DNA Degeneration: Why your kids will be mutants! (Lopsided Mutation Rates)

Population geneticists know that Darwin's mechanism of natural selection is not keeping up with the (overwhelming) rate of genetic entropy. Here Dr. John Sanford, an expert in plant genetics, explains seven logical errors which disqualify the evolutionary hypothesis. In part two he will prove its mathematical impossibility as well. Lopsided Mutation Rates Invalidate "Evolution". It is a religion - evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny and the evidence against it only continues to accumulate. This clip is from "DNA: The Mystery of our Declining Genes" by CMI.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Genetics
• Mutation
• Evolution
• Creationism
• Natural
• Selection
• Darwin
• Creation
• College
• Professor
• Teacher
• Bias
• Students
• University
• Psychology
• vs.
• Biology
• Entropy
• Intelligent
• Design
• Sexual
• Reproduction
• Degeneration
• Fitness
• Truth
• Survival
• Debate
• Mystery
• Decay
• Population
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Decline
• Logic
• Genome
• Science
• Complexity
• Funny
• Campus
• War
• Fake
• Indoctrination
• Propaganda
• Lies
• Drunk
• Scientist
• Big
• Party
• Faculty
• Stupid
• Idiot
• Atheism
• Quackery

[alyosha24601]

@TheAggressionScale I'll say I don't! When did an organism ever go from "1 makes 1" to "2 makes 1"? Are you saying there was a period of "1 1/2 makes 1"? To go from asexual reproduction to a bi-sexual reproduction means MILLIONS of COMPLIMENTARY MUTATIONS, ALL INSTANTLY!!! I'm afraid there is no other explanation. You can't claim a "population" produced this because asexual means only one individual reproduces. Sexual reproduction is proof evolution never happened because it can't evolve!

[TheAggressionScale]

@alyosha24601 It's not a blurring of the event, it's me trying to explain to you that they didn't evolve separately. Populations evolve, at no point were there not males and females of the given population. These populations breed and their offspring are slightly different.

It's not hard to get, you're just refusing to understand it.

[alyosha24601]

@TheAggressionScale "No separation of the sexes"? Blurring this event doesn't constitute any argument that it could have actually happened. Or, are you saying a perfectly complimentary male and female happened to "evolve" at just the same time and place? To go from asexual reproduction to a bi-sexual species means MILLIONS oF COMPLIMENTARY MUTATIONS, ALL INSTANTLY!!! Only a religious priest of evolution could believe such a miracle ever happened. Evolution is quack science - the world knows it!

[TheAggressionScale]

@alyosha24601 There was no separation of the sexes, at no point in the history of sexual reproduction did one sex evolve without the other. I realize you're bent on never understanding anything scientific ever, but understand this one single point and my time with you will not have been wasted.

Populations evolve, not individuals. There was no 'presto, both sexes appeared' They were always there, always changing incrementally from generation to generation.

[freddakiko]

@alyosha24601 i don't really see what you're trying to point out. eukaryotes can reproduce sexually even though they are relatively primitive beings. the different yet complimentary is a product of the need for genetic diversity. at some point the eukaryotes that were the first lifeforms mutated to asexual and sexual organisms. evolution occurs more slowly in asexual animals because they don't have as much genetic diversity.

[alyosha24601]

@freddakiko Oh, I see; you're saying millions of perfect, complimentary mutations all piled up over eons before the separation into sexes, just sitting there, with no survival advantage provided. Then the separation occurred and PRESTO! two perfectly complimentary sexes able to perfectly exchange exactly half the DNA that the other sex didn't then emerge! They are instantly "different, yet complimentary", but the changes all occurred before the split! I think we both know this didn't happen.

[freddakiko]

@alyosha24601 it's been proven that both female and male can come from the same cells during the production of the fetus. in fact, males are a secondary product because all fetuses are originally female, thus why men have nipples as well as extremely underdeveloped mammary glands. because both male and female can come from the same cells, and some animals can reproduce sexually and asexually, is enough to prove that male and female could have developed without a "clock maker" so to speak.

[alyosha24601]

@charzeus1 Interesting you have ignored the science I have offered you in order to resort to insult. I see this again and again. Such objections to creation science are actually religious, not scientific. If they were truly scientific, they'd stick to the science. So, I say to such folks: Hate God if you like, but let's not twist all of science to pretend that mind-bogglingly complex, replicating, self-repairing, sentient, intelligent organisms just magically created themselves by random chance.

[charzeus1]

such a closed mind,typical of someone who knows that their invisible friend is the creator of everything .keep on believing ! dickhead