which are not found in the first type of organism. It is known that reptiles don't have the 3 bones that mammals have in their middle ear. In the fossil record, in strata below that which the earliest mammals are found, there exists animals with bones from their jaws that are partially in the shape of those 3 ear bones. In most other respects the animals maintain reptilian traits. The closer to to the mammal stratum that they are found, the more defined those ear bones become. Other reptilian traits also become less pronounced.

So, based on my explanation of a transitional form, what do you believe a transitional form should look like?

No CTD it is not common knowledge. Your assumptions regarding "harmful" and "beneficial" mutations have a few problems.
1. The words can be and are ambiguous without context or definition.
2. You totally ignore neutral mutations.
3. You claim a ratio that you are not supporting from any scientific journals, papers or books. The Google results you provided only supplied either creationist sites that make the same claim as you or sites that are rebutting those creationist sites.

Is your lack of knowledge in this area so great that you must bluster and distract rather than answer a few simple questions?

I guess your version of evolution suffered a "harmful" mutation during its conception and is now made of straw.

Hi LinearAq!

I think, but admit I could be wrong, that CTD deliberately refrains from using scientific sources because he believes they are in error. If I understand his claims on this forum, he's basically implying (directly or otherwise) that:

a) the fields of science connected with evolution are fraudulant - and in order to come to this conclusion he must have:
b) proven to himself that he knows more than them, likely through decades of detailed research in these fields and is thereby capable of understanding their error and lies.

After all, one cannot prove that entire fields of science are false by just clicking on a mouse and visiting a few websites.

Just to make sure you're not misrepresenting yourself here, LinearAq, do you mean to imply that the above points (both a and b) do not apply to CTD? For example, no one would claim that paleantology is all hocum unless they had spent years out in the field (and out of doors) studying these things and digging up bones, etc., for themselves. Are you trying to say this is not true of CTD?

So LinearAQ, do you believe the 3 bones just happened to form in the spot they are as a result of a mutation?

If this is a question of what I believe, then, yes the bones formed as a result of a mutation or several mutations that were advantageous to survival. However, I don't believe those mutations "just happened to form". As I have said, I believe that life has been designed so this mutation and changes were orchestrated from the beginning.

As far as what science has told us so far, I am not well enough informed as to the mechanism that precipated the changes to give you a definitive answer. My educated guess based on what I do know about the changes and what I know about the theory of evolution is that the mutation occurred to produce from the multiple-boned double-hinged jaw of the reptile, separated bones that eventually were the hearing bones and a single-bone single-hinge jaw like mammals have. This happened so gradually that it may not be one of those X-men type of mutations at all but simply small modifications over generations that resulted in the same bones being used for an enhancement of an existing function. In a reptile the bones of the jaw are also used in their hearing process.

That which you call "assumption" is a large body of commonly-known observations, backed up by experimental science.

In all the mutant fruit fly experiments, how many beneficial mutations were produced? How many harmful?

In all of human medical science, and animal veterinary science, how many harmful mutations are known? How many beneficial?

One must be careful how one writes the ratio, lest one commit the error of dividing by zero.

But what's next? Will you ask me to define 'fruit fly'? Then turn around and tell me I'm not qualified unless I have a doctorate in entomology? I do lack formal entomology training, but I still know my evolutionology. And even a rank amateur should be able to recognize patterns after a few dozen times.
None of my words lack either. I told you I'm using classical English, and the context in which I use the terms is pretty hard to miss.
I ignore lots of things. I totally ignore I.Q. estimates for chimpanzees and dolphins. What of it?
I claim such a ridiculously high ratio of beneficial mutations to harmful that no evolutionist in his right mind would object. ...unless he just couldn't think of anything better...

Think of it, people. Think of it. If beneficial mutations were as common as the number I used, think how many members of your class in school would've been walking around with them! Yet they are unknown in the real world, in spite of obscene amounts of money and time invested in trying to find one.

