Evolution

[Phil]

We are mainly concerned with inherited mutations(ones passed to offspring through the genome of parents) since those are the only ones pertinent to evolution. Let's see...take the total mutations passed on to offspring and divide by the total genome (you'll get a very small number).

Yes, I do understand how some genes are not passed on and how some genes are dominant and/or recessive. Even in the latter case the genes are still available to be passed on in the future so the mutation can still occur at a later time in evolution. It gets more complex with gene packaging and such but when you get down to it, a very small number of mutations are still passed on and inter-species evolution is still observed over extremely long time periods, well relative to us anyway. Any malignant mutations do not survive for long in the course of time. Only the beneficial mutations survive, at least in nature. Sometime during this course genes are passed on which are just by a pinch no longer compatible with the parent species. Wallah, a new species. Where exactly are you trying to go with this point.

The point is that the amount and kinds of mutations that are required to prove that a single cell organism turned into a 50 trillion celled organism is mathematically improbable even with the alleged 4.5 billion years that this supposedly took place. Essentially, you are proposing that naturally mutations can alter an organism so severely that the entire genetic makeup will change (over long period of time of course) and cause it to be an entire different kind of species (ie an ant into a wasp or a swan into an eagle or something of extreme nature as proposed by this fanciful theory).

It's really comical how you bring up a topic that is the best prediction we have that the theory of evolution makes and you use it to try and disprove evolution. A fairly common number given for the rate of mutation in our DNA per generation is approximately 200. Given our split with chimpanzees was about 6 million years ago that means our DNA has changed about 1% in those years. Chimpanzees DNA accumulates mutations at the same rate of 200 per generation (as does all DNA based life - all life except Christian fundamentalists). That would mean our DNA should be approximately 2% different. The difference is measured at 1.4% but why the difference? Natural selection has weeded out the "bad" mutations and kept those that are either beneficial or neutral.

BTW, if you don't think 3800 million years is enough time to evolve a "50 trillion cell" creature, you are woefully misinformed. For example, from a naked retina to evolve a complex eye can be done in 400000 steps. Given just one small step made each generation, that would take 4 million years given a 10 year generation.

Do yourself a favor and learn evolutionary theory before making yourself look even more foolish.