Can Mutation Invent?

[Philip]

Abel wrote: The reason why trying to us ... ng theory.

Some of them do - but amongst unbelieving physicists / scientists, the Big Bang is still the most commonly believed, because of the large number of scientific studies that line up with it. The other theories, like the multi-verse, have zero scientific studies behind it, and thus are just wild,hairy speculations. And I can guarantee you, it anyone rejects the Big Bang because they have latched onto multi-verse nonsense, then they sure won't let the many holes in their belief in non-theistic evolution discourage them!

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel wrote: The reason why trying to us ... ng theory.

Some of them do - but amongst unbelieving physicists / scientists, the Big Bang is still the most commonly believed, because of the large number of scientific studies that line up with it. The other theories, like the multi-verse, have zero scientific studies behind it, and thus are just wild,hairy speculations. And I can guarantee you, it anyone rejects the Big Bang because they have latched onto multi-verse nonsense, then they sure won't let the many holes in their belief in non-theistic evolution discourage them!

I understand what you are saying and I actually point this out to atheists who do reject the Big Bag Theory, a theory in science. But what you Day Agers need to do is find a way to challenge Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss to point out to them how solid of a theory the Big Bang is because atheists listen to these guys and they have debated Hugh Ross too.Hugh Ross does not challenge them on it and he often allows them to get away with muddying the waters when it comes to physics.WLC has done it also.When your theories are just as believable as what secular science is putting out it produces a tie and it then comes down to who a person believes the most other than real convincing evidence and this has been a problem with creationism when they go up against secular science.

I seen an atheist in a live stream debate defending the Big Bang Theory a few months ago and yet this same person will reject the Big Bang Theory when dealing with Day Agers and I said you can't have it both ways atheists. Either you accept or reject the Big Bang Theory.I ranted about it in the live stream how they reject it when dealing with Hugh Ross creationists but yet accept it here? I said don't believe this atheist he will reject the Big Bang Theory if Hugh Ross came on here,suddenly hypothesis's will be more and true than a theory in science..It needs to be challenged.

[Eureka]

Hello from 2025!

Wow—what a fantastic debate from both sides. I have missed these forums! Not sure if anyone is still reading, but I do have a few thoughts and I can’t help but post them.

DBowling repeatedly asked for information regarding the rate of 2+ “coordinated” beneficial mutations. I think this question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the mechanisms involved in evolution. As Nils explained, beneficial mutations spread throughout the population such that the probability of having the allele approaches 1 (obviously much greater than 10^-20). By being beneficial, the coordination mechanism is largely irrelevant. Beneficial mutations CAN coordinate, but this is not necessary for them to spread across the species. Coordinated multi-mutation events are not the normal path for evolution.

[Philip]

Hello from 2025!

Wow—what a fantastic debate from both sides. I have missed these forums! Not sure if anyone is still reading, but I do have a few thoughts and I can’t help but post them.

DBowling repeatedly asked for information regarding the rate of 2+ “coordinated” beneficial mutations. I think this question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the mechanisms involved in evolution. As Nils explained, beneficial mutations spread throughout the population such that the probability of having the allele approaches 1 (obviously much greater than 10^-20). By being beneficial, the coordination mechanism is largely irrelevant. Beneficial mutations CAN coordinate, but this is not necessary for them to spread across the species. Coordinated multi-mutation events are not the normal path for evolution.

I would suggest you forget the ever-changing speculations and assertions over what evolutionary scenarios MIGHT be possible. Because it's a secondary issue that is irrelevant as far as the question over whether a Creator is needed to explain life itself, much less the Big Bang, the universe's astonishing building blocks that made possible every life form ever to inhabit planet earth - things which appeared a full 10 billion years BEFORE the earliest known life forms. Explain THOSE and then get back to me with questions concerning evolution. Arguing over evolution is like someone arguing over the near-end of a movie in which they have never seen the beginning or middle, nor the plot development, trajectory, explanatory details, or character interactions required to fully understand the film's last minutes or how it arrived at its conclusion. And, by the way, the Big Bang and the first appearances of the elemental building blocks began to develop, not over some billions of years, but INSTANTLY, in MOMENTS, upon the Big Bang's beginning - and also emerged from a state in which no matter, space or time existed.

THESE are why God is necessary - as the instant appearance of the Big Bang's beginning, PRECISELY the right elements, with exactly the necessary designs, functionalities, and their amazingly interactive precisions (both individually and in concert with each other) required an extraordinary MIND behind them - a mind so brilliant that His handiwork has baffled the world's top scientists since the discovery that the universe A) had a beginning, B) is far from static, and C) emerged at a specific and calculable time in the past. And yet, people bizarrely think no intelligence is needed to explain such things. Yet, NO person discovering some simple machine in the woods would think it just popped into existence without a maker and designer. And yet, many insist the insanely long list of the immensely complex elements and conditions observed across so many systems and scientific fields can be explained without a Designer of great mind and power being behind it all. That's not even considering the obvious and mind-blowing, instructional code that is found in the DNA of every living creature, or the stupendous design and functionality of even a single cell - which is more sophisticated and complex in design and functionality than ANY machine ever built by mankind's best engineers. Just try to wrap you head around such things when you consider what is possible to be produced by non-thinking / non-living things!

[Eureka]

I’ve heard and appreciated the following comparison:

“The evolution of the human body by natural selection is about as likely as a tornado traveling through a junkyard and unintentionally building a Boeing 747”

There was a great debate posted years ago on this forum (Ken Ham vs. someone arguing irreducible complexity) and I remember feeling like Ken Ham absolutely lost the debate.

Unfortunately, I still struggle with the idea that humans “obviously require” a creator, while a creator Himself was simply brought into existence/existed eternally. It feels like a bit of a cop out.

The bottom line is that there are still a lot of unknowns.

[Kenny]

I’ve heard and appreciated the following comparison:

“The evolution of the human body by natural selection is about as likely as a tornado traveling through a junkyard and unintentionally building a Boeing 747”

There was a great debate posted years ago on this forum (Ken Ham vs. someone arguing irreducible complexity) and I remember feeling like Ken Ham absolutely lost the debate.

Unfortunately, I still struggle with the idea that humans “obviously require” a creator, while a creator Himself was simply brought into existence/existed eternally. It feels like a bit of a cop out.

The bottom line is that there are still a lot of unknowns.

I think you’ve made some excellent points. When I used to post here on a regular basis, I received a lot of flack because I was quick to admit to not having answers to questions that even our best scientists have answers to, yet I remain skeptical of (theistic) answers they provided. I think it’s natural for people to want answers to things like origins, morality, death, life, justice, etc. etc. and religions provide easy answers to some of the most complicated questions. Atheism/skepticism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return. As a skeptic, I’m perfectly okay with that, and sounds like you are as well; but not everybody is.