Quote from: coins4commies on October 11, 2018, 07:27:10 AM

Baddecker's logic isn't bad but there are a few key things he doesn't quite understand.

1. The meaning of random mutation
2. The importance of C&E research

1. Random mutation doesn't mean quite what you think it means. It doesn't mean that the occurrence of mutation is random. Mutations are inevitable and we know their causes. Radiation, viruses, replication mistakes, and environmental toxins can all damage DNA.

Replication mistakes C&E
We know that DNA polymerase makes mistakes at a rate of 1 in 10,000,000 nucleotide bases and the average rate in eukaryotes in 50 bases per second so that cause alone adds up to about 15 "typos" per month. The "random" is about where in the 150 million base pairs, will the mutation occur. Its not loation specific. If you are typing a novel, no one can predict where in the novel your typo will occur.

Environmental toxins/Radiation C&E
We know that free radicals or radiation can knock electrons off of DNA molecules, damaging or changing them. Radiation and chemical toxins move through space randomly so no one could predict which part of your DNA will be hit or when this collision will occur but it is inevitable that radiation will hit your nucleotide molecules at the right angle to knock electrons off.

Virus C&E
Viruses literally hack into a cells DNA and change it. Again, no one knows when you will contract a virus, or what part of your DNA will be affected by that virus as viruses evolve quickly as well.

2. We know that all of these things will happen, and we know the C&E but scientific research is not just about C&E, a lot of it is simply about finding correlation between two variables. C&E is definitely more informative than correlation but a lot of times, correlation is alll we are able to pin down.

C&E doesn't have anything to do with what we know. If all people suddenly just disappeared, C&E would go on.

C&E doesn't act randomly. Rather, it acts completely according to the laws of physics. This means that whatever started C&E going, started it just exactly the way it is making all things to act and behave, just exactly as they are now.

This means that the word "random" is outdated in the way it is being used in evolution theory. Take random out, or change it, because it is still being used in the same way it was when evolution theory was formulated. And this doesn't match what is known about random, now, because of what is known about C&E, now. There isn't any random, and there never was. There is only apparent random, because of our weakness to see and understand all the forces of the universe, and the way that the laws of physics operate those forces through C&E.

If you took random out of evolution theory, then all you would have to determine is if the Great First Cause that started the universe, programmed processes of change into the universe, whereby one plant or animal would gradually change into another, in the way that evolution theory states.

This would still be extremely difficult if not impossible to do. Why? At least two reasons:
1. We still can't go back into the past to check DNA of thousands of plants and/or animals over thousands of years to see if there is factually any chain of changes that would match evolution;
2. We can't extrapolate backwards, because we don't know for a fact that "things" always acted in the past as they act today.

Evolution is designed to be unprovable simply because of these 2 things, if not others in addition.

Since this is basic science, perhaps scientists simply haven't considered evolution from the standpoint of C&E. But more than likely scientists are simply ignoring it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool