The Physics Professor Poses Darwinian Question to Students

[edthecynic]

the discussion is evolution verses design,,

You don't need a "designer" to get a water molecule!!!!!

 

[progressive hunter]

You don't need a "designer" to get a water molecule!!!!!

sure,, magic will do it,,

 

[task0778]

You clearly have no concept of the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis, which is the prime requisite of all life.

Well, you're right about that. But here's my question: how do you know that any of that applied to the 1st single cell life form that came to be some 3 or 4 billion years ago? How would you know the composition? Has someone proved that your analysis was correct and applied to all life forms that ever existed? Or could it be that the 1st life form was somewhat less complicated?

Show me where somebody says as you claim, that polypeptide synthesis was required for even the 1st life forms to exist.

 

[edthecynic]

Nobody is scraping the bottom of any barrel except you.
I'm not running.

You atheists lie and fabricate things and then giggle at your lies and fabrications and call yourselves intellectual and "scientific."
Oh and "rational."

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Note to TNHarley the atheist Giggle Boy:

"Light" does NOT mean light bulbs. Got it?

"Light" as in the sun. Try science for a change instead of ignorant and badly misplaced condescension.

Except God did not create the Sun until the FORTH day!!

 

[edthecynic]

sure,, magic will do it,,

No actually it is the electrons in the outer shell, called VALENCE electrons.

 

[edthecynic]

"The heavens," specified in Genesis 1:1 would, to any thinking person, include the stars and our sun. They provide light.

But not to an ignorant God!
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

[progressive hunter]

No actually it is the electrons in the outer shell, called VALENCE electrons.

but where did those come from??

 

[abu afak]

The physicist posed the question to every class: "How long would it take for a warehouse full of Tesla parts to assemble themselves?"

How long would it take you to throw this EXACT arrangement of pick up sticks?
Infinitely long.
Does that mean GodDidit?

Does it mean they couldn't have come out in billions of other arrangements and still Worked as some kind of 'life'?

Seemingly (and needlessly) After the fact odds on what DID happen are low IQ/Stupid.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Well, you're right about that. But here's my question: how do you know that any of that applied to the 1st single cell life form that came to be some 3 or 4 billion years ago? How would you know the composition? Has someone proved that your analysis was correct and applied to all life forms that ever existed? Or could it be that the 1st life form was somewhat less complicated?

Show me where somebody says as you claim, that polypeptide synthesis was required for even the 1st life forms to exist.

1. The simplest life form we know is impossibly complex. It consists of hundreds of proteins.
The number of zeroes in the denominator may decrease substantially but it's still effectively zero probability.
2. Have you any IDEA whatsoever of what living cells are made of? It's not peanut butter and jelly.
3. We have these proteins in our bodies. YOU claim that they made themselves. The onus is on you to explain precisely how, including chirality, folding, amino acid selection, and precise chemical bonding. Trillions of times.
4. One biochemist did experiments showing that only 1 in 10 to the 170th power of proteins randomly assembled are biologically active. Since all mutations are random, that must be the starting point for your Darwinian Fantasy. You may ONLY *select* from a random mutation.
Nobody gives you the schematic in advance.

Afternote: Abu giggles because science is so far over his head, that's all he knows how to do, giggle. Unfortunate, but these are the kinds of people who voted for Clown Biden and Whore Harris.

 

[task0778]

1. The simplest life form we know is impossibly complex. It consists of hundreds of proteins.
The number of zeroes in the denominator may decrease substantially but it's still effectively zero probability.
2. Have you any IDEA whatsoever of what living cells are made of? It's not peanut butter and jelly.
3. We have these proteins in our bodies. YOU claim that they made themselves. The onus is on you to explain precisely how, including chirality, folding, amino acid selection, and precise chemical bonding. Trillions of times.
4. One biochemist did experiments showing that only 1 in 10 to the 170th power of proteins randomly assembled are biologically active. Since all mutations are random, that must be the starting point for your Darwinian Fantasy. You may ONLY *select* from a random mutation.
Nobody gives you the schematic in advance.

Science tells us that the earliest known life forms on Earth were Bacteria and Archaea, who diverged from their common precursor very early in this time period. The two types of prokaryotes tend to inhabit different types of environments and give rise to new species at different rates. How did they come to exist? Some say God did it, some say there were other forces at work. I'm not going to say what really happened, nobody knows. It may be God did it and created the process of evolution, or there is no God and it happened anyway.

BUT:

1. Show me a reference that says a prokaryote bacteria is impossibly complex and consists of hundreds of proteins. Then show me a reference that states that prokaryote bacteria were in fact the 1st life form on this planet.

2. I don't need to know what living cells are made of. Particularly of unicellular bacteria that existed billions of years ago.

3. "We have these proteins in our bodies. YOU claim that they made themselves." I claimed no such thing, and I am under no onus whatsoever to explain anything. If you want to dispute evolution, be my guest. I cannot imagine what your response would be as to how so many different species of plants, and animals exist today and how many have existed in the past and gone extinct. If you want to roll with God did, fine by me. But that does not mean that the theory of evolution is therefore false. Once created, one way or another, all life forms could have and IMHO did evolve into the world we have today.

