Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Esquilax]

But all individuals of all species are accumulating the same longterm corruption. There is nothing that will make it.

Not really: there's no guarantee that any organism will mutate the same way as any other. In fact, they all do so differently, which is why we have the diversity of life that we have now; different species branch off from the same ancestral point, developing into newer, different organisms over time and many successive generations. It's why we have so many different dog breeds, for example; same species, different mutations.

And you need to stop with this idea that all mutations are harmful, or that there's some ideal genetic code that every mutation makes us stray from, because that's not true. Mutations can be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral, and though the genome changes over time, there's no inherent corruption in those changes that'll render it nonfunctional. It just keeps building on itself.

As has been pointed out to you, human DNA is mostly junk, but we work out alright.

[LastPoet]

As has been pointed out to you, human DNA is mostly junk, but we work out alright.

*Looks at religious fundamentalists*

Yeah well... Most of the time.

[pocaracas]

As has been pointed out to you, human DNA is mostly junk, but we work out alright.

*Looks at religious fundamentalists*

Yeah well... Most of the time.

It's not entirely their genes fault...

[Angrboda]

[Whateverist]

No, the genome will be changed, not 'corrupted'.

But the changes are random and not directed by an intelligence. So they are errors.

I assume I'm too late, but to be "errors" there would have to be some intent gone awry. Now if the copying was intended by your god to go flawlessly but messed up, you'd have to give up some degree of omni-.

But without intent, changes are just changes.

---

But all individuals of all species are accumulating the same longterm corruption. There is nothing that will make it.

I think I see the problem. You're assuming the DNA was created perfect and so any variation away from that is corruption. Just a bad assumption and easily fixed. (Give it up.)

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

But the changes are random and not directed by an intelligence. So they are errors.

I assume I'm too late, but to be "errors" there would have to be some intent gone awry. Now if the copying was intended by your god to go flawlessly but messed up, you'd have to give up some degree of omni-.

But without intent, changes are just changes.

---

But all individuals of all species are accumulating the same longterm corruption. There is nothing that will make it.

I think I see the problem. You're assuming the DNA was created perfect and so any variation away from that is corruption. Just a bad assumption and easily fixed. (Give it up.)

1. Many diseases, chronic conditions, and even death are the product of 1 or a few mutations. So those are for sure "errors." Not all are weeded out by natural selection.

2. I do not assume that DNA is perfect. You assume that random changes can produce complex interrelated new design. That is not what is observed at all. In fact the odds are so against it. so that is another proof against evolution.

So since no complex interrelated new design can occur, the DNA changes do corrupt the genome.

[downbeatplumb]

1. Many diseases, chronic conditions, and even death are the product of 1 or a few mutations. So those are for sure "errors." Not all are weeded out by natural selection.

Yes that's true. This is because they did not present a barrier to reproduction for whatever reason, so they got passed on.

2. I do not assume that DNA is perfect. You assume that random changes can produce complex interrelated new design. That is not what is observed at all. In fact the odds are so against it. so that is another proof against evolution.

It is what is observed. You saying it isn't does not make it so.

http://www.dnalc.org/view/16588-Animatio...tion-.html

So since no complex interrelated new design can occur, the DNA changes do corrupt the genome.

Your ignorance is impressive, even for an American.

[TheBeardedDude]

Since you won't answer the question on the other thread, would a simple organism disprove god?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Since you won't answer the question on the other thread, would a simple organism disprove god?

NO.

Answered again.

[Esquilax]

2. I do not assume that DNA is perfect. You assume that random changes can produce complex interrelated new design. That is not what is observed at all. In fact the odds are so against it. so that is another proof against evolution.

Except that the changes aren't random; that's a lie that creationists wish to perpetuate. The changes that continue to exist are based on what natural selection permits, and so there are a number of factors contributing to the complexity we see: environmental factors, social ones, behavioral and predatory ones, even just the interaction with other species, say if another population competes with the same food source. There's very little random about this, beyond the initial mutations themselves; their continued survival is based on factors that sculpt them up into complexity.

One of them, by the way, being the changes that have come before. You know, evolution? You know your argument is bad when it requires that the thing you're arguing against to not even exist before it functions as an argument against said thing.