Mutations: No Help For Progressive Evolution

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

No. Although I do believe the micro machinery of the cell was supernaturally designed.

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

I'd swing a baseball bat across your skull if we ever met, more than likely

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

here's the key point, sod: what has recorded history shown us so far? speciation and selection inevitably leads to decreased overall fitness and, in many cases, extinction...that is IRREFUTABLE

sure, you can cite nebulous/fringe cases in microbiology of a "positive" mutations, but the overall trend is consistent, and more time is not the solution (just the opposite, since the "train" is headed in the wrong direction)

who is really practicing bad science here? clearly, it's the darwinists...

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

I'd swing a baseball bat across your skull if we ever met, more than likely

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

I'd swing a baseball bat across your skull if we ever met, more than likely

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

I'd swing a baseball bat across your skull if we ever met, more than likely

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

I'd swing a baseball bat across your skull if we ever met, more than likely

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

Facts: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.

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

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

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

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?

Originally Posted by YZF-R1

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.
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)