Originally Posted by Russ
Honestly, none of the questions you raise have any real bearing on the outcome of the conclusion, except possibly this one:

Quote
This statement is predicated upon the assumption that harmful mutations are required to provide the small changes that result in a big change which is beneficial. However, a mutation is classified as "harmful" if it hinders the ability of the organism to produce offspring. Most mutations are actually neutral, not harmful. So, if that small change does not affect the ability of the organism to produce the same average number of offspring in its lifetime as the others in its population then there is no harmful mutation.


It is immensely ironic to hear an evolutionists say this because it completely flies in the face of the evolution faith.

For example, if what you say is true, and most mutations are not harmful and remain, then all life would consist of very, very much disorder with very little order; Like a mole on a mole on a mole...a million times over.

We would look like giant blobs of disorder because the vast number of mutations have no appearance of order (like a mole).

In fact, the mutations would eventually kill us, which—ironically—is the basis for natural selection; A foundation of evolution itself.

Is not the irony staring you in the face?

I noticed that no evolutionists have bothered to tackle this thread, except you.

I suspect this is because this subject is impossible to tackle for an evolutionist, and is better left—in the evolutionist's mind—in distant hopes of fading away.


Well, to be honest, there are only a couple evolutionists left on here so not sure who else but LL would respond?? Unless DavidG is an evolutionist? But I have a question for those who are left.... I know there is an apparent variance from the original thoughts concerning evolution with the soup to man theory (which IMO is bogus or at least I don't believe it - don't like being insulting about it, but it doesn't even seem logical to me). But RAZD has stated that is not the case (now) at least or in all schools of thought. I'm assuming this "so called" back tracking is an "evolution" of science and is legit and is what is now called abiogenesis, correct?? I still don't accept that species have jumped....or even or especially that man came from a lower being no matter what science supposedly states, but do concede that a certain amount of evolving and/or adaption occurs.