The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly Live-Webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Mutations are accidents; things don't get built by accident (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Mutations are accidents; things don't get built by accident (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.


Claim: CB101.1

Mutations are accidents, and things do not get built by accident.

Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 102.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 55.


Creation Wiki response:

(Talk Origins quotes in blue)

1. There is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.

This is hardly a fair explanation of the issue at hand. While natural selection is not a random process the mutations that it selects for are random. This fact makes randomness a key part of the process. Furthermore, this distracts from the more important issue that the combination of random mutations and natural selection cannot build anything new. Indeed, this process does occur, but it is only useful for weeding out defective organisms. Evolutionists resort to this argument because it seems to be the only alternative to the idea that all living things were intelligently designed by a creator. The above process may allow certain organisms to adapt to their particular environment so they are more likely to survive and pass down their genes, but this process will not build anything new.

Sometimes things do get built by accident. Many discoveries started out as accidents that people recognized uses for.

However, they all originally required some kind of intelligent input to substantiate them, which is why the analogy is an invalid one. Not one of those discoveries would have taken shape without an intelligent thought process behind it(creator) to guide it through development and then apply it to where it would be most valuable.

Many other designs (accidental or not) have been selected against, that is, discarded. Design itself is an evolutionary process.

There is nothing evolutionary about that process. Selection is a natural process that only stabilizes and does not create. Creating would require more than natural selection and mutation. Human design correctly done (such as the architecture of buildings) does not need to be destroyed as part of the design process. Improvements in design are because of intelligent recognition of a need or desire of the inhabitants and changes to a new design. Natural evolution has no designer supplying improvements or direction but only random chance allowing some genetic changes to survive and others to not survive (evolutionists are aware that beneficial mutations often do not survive). Calling design an evolutionary process is at least an unnecessary confusion of terms.

2. Experiments and genetic analysis show that mutations (plus selection) do account for new adaptations (Max 1999).

There are definite limits to the adaptation that results from the selection process, as selection can only draw from available information. This claim is accurate, selection cannot create, and mutations, which are random, cannot provide specified information that are required to build from the bottom-up.

Sources:

Personal tools