Flaw #3 will be posted later, first #4:

I’ve heard several Evolutionists say, “There is no such thing as a negative mutation.” These Evolutionists appeal to the possibility that a particular mutation might contribute to the organism’s fitness in a positive manner somewhere in the future – thus every mutation should be viewed as positive in that it may contribute positively to the organism’s future fitness. But this reasoning cannot stand! To assert that these mutations that do not immediately lead to a more-fit organism are still positive is to set up a nonsense definition of positivity; and to label all mutations “positive” on these (or any) grounds is fallacious. This should be obvious for two reasons:

First, if an organism were theoretically most perfectly fit for its environment, it should be obvious that no mutation could ever contribute positively to that organism’s fitness – you can’t get more fit than the what is the most fit. The assumption, then, that any mutation can contribute to the organism’s fitness in a positive manner is unsound.

Advertisements