Argument #3: Mutations

[Esquilax]

This isn't even funny anymore, watching the poor guy get lied to, over and over, and swallowing it all because his religion has rendered him so credulous. It's kinda bumming me out, actually.

[JuliaL]

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information.

Please consider the following thought experiment and explain how your claim that the genome can only experience 'corruption' via mutation.

1) there is a replicating organism with an existing genome
2) Transition #1: PING!- a cosmic ray causes a point mutation which changes an existing amino acid coding section. It no longer codes for that amino acid.
3) Transition #2: PING!- a second cosmic ray causes a second point mutation which reverts the genome to EXACTLY the same configuration as found in the initial state of 1) above.

In terms of your corruption of information concept, would you say that transition #1 is corrupting or is transition #2? If either, then one of the random changes has to be decreasing corruption and the other increasing. This is a defeater to your claim that genome changes can only increase corruption.
Possibly the states after transition #1 and transition #2 are somehow equal in corruption? If so, please explain how you measure them to arrive at that conclusion.
Is this hypothetical series of events impossible because.....reasons?
My prediction regarding your response is......crickets.

;

[SteelCurtain]

Julia, Rev actually doesn't understand any of this. He is just parroting what creationist websites tell him is truth. I'm with Esquilax. It's really a bummer.

[JuliaL]

Julia, Rev actually doesn't understand any of this. He is just parroting what creationist websites tell him is truth. I'm with Esquilax. It's really a bummer.

I wonder how hard it would be to write a theist script to troll freethinking sites. Ignoring responses seems to be a critical strategy. Is Rev a bot? I don't think so but how could I tell?

[Mister Agenda]

Rev, I don't want to believe you're not carefully reading responses to your posts, and I know you have a lot to look at, so I'll bring this up again:

The claim that a species will go extinct within several hundred generations due to genetic degradation is (laughably) easy to falsify in a world where thousands of organisms go through that many generations in a century. It reminds of the classic 'stumper' posed to 'evilutionists' on 'what good is half a wing?' in a world with dozens of species of gliding animals. This alone proves your source's hypothesis is simply wrong. Will you be honest, acknowledge that, and withdraw this particular argument?

And I feel compelled to point out that a million arguments against evolution don't add up to a single valid argument for God, the best you have is a fallacious argument from ignorance: if the theory of evolution is wrong, that would still not make you right.

[FreeTony]

What really pisses me off about this stuff is that it harms scientific progress, and this has an effect on all of our lives. If people want to believe stupid things then this would be fine. However in order to argue against evolution you have to present scientists as idiots with less knowledge about science than some preacher on the internet. This in turn harbours a mistrust of science, leading to less funding and reduced progress.

Coming from a scientific backgound, I'd love to know what these people think actually goes on in a paleontology department in a university. I imagine it's something like:
Scientist 1: I hate God
Scientist 2: So do I, let's make something up to discredit God.
Scientist 1: Go get the bible.
Scientist 2: It say's here God created everything
Scientist 1: Well let's make a story that species gradually change through time, therefore God didn't make them in present form.
Scientist 2: Excellent idea. We can make up stuff about fossils and DNA.
Scientist 1: Don't the laws of thermodynamics make all this impossible?
Scientist 2: No one will notice that.
Etc etc

No, this isn't how science works you fucking idiots. If it did you wouldn't be talking to each other on advanced computers, have cures to previously deadly diseases and be able to watch that DVD you bought from Ken Ham for $30.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Bacteria and viruses are the two main drivers for mutations. Therefore mutations are beneficial if they help the bacteria and viruses to survive in the host. Otherwise they become diseases that will not only kill off the host but the bacteria and the viruses that inhabit the host as well.

[RobbyPants]

No way a series of "beneficial mutations" led to the various species of today. This article takes a good look at this.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Every time I read your posts on this subject, I can't help but think you don't know anything about it. Sure, you're good at finding articles that say what you want them to say, but you've also posted from AiG, so it's not like it's that hard of a feat to master.

If you want to actually understand evolution, read stuff written by the scientists (or "evolution apologists", as you like to call them) and try to understand what they're saying. If not, stop talking about it. You're not convincing anyone of anything other than the fact that you love AiG and the things they tell you.

[Anomalocaris]

No way a series of "beneficial mutations" led to the various species of today. This article takes a good look at this.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Every time I read your posts on this subject, I can't help but think you don't know anything about it. Sure, you're good at finding articles that say what you want them to say, but you've also posted from AiG, so it's not like it's that hard of a feat to master.

If you want to actually understand evolution, read stuff written by the scientists (or "evolution apologists", as you like to call them) and try to understand what they're saying. If not, stop talking about it. You're not convincing anyone of anything other than the fact that you love AiG and the things they tell you.

Idiots don't become smarter just because you talk to it.

[Cyberman]

Onto 'Argument' #4 then, Rev?