All they have is a pitiful handful of dubious claims that always rely on playing word games. "Well, if we use this definition of 'beneficial mutation' we can say this is one." If you let me play games with terms, I can show you the moon is purple. Even so, we don't have to restrict the scenario to reality to see that it doesn't work. It cannot work. Not if one actually thinks about it, instead of taking someone's word.
So you don't find the "rebuttal" figures to your liking? Small wonder. What would you like?

I doubt very much that you took the time to survey all 127,000 links, and based upon what I saw when I surveyed some of the results, I can say your assessment is not accurate.
You're the one claiming not to know the first simple facts about mutations. If you're half as uninformed as you make out, one wonders why you don't read a book or something before venturing to discuss such matters.
Even if it were true, how would you know? You claim you don't understand the plain simple meanings of words like 'harmful' and 'beneficial'. I have provided a definition of 'mutation', so all that remains for you to claim you don't understand are the adjectives. I doubt this claim, since you attempt to divert to discussing 'neutral'; which strongly implies you [i]do[i] understand the other two terms.

Some definiton... There's nothing one can name that isn't "transitional" by that standard. Which is the whole point. You can say lizard is "transitional" between fish and porcupine; but you can just as easily rearrange it any way you please. Porcupine is "transitional" between lizard and fish; fish is "transitional" between porcupine and lizard. All three have some traits which are common and some which differ.

They want you to overlook the fact that this makes the "predictions" meaningless. If anything qualifies, what's it prove? That's not science - that's just a pure mockery of science.

Where would we be if Newton's laws of motion just said "an object may or may not move, and no matter what happens, I'm right"? Would such science do anyone any good under any circumstance? ANY AT ALL?

Now when they're so inclined, evolutionists can define terms meaningfully. Those who do so, well, they end up concluding there ain't no transitionals, as we know.

Lots of words complaining about my requests for you to substantiate at least one of your "facts" that you used to justify your math.

So just what was that "harmful" to "beneficial" mutation ratio in those fruit fly experiments? Care to provide a reference to a paper from a biologist or geneticist involved in the study?

Oh, that's right, its common knowledge....so common that no biologist or geneticist has written about it. If they had, you certainly would have produced some evidence beyond a Google page by now.

Certainly you are aware of the theory's statements that all organisms are transitionals. However, predictions of the future body plans for the decendents of living organisms is difficult and error prone.

Your straw version of what I said is quite untenable. Of course a living fish isn't a transitional organism for a living species of animal. What strange books have you been reading that says the theory of evolution states anything like that?

Predictions like the silly thing you said don't exist except in those storybook websites you seem to browse. Predictions about the physical make up of transitional organisms almost exclusively restricts itself to fossil characteristics and locations.

Yes it wouldn't be any good. I guess it is a good thing that is not anything like what I said.

Really? Then a few examples of evolution biologists or geneticists writing that there are no transitionals would help your cause. Care to present some? One?

Well, based upon the word "transition" we'd expect to see just that. A move from one state into another over a period of time. Surely there would be no transitional "form", but rather many transitions to explain the time period required and the changes that would need to take place.

Therefore, my view is, we would expect to see these stages of transitions clearly within the fossil record. Unmistakeable examples of a myriad of creatures clearly showing such transitions and the stages inbetween. E.g. with any such bird evolution scenario, one should provide half leg/half wing structures. This is absolutely essential to prove that this process ever took place and it should be easy, considering the vast amount of time, which would give a vast amount of fossils available to us.

Would you also please give examples of a creature/s that has evolved, (fossil photos) as evidence to the transitions it went through to arrive at the outcome it is today?

Bear in mind, a matched up sequence of fossils does not make them transitional forms. And if it does, then I'll expect such evidence showing the matched up sequence of the bird evolution showing the incredible intermediates with half leg/half wing structure - the very transitionals we'd expect to see if such a process had taken place. Which will give viewers a clear and unmistakable example.

Quote

Really? Then a few examples of evolution biologists or geneticists writing that there are no transitionals would help your cause. Care to present some? One?

