Creationists

[Hollie]

You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.

wrong again! you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?

 

[Youwerecreated]

How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.

The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.

By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?

Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.

You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.

I made my definitions very clear and if you don't understand a term look it up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yawn. That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.

Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.

Try again.

Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?

I assume neither.

So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

wrong again! you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?

Already answered.

 

[Hollie]

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?

Already answered.

Care to explain who programmed the programmer?

 

[ima]

Have you been following the thread for the DNA argument?

I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.

Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.

You still never showed me any evidence of the guy who you think made everything. And you don't accept science but you accept probability? Probability doesn't excluded random process, it just says that it might be highly unlikely, which is also bs because the person who made this argument wasn't there either at the beginning.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?

Already answered.

Care to explain who programmed the programmer?

No one,who programmed you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.

Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.

You still never showed me any evidence of the guy who you think made everything. And you don't accept science but you accept probability? Probability doesn't excluded random process, it just says that it might be highly unlikely, which is also bs because the person who made this argument wasn't there either at the beginning.

It's really because you don't like the answer.

 

[ima]

Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.

You still never showed me any evidence of the guy who you think made everything. And you don't accept science but you accept probability? Probability doesn't excluded random process, it just says that it might be highly unlikely, which is also bs because the person who made this argument wasn't there either at the beginning.

It's really because you don't like the answer.

So where is your guy? You never said.

 

[Hollie]

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.


The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.

I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.

Yet more silliness from the ICR.

E. Calvin Beisner

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.

 

[Hollie]

Already answered.

Care to explain who programmed the programmer?

No one,who programmed you ?

So you believe your gawds program faulty work and also program corrective actions
for the purpose of killing sinners?

 

[Hollie]

Already answered.

Care to explain who programmed the programmer?

No one,who programmed you ?

Where did the program come from?

 

[Hollie]

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.


The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.

I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.

Yet more silliness from the ICR.

E. Calvin Beisner

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.

FYI, E. Calvin is also running a special promotion this week on his own branded pint bottles of E. Cal's magic elixir and stain removed. Guaranteed to fix what ails you.

 

[Hollie]

Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?

I assume neither.

So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.

Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?

I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).

Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?

 

[newpolitics]

Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.

You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.

I made my definitions very clear and if you don't understand a term look it up.

No, you didn't. You said "decide for yourself" when I asked what does "too rare" mean. You have demonstrated yourself that your methodology for determining such objective things is your incredibly subjective intuition, which is inadequate as far as making scientific claims, in as much as no one would accept this, and neither do I. You can not objectively show that beneficial mutations are too rare, therefore, you have nothing on this claims, so stop saying it until you have evidence.

 

[newpolitics]

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.

The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.

By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?

I don't understand the question. No, and no.

Are going to discredit my response because I am not a PhD in biology? How about you just respond to what I said as opposed to worry about my background. I sense an ad hominem debate fallacy in the making, real soon.

 

[newpolitics]

What did you do start a church out in the woods no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.

I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
"no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
why the **** would I start a church anywhere?
you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.

Yes, atheists worship creation and not the Creator. They worship nature. Their faith is in materialism. They also happen to believe that everyone should be as miserable as they are, and thus their continued assault on Christmas. You know, because giving people gifts, helping those in need, and spending time with family should never be encouraged by the gov'ment.

You are a nutjob. Plan and simple. Your claims are logically fallacious. Mind explaining how atheists worship creation? Where is out altar? Our ceremonies? Our prayers? Which behavior are you referring to that would suggest any hint of worship?

UR, this is a petty attempt to return the "faith thing" and put it onto atheism. The problem is that this assertion doesn't hold up logically, and so makes you look like a buffoon. Hooray. If atheisim takes faith, then so does a-bigfootism, and a-fairyism, and a-infinite-number-of-beings-that-could-possibly-exist-but-have-never-been-proven. You are forgetting about the burden of proof. Logic 101. It doesn't take evidence to not believe in something for which there is no proof, nor does it take faith to believe in something for which there is proof: the ******* universe. There has never been a demonstrated supernatural occurrence in the history of the universe. Therefore, we are justified in inductively concluding, for ourselves, that no supernatural realities exist. I can not claim deductively that no supernatural realities exist, but until I see evidence of this, I am justified in my materialism. Until we witness something supernatural, we have no reason to believe otherwise. Again, I admit my use of inductive reasoning, as well as its limitation. I can not rule out the supernatural, but see no reason to believe in it without evidence. Nor have I ever concluded or claimed that the material universe is all that exists, as a matter of fact, because I don't see the point and could never prove this. It simply seems highly probably, at this point, that this is the case.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.

I made my definitions very clear and if you don't understand a term look it up.

No, you didn't. You said "decide for yourself" when I asked what does "too rare" mean. You have demonstrated yourself that your methodology for determining such objective things is your incredibly subjective intuition, which is inadequate as far as making scientific claims, in as much as no one would accept this, and neither do I. You can not objectively show that beneficial mutations are too rare, therefore, you have nothing on this claims, so stop saying it until you have evidence.

I gave you an example of how rare they are and how hard it is for mutations to become fixated in the population. Come on if you are gonna have this discussion you have to use a little reasoning.

 

[newpolitics]

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.


The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.

I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

TALLYING THE SCORE

It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

This is a commentary, not objective facts about mutation. Thanks, but no thanks. If you are trying to educate me, send me some links to a more objective source. Thanks.

But I will say that this is one of the dumbest premises I have ever read:

"Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation."

This is where you are getting your info? The misuse of the 2nd LOTD's is egregious here, and its representation and application are completely inaccurate.
If this is how one chooses to represent the 2nd LOTD's, then one should have issue with the universe not being one big amorphous cloud of nothingness. It presumes that there are no attractive forces whatsoever, and in doing so, completely ignoring the four fundamental forces of the universe
1.) Gravity
2.) Electromagnetism
3.) Weak Nuclear-Force
4.) Strong Nuclear-Force

With these cohesive forces in place, why would you expect things to be disorderly? You shouldn't, because the 2nd LOTD does simply say that things should become chaotic. All it really says is that heat energy will even itself out over time. In no way, would this preclude a beneficial mutation, especially within a closed system, whether energy is allowed to be exchanged. I don't know how someone who puts so much time into someothing, could make such a basic mistake and pretend that this is science. It's just so dishonest, which is ultimately ironic given the ten commandments.