Mutations: No Help For Progressive Evolution

YZF-R1 · #1 04-17-2009, 12:01 AM

From another forum I recently joined, which includes posts from Dr. Cornelius Hunter:

Quote:

Researched mutation ratios (bad/good) vary from 1000 to 1 to 1 million to 1 - Gerrish and Lenski 1998 The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so small as to be nearly impossible to measure - (Bataillon 2000, Elena et al. 1998)

Thus mutations cannot result in a net gain of information! Geneticist John Sanford wrote, "Everything about the true distribution of mutations argues against their possible role in forward evolution....mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of information"

Information cannot be added to any system from the mere properties of the system itself. It must come from without. This is part of algorithmic information theory. Natural selection is of little help since "it must be able to simultaneously select against extremely large numbers of nearly-neutral nucleotide mutations, in order to prevent genomic degeneration."

Leonard Brillouin in his work on information theory states, "A machine does not create any new information, but it performs a very valuable transformation of known information".

Nobel laureate Peter Medawar said, "No process of logical reasoning - can enlarge the information content of the axioms and premises or observation statements from which it proceeds." And from this he deduced that a law of conservation of information exists!

Godel also believed the same holds with biological information. Moreover Chaitin has established that you cannot prove that a specific sequence of numbers has a complexity greater than the program required to generate it.

Consequence? "In sequences that carry semantic information the information is clearly coded irreducibly in the sense that it is not further compressible. Therefore there do not exist any algorithms that generate meaningful sequences where those algorithms are shorter than the sequences they generate." - Bern-Olaf Kuppers.

Chance and necessity can transmit complex specified information but they can't generate it.

So Darwinists are in fact arguing for an information-centric, biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine!

Another point that has been completely ignored in this conversation is that any beneficial mutation has to become fixed in a population before it is of any evolutionary use. The question here then becomes, how and how long does it take for a mutation to become fixed in a population? Both the numerous deleterious ones and the very rare beneficial ones?

According to Patterson (1999), an entirely recessive beneficial mutation, even if it could increase fitness by as much as 1%, would require at least 100,000 generations to become fixed.

Genetic drift tends to eliminate these from the population - it does not help! Population geneticists think that, apart from effective selection, in a population of 10000, anew mutant has only 1 chance in 20,000 (total # of non-mutant nucleotides present) of NOT being lost via drift!

According to geneticist John Sanford, any mildly beneficial mutation with half of 1% fitness increase, has 99 chances in 100 of being lost. In other words a mildly beneficial mutation has to occur about 100 times before it is likely to become fixed.

Sanford goes on to state that on average, "we would have to wait 120,000 x 100 = 12 million years to stabilize one beneficial mutation in building our hypothetical new gene. So, in the time since we supposedly evolved from chimp-like creatures (6 million years), there would not be enough time to realistically expect our first desired mutation - the one destined for fixation." (Genetic Entropy, 2005)

YZF-R1 · #2 04-17-2009, 12:02 AM

Also a helpful read

http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

Quote:

It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell?

1revnrex · #3 04-17-2009, 03:48 AM

Heaping thread of copypasta! I missed this!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media]

YZF-R1 · #4 04-17-2009, 10:34 AM

And anyone else is any different? No one on this forum does their own research. Nevertheless, facts stand the test of time, and Darwinism is pure delusion.

BackyardSog · #5 04-17-2009, 07:42 PM

That stupid cock sucker Cornelius Hunter is constantly getting his stupid ass kicked in every debate he is in. More grain of salt comments from a nobody.

Zero · #6 04-17-2009, 07:44 PM

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[/media]

YZF-R1 · #7 04-17-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackyardSog

Cornelius Hunter is constantly getting his stupid ass kicked in every debate he is in.

LOL...someone is a bit bitter....a sure sign Dr. Hunter is taking your heroes to the woodshed

he's a brilliant guy...and he DESTROYS darwinists at will, I know where you can debate him if you have the spine

edit: forget that, I'm not going to waste his time or mine with a little captain google trivia spewing pos like yourself

czarofzar · #8 04-17-2009, 07:52 PM

Mark,
Your source only adds another nail to the coffin that evolution cant be described. It still exist.

YZF-R1 · #9 04-17-2009, 07:54 PM

can't be described? elaborate please....accurate description of the process has never been the problem, the difference of opinion concerns where the "train" is headed

BackyardSog · #10 04-17-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

LOL...someone is a bit bitter....a sure sign Dr. Hunter is taking your heroes to the woodshed

he's a brilliant guy...and he DESTROYS darwinists at will, I know where you can debate him if you have the spine

Not bitter here. Morons like him will continue to work on the scraps as they are proven wrong. Just another Behe. Gimme a call when he actually has a model of his own instead of just working on the scraps that evolutionary biologists have not worked on yet.

Sounds like the two of you are close. Did you just get done sucking him off?

YZF-R1 · #11 04-17-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backyarddirtpile

Morons like me will continue to spew random hate and bs until I am proven wrong

Yes.

BackyardSog · #12 04-17-2009, 07:58 PM

I see you didn't get any more clever with all that time off.

YZF-R1 · #13 04-17-2009, 07:59 PM

Who needs to be clever with your mindless tripe, asshole?

BackyardSog · #14 04-17-2009, 08:00 PM

I rest my case.

YZF-R1 · #15 04-17-2009, 08:01 PM

Good, hit the road. Drop dead. Hopefully both.