## Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Mutataions

Expand Messages
• In a message dated 1/31/2008 8:56:35 P.M. Central Standard Time, _Morrowitz@wmconnect.com_ (mailto:Morrowitz@wmconnect.com) writes: But for arguments sake,
Message 1 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
In a message dated 1/31/2008 8:56:35 P.M. Central Standard Time,
_Morrowitz@..._ (mailto:Morrowitz@...) writes:

But for arguments' sake, let us say that only 1% of
mutations are lethal. You actually want me to "show you the math" and which
falsifies your claim "there is no known limit to the accumulation of those
mutations". And you actually can not understand how the immediate death of
an organism
prevents it from breeding, and that is an absolute "limit to the
accumulation
of mutations"? Ok, here is the math,

An Organism X has arrived and with an aggregate of 1000 mutations.
Next generation Organism Y dies almost at birth with lethal mutation.

1000 times 0 = 0

Total mutations conserved and accumulated = ZERO
************
Pi:
Using your logic, there would be no third generation, "Organism Z". Yet we
s
Morrowitz:
I'll end this discussion with Piasan who now pretends he cannot understand
how an organism which quickly dies young, does not "continue to produce
generations on and on".
*************
Pi:
Still cutting out my posts, Morro?

I understand completely.

You say "Organism X has arrived and with an aggregate of 1000 mutations"
therefore, it's offspring "Organism Y dies almost at birth with a lethal
mutation" .

OK. Fine. I stated (and you quote above):
"Using your logic, there would be no third generation, "Organism Z".

It looks like I specifically pointed out that "an organism which quickly
dies young" would not produce a "third generation, 'Organism Z'".

Obviously you have a reading comprehension issue since I specifically
pointed out exactly what you claim I "cannot understand". Not only that, but you
cited me stating specifically what you said I "cannot understand".

The problem, Morro, is that what you claim is NOT what we see. We do see
that third generation, and a fourth, and a fifth.... Since you claim that
"nearly ALL" mutations are lethal (which you also conveniently deleted), and
since ALL organisms have (many) mutations, it would follow that life on this
planet would quickly end.

On the other hand, if we accept the other position you have proposed "that
only 1% of mutations are lethal", then the other 99% of organisms (which also
have mutations) will live and produce that third, fourth, fifth... generations
and they would carry on the mutations passed down to them by their
ancestors. In that case, the lethal mutations would not prevent other mutations from
being passed on.

So, if "nearly ALL" mutations are lethal and all organisms have mutations,
life would end on Earth because there would be no survivors. On the other
hand, if ALL organisms have mutations and only 1% of them die due to lethal
mutations, then the other 99% will live to have offspring and the lethal
mutations would not prevent the accumulation of mutations in further generations.

Either way, you lose.

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... taking ... no known ... impossible ... natural ... are ... are lethal, ... to the ... limiting ... prevent the ... lethal? How ... Tin: WRONG ! Most
Message 2 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
--- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@... wrote:
>
> > Pi:
> > The problem with this claim is that we directly observe mutations
taking
> > place by purely natural processes all the time. Further, there is
no known
> > limit to the accumulation of those mutations. Therefore, it is
impossible
> to
> > determine if a specific feature is the result of design, or the
natural
> > mutations we already observe.
>
> labbbim
> > > Let's quickly test Piasan claims. What percentage of mutations
are
> > > beneficial and what percentage LETHAL, Piasan? Since so many
are lethal,
> > then
> > > immediately falsifies your conclusion "there is no known limit
to the
> > accumulation of
> > > those mutations". The death of the organism is certainly "a
limiting
> > factor".
> >
> > ***********
> > Pi:
> > I don't know what percentage are lethal. Since you claim they
prevent the
> > h
>
> You really don't have any idea what percent of mutations are
lethal? How
> about nearly ALL of them.

Tin: WRONG !

Most mutations are neutral.

Labmo are you ever right about anything ?
• ... mutations ... is ... mutations ... limit ... Lethal to what? Bruce
Message 3 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
>
> --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
> >
> > > Pi:
> > > The problem with this claim is that we directly observe
mutations
> taking
> > > place by purely natural processes all the time. Further, there
is
> no known
> > > limit to the accumulation of those mutations. Therefore, it is
> impossible
> > to
> > > determine if a specific feature is the result of design, or the
> natural
> > > mutations we already observe.
> >
> > labbbim
> > > > Let's quickly test Piasan claims. What percentage of
mutations
> are
> > > > beneficial and what percentage LETHAL, Piasan? Since so many
> are lethal,
> > > then
> > > > immediately falsifies your conclusion "there is no known
limit
> to the
> > > accumulation of
> > > > those mutations". The death of the organism is certainly "a
> limiting
> > > factor".
> > >
> > > ***********
> > > Pi:
> > > I don't know what percentage are lethal. Since you claim they
> prevent the
> > > h
> >
> > You really don't have any idea what percent of mutations are
> lethal? How
> > about nearly ALL of them.
>
>
> Tin: WRONG !
>
> Most mutations are neutral.
>
> Labmo are you ever right about anything ?
>

Lethal to what?

Bruce
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.