In reading the responses to my founding post (the post starting this thread), I can only say that my original post stands. There has been no information presented that refutes it.
I believe this is because, perhaps deep in their minds, evolutionists know that the chance that random mutation can form highly-complex, symmetrical, self-replicating, sexual (male and female) machines is not just unlikely, it is absurd at its foundation.
The fact is, when considering complex machines, the odds of mutation creating ever-more specialized parts—of the machine or system—decrease dramatically (to say the least) as the number of parts increases. To deny this is to deny basic logic.
The widespread acceptance of evolution it little more than a demonstration of the sheep-nature of humans.
Looks like you just did a copy and past of message #44786.
So, lets start with your first declarations from the founding post of this thread.
Two problems with this idea are:
(1) The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be harmful, useless mutations and would be selected out long before they ever had a chance to develop more complexity.
What evidence do you have that the mutations which are becoming part of a complex system must be harmful?
What part of the natural world requires the harmful mutations to remain in in the population in order for a complex system to form from "non-complex" mutations.
Mutations typically appear in small numbers of the population initially. The harmful mutations are the ones that hinder the production of offspring by the individual with the mutation. So the harmful mutations are weeded out or minimized within the population.
The vast number of mutations are neutral within a particular environment. However, they can become an asset to the individuals with them if the environment changes.
Please show the above statement of yours to be true.
(2) Math. (see below)
If it takes 1,000,000 harmful mutations to form a part of what will become a complex subsystem later (and for some strange reason it is not selected out), we now have a situation where there is a much stricter requirement about what type of mutation will be "beneficial".
This is a big if. Without showing that the harmful mutations must remain in the population in order for a complex subsystem to form, your math example does not hold up.
The widespread acceptance of Literal Genesis Creationism in the face of mountains of evidence to refute it, is little more than a demonstration of the sheep-nature of Evangelical Christians.
