In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

-snip-

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.

a Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.

b No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

-snip-

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

:popcorn:

Express yourself

Too much "expelled" not enough hard science. Nice to meet you, Mr. Stein

stories are found in many different cultures, from Japan to the Middle East to the Americas. There is evidence that there was flooding of some early settlements around the Black Sea, and I believe there have been found evidence of a drowned city off the coast of Japan as well.

As for Creation--does anyone know? Science talks of a Big Bang--but what was there before the Big Bang?

We do not know, and will never know, what existed before the Big Bang, simply because singularity events such as the Big Bang destroy all information. Any suggestions about what happened before the Big Bang ventures out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.

I agree with what you are saying, except I would add that "suggestions about what happened before the Big Bang ventures out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion" could also include "or speculation" as I've known atheists who do speculate on this matter. :)

I think you may have derailed another flame war. Good eye on that one.

We also notice that many places have floods.

Not to be overly confrontational, but you really cannot use "different peoples have stories of floods" as evidence for a single great big flood.

a Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.

Irrelevant.

b No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

Meaningless.

The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Nope.

Stating meaningless, you have none so you just post meaningless

Spontaneous generation is not the origin of life posited by modern biology. That is not as large a mischaracterization as Ben Stein's assertion that evolutionary theory describes biogenesis as "lightning striking a mud puddle," but it is still a significant misunderstanding.

Chemists have demonstrated that, given the conditions thought to have prevailed on the early Earth, organic molecules spontaneously bond into very complex macromolecules. Several such macromolecules have been identified which, by virtue of their structure, self-replicate with less than 100% accuracy. Thus we have macromolecules similar to nucleic acids which replicate with a mechanism for mutation. It has been proposed that RNA, a molecule which participates in the replication of DNA during mitosis, came about through such a process.

Also, these molecular mutations select for complexity, because a simpler molecule may mutate into a more complex one which then exhibits greater accuracy in its self-replication. Similar models have been constructed to show how prokaryotic cell structures may have evolved, arising spontaneously and surviving due to their comparative advantage in self-replication.

These models may not reflect that actual process by which the cell structure came about, but a single model using replicable natural phenomena is sufficient evidence against a supernatural origin. The 'divine intervention' hypothesis relies on the claim that there are no natural mechanisms by which life could have come about. Demonstrating that there is at least such natural process is enough to falsify the 'divine intervention' hypothesis.

Edit: corrected title

In your opening statement you use the phrase "...only known...".

In your first premise you use the phrase "Almost all observable..."

In your second premise you use the phrase "No known..."

And in your law of biogenesis you use the phrase "All observations have shown..."

The implication is that every thing that there is to know is already known. Everything that there is to observed has already been observed.

So any future knowledge or observations, or any that you may have overlooked, could completely destroy this whole line of thinking.

So, the strange part is that the validity of this argument is hinged on the fact that you don't have knowledge or observations. That is hardly a viable logical position.

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution
False. Sexual reproduction makes new genetic material available, and just this week a post was made in the science forum about how members of the Bdelloidea class of marine organisms can actually "scrounge" for DNA, which is integrated with its own for the purpose of non-sexual reproduction (see this post.)


Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment.
Partially true. It would be much more correct to say that few mutations provide a direct benefit in an organism's current environment.


Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.
False. Most organisms have a severe over-abundance of DNA. In humans, for example, only about 12% of our genome has any known meaning; the remaining 88% appears to be "junk" DNA, the ghosts of our genetic past. Mutations in that "junk" DNA occur frequently; in fact, variations in this "junk" provides for DNA "fingerprinting" with an extremely high degree of accuracy. And these mutations appear to have no beneficial or detrimental effect.

There is a retro-virus that takes over cells in tulip bulbs, which inserts itself into the part of the plant's genome which codes for petal pigments. Bulbs infected with the virus will "break" from the flower color of the parents into wildly different colors that mark the "parrot" varieties. A mutation caused by a virus, with no direct benefit or detriment to the organism, but which has made it more desireable to human gardeners; thus ensuring the "parrot" varieties' evolutionary success.

And even then, mutations in the active part of an organism's genome usually make no immediate difference, such as handedness in primates or red hair color. Often, a mutation that seems negative also provides evolutionary benefit: the gene that causes sickle cell anemia provides greatly enhanced protection against malaria, while the different blood types all provide different boosts to the human immune system.

And then, there is the fact that a mutation that provides no benefit now, in the current environment, might provide benefit latter on. Case in point: lactose tolerance. The gene that creates lactase is "programmed" to disable after about 5% of a mammal's life expectancy. Once this enzyme is no longer produced, consumption of the milk sugar lactose causes painful intestinal upset. This has a strong evolutionary advantage of freeing a mother from nursing so that she can reproduce again and raise more offspring. Occasionally, a mutation occurs where this gene is not turned off and a mammal can consume lactose for its entire life. In three human populations -- Western Europe, northern India and, most recently, central Africa -- this mutation allowed humans to begin consumption of cow's milk and derived dairy products. This new, high protein, high calorie food source, made these populations very successul; the mutation ended up spreading through nearly all of Europe and much of India and central Asia, and we can watch is spread from the Massai to other African populations. These people represent about 30% of the human population; the remaining 70% mostly lack this mutation.


No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.
Patently false. Spray a pesticide on a large group of, say, weevils, and most will die; a very few will have a random mutation that allows them to survive. If they breed, they will pass this random mutation on to their offspring, so that a latter application of the same pesticide will leave more weevils alive. After a few generations, the pesticide has become wholely ineffective against that weevil.

Or use an antibiotic on an infection, and most of the bacteria will die; a very few will have a random mutation that allows them to survive. If these survivors are not killed off by other means, they will multiply and spread the resistance. Latter application of the same antibiotic will leave more of the bacteria alive and, eventually, the antibiotic becomes wholely ineffective against that bacteria.

