Maybe there is an opportunity here to get funding to do a super-genome study now that the RATE study has been terminated..
As futile as this thread may seem, that futility is also generated in the mind of the reader, who siding with you is thinking, why can't she(faith) get it, who sees her denying reality(no beneficial mutations when the number of human mutations from parents to offspring has been measured etc), who sees her ignoring the short legs on dogs being an example of a dominant trait that's non-existent in the parent population, etc.
I think a YEC that reads through this will likely have some other ad hoc theory in mind and might see the fallacy of faith's and perhaps begin to recognize the pattern of failure of "creation science" thinking - find an apparent fault, not a real fault, just some "what if" hypothetical fault, and use it to bring into question the whole theory, all the while ignoring the available facts that disprove your "what if" scenario.
One can only hope.
Of all the ToE misinformation out there, probably the idea that mutations are not "beneficial" to adaptivity is the greatest stumbling block of all.
303 The EVIDENCE for this is the occasional oddball fluke(refering to mutations that increase reproductive probabilty)
416 If known positive benefits outstripped the known genetically produced diseases by at least 100 times then I'd agree that you have an argument for viable mutations.
Mutation is random and undirected. How can this be beneficial?
In mathematical terms it allows the whole domain-space(of possibilities) to be searched, it makes it accessible (for optimization of adaptation).
If all mutations had to be beneficial this would be analogous to optimization by following the steepest gradient (slope).
An example is finding the highest terrain in the wilderness. You would head uphill until you reached the top of the mountain you're on. But you might look around from that vantage point and see another mountaintop a ways off that is even higher.
This is the shortcoming of the idea that all mutations have to be beneficial. It allows the discovery of local maximums only. If you found yourself partway up a hillside and saw that an adjacent mountain was taller than the one you were on, you would realize that to get to the highest ground, you first had to descend again.
This is how improvement occurs from randomness.
Of course the rest is filtering the random results for the best adaptations. This occurs in nature from the competition for resources. This is why the ratio of "bad" to "good" mutations is irrelevant..
405 It could be, there's nothing in the Bible against it
417 And of course, like any creationist, I want to see the ToE proven to be false.
This filtering occurs in the mind as well when we undertake to learn with the objective to prove a particular outcome. We gather data and sort it into bins. The bin that re-affirms our beliefs we fill with all we can find.
The bin that represents refutations to our beliefs we bury in a dark corner. And so we can evolve our thoughts and world view in a direction contrary to what is generally known to be true.
417 Sorry I've failed to convince you. I think my examples are pretty good myself.
If you are harboring incorrect beliefs, as you gather more knowledge at some point it is no longer tenable to maintain those beliefs. They must either be abandoned or modified
to achieve harmony with what you now know to be true.
This is growth and it is healthy and good.
401 In order for its trait to emerge competing traits would have to be eliminated. ... And that's reduction in genetic diversity
In order for this false world view(YEC) to remain, competing facts and knowledge must be eliminated.
And that's reduction in acceptance of the real world, or last thursdayism..
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : more spelling..long thread burnout..
™ Version 4.2