I've seen the video this person speaks of, so I can verify this is indeed the case, but I submit the rest of this also for anybody's interest. Sources are also given at the bottom of the page.

So, would I be right in concluding that you believe evolution is God's process of creation?

Here's a little support for Bex's argument:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M001k

Untenable? It's non-existent. I don't need to make a straw man. Here's your definition again, as you seem to have forgotten, and can't be bothered to scroll up
According to that definition it sure is. Fish have spines and porcupines have spines. Lizards don't. That means the fish contains traits in common with the porcupine which the lizard does not share. Fish and lizards both have scales, but porcupines don't. It works just fine that way. Finally, Porcupines and lizards breathe air, but fish breathe water.

Your definition is all about sharing traits and not sharing traits. It becomes just a matter of looking for the traits, and you can plug in any critters you like any which way you like.

If a brother has a longer nose than his sister, he's a "transitional" with an anteater. If he has red hair and his sister doesn't, he's a "transitional" with a fox.

I didn't write that junk definition. Don't blame me. I'm just pointing out how absurd it is.
I think you might try asking this question to yourself. You provided the definition.

Read what I said again, if you think I made a prediction.
Every last time the issue of "transitional" forms comes up, we get the same story: directly or indirectly evolutionists say every creature is a "transitional" form, so the "prediction" that transitional forms will be found has been "fulfilled". Well no kidding. Life has been found. Big whup!

Then we have to put up with all the talk about how ignorant or dishonest we are for not accepting it. It's a non-prediction when bogus definitions are plugged in. It's a mockery of science, and it has no value whatsoever.
Well, I may be too late. I don't know how many of the people Bex listed are "evolution biologists", whatever that's supposed to mean...

Based on what? The record of my responses to juvenile goading?

Would you care to explain why I should be concerned about the opinion of one who does not understand plain English, and claims to be unaware of even basic, fundamental knowledge about mutations, yet insists evolutionism contains truth? I never said the religion couldn't fool the uneducated. If believing in evolutionism is a higher priority for people than learning or thinking or being honest, I really can't think of anything I could say or do that would be expected to change things for them.

Interview with an evolutionary biologist. Worth repeating. Click on and check this link out:

WHY DO SO MANY SCIENTISTS ENDORSE EVOLUTION?

CTo an extent.
Evolution is God's process of creating the diversity of life that we see today.

To attribute any such "process" as being responsible for the diversity of life does not make sense in light of the fact that such potential stems from information/programme. What does a process contain.....??? The wonderous programme of the DNA code is what gives us the potential for such diversity. The only process, if one could use such a term, is simply reproduction and growth from a gene pool of ancestry going back to the first two created parents and the continuation of the same by doing the same. And so it has always been and so it is what we observe to this day.

We can observe the incredible diversity that God placed within created kinds all around us.

Quote

In Genesis 1:11,12 God said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was done.
12. And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yeildeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

And this is exactly what we observe and always have. A basic law of biogenesis - like species reproduce ONLY after their own kind. Supported by Observational science and Genesis 1.

Quote

Speaking of Jesus, John 1:3 says, "ALL things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made."

Quote

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were NOT made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3.

And when you have a creator that has made all creatures to reproduce after their own kind, so his original creation would increase, continue and be preserved, what need would there be for such a senario of an evolutionary process to instead receive the credit? He could have chosen to do it yes, but we see no evidence He did. Instead, we see a fossil record showing spontaneous and abrupt appearance of fully created life forms, not halfway between one and the other (shared traits are not evidence for transitional forms) nor simple life becoming complex.

He could also have done it differently by simply creating a multitude there and then - without commanding His original creation to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. But indeed, it would seem, that we are lucky enough to share a part in the procreation of his glorious beginnings and understand that we were indeed, created in God's image and are in that respect, separate from animals - Jesus did not die for animals, they are not guilty - nor did He die for for an evolved outcome that started with an animal or "half animal". Jesus died for human beings with souls that were tarnished by original sin stemming from our first two created parents who also had souls - the ones made in God's image, not the image of ape-like creatures. Jesus came to reconcile us with God by his sacrifice on the cross, that we could then be "born again" through baptism. To cleanse us from original sin, and all proceeding sins thereafter (should we continue to repent and receive).

