What I understand Bravus to be saying is this:

• In biology, much of what is understood about evolution is suggested by the results of processes that we never actually see, as we don't live long enough to see them happen. So in that sense, we never see certain things happen, but we do see the results of what might be predicted by the evidence we do see.
• Scientists can't see subatomic particles either, but they still know about protons and neutrons (which I've personally never completely understood but take their word for it).

One could, perhaps, say that scientists are making it all up. But they can't all be making it up.

Here is an argument that concerns genetic mutation my basic question is this...why are there no monsters?

There is another basic understanding of evolution that is contrary to the world around us.
I refer to this as the "99 snafus principle." This argument uses the claim that 99% of mutations
are "bad." (It is more like 100% of mutations are bad but we will use this argument anyhow.)
Imagine that you are an animal like a fish that has many, many eggs at once. Now let's say that
you have 100 eggs and 99 of them are bad. There are also other fish around so your children
won't have to marry each other. Let's us say now that 50 of your bad children die of genetic
disease. Why only 50 of them? Because many, many genetic diseases are survivable. Let's
say 10 of them that survived can't reproduce because they have genetically bad fins and can't
catch up with their potential mates, who swim too fast. Now the next generation of fish in your
"devonian pond" have a 39 to 1 chance of getting a genetic anomaly.

The 99 Snafus Principle states; if evolution is true then there will always be more two
headed dogs than there are highly evolved dogs because two-headed dogs can STILL
reproduce. Where are all the two headed dogs, or the dogs with two tails? If there can be major
changes like a "monkey" gaining an opposable thumb, then where are the major survivable
diseases like maybe a race of monkeys with 7 fingers on one hand? The 99 snafus principle
explains that there should be loads of animals that are obviously "asymmetrical" and deformed
but all animals have a relative amount of everything. Remember just because you are not fit
does not mean you won't survive. I think evolutionists, accidentally, missed this point. To
reiterate, why are animals so "perfect."

This is based on a misunderstanding: natural selection selects for the individuals that are *best* adapted to the environment. A two headed dog might survive, but it will have all sorts of problems surviving that a normal dog won't. (leaving aside that two-headedness is definitely a defect that occurs to the embryo in gestation, not a genetic change, so there is no gene for it that can be passed on)

It's true that the vast majority of mutations are unfavourable, but it's not true that 50% or anything like it are survivable. We are fearfully and wonderfully made and finely balanced, and it doesn't take a lot of mutation to make us unviable. But of those creatures with unfavourable mutations that nonetheless survive, they will be less well adapted to hunt or forage, less likely to be able to attract a mate, less likely to be fertile and able to breed, and so on and so on.

To repeat: over time and sufficient trials, natural selection selects for the *best* adapted genes for a particular environment and ecological niche.

Bravus that is an interesting theory but maybe that is why evolution is such a problem. You did not really respond with evidence you responded with theory. You are using natural selection to prove natural selection.

If an animal was born with an ear on it's back or an extra finger do you really think they would be wiped out through natural selection. It just doesn't add up! All animals are basically the same this is weird to me, randomness should create more disorganised yet still efficient species. Why are there no monsters, I reiterate.

What prevents a relatively large precentage of monsterish creatures from existing? Does having an extra finger or an extra eye prevent a creature from surviving and reproducing?

My theoretical response is built on evidence: there are no monsters. Creatures are well adapted for their environments. I agree that that evidence can also be interpreted as evidence for creation, so there's not a lot of point in citing it. The theory I described can account for the observed way the world is.

And again, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of biology - the kinds of macro defects that you describe are not mutations, they are birth defects and are not inheritable.

And finally - have you *looked* at how weird and wonderful some of the critters out there are?

That is what I mean when I say you are using evolution to prove evolution.

Are you sure you are telling the truth?

Read carefully what I said about growing an opposable thumb and therefore being able to grow "seven fingers on one hand" I never said anyone had to grow anything "instantly."

I will repeat my question, if an animal can have major changes like gaining an opposable thumb why can't an animal gain an ear on it's back.
I think the misunderstanding is in your imagination, it is really annoying when people promoting evolution use the misunderstanding argument. If you read my original post carefully then you will see I made no claim of macro change, I actually intentionally used the opposable thumb argument for this very reason.

If an ear on a creature's back improved its fitness for survival in its environment, then yes, it could evolve. Apparently it doesn't, because it hasn't.

I did read your post carefully, but didn't read your mind: the examples you gave, to state it a little more carefully, are things that are more typically birth defects than not.

If something like a seventh finger were to evolve, it would have to happen over many, many generations. It would have to provide a significant survival advantage over six fingers in order to evolve. Again, apparently it doesn't, because it hasn't.

You're arguing in terms of survivability for a single generation, but multiple generations are required. I'm not using the misunderstanding argument as a putdown, or to try to win points, I'm using it because the point you're making seems to me to be a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. I'm very happy to stop using the word and the argument, and to just talk in terms of the theories being put down. I don't want a fight with you, here or in any other thread, I want to discuss the issues thoughtfully and in a friendly way. I apologise if my rhetorical style felt unfriendly, it was not meant to.

So, how about it? Your argument (as I understand it) is that something can be developed if it does not provide a survival disadvantage. My understanding of evolutionary theory is that something will evolve only if it provides a survival advantage.

That is my major argument we are on the same page now. Perfect evolution is not random evolution. There is a missing link between random and perfect. Randomness leads to survivable weaknesses, if you had a counterargument it would need to involve an explanation of a mechanism that forces evolutionary perfection.

The 99 snafus principle is claiming that there would be many many monsters or animals with pointless mutations. You need a real world explanation for why there are no "monsters." You can't counter me by preaching evolution. Remember theoretical responses are different from factual responses, survival of the fitest is a theoretical response, it is not a factual response. To respond to the 99 snafus principle scientifically you would have to list some mechanism that causes only the fit to survive and not the random-luckiest.

A few quick points:

1. The full rendering of the acronym 'snafu' that I'm most familiar with contains the F word, so I'm not so sure you want to keep using it on a Christian forum, but that's entirely your choice.

2. I'm not preaching anything. I'm not an evolutionist, I'm a science educator. All I try to do here is challenge what I believe to be bad science. I don't actually have a firm position on origins myself, just a lot of questions.

3. 'Perfect evolution' is not a useful concept. Evolution is not headed toward a particular goal: what is, just is.



There definitely are monsters. They are born all the time. What you're asking is why there are no true breeding lines of monsters. That's a completely different question. I've tried to answer it as best I can, but I'll have another go below.



I have listed such a mechanism: natural selection. It's the only answer evolution gives to this question, so if you're not satisfied with that, you'll remain unsatisfied with evolution, which is unsurprising.

My point is that natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the facts as they exist. I am making no strong statement about whether it is *the* explanation: the explanation may well be God's special creation and active intervention. But from a scientific perspective, it is the best answer available in the absence of ongoing miracles.

You haven't responded to my detailed point above: your claim essentially is that mutations that do not offer a disadvantage will breed true. My counterclaim - and what I understand to be the dominant scientific theory - is that it is only mutations that offer a survival advantage that will breed true and be enhanced through natural selection.

What about social evolution? Is it subject to the same rules?



My suspicion is that it is. Whether 'software', cultural, or 'hardware', genetic.