4. 3.5 billion years is a long time for bacteria to evolve into plant and animals. I do not believe that the first organisms (prokaryote bacteria) were all that complex, and they might not even have been the first life forms on the planet. What, is it so hard to post a reference that says how complex these organism were and how unlikely it was for them to evolve. Consider:

Bacteria evolve in a similar process to other organisms. This is through the process of natural selection, whereby beneficial adaptations are passed onto future generations until the trait becomes common within the entire population. [10] However, since bacteria reproduce via binary fission—a form of asexual reproduction—the daughter cell and parent cell are genetically identical. This makes bacteria susceptible to environmental pressures, an issue that is overcome by sharing genetic information via transduction, transformation, or conjugation. This allows for new genetic and physical adaptations to develop, allowing bacteria to adapt to their environment and evolve. Furthermore, bacteria can reproduce in as little as 20 minutes, [11] which allows for fast adaptation, meaning new strains of bacteria can evolve quickly. This has become an issue regarding antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Evolution of bacteria - WikiMili, The Best Wikipedia Reader

The evolution of bacteria has progressed over billions of years since the Precambrian time with their first major divergence from the archaeal/eukaryotic lineage roughly 3.2-3.5 billion years ago. This was discovered through gene sequencing of bacterial nucleoids to reconstruct their phylogeny. Furt

wikimili.com

I propose that if bacteria can evolve and so can any other life form. And if it doesn't then it will in all likelihood go extinct. To say that evolution doesn't occur is to my mind ridiculous.

 

[ChemEngineer]

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

 

[edthecynic]

but where did those come from??

The same place God came from, the big bang.

 

[edthecynic]

Have you any IDEA whatsoever of what living cells are made of?

Atoms! And atoms form molecules without the hand of a handless God.

 

[progressive hunter]

The same place God came from, the big bang.

got a link??

 

[Clyde 154]

I met a physics professor and we had a cordial conversation regarding Darwin's Tautology: "Organisms survive because they're fit and they're fit because they survive." This isn't right. It isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The physicist posed the question to every class: "How long would it take for a warehouse full of Tesla parts to assemble themselves?"

:::: crickets chirping ::::::::

It is of course a rhetorical question, because it is abundantly clear that no warehouse full of Tesla parts would ever assemble themselves. However there is a far more subtle point which I deduced and gave to the professor after giving his brilliant question a thorough analysis.

How long would it take for all of the parts to design themselves, gather the thousands of different raw materials, process and refine themselves so that they all conform perfectly in a finished product, and then transport themselves to the one warehouse in the world? THIS is a far more impossible task than the 10,000 different parts assembling themselves, which is of course impossible.

With the schematic plans for a Tesla, we can build one. With the schematic plans of a single-celled animal, we cannot. So much for Darwinian nonsense.

Warning A D D TANGENT coming up.

Personally I do not believe that TESLA is a good example to point to as being of "intelligent design".
One thing is for certain..........If God were to design Tesla.......it would not be fitted with "lithium batteries" that catch fire every few days on the streets around the world. Which is worse.........batteries that can use WATER as a source of spontaneous combustion when directly in contract with the element LITHIUM........or Fossil Fuels that require heat and a source of ignition to cause spontaneous combustion? Lithium batteries are generally safe........when correctly assembled and used properly..........but any element that can't be used around or extinguished by water must raise concerns, especially when these products are farmed out to the cheaper bidder for construction.

Elon Musk is nothing but conman.......a snakeoil salesman....promoting his vehicle as one of the safest on the highway and of quality production....when you can throw a cat through gap sizes on body panel alignment, and you hear about another life lost in a blazing example of his handiwork almost on a daily basis now. Cheap Labor, Cheap Parts = a cheap product.

He as sold the world nothing but a brilliant IDEA.......when in reality Tesla could manufacture one of the best vehicles in the world, but.......He very well knows that for that to happen the price tag would almost have to triple to insure a quality product.

VW is about to clean everybody's clock when talking about electric transportation.

 

[Dadoalex]

I met a physics professor and we had a cordial conversation regarding Darwin's Tautology: "Organisms survive because they're fit and they're fit because they survive." This isn't right. It isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The physicist posed the question to every class: "How long would it take for a warehouse full of Tesla parts to assemble themselves?"

:::: crickets chirping ::::::::

It is of course a rhetorical question, because it is abundantly clear that no warehouse full of Tesla parts would ever assemble themselves. However there is a far more subtle point which I deduced and gave to the professor after giving his brilliant question a thorough analysis.

How long would it take for all of the parts to design themselves, gather the thousands of different raw materials, process and refine themselves so that they all conform perfectly in a finished product, and then transport themselves to the one warehouse in the world? THIS is a far more impossible task than the 10,000 different parts assembling themselves, which is of course impossible.

With the schematic plans for a Tesla, we can build one. With the schematic plans of a single-celled animal, we cannot. So much for Darwinian nonsense.

Saw the thread title and sentence and thought it might me interesting.
One sentence later it devolves into a festival of stupidity.

