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

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)

Also a helpful read

http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

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?

Heaping thread of copypasta! I missed this! :rolleyes:



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

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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk

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

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

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

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?

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

Yes.

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

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

I rest my case.

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

My bad. I didn't mean to interfere with your attempts to spread your retarded friends gospel around.

more like irrefutable facts

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.

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)

bhwahahahaahahahhahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahh aahha........aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......hahahaha hahahahahhahahaha

Does god like bold letters or something. Or is that so you can reach out to the blind retards?

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



It seems for those with interest, evolution needs to head for extinction. I appreciate that. Evolution may have been poorly described by the original author; your source tries to prove this.

In most cases, esepcially for complex life, evolution leads to pregressive decay of the genome and, eventually, extinction. Speciation/adaptation/selection/genetic drift is one way ride, there is no going back.

You may be describing the life of a particular gene code. Maybe gene codes have an expiration date. And why not? We humans do too. With it dying, that may be the chief reason why evolution does exist. Especially if the death of a gene is needed to insure a small mutation change; which appear minute and difficult to measure. Moreover, the needed time of extraordinary amount of years to see that we came from whatever of yesterday to what-we-are today.

You may be describing the life of a particular gene code.

no....the genome of any organism is subject the same accumulation of deleterious mutations over time, with a supposed "beneficial" mutation (which still contributes to an overall loss of information) in exceedingly rare occurences

we've been studying mutations for over 100 years now, thousands and thousands of them have been observed and assessed...this is TRUE, empirical science...not fantasy land magical changes which exist only in the minds of hopelessly indoctrinated atheists and agnostics...progressive evolution was and continues to be the ultimate smoke and mirrors, glass fortress delusion miscalled "science" ever propagated in history

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that for any new changes, for beneifit or not, the old information dies. That pretty much what you are describing.

it doesn't "die", the genome is just slowly and steadily corrupted, and the evidence of that is more and more genetic disorders crop up...this is why pure bred dogs have so many health issues...after generations of selective breeding, most of these breeds have a number of genetic errors....it's a one way ride, they do not become "more fit" over time, just the opposite

again, why isn't this obvious?

we've been studying mutations for over 100 years now, thousands and thousands of them have been observed and assessed...this is TRUE, empirical science...not fantasy land magical changes which exist only in the minds of hopelessly indoctrinated atheists and agnostics...progressive evolution was and continues to be the ultimate smoke and mirrors, glass fortress delusion miscalled "science" ever propagated in history

Shows how much you know.:bigthumb:

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.

I just got a $150 book on suspension....does that count as research or copy & paste???

that's not true research, you're still relying on someone else to tell you what's right...in reality, 99.999999% of all information/knowledge is just transferred, there is precious little that is truly "new", so the "copy and paste " rebuke is a red herring - darwinists do the exact same thing (witness captain google)

the real issue is wisdom: right application of right knowledge

that's not true research, you're still relying on someone else to tell you what's right...in reality, 99.999999% of all information/knowledge is just transferred, there is precious little that is truly "new", so the "copy and paste " rebuke is a red herring - darwinists do the exact same thing (witness captain google)

the real issue is wisdom: right application of right knowledge

you do realize that by saying that you have now stated that all religious ideals are no more then copy and paste since it isn't a science that can be studied and is only quoted out of a small assembly of books.....just thought I would point that out! At least I can take the math out of that book and apply it to any suspension dynamics that I might want to understand.....I really enjoy math it is the language of the universe!

you do realize that by saying that you have now stated that all religious ideals are no more then copy and paste

the scriptures originate from God, not human beings, although select men physically wrote it down

isn't a science that can be studied and is only quoted out of a small assembly of books.....just thought I would point that out!

scientific discoveries can be lost...it's been postulated that several ancient cultures were very close to discovering electricity...we aren't any smarter in 2009, I think there are alot more stupid people, actually, we just have 7 BILLION humans running around, and alot more of them in a lab, not out gathering food

At least I can take the math out of that book and apply it to any suspension dynamics that I might want to understand.....I really enjoy math it is the language of the universe!

great, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand...unless you were taught, you would not understand anything, and the suspension on your car was purchased from a manufacturer who does their own R&D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c

mutants?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Tueundpyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Tueundpyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Tueundpyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Tueundpyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Tueundpyk

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:tQKRBXyNk37K9M:http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/ap_Laskshmi_071106_ssh.jpg

OMG its Shiva!

good example of a "beneficial mutation" :rolleyes:

it's a world of many fools.....professing to be wise

the scriptures originate from God, not human beings, although select men physically wrote it down

to bad god stopped talking to men 2000 years ago.....[/B]

scientific discoveries can be lost...it's been postulated that several ancient cultures were very close to discovering electricity...we aren't any smarter in 2009, I think there are alot more stupid people, actually, we just have 7 BILLION humans running around, and alot more of them in a lab, not out gathering food

If so much is lost and people are no smarter then they were in the dark ages why are we now talking over the interweb? Being able to read in the past was something that not a lot of people could do and education was limited the privileged, so to say that the people were just as intelligent as they are today would be wrong.....they may have had the ability to become as smart as today’s average person but they didn't have a system that allowed them to achieve this.

great, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand...unless you were taught, you would not understand anything, and the suspension on your car was purchased from a manufacturer who does their own R&D

I guess you have never tuned a car, it is a process of trial and error, and there is a reason that you are able to buy different dampeners, springs, anti-roll bars and so on. Depending on you're application and desired outcome you set a car up to perform as you wish that is R&D.

good example of a "beneficial mutation" :rolleyes:

it's a world of many fools.....professing to be wise

You know all those times you wished you had an extra hand.:bigthumb:

to bad god stopped talking to men 2000 years ago.....

God has spoken through His Word. The next event will be judgment.

