Nature Is Going In A Backwards Direction

In creationism, the fall of Adam was a symbol of nature regressing rather than progressing. The DNA for example, was much better during Adam’s time than it is now. In Darwinism, nature is generally evolving in a progressing state and always raises more questions than answers in its ever growing complexity.

A first ever generational mutation experiment was conducted for the purpose of finding out how many mutations does a child have and which parent gave them the most.

Science Daily reports…

“The researchers measured directly the numbers of mutations in two families, using whole genome sequences from the 1000 Genomes Project. The results also reveal that human genomes, like all genomes, are changed by the forces of mutation: our DNA is altered by differences in its code from that of our parents. Mutations that occur in sperm or egg cells will be ‘new’ mutations not seen in our parents.”

“Although most of our variety comes from reshuffling of genes from our parents, new mutations are the ultimate source from which new variation is drawn. Finding new mutations is extremely technically challenging as, on average, only 1 in every 100 million letters of DNA is altered each generation.”

The results were a surprise for evolutionary scientists, who would have thought it, right? One, two or even three mutations in a generation is serious business. Because natural selection would have to choose many beneficial ones to overcome the flood of the negative ones, most of which are nearly-neutral mistakes that accumulate, like typographic errors, to cause genetic deterioration.

60 mutations in a human is quite a lot particularly if this data is forced into the old age assumption because humans could not possibly have lived for millions of years at this rate of mutational degradation! Now with this problem, circular reasoning is invoked into the story of evolution, where it supposedly happened because it happened until enlightenment is granted or coming up with another creative story.

Despite our growing intelligence in knowledge, our progressing technology, and advancements in medicine, we are not evolving (read: genetic entropy observed). In fact, modern humans of today are all less fit genetic wise than Neanderthals and ancient Greeks were in their time! This basically confirms creationism prediction of nature!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Nature Is Going In A Backwards Direction

  1. Michael: “The DNA for example, was much better during Adam’s time than it is now. ”

    Would you care to back up this claim with some … evidence ? Or perhaps some reasoning at least ?

  2. Quoth Michael today:

    In creationism, the fall of Adam was a symbol of nature regressing rather than progressing. The DNA for example, was much better during Adam’s time than it is now.

    Quoth Michael yesterday:

    … how they view nature evolving which is impossible to confirm considering not one of these scientists were able to observe the past in [sic] which they are studying.

    We can confirm that Adam’s DNA excelled ours because we can observe the past. We cannot confirm evolution because we cannot observe the past.

    Creationism does not know the meaning of the word “consistency.”

    Just one of its major differences from science.

  3. The results were a surprise for evolutionary scientists, who would have thought it, right? One, two or even three mutations in a generation is serious business. Because natural selection would have to choose many beneficial ones to overcome the flood of the negative ones, most of which are nearly-neutral mistakes that accumulate, like typographic errors, to cause genetic deterioration.

    60 mutations in a human is quite a lot particularly if this data is forced into the old age assumption because humans could not possibly have lived for millions of years at this rate of mutational degradation!

    Once again Michael parades his abysmal ignorance of biology.

    Sixty mutations is surprising? Well, yes—before we had this date, biologists had thought that the mutation rate was 120-150 per generation. So the new work did not raise the previous estimate, it lowered it. Too bad, Michael.

    One or two or three mutations is serious? What has Michael been smoking? Whatever it is, it probably causes more mutations than that.

    How do beneficial mutations “overcome” negative ones? Michael apparently thinks they fight it out. If the good ones outnumber the bad ones, then the good ones win, and vice versa.

    Please let us in on why negative mutations accumulate. Michael thinks that natural selection keeps both positive and negative mutations. He should look up the word “selection” in a dictionary. No, Michael; this is 8th-grade science. The whole purpose of selection is to keep the good ones while dumping the bad ones. True, nearly neutral mutations can accumulate. Why is that? Because they don’t make a difference to the organism’s reproductive potential, and thus do not cause “genetic deterioration.” This is why they are called “nearly neutral.” That simple concept would seem obvious to anyone except a creationist.

    Despite our growing intelligence in knowledge, [sic] our progressing technology, and advancements in medicine, we are not evolving (read: genetic entropy observed). In fact, modern humans of today are all less fit genetic wise [sic] than Neanderthals and ancient Greeks were in their time! This basically confirms creationism prediction of nature!

    Less fit? Neanderthal adults could not digest milk, and we can. Does this represent deterioration? Michael himself has noted that Tibetans have a capacity for living at high altitudes, that their ancestors 1,000 years ago lacked. Is this deterioration? The recessive sickle-cell gene that protects against malaria originated in Polynesia 3,000 years ago. Deterioration? Two brain proteins that enhance intelligence originated a few thousand years ago; one of them has spread to 37% of the world’s population, the other to 95%. More deterioration?

    .

    Michael’s blatant disregard for truth should be evident to all by this time. His motto is, “If it sounds good, say it! Someone may believe it.” Which is all he cares about. Truth becomes irrelevant when one is engaged in a holy war.

  4. ……..Nature Is Going In A Backwards Direction

    No, Michael, there is no backwards, and no forwards. There is no goal.

  5. @Michael

    Despite our growing intelligence in knowledge, our progressing technology, and advancements in medicine, we are not evolving (read: genetic entropy observed). In fact, modern humans of today are all less fit genetic wise than Neanderthals and ancient Greeks were in their time! This basically confirms creationism prediction of nature!

    1. Neanderthals died out for a variety of reasons. One of them is likely due to the fact that their “nitch” or natural environment disappeared. Also, there was probable conflict with the Cro-Magnons (our species.) Archaeology shows that by 30,000 years ago, our spears (for example) were much better than those of the Neanderthals.[1] Our species out-competed the Neanderthals. Neanderthals were also cold-adapted, while we are warm adapted. We are the most adaptable human species ever.

    2. There is no evidence that we are more or less fit than the Greeks. They are the same species as we are, and there is no evidence of any valid difference.

    3. There is nothing in nature that says that living things are to become “more fit.” You do not go forward or backwards, and these adaptations that a species or a population have that last may remain out of necessity if they are used. [2]

    ————-
    [1] The Neanderthal spears were only good for thrusting, and only useful in thick woods where they could keep hidden from their prey. But as the woods thinned out, the spears of the cro-magons came in handy since they could be thrown at a distance. There is evidence that Neanderthals tried to emulate the cro-magnon spears, but they were unsuccessful

    [2] Also, as Olorin pointed out, Neanderthals were lactose intolerant. In that sense, we are “more fit,” though this is probably more an adaption that simply became dominant in the Old World. Indians simply didn’t seem to have the same need for milk that Europeans and middle-easterners seemed to have, and so there was just no need for them to be “lactose tolerant.” American Indians tend to be lactose intolerant, but I wouldn’t say they were “less fit” than Europeans. In some senses, they were more fit since pre-columbian Indians had less diseases, though this turned into a negative when they finally were exposed to illnesses such as smallpox and the mumps.

  6. . . . . . . Nature Is Going In A Backwards Direction

    Actually, Michael is going in a backward direction. But, since his understanding is confined within the perspective of his worldview, he can;’t tell the difference.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s