Challenge to Evolutionsts

[camanintx]

The breakdown of genes.

So you're claiming that our ancestors were genetically superior to us?

 

[painted wolf]

how do genes break down?

wa:do

 

[meogi]

Nope. Not when the creator created nature. In one respect nature has been in decline since the fall. That mutations should occur could easily be associated with that decline.

So I'm trying to understand, let me know if something is wrong here. The creator creates everything (using RNA/DNA and tweaking it as he sees fit). Man eats an apple. The creator decides 'holy hell, humans have knowledge now... time for the countdown to the apocalypse!' Nature is now in decline, and mutations start occurring. (or did they before the fall?) Mutations look extremely similar to the 'tweaking' that the creator did in the beginning. How is this not somewhat deceptive? The creator didn't know things would mutate? Or did he just decide 'Oop, man has knowledge, time for Earth cruise control... I'll just pop in this sweet natural mechanism that works exactly like I used to, but without my directional guidance!'

Also, does this:

Very good, you managed to give an answer without trying to slur me personally. I commend you. Keep up the good work.

mean you accept the foxp2 gene as having mutated?

 

[rojse]

That came after the fall of Adam. The Earth (including the ecosystem) was cursed after creation.

Considering that God is omnipotent, and that he knew what would occur, why did he not design nature so that it would not be cursed after the fall?

 

[meogi]

and that he knew what would occur

Did he really? I always assumed omnicience to be absolute knowledge of the present and past, but not future. We wouldn't have free will otherwise. However, I believe he did place the temptation there and is responsible for the way the now cursed nature works. He most certainly could have made nature not cursed, but that was his intended result of man gaining knowledge I guess.

Am I understanding this correct?

 

[yossarian22]

Did he really? I always assumed omnicience to be absolute knowledge of the present and past, but not future.

Omniscience is knowledge of everything. If you do not know what will happen in the future, you are not omniscient

 

[meogi]

Omniscience is knowledge of everything. If you do not know what will happen in the future, you are not omniscient

Gotcha, absolute knowledge of the 10th dimension it is.

Then to answer your question, he did design nature to not be cursed after the fall; it's just in a different universe/timeline. Or he just wanted it to be cursed... that'll teach us for having knowledge.

 

[rocketman]

Omniscience is knowledge of everything. If you do not know what will happen in the future, you are not omniscient

So to be omniscient one would also need to be omnipresent, living in the past, the present and the future all at the same time.

 

[rocketman]

Or he just wanted it to be cursed... that'll teach us for having knowledge.

If you read carefully in Genesis, the curse was more about being made to do hard work than anything. (wait 'till I get my hands on that Adam fellow!).

Nature heading south is to be expected when we are left alone to look after it with our incompetence. (Reminds me of Yossarian's sig). Eden was the benchmark. We were never going to do keep it together on our own.

 

[meogi]

If you read carefully in Genesis, the curse was more about being made to do hard work than anything. (wait 'till I get my hands on that Adam fellow!).

I hope when you get your hands on him you give him some from me too!

 

[yossarian22]

So to be omniscient one would also need to be omnipresent, living in the past, the present and the future all at the same time.

Not quite. It is possible to have knowledge of the past present and future, it is just extremely unlikely; 1/Infinity. That is defined as zero, but it is just a bit more

 

[Napoleon]

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. )

It's important for you to understand that Evolutionary Theory does NOT posit that all mutations must be beneficial and it's certainly not what Darwin said. Lets look at an example within our own species; Polydactylism. Approximately 1 in 500 human children are born with 6 digits on each hand and foot instead of five. Is this a beneficial mutation for the human species? One would assume so but we don't really know because the majority of the human species does not live in a state of nature, however, it is still an example of evolution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lets look at an example within our own species; Polydactylism. Approximately 1 in 500 human children are born with 6 digits on each hand and foot instead of five. Is this a beneficial mutation for the human species? One would assume so but we don't really know because the majority of the human species does not live in a state of nature, however, it is still an example of evolution.

No.

There is zero reason to assume that polydactylism is "a beneficial mutation for the human species". So, for example, ...

Polydactyly can occur by itself, or more commonly, as one feature of a syndrome of congenital anomalies. When it occurs by itself, it is associated with autosomal dominant mutations in single genes, i.e. it is not a multifactorial trait.[1] But mutation in a variety of genes can give rise to polydactyly. Typically the mutated gene is involved in developmental patterning, and a syndrome of congenital anomalies results, of which polydactyly is one feature. [source]

... and it is not an example of evolution. Evolution is not mutation but selection, not anomaly but process.

 

[painted wolf]

Mutations are "selected" based on their adaptive benefit or disadvantage.
Polydactyly is a poor example. Lactose tolerance is a good one.

No mutations and you don't have anything to select for or against.

wa:do

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, mutations themselves.

So a mutation that leaves a species, even if it's only for one generation, that makes it better suited for it's environment, is bad?

 

[rojse]

So a mutation that leaves a species, even if it's only for one generation, that makes it better suited for it's environment, is bad?

The mutation has to be genetically inherited for it to be explained through evolutionary mechanisms.

 

[Valjean]

A few years ago a kitten was born with extremely short legs. While this feature would have been quickly weeded out of the original, wild cat population. In a human-dominated, domestic environment, though, the feature proved adaptive, and today you can find adverts for this breed in any cat magazine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The mutation has to be genetically inherited for it to be explained through evolutionary mechanisms.

I realize this. My question was aimed at the comment of all mutations coming about are of a decline.

 

[painted wolf]

The mutation has to be genetically inherited for it to be explained through evolutionary mechanisms.

Few mutations are not inheritable.
Any mutation that is selected against (ie. it is not passed on to another generation) is also evolution.

wa:do

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Sickle Cell Anemia is a mutation of the hemoglobin in blood. While a negative trait to most of us, it is a literal life-saver to humans living in regions of high malaria concentrations.

Satisfied?