If so much is lost and people are no smarter then they were in the dark ages why are we now talking over the interweb? Being able to read in the past was something that not a lot of people could do and education was limited the privileged, so to say that the people were just as intelligent as they are today would be wrong

The dark ages are a poor example because the Catholic system enslaved so many people, I'm referring to the great ancient civilizations of the past, before Christ

I guess you have never tuned a car, it is a process of trial and error, and there is a reason that you are able to buy different dampeners, springs, anti-roll bars and so on. Depending on you're application and desired outcome you set a car up to perform as you wish that is R&D.

The point is, the hardware (or software) itself is designed and built for you by someone else

it's a world of many fools.....professing to be wise

That must be the name of your new forums you joined.

hit the road, troll

Here you go. I threw your little pile of garbage up on another site with people who actually know what they are talking about.

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!

Information alert! There are two common technical definitions of information and neither of them has anything to do with how beneficial a mutation is. (Shannon information is the ammount by which an original string remains during some transmission process. All mutations reduce that. Komolgorov information is the smallest number that can be used to describe a system. All mutations increase that.)

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"

What do you expect an ID advocate to write?

Information cannot be added to any system from the mere properties of the system itself.

This is incorrect. As noted above, Komolgorov information is added by mutations.

This is part of algorithmic information theory.

Does this mathematical theory apply here? According to euclidean geometry general relativity is false (or rather: euclidean geometry does not apply).

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."

Bullshit. First of all, near-neutral substitutions are called nearly neutral, because they have so small effects on fitness that selection plays next to no role. Now of course when a synonymous 3rd base substitution occurs Shannon information is lost. But that constitutes no argument against evolution (just against measuring evolutions capacity to maintain Shannon information. Hint here: Shannon information is the highest, when there is no change. The more change there is the more Shannon information is lost. So to conclude that evolution is in trouble, because Shannon information is lost is sort of missing the point).

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".

True only, when you disregard friction.

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."

Correct. But that has little to do with evolution.

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.

Correct, if that program is deterministic (notable here we are talking Komolgorov information).

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.

Hey, it´s the mathematically correct definition of irreducibly complex in the Komolgorov sense. Not to be confused with IC in the sense of Behe.

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

Now here´s Dembskis term "complex specified information" which simply isn´t defined. Moreover, chance is the key point. Any random sequence is irreducibly complex in the mathematical sense above (to give a simple explanation for the incompressibility consider coin tosses. Heads is 1 and tails is 0. Record 1000 tosses. Now no matter how they turn out, these 1000 1s and 0s will not tell you how the 1001st toss will turn out. So to generate that sequence you need to write down the 1001 tosses).

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.

Maybe that is because the point makes no sense at all.

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.

Um, population size dependent.

Genetic drift tends to eliminate these from the population - it does not help!

Drift by its very nature is indifferent about the beneficial nature of mutations. It does tend to eliminate the ones that newly arise and most of them are, as your creationist source point out harmful. So, it actually does help somewhat.

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!

Correct.

According to geneticist John Sanford, any mildly beneficial mutation with half of 1% fitness increase, has 99 chances in 100 of being lost.

Population size dependent!

In other words a mildly beneficial mutation has to occur about 100 times before it is likely to become fixed.

What is "likely" here. Taking the 1% chance to be fixed, it´s about 75% for 100 trials.

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)

Ignoring of course that we´ve got shitloads of nucleotides, all of which mutate and also big populations (so mutations have an increased probability of arising per generation). For purely neutral substitutions the population size cancels out and the mean rate of fxixation is the mutation rate µ. Given the size of our genome about 80 Loci are fixed each generation.[/quote]

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...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNTq0k9NEk[media]

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...

So so do you think the DNA repair mechanisms in living cells (that prevent critical sections of DNA from suffering the same rate of error that affect most of the rest) can only work by supernatural means, and if so, why?

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

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

http://www.csicop.org/webmaster/creationism/creationism.gif

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...

irrefutable, true, science: the evolution train is a one way ride to extinction, one step after another away from the beauty and order of original created kinds, an information dense genome that facilitated subsequent, limited adapation/speciation...this is the RIGHT model of the past

Then try showing some evidence sometime instead of cut and pastes from the flea circus.

the evidence is real world observation over known history: genetic entropy is irrefutable

Genetic entropy is made up creationist term and is very much refutable. Like i said. You have no evidence.

it's hardly a made-up term, it's inarguable, based on the study of mutations for decades

completely made up

foreign to your tiny mind perhaps

Ya i don't read the short bus chronicles.

or your mind is devoid of logic...what's your degree again?

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.

That is the decision you will remember.What are you doing with His invitation?SPREADTHE WORD THOUGHT FOR THE new york escort (http://www.newyorkescortsasian.com) DAYNo decision we-or our neighbors-ever make will match the importance of what we do with new york asian escort (http://www.newyorkescortsasian.com) God's invitation. That one new york escorts (http://www.newyorkescortsasian.com) decision deter-mines where we spend eternity: in God's presence or separated from Him forever.Max Lucado Products new york asian escorts (http://www.newyorkescortsasian.com) Books, music, Videos, Bibles, up to 30%

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.

Wow, a whole lot of shouted fallacy of appeal to authority.

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

Nonsense. Mutations are caused by environmental factors and all life is powered by energy coming into the open system from outside of it. Any 1st year Physics student will tell you the Universe's overall entropy isn't negated by micro-oasis systems like we have here on Earth.

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?

It becomes fixed when it enhances the species' survival (or at least doesn't hinder it). Mutations which reduce survival chances are weeded out right quick irregardless of them being more numerous (everything I've ever read says neutral mutations are the most numerous and of course they only remain neutral until they hit an environment where they could offer some use).

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)

Ah, more quotes of unfoundable opinions.