Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Refuting evolutionism- "Waiting for Two Mutations"

In an attempt to refute Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution", a peer-reviewed paper refutes the premise of accumulating genetic accidents- that is if said accidents need to be in specific places to make some difference in an evolutionary sense.

The paper is titled Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution by Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt.

I say it refutes evolutionism- the premise that the diversity of living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie the current theory of evolution.

That is because news genes require a binding site within its regulatory sequence. Not only that it needs to have a promoter, repressor and if more than one copy is required, an enhancer is also needed.

Now if you have read the paper you would have read how difficult it is just to get ONE specified mutation.

With a new gene there are quite a few specified mutations which have to take place just to get that new gene transcribed.

There just isn't enough time in this universe to evolve the capacity to use a new gene- that is in the given evolutionary scenario.

And even then there isn't any guarantee that the new gene will stay intact enough to be of any use once all the regulatory sequences are in place.

So why do I reject the theory of evolution? Science has all but demonstrated it is a hopeless concept and needs to be thoroughly revised.


  • At 2:06 PM, Blogger John said…

    Joe, as I am not a biologist or otherwise an expert on understanding papers of this type, I am not capable of understanding it myself. However, it does not appear that the authors derive the same conclusions from their research that you do. Can you explain why I should take your interpretation as more likely than theirs?

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The authors were just concerned with getting two mutations- one that disabled a binding site and another that enabled a new binding site.

    If that is all that is required to go from single-celled prokaryotes to the diversity of living organisms then evolutionism has a chance.

    That said Dr Behe weighs in on the paper:

    Waiting Longer for two mutations, part 1part 2part 3part 4and part 5

  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    If it takes >100 million years to get two specific mutations in a human population, what does that say about the premise that humans evolved from non-humans in 7.5 million years?

    Is 100 million less than, equal to or greater than, 7.5 million?

    Did it take more than two mutations to get the changes required?

  • At 12:48 PM, Blogger John said…

    If it were as obvious as you seem to think, this whole argument would not be happening. Mainstream thinking proposes that humans evolved from something that was very much like humans, so it didn't take very many mutations.

  • At 3:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…


    This argument will continue even after evolutionism has been totally refuted.

    The lack of evidence and evidence against has never stopped evolutionitwits from spewing their tripe.

    BTW evolutionary thinking has us diverged from chimps. Chimps and their ancestors were knuckle-walkers.

    No one even knows if any amount of mutational accumulation can transform a knuckle-walker into an upright biped.

    That is the beauty of the theory- it is based on ignorance and counts on ignorance so that it sounds sciency even though there ain't no science there.

  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Jehovah's Servant said…

    Mynamehere said:

    If it were as obvious as you seem to think, this whole argument would not be happening. Mainstream thinking proposes that humans evolved from something that was very much like humans, so it didn't take very many mutations.

    This is typical Evolutionist argumentation. Our theory is true because we say it is - Evolution to evolutionists is accepted a priori and nothing can disprove it. This is a tautology. Even the concept of evolution seems to prove itself for most atheists, because they simply refuse to believe in a "magic sky dude" as some glibly put it.

    First of all, mainstream thinking is only the thinking of evolutionists and atheists. FYI - that is not mainstream, some 78% of Americans polled recently by Gallup said they believe in God. I'd say that qualifies as the real mainstream.

    Second - The fact that something is being argued does not make it true.

  • At 9:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Mainstream thinking = atheist???

    In all cases? Or just when you don't like the thinking? Seems a little vague to me, Jehovah.


Post a Comment

<< Home