YET
a hundred years ago we couldn't split an atom
a hundred before that you couldn't travel from the eastmost to westmost points in the US in a month much less 4 hours even though the US was half the size.

YET.

 

[Dadoalex]

when did I ever said god as a factor???

the discussion is evolution verses design,,

Oh, is that the question? Evolution vs design.

Evolution is about survival. What doesn't survive, doesn't pass on its genes.

What is the purpose of design?
Why would a "designer" design the human birth process such that without medical intervention the mother, child, or both would die about 1/3 of the time?
Why would a "designer" allow defects that can be passed from generation to generation?
In fact, why have genders at all? Human sexual intercourse is, at best, an inefficient means of reproduction and at worst, let's not go there.
Why not have mom lay a bunch of eggs in the Babomatic 3k (patent pending DADCO) then dad can deposit some joy juice and bingo bango (so to speak) 36 weeks later a bunch o babies pop out! Pick the one(s) you want and the BaboMatic 3K will recycle the rest.
AND
Since we got designers on board they could have designed things this way so why the death? Torture? Why does your "designer" hate people?

 

[progressive hunter]

Oh, is that the question? Evolution vs design.

Evolution is about survival. What doesn't survive, doesn't pass on its genes.

What is the purpose of design?
Why would a "designer" design the human birth process such that without medical intervention the mother, child, or both would die about 1/3 of the time?
Why would a "designer" allow defects that can be passed from generation to generation?
In fact, why have genders at all? Human sexual intercourse is, at best, an inefficient means of reproduction and at worst, let's not go there.
Why not have mom lay a bunch of eggs in the Babomatic 3k (patent pending DADCO) then dad can deposit some joy juice and bingo bango (so to speak) 36 weeks later a bunch o babies pop out! Pick the one(s) you want and the BaboMatic 3K will recycle the rest.
AND
Since we got designers on board they could have designed things this way so why the death? Torture? Why does your "designer" hate people?

I would have to consider a lot of other facts,
main one being, at the average intelligence of humans today we arent even close to understanding our own existence let alone the origins of life

 

[Hollie]

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

Oh, my. Those are the "quotes" that the fake chem engineer stole from (im)poster political chic.

The "quotes" include those from two notable loons associated with the Disco'tute, the dumping ground of hyper-religious charlatans.

#24: David Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of the...

americanloons.blogspot.com

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.

Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.

 

[Clyde 154]

Oh, is that the question? Evolution vs design.

Evolution is about survival. What doesn't survive, doesn't pass on its genes.

What is the purpose of design?
Why would a "designer" design the human birth process such that without medical intervention the mother, child, or both would die about 1/3 of the time?
Why would a "designer" allow defects that can be passed from generation to generation?
In fact, why have genders at all? Human sexual intercourse is, at best, an inefficient means of reproduction and at worst, let's not go there.
Why not have mom lay a bunch of eggs in the Babomatic 3k (patent pending DADCO) then dad can deposit some joy juice and bingo bango (so to speak) 36 weeks later a bunch o babies pop out! Pick the one(s) you want and the BaboMatic 3K will recycle the rest.
AND
Since we got designers on board they could have designed things this way so why the death? Torture? Why does your "designer" hate people?

What does not survive does not pass on its genes. LMAO Nature itself contradicts that false premise everyday.........people are born with interrupted chains of DNA......"imperfect" DNA signatures they are called deformities. Its not always the fittest that passes their genes forward to the next generation.

Ever ask yourself the question? Just who did the offspring of Adam and Eve marry? Its basic logic.......they married their siblings. Incest you say? One can get no more incestuous than marrying yourself. (Genesis 2:21-22) Eve was created directly from the DNA of ADAM. Yet........Adam did not pass on his entire DNA signature. Eve was lacking something important.......the gene that made male offspring. Only Adam as a male can pass on his manhood. All children are created in the womb as FEMALE (EVE)......it takes male sperm from the male to decide the sex of the child.

Why no mutated deformities? In the beginning Human DNA was created perfect.......with no missing or weak links, man was created to evolve to adapt to his natural surroundings. With the first generations of human existence human DNA was not subject to being introduced to the agents that cause mutation (a corruption of a perfect DNA). With each passing generation mankind was evermore coming into contact with these corrupting agents.........thus the long life spans in the beginning, becoming shorter and shorter with each passing generation

In the beginning it was a perfectly acceptable practice to marry family members. After Adam had lived 130 yrs. he had a son...after his image, he named him Seth. After the birth of Seth Adams years numbered 830 years and he had SONS AND DAUGHTERS (it does not say how many, just that they were multiple). -- Genesis 5:3-4

Adam and Eve did not just have 3 sons (Cain, Able and Seth)....as stated there were other children, both male and female, thus simple logic dictates they married each other. Which was a common practice in the beginning because the chance of DNA corruption was small in the beginning with DNA being PERFECT beginning with ADAM.

When you read through the history of the Bible we see this practice of marrying family members slowly coming to an end.

Abraham married his Sister, half sister (Genesis 20:12). By the time Moses' generation came around the law forbid the marriage between close relatives. (Lev. 18:6-18). Continuing on today the law forbids marriage between 1st cousins. Even FDR was married to a distant cousin.