We see both of these situations all the time. In fact, antibiotic resistant bacteria is reaching epidemic proportions.


I am not going to bother to address any more of your ignorant nonsense. I recommend you pick up a high school biology text book -- one vetted by actual scientists, not one written by theologians -- and get to work actually learning something.

You don't know evolutionary biology at all do you? There are many MORE mechanisms for evolution than "mutation" what about genetic drift? natural selection?
And this nonsense about mutations not helping? Hello, Drug resistant bacteria are mutated bacteria that are surviving better because of their mutation!

Hypocrite.

I have no problem attacking people WHO DO NOT BELONG ON A PROGRESSIVE SITE.
Go on defend the fundie......
Or perhaps said poster enjoys spamming boards with his pseudoscience. No problem telling idiots that they are idiots.
You ever met a progressive creationist? I haven't and I won't tolerate RW propaganda on this board.

I am a mutation, having been born with different charactaristics from my fundamentalist parents. I clearly have greater complexity and viability than they did, therefore mutations can obviously be beneficial!

Here are some other viable mutations: spots on leopards, camouflage changes in coloration by chameleons, long necks on giraffes, long beaks on hummingbirds, and how about certain mutations in humans that confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983)?

Why are you so hung up on "observation"? Does that mean since God has never been observed, he cannot exist?

Spontaneous generation has never been observed, primarily because it happened billions of years ago. It may happen again. Keep your eyes (and your mind) open....

It's not true.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

And further, while point "a" is true, it is not considered in the proper context. Life has existed on this planet for over three billion years. That's a lot of mutations. And while they are mostly bad, some are good. The good ones survive. That's natural selection.

If one is interested in doing science, one picks a suitably limited subject and examines it in excruciating detail

Part of the agenda at the "Center for Scientific Creationism" seems to be to argue that the Earth is not nearly a billion years old and that many geological features are best explained by a worldwide flood

Let us see how the "Center for Scientific Creationism" addresses this fascinating question. Scroll down to the section "Earth Sciences" and its first subsection "The Earth Has Experienced a Worldwide Flood." Surely they lay out their facts here

So let's begin at the top with .. um .. "Noah’s Ark actually Probably Exists." Okay: it's not quite how one might expect a scientific study of an alleged worldwide flood to begin

On the other hand, finding a really big ancient boat would always be exciting and interesting, so in the spirit of inquiry, we read: "The precise location of the Ark is an open question ... The search continues." The last sentence seems to mean the "Center for Scientific Creationism" has a helicopter that flies over snow-covered peaks searching

From here, it's on to the historical testimony: "From A.D. 200 to 1700, more than a dozen other Christian and Jewish leaders wrote that the Ark was still preserved, although few claimed to have seen it." And in 1876, somebody "climbed Ararat and found .. a piece of hand-tooled wood, four feet long, that he believed might be from the Ark."

There are also the tales of the lost report of the Czar's soldiers, the tribe that considered it a religious duty to kill any outsiders who saw their Noah's Ark artefacts, the secret CIA investigation, and the missing photographs of the murdered oil geologist

It's really not necessary to refute all this in detail

was a phenomenon that I learned it was false in my Biology class back when I was 11 years of age. But that was very many ages ago when students learned real science. Another thing I learned is that anything with the word "creation" its bullshit unless we are talking about the "creation" a new flavor of ice cream which is a very serious matter.

Actually, the Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that life came from nonliving matter. The Theory of Evolution deals with how life changes over time. This is pretty elementary.

I think most scientists believe that live evolved from non-living matter. However, they have not yet been able to verify this through testing. So, the idea that live has evolved from non-living matter is not yet a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory because it has been demonstrated to a point where it is essentially irrefutable at this time.

It's a foundational story that helps explain, in a cultures' world view, the world they live in and their personal and communal experiences. Why do women experience pain at childbirth? And why do men rule over women? Because Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen. 3:16...To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

Creationists know that. They don't mind being dishonest because it's in service to a Greater Cause. They'd use the "why are there still apes" chestnut if it worked on enough rubes.

And the very next day, they are using the exact same argument on someone else. Creationists don't care about the truth. All they care about it converting people to their theology.

We aren't talking about freakish extra arms, we're talking about the fact that a given population will be have a distribution of any characteristic.

"The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes."

Except it doesn't claim that.


Why are you quoting from that incredibly stupid, stupid site?

this would be some funny shit.

1. 'Genetic completely'

2. Gene Duplication

3. Frame Shift

4. Mutation

5. Benefitial

I have some other questions but lets start with these.

They start with a theory they can't prove--that God exists and is in charge of creating all that's in existance. Since they can't prove God exists, it's not real science.

Now, if you want to discuss the possibility of God's existence on this forum, fine. Linking to a blatantly bad site full of lies and untruths isn't going to help your cause.

Please notice that the OP hasn't participated in this thread for over a week, only contributing two rather lame and short responses on the very first day he posted here. This guy is probably just spamming forums everywhere, and hasn't got the time to be bothered with defending what he has to say.

I hadn't noticed as I posted from my phone.

1000+ posts and not tombstoned though.

past time for a banning I think

It is pseudoscience bullshit..

gene duplication as a source of greater complexity? And if "almost all observable mutations are harmful" and "many are lethal", how do those organisms live long enough to be observed in the first place?

"a Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal."

If have at least a high school education, you'd think they'd know that most mutations are silent, not harmful.

"b No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors."

Ask them how they explain drug resistant bacteria. You'll never get a viable answer.

"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes."

Boy, this one's really dumb. Even a small child knows that just because something hasn't been observed, it doesn't mean it contradicts scientific law.