Theory of Evolution is pushed in the schools as the only logical explanation for how things are! The Atheistic version of the theory consists of two steps:
1) The theory presupposes that mutations happen randomly (or by chance).
2) The theory asserts that natural selection is the mechanism by which survival of species determined.
Most educated scientists accept step 2, …. “natural selection” as the means by which species survival is determined.
However, most proponents of Atheistic evolution either ignore step 1, or they assert that a random distribution causes the events.
I assert that a distribution (chance, random or otherwise) cannot cause an event. I further assert that the distribution is the observed result of multiple independent events.
The question I place before my atheistic friends:
What is the meaning of the common phrases used in grade school science books on evolution....i.e. “it was a random event”, and “it happened by chance”?
What is “Chance” in Atheistic Evolution?
Moderator: Moderators
-
An Observer
- Student
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:42 pm
Post #11
According to who? According to what? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you make it up? I can make up stuff without evidence too you know.In fact the odds of a negative mutation occuring prior to a beneficial mutation occuring and destroying what has already been established or the environment out pacing your long awaited mutations adds to your problems.
Post #12
YEC wrote: In fact the odds of a negative mutation occuring prior to a beneficial mutation occuring and destroying what has already been established or the environment out pacing your long awaited mutations adds to your problems.
But the negative mutation does not destroy what has already been established in the whole species.
Mutations occur in individual cells, which in turn occur in individual organisms, not in whole species. To affect the whole species, the mutation would have to spread to all organisms in the species.
But natural selection ensures that it does not.
On the other hand, when a mutation provides a benefit, natural selection ensures that it does spread to all or most individual organisms in the population.
Post #14
Well tell my Nyril.....of all the mutations that occur, just what percentage are harmful? How about neutral? How about beneficial?Nyril wrote:According to who? According to what? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you make it up? I can make up stuff without evidence too you know.In fact the odds of a negative mutation occuring prior to a beneficial mutation occuring and destroying what has already been established or the environment out pacing your long awaited mutations adds to your problems.
I think once you've done the research you'll begin to understand.
-
Yarr the Pirate
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:04 pm
-
Post #15No, YEC, you're misinformed - grossly, at that.
You keep parroting the idea that a negative mutation will make it's way into a species and destroy it, the exact opposite of what natural selection is.
Let's do this simply, if you can't answer this question using a rational explanation of natural selection, you lose this debate (you'll note I'm using a scenario of just what you have been describing):
How does a bird with a negative mutation (let's say a beak to small to forrage for food native to the island he lives on) destroy his entire species?
Allow me to re-iterate, because you have already placed your entire argument on just such a scenario: If you cannot answer this question using a rational explanation with natural selection, you lose the debate. Simple as that. Your unfounded allegations need to be able to stand up to actual examples.
You keep parroting the idea that a negative mutation will make it's way into a species and destroy it, the exact opposite of what natural selection is.
Let's do this simply, if you can't answer this question using a rational explanation of natural selection, you lose this debate (you'll note I'm using a scenario of just what you have been describing):
How does a bird with a negative mutation (let's say a beak to small to forrage for food native to the island he lives on) destroy his entire species?
Allow me to re-iterate, because you have already placed your entire argument on just such a scenario: If you cannot answer this question using a rational explanation with natural selection, you lose the debate. Simple as that. Your unfounded allegations need to be able to stand up to actual examples.
Post #16
Whatever gave you that idea?YEC wrote:glaudys,
You are misinformed...once this so-called muation occurs..everything starts over with the single animal that received the mutation.
Once again the odd stack up against evolutionism.
How can a mutation in a single animal make things start from square one for a whole species of say 6 billion?
Or answer Yarr's question. It's basically the same.
Post #17
It's kinda obvious, sheeze....if that particular species has the magic mutation and all his offspring contains this magic mutation and the other six billion don't..according to you this particular fellow will be the one selected and not the six billion others....see, it starts all over.
-
Yarr the Pirate
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:04 pm
