Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Mister Agenda]

That's called geology. We have the rocks and the fossils. We win.

My post already disproved that interpretation of the rocks and fossils.

All your post proved was that you don't like that interpretation of the rocks and fossils and you'll believe just about anything you think will support your rejection of the plain facts.

[Brian37]

To be fair, we do have an example of upward evolution:

Actually for me the most entertaining character was the maid Florence. She like many didn't take her boss(our metaphor for being the atheist minority) seriously.

George wasn't all bad, but Florence certainly as a subordinate kept his ass in his place.

That show really was a good metaphor to remind society that compassion was better than greed.

[Doubting Thomas]

SBG: If and when you ever come back to this thread, how do you think that nylon-eating bacteria came about? And Goddidit is not an answer.

[Minimalist]

That show really was a good metaphor to remind society that compassion was better than greed.

A message lost on modern republicunts. Must have been because the characters were black.

[Mister Agenda]

But the bacteria are still bacteria. So there is no proof there.

The dogs are still dogs.
Cats are still cats.

Sure, the allele distribution in the population may change due to selective breeding or a change in the environment causing certain alleles to be more advantageous, but that is just already existing alleles. You might even have a new allele from a mutation. But the gene itself already existed.

Give all know evidence of one kind changing into another kind.
Without that you have no evidence.

Amphibians aren't still fish. Reptiles aren't still amphibians, Mammals aren't still reptiles. Do your own research, we're not your homework monkeys.

In fact, get just a Bachelor's in biology emphasizing evolution from an accredited college. If you're right, you'll have a lot more information when you're done to refute evolution with, and will at least sound like you know what you're talking about. You might even be able to be a contributor to AnswersInGenesis. If you can't afford it, there are many scholarships you can look into. Clearly, the origin and development of life is something you care deeply about, don't deprive yourself by not considering getting seriously educated on the topic.

[Brian37]

Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

According to atheistic origin science, all species today have evolved upward through a succession of ancestor species. So all the DNA codes in all species living today are the product of many past generations going back hundreds of millions of years.

Mutations are errors in the DNA code. These mutations will accumulate in the DNA code of each species. There is no original to compare with and correct these errors. Natural selection is no help because all the individual creatures are accumulating mutations.

Now consider mankind. Each person receives at least 30 mutations to their DNA code. That is the mutation rate per generation. Supposedly mankind and all land animals evolved from some creature from the sea that lived about 500 million years ago. Take the average intergeneration time of at most 10 years. That represents 50 million generations. Now multiple the number of generations by the mutation rate per generation. That yields about 1.5 billion mutations. Now some of these will happen at the same code location and some will even be corrected by the double accident. So take 2/3 of that and you get 1 billion errors. But the DNA code for mankind is only about 3 billion base codes in size. So the DNA code of mankind should have been rendered useless. A similar calculation will lead to the conclusion that almost all, if not all, species have useless DNA codes.

Please note that the above calculation only went back 500 million years, but evolutionists claim that life goes back even further than that. So the codes should be even more corrupted than the above calculation shows.

So it is impossible that the species of the earth have originated that long ago. But then the dating of the fossils from 100 million years ago and further back must be incorrect. Also the fossils are not dated directly, but indirectly by the dating of the rock layers. So the dating of the rock layers must be incorrect.

So the entire interpretation of the fossil record has been overthrown. So has the entire interpretation of the rock layers. So there is no way to use the rock layers or the fossil record to establish any descendent relationship among of any species. So there is no theory of evolution that stands.

The house of cards has fallen.

Um, sorry, but no sane advocate of evolution claims or should claim that humans are an apex in evolution. Bacteria and cockroaches have been around longer and even currently OUTNUMBER HUMANS.

Our species can go extinct with other life continuing on without us, just like evolution existed before the dinosaurs and continued after their extinction.

[Doubting Thomas]

Shit, SBG couldn't even get a PhD from Patriot Bible University.

[max-greece]

Just read the OP. To quote Richard Prior:

"That's some fucked up shit right there!"

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

But the bacteria are still bacteria. So there is no proof there.

The dogs are still dogs.
Cats are still cats.

Sure, the allele distribution in the population may change due to selective breeding or a change in the environment causing certain alleles to be more advantageous, but that is just already existing alleles. You might even have a new allele from a mutation. But the gene itself already existed.

Give all know evidence of one kind changing into another kind.
Without that you have no evidence.

Amphibians aren't still fish. Reptiles aren't still amphibians, Mammals aren't still reptiles. Do your own research, we're not your homework monkeys.

In fact, get just a Bachelor's in biology emphasizing evolution from an accredited college. If you're right, you'll have a lot more information when you're done to refute evolution with, and will at least sound like you know what you're talking about. You might even be able to be a contributor to AnswersInGenesis. If you can't afford it, there are many scholarships you can look into. Clearly, the origin and development of life is something you care deeply about, don't deprive yourself by not considering getting seriously educated on the topic.

But you have no proof that fish became amphibians or that reptiles became Mammals. That is just you assumption.

Please show that occurring now. We have fish. We have reptiles. But fish give birth to fish, and reptiles give birth to reptiles.

[Bad Wolf]

But you have no proof that fish became amphibians or that reptiles became Mammals. That is just you assumption.

We do have evidence, it is not an assumption. Just because you are unaware of the evidence, it does not mean its not there. Though i'm not really surprised, its clear you haven't researched anything you are talking about