Since Evolutionist mutation are the foundaition of your...?

Question

Why are the mutations hinder the animal instead of being a help.

Answer 1

We couldn't have descended from bipedal primates according to microbiological evidence. The Neandertal has been ruled out because The DNA strands aren't relative to humans, and our social sophistication is evident in the first few year of our existence. I recommend this book called  "Creation as Science," written by Hugh Ross, unarguably the greatest Astronomer in the world. His RTB organization claims to have a testable model for God, and I kindly challenge you to see if it's plausible.

Answer 2

Mutations don't necessarily hinder.  Mutation is just new genetic variation.  Whether this variation is helpful or not depends on the circumstances.  Sometimes mutations can be just neutral.  Statistically however most genetic mutations are NOT beneficial but some can be so over time bad genetic variation gets weeded out and good ones stay unless the environment or ecosystem changes.

Answer 3

Mutations that we observe are often extreme... genetic variation on the other hand is more subtle... Do your brothers and sisters look exactly alike?  Of course not.  Subtle differences over time propagated through natural selection are the basis for evolution.

Answer 4

You've got me totally boxed in a corner here.

Answer 5

This is one of those Creationists vs. Evolutionist questions.

The question is open as to what percentage of mutations which actually affect the organism are likely to be detrimental or beneficial.

The vast majority of mutations are likely to be neutral or may even have no effect at all. However, it seems quite certain that both detrimental and beneficial changes can take place. Furthermore, there are a variety of ways in which the effects of detrimental mutations can be mitigated: sexual reproduction is one, and there are certainly others.

Ultimately it is rather subjective, as both sides are speaking theoretically. The creationist side theorizes that changes over time must result in inviability of an organism (or sometimes that survival is so unlikely as to be equivalent to being impossible). This is the "magic line" which cannot be crossed. Yet there is no evidence for this absolute statement and no analytical model to support it.

Evolutionists theorize that, despite the possibility or even likelihood of mutations being detrimental, there are mechanisms which would allow organisms to thrive. Several such mechanisms have been identified.

First, severely detrimental mutations would kill an organism or prevent it from passing on its genes. Second, currently living organisms do carry genes with detrimental mutations, and yet these organisms thrive. Given that evolution has had billions of years and many billions of organisms to work on (which would tend to weed out large-scale detrimental mutations), the "unlikely" survival of organisms with mutations doesn't seem so unlikely any more.

Thus while the conclusion that extensive changes have occurred over time is based on a subjective interpretation of the data, the evolution side has some evidence to support the idea that it is possible, while the creationist side has none to demonstrate it is not possible.

It is worth mentioning that anyone claiming that something is impossible has a much higher hurdle to jump. In any case, what is important here is that there is an established mechanism of change which makes evolution possible.