The blood line from our origins to the Virgin Mary - through to Jesus, could not have originated from an ape-like ancestor, since were we made in the image of God, not the image of a beast or half beast with only a process to rely upon to make us more....human. For it is not evolution that has made us human (or fully human), but our Creator God.

For any who care, here's a study about rates of "beneficial mutation".

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=14717

I don't think they're using the same definition of 'mutation'. From the context, it appears they use the newer "any change, no matter what caused it" definition preferred by some evolutionists.

I doubt that this is an accurate statement since their definitions and statements of relative rates for "advantageous" and "deleterious" mutations provide references to genetics and molecular biology publications. A mutation is basically a change in the DNA of an offspring organism where that arrangement of the DNA is not present in parent organism(s).

The article does state that beneficial mutations are rare. It even gives a rate for beneficial mutations. Too bad it doesn't say that the rate is a ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations. In fact, it seems to indicate that the rate is with respect to all reproductive events or at least all mutation events. So the article doesn't really support your contention that the rate of beneficial to harmful mutations is an extremely low ratio.

At least we now have a definition for beneficial mutation.

Per the article: Advantageou mutations are mutations that "lead to a higher fitness and hence per definition to more offspring of their bearer."

So, it might be reasonable to say that Deleterious mutations are mutations that lead to a lower fitness and hence per definition to less offspring of their bearer.

I guess that doesn't really support your contention that evolution theory claims that harmful mutations lead to death 100% of the time.

Is this part of your plan...to not get anything right? Well, it's your strawman. Run anywhere you like with him.

I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in understanding the social pressure used to force scientists to "endorse" evolution see the movie Expelled.

I watched this movie this past week and it is an excellent statement about the social/political/economic pressure that is used to keep the evolution religion mainstream.

Ironic it is that evolutionists blame these types of activities on religion when they don't even know they are involved in the same.

This is the ultimate blindness: One who preaches against the very things they practice.

The logic behind your doubt is twice flawed. There is no reason to assume that a single definition of 'mutation' exists, even among "genetics and molecular biology publications." Even if it were so (which it demonstrably is not), that does not mean the imaginary single definition differs from that which I stated they were probably applying.

Irrationally, you proceed to maintain that the definition I said I thought was in use is both the one they used, and the one you prefer.
This differs greatly from the definition I offered earlier, which was ignored.

By design, life changes the code of offspring. My definition excludes changes to the code which result from the reproductive equipment and process(es) functioning properly, while yours includes them. One is specific and scientific; one is vague and antiscientific. One facilitates clear communication and the other facilitates obfuscation.

It addresses half of the issue. I never claimed it covered everything. Neither did I endorse its content.
Was one ever lacking? What you mean is that you have found a definition which you like.

And no wonder. Nothing could be more circular. "That which survives is more fit" must've inspired "that which reproduces in greater numbers is more fit".*

Carefully reading the report, one finds that that's exactly what they applied. They didn't bother to evaluate whether or not mutations were beneficial or not; rather they monitored "allele frequency distribution". Any mutation which increased in frequency was deemed "beneficial". And remember, they're including code changes which occur by design as "mutations", per the propagandist definition.

This is nothing but wordplay. If a change took place which was detrimental, yet increased in frequency, it would be included as a "beneficial mutation" according to this standard. And they give the math to prove it


Now then, claiming all mutations which don't disappear are beneficial is just a silly way of sneaking in the assumptions which you claim evolutionists don't make. They have chosen the quirky definition route, but the assumptions have clearly been smuggled into the report. The very same assumptions you claim evolutionists don't make.

I regard that possibility to be remote indeed.
Guess again.

Applying this method, every hereditary disease in existence is a "beneficial mutation", except for the spontaneous ones occurring in the present generations of lifeforms, which have not (yet) spread. Those which have spread (increased frequency) are by definiton classified as "beneficial", and one can even plug any one of them into the equation and see just how wonderful it is.
I suppose you have a different definition of 'right'. But whatever it is, I doubt I'll be basing too many plans upon it.

I found it noteworthy that all save one of their "mutations" were readily repeatable in their tests of artificial selection.Random mutations don't repeat like clockwork.

* The issue of "greater numbers" is a joke. Note that this isn't even what they used in practice, but is substituted with the "increasing frequency / decreasing frequency" formula. So if in individual has a mutation, and that mutation is to decrease in frequency... what number is less than one?

As one who has seen the movie, I'd also recommend it to anyone who might be interested.

As a moderator, I would recommend that all parties increase their efforts to post in the most appropriate thread.
'Irony' may be a tad weak. I suggest that Jesus' opinion of hypocrisy is well-known, even among atheists; and some of those who repeatedly, openly, flagrantly demonstrate it may well be doing so because they know He is the Living God, and seek to offend Him to the best of their ability.

Yet you haven't produced a single quote by any geneticist or biologist defining what a mutation is. It just perchance showed up in an article you referenced yet you didn't bother to point it out. Now you say there is no reason to assume that there is a single definition of mutation. Well, there is no reason to assume that invisible pixies don't live under your bed but I wouldn't believe that without some evidence. Ya got some evidence that there are different definitions for mutation in genetics? Your scorecard on coming up with evidence is pretty empty so far....maybe this time...Nah, probably not.

What you claim was in use is not the same as what I said and if you wish to prove that they are, ante up and put them side by side to show how close they really are.
You personal definition was so ambiguous that there wasn't anything to ignore and despite requests for you to provide clarity, you chose to demean the requests as coming from someone who doesn't understand English. I understand that your pet theories revel in cloudy explanations but real science requires clarity.

Oh, sorry! I didn't realize that you needed in depth explanation of "is not found in the parent organism(s)". It means that the change in the DNA cannot be accounted for by studying the possible combinations of DNA from the parent organism(s).

You were probably hoping that everyone would just say "Look, it says that beneficial mutations are rare...CTD must be right!".
When you bother to provide an inkling of a definition for beneficial mutation then you get to criticize the definitions that others bring to the table.

Your claim that the code changes are "by design" ignores the definition of mutation by geneticists, so it is balony. So, how would you "evaluate whether or not mutations were beneficial or not"? What criteria do you use to measure the amount of benefit or harmfulness a mutation might have? Obviously you don't think it is measured by the ability of the organism to continue his family line. So what is it?

It's not an assumption, it is a definition. You don't like it? Too bad. I don't see you coming up with a better one.

I really had no false hopes that you would actually get a clue.

Yep...in over your head. Maybe a little basic biology would help here. Something in the freshman college range?

(Bold mine for emphasis.)

Could I get you to demonstrate how this is "demonstrably" not so? Could you provide evidence which indicates the definition for mutation from source to source is so completely different from the next that it is impossible to create a definition for the word at all? Or, barring that since I have a strong suspicion you will be unable to do this can you please provide us with CTD's personal definition of mutation and see where we can go from there?

Thanks!

Oh? If that's your complaint about the definition I provided so long ago, why did you not voice it? While you're at it, please define 'geneticist' and 'biologist'.


Your game of pretending this hasn't been discussed before is an indicator you have nothing better. The longer you persist, the more certainty everyone can have that the conclusion is true.

So you have a second complaint about my definition, and only now, when things are clearly going badly for your cause and you have no hope of turning it around, you bring them up?

Nonsense. You confuse the new information discussions with the definition discussions; and you further side against your fellow evolutionists.

There is no way to force an evolutionist to admit what can or cannot be accounted for by studying possible combinations. If you maintain this is what the authorities of evolutionism mean when they use this definition, you're more than welcome to demonstrate it. Show me even ONE case where that definition is applied in that manner. I defy you.

