Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Random mutations are dynamite not creators

I’ve been debating with a Darwinist online about the validity of Haldane’s Dilemma. In short, the dilemma is for evolutionists, since Haldane calculated that there has not been enough time for Darwinian evolution to have taken place. Haldane, who was an evolutionist scientist from the 60’s calculated that only a single beneficial mutation happens every 300 generations. The rest of the random mutations are either neutral or negative. Random mutation is the only creative force possible for the Darwinists, so they are rightly disturbed by this dilemma. Apparently, one of the only scientists (ReMine) to have taken up Haldane’s work is a creationist! Darwinian scientists have simply tried to garble or ignore this devastating blow to Darwinism. My debate opponent has, like other Darwinists, only ignored Haldane’s Dilemma, and his only example for random mutations acting as a creative force has been a bacteria colony, which has survived on nylon as its only food source. Creation scientists have rebutted (several times) the claim that this nylon-eating bacteria proves evolution, but it is still the only example that even remotely resembles random mutations acting as a creative force. But Darwinian evolution requires trillions of complimentary random mutations building single-celled creatures up to humans. 

The rest if the examples in science text books to prove that random mutations are the creative force of evolution are harmful mutations of sadly deformed animals. If you know a person that has a genetic disease from a mutation, you know that mutations are harmful...not proof for molecules-to-man evolution.

God created the world just like He said He did in Genesis 1 and 2.

4 comments:

steve mitchell said...

you go son; what is his answer for a dead, non-living, atom to mutate to even a one-celled living organism? it is fantansy land for a rock to turn to a turtle

Jonathan said...

We don't doubt that mutations take place. And we don't doubt that organisms which undergo a mutation that causes them to die in their environment leave (by natural selection) the surviving organisms. What I doubt is that long ago, cats eventually produced dogs (or vice versa). Cats produce other cats. Dogs produce dogs.

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." - Genesis 1:21

They want so bad to reject the truth - not because of the evidence, but because of the implications... The implication is that God created the world and has a plan for it. He has given His own Son for those who suppress the truth of His existence. "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." May we have compassion, tact, and courage while we are witnesses to God's mercy and grace.

Historicus said...

The subject of where the original life came from is not within the scope of the debate. Darwinism deals only with how organisms change frogs to princes over time.

There is no hope for the argument of abiogenesis, and darwinists flee from any debate involving the origin of life. They scurry quickly for the cover of darwinism screaming, "Darwinism doesn't address the origin of life!"

Well said, Jonathan, about being compassionate, tactful and courageous in our dealings with the pre-Christian crowds.

Wilhelmine Mitchell said...

Our children grew up smarter than Bill or I and it seems the grandchildren are amarter than their parents!!!!!