Evolution via Random Mutation is nothing more than an urban legend. Why does this superstition persist? I believe it's because 99.9% of the people who believe it and talk about it have never conducted an experiment like this to see with their own eyes that it just doesn't work.

Evolution through Random Mutation:

Possibly the Greatest Myth in Modern Science

The idea that random mutation creates biological diversity fails computer simulations*; it fails if you compute the statistics; and it fails biologically. This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.

A bit of experimentation with the Random Mutation generator makes it clear why:

Language, plans and instructions do not evolve from the "bottom up."
Language, plans and instructions do not evolve in microscopic increments, one or two letters at a time. They evolve in increments of entire words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs.
Language, plans and instructions evolve as an expression of ideas which come first.
When you write or speak, you begin with intent which becomes a sentence made of words which are made of letters. When you translate from English to French, for example, you cannot translate one letter at a time. And you can't really translate one word at a time either, that's a disaster. You have to translate idea for idea. The same is true when you edit a document that you or someone else has written - the letters are subordinate to the words, which are subordinate to the ideas. Ideas come first.

Evolution via Random Mutation is nothing more than an urban legend. Why does this superstition persist? I believe it's because 99.9% of the people who believe it and talk about it have never conducted an experiment like this to see with their own eyes that it just doesn't work.

A Newer, 21st Century View of Evolution

G.K. Chesterton, the well-known 20th century intellectual, said "The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle." Chesterton is suggesting that battle over 'creation vs. evolution' is, to some extent, a false dichotomy.

This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.

Language, plans and instructions do not evolve from the "bottom up."
Language, plans and instructions do not evolve in microscopic increments, one or two letters at a time. They evolve in increments of entire words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs.
Language, plans and instructions evolve as an expression of ideas which come first.

Originally posted by I:Chesterton is suggesting that battle over 'creation vs. evolution' is, to some extent, a false dichotomy."

[/QB]

lightning(creation scientist)

your statement:
"Evolution via Random Mutation is nothing more than an urban legend. Why does this superstition persist? I believe it's because 99.9% of the people who believe it and talk about it have never conducted an experiment like this to see with their own eyes that it just doesn't work. "

The above is a description of religion

Your statement:
"Possibly the Greatest Myth in Modern Science"

The greatest myth is and has always been, religions and their" gods "

Your statement:
"The idea that random mutation creates biological diversity fails computer simulations*;

Computers can't even agree on the weather. Does that mean there is no weather?

Your statement:
"and it fails biologically"

It obviously did not fail biologically

Your statement:
"This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies."

And what makes his research so important, and Darwins research nothing more than fiction?. We can only wonder if he used to much radiation, or if there was some other problem in the setup

Your statement:
"Language, plans and instructions do not evolve from the "bottom up."

You mean we already know things, and slowly slowly learned not to know them? That piles of things are upside down? When was the last time you went somewhere, without taking the steps to get there? Accordingly a seed is the mature plant. When did you last see an adult grow into a baby?

, Your statement:
"Language, plans and instructions do not evolve in microscopic increments, one or two letters at a time. They evolve in increments of entire words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs."

Language, plans, instructions, entire words and phrases, were first built upon, the most simple thoughts, the beginning of the plans, the letters of the words, which in turn were also built upon even simpler foundations

Your statement:
"Language, plans and instructions evolve as an expression of ideas which come first.
When you write or speak, you begin with intent which becomes a sentence made of words which are made of letters"

Much came before the ideas. Animals made noises automatically (no plan or language). Slowly they begin to recognize those sounds, movements, expressions. in the others, and understood they were feeling and reacting to the same things.. There is original language. That language was preceded by experience, preceded by sensory organs, preceded by a brain , preceded by a body, a body preceded by its elements, which were preceded by atoms, etc. etc. etc.. The universe itself, displays that the simple must come before the complex

Your statement:
"When you translate from English to French, for example, you cannot translate one letter at a time. And you can't really translate one word at a time either, that's a disaster. You have to translate idea for idea. The same is true when you edit a document that you or someone else has written - the letters are subordinate to the words, which are subordinate to the ideas. Ideas come first.

Translating is another subject matter. Nature has nothing to translate, it just proceeds.

Your statement:
"Evolution via Random Mutation is nothing more than an urban legend. Why does this superstition persist? I believe it's because 99.9% of the people who believe it and talk about it have never conducted an experiment like this to see with their own eyes that it just doesn't work"

Scientific study with all the passing time and instruments involved and its endless successes; could only be considered an urban legend by a complete moron. We know why the real superstition continues to persist, because the criminals take little children and damage their minds, most of the time permanently

Your statement:
"A Newer, 21st Century View of Evolution

" G.K. Chesterton, the well-known 20th century intellectual, said "The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle." Chesterton is suggesting that battle over 'creation vs. evolution' is, to some extent, a false dichotomy."

There is nothing new, about that old, moldy, religious garbage

Paulwa, perhaps the rapture visited him.