neo-x wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:35 pm
DBowling wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:49 am
neo-x wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:29 pm
DBowling wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:17 am
However, at every turn the processes of 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' have been demonstrated to be totally incapable of producing life as we know it today. And the starts and stops in the fossil record (particularly the Cambrian Explosion) also bear witness against the slow gradual processes presumed by Darwinism.
neo-x wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:45 am
That is because without evolution there isn't any real science model that explains all life.
From my perspective, 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' alone are just as improbable (impossible) as the GAP theory when it comes to explaining what we see in the fossil record and in life today.
IMO, the Cambrian explosion can be understood if we take into account the rate of UV light that was hitting the earth at that time, with our atmosphere being different than it is today. Radiation like that can really boost mutation rates for all life forms. Hence, the rapid mutations might have led to rapid evolution.
Here's my problem with that premise...
It is inconsistent with a key premise of Darwinian Evolution... rare, small changes over a long period of time.
The reason that Darwinian Evolution requires small changes over long periods of time is that rapid macromutations result in deformity, sterility, and death.
So natural selection would eliminate, not perpetuate, life forms that result from rapid macromutations.
The examples of Darwinian Evolution that we can observe do involve small changes over time, just like Darwin indicated. But we can also observe the impact of macromutations on life forms, and the result of macromutations is deformity and death, not survival of the fittest.
That is why the Cambrian Explosion was such a problem for Darwin. During the Cambrian Explosion, anatomically complex life forms suddenly appear without any preceding simpler life forms. And the rate of change we see in life forms during the Cambrian Explosion far exceeds the "rare and modest" changes that Darwin himself said were keys for Darwinian Evolution.
So I disagree that the Darwinian Evolution model comes anywhere close to explaining the complexity of life forms today and the rate of change that we observe in the fossil record.
The only model that I am aware of that can explain the complexity of life today and the changes that we observe in the fossil record is the Romans 1:19-20 model.
9 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
That is not a valid objection, honestly. Why do you think 99 percent of all life that ever existed has perished? Because of their inability to adapt or mutate.
Two different issues...
1. Extinction events involve some kind of change to a viable life form's environment that the viable life form is unable to adapt to and therefore the life form in question is not able to survive in the new environment.
2. Macromutations are specific mutations that occur to a specific individual life form. And Biologists (and Darwin himself) have observed the impact of macromutations on individual life forms, and the observed result of macromutations is not viability. The observed result of macromutations is deformity, sterility, and death. Darwin knew that. Which is why Darwinian Evolution requires "rare and modest" mutations.
The problem with Darwinistic Evolution is that through animal breeding and scientific experimentation we have a pretty good idea of the scope, rate, and viability of the changes that the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing.
It is quite understandable that higher mutations will lead to many possibilities. Too much evolution is bad and too little evolution is bad too. Both will lead to death and extinction. However if there was a time when uv light was mire on earth and caused too much mutation then in theory, as you say, it should have had led to death deformity etc. However, if the earths atmosphere developed during the same time as to block the amount of uv reaching earth overtime, the mutations would gradually come to a normal - it would slow down after a rapid period and would eventually sustain.
I'm not following you...
It appears to me that you are contradicting yourself, so I'm obviously missing what you are saying.
Here's what I think you are saying...
1. You agree that too much mutation causes death and deformity
2. You propose that some environmental change caused mutations to increase during the Cambrian Explosion.
3. Then the environment changed again which caused mutations to return to a "normal" rate.
The problem with that premise is the increased rate and scope of mutations that would occur in an environment of rapid mutations would result in macromutations, the kind of mutations that lead to deformity and death. This would actually end up decreasing (not increasing) the "normal" rate of viable mutations that we see in the fossil record. So if mutations were increased during the Cambrian Explosion that would result in fewer viable mutations and fewer observable changes in the fossil record instead of the dramatic increase that we do see in the fossil record.
Darwin knew that the Cambrian Explosion was a problem for his theory.
And as Science discovers more and more about the scope, speed, and genetic limits of Darwinistic Evolution, these new discoveries just confirm that the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing what we see in either the fossil record or in the biological structure of life today.