Those who account for recombination and other mechanisms don't bother to use the false definition to begin with. They use the classic definition. The new definition only even exists for the purpose of double-talk.

I ignore nothing of the sort. I account for both common definitions, and the new one coined for the purpose of introducing circularity.
I think what you mean to ask is how I would quantify the benefit. Criteria's pretty simple: does it provide a benefit?
That's twice you've used the term 'measure', so you seem to think benefits can be universally quantified. I would dispute this assertion.

It's a definition that includes a circular assumption. Actually, they sort of tack on the assumption at the end, so it's pretty hard to miss it. There is no guarantee of survival built into the term 'beneficial mutation' from the start, so it rather had to be tacked on.

Perhaps you somehow missed the key concept that a mutation which "increases frequency" survives? And that this is true in 100% of all cases of "increasing frequency". And that "by definition" those that don't "increase frequency" aren't beneficial. I know all this is written in English, but we have little alternative.

Whether or not I have offered anything; whether or not anyone has ever offered anything; circular assumptions render their product scientifically worthless. And were it not circular, had they imported this essential assumption by some other means, the assumption would still be false per the first post in this thread and your own (part-time) agreement that the assumption is absurd.

Your sentence, if it was intended to be accurate, appears to have suffered a deletion mutation. The word 'not' has been removed from its rightful place following the word 'would'.

I see you have no argument. Again/still.

Maybe I should double-check. You decline to address the point made in my original post, but rather focus on the commonly-observed behaviour of evolutionists and definitions of common English terms.

You rejected the possibility that one can use classic, common definitions of the terms in the discussion, and when it became convenient enough for me to produce a definition, you ignored it.

You continue to deny that evolutionists practice the things we have all observed them practicing, even when presented with evidence of other posters on this forum doing them; professional evolutionists doing them; and you yourself doing them. Or you claim it "doesn't count" or whatever... I'll gladly leave it to those who witness to decide for themselves what "counts" vs. what I said.

You still fail to realize that none of this smokescreen has any bearing on whether or not the assessment contained in my original post is accurate. Or at least you must hope others will fail.

Could you bother to find out how pronouns work in English? I expect everyone else is capable of reading what I clearly wrote without becoming confused, and it might save you from embarrassing yourself in the future.
Scroll up. I have no need of a personal definition, but as you're keen to be numbered among those who don't understand plain English, you may benefit from the definition I found earlier. Regrettably, it is also written in English.
You are welcome.

Wow, dude. You totally sound like SoSick in your last two posts.

Thanks for not answering my questions and instead getting hostile and going on some tirade about the English language.

Just to do a quick run down here so I'm sure I understand. CTD has no personal definition of mutation and there is no definition of mutation because all existing sources disagree with one another (which begs the question how one can have page long discussions about mutations if they cannot be defined - at all).

Cool, I think I'm getting the hang of this finally.

Oh yeah? Well you totally sound like Pwcca!

Those with a low threshold for boredom may want to skip this post. Previously I was challenged to present examples of evolutionists assuming lifeforms automatically get 'selected' if they're less fit.

As we saw, it wasn't difficult.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44777#Post44777



Got another one, not that it could come as a surprise if it tried.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=46502#Post46502



Automatic 100% elimination. Omniscient selection goddess. This is the assumption.

Now you've all seen how successfully it's been defended in this thread. If you've forgotten, please recall who condemned this assumption, and claimed it was not commonly seen, while trying to defend it.

From a little later in that last link:

A few posts (actually more) were spent disputing some of the most commonly-known facts about mutations.




I could list more, but I think you all can remember.

One amazing thing here is what's being disputed: the harmful nature of the majority of mutations. And the fact that it's commonly known.

In this day and age, X-rays are pretty common. And anyone who's had an X-ray knows they put lead shielding over certain parts as a preventive measure against mutation.

Is there some conspiracy to prevent humans from evolving too rapidly? Has anyone met an evolutionist who bucked the system by undergoing unshielded X-rays? If anyone knows such a person, I'm curious what kind of super powers their children had. I won't report them to the government - I promise!