protected..lol...from being changed again..by a later mutation...
This is absolute nonsense,

there is no such thing..as "protecting"..a nucleotide from being mutated...except by paring..which nullifies *all deletive/additive[crossover]..mutation

How would evolution..*know which nucleotides to protect..or
how would it protect..such a nucleotide?

Let's get back to the 199,999 mutations which occurred in locations you didn't..want to change (i.e. they affected "good nucleotides" which were already correct
for the new "child species" because they didn't need to be changed).

For each and every one of these mutations,
there is only a 25% chance a "good
nucleotide" ended up as a "good nucleotide," using the above logic!!

For this to happen,..for example,
the mutation of an "old T"..(which was a "good-nucleotide")..would have to be changed into a "new T" in order for the "good
nucleotide"..to remain "good."

In other words,..the mutation would not change the
nucleotide at that location..such that it remained a "good nucleotide."

But with the other..three options('A', 'C' and 'G'),
..*you have damaged a perfectly good nucleotide..and converted a "good nucleotide".,.into a "bad nucleotide"!

We definitely do not want to change..any "good nucleotides"..into "bad
nucleotides,"..*but 199,999 of the random mutations affected "good nucleotides"

so we have to consider this possibility!

When you do the math,
you mutated 199,999 nucleotides..*that you didn't want to
change,..and 75% of these "good nucleotides" will be changed into a "bad nucleotide"!

This is because..only one of four mutations(25%)
will yield the*..nucleotide you want..for the new genus!

And there is also a 75% chance..that the one "target nucleotide" you changed will still be..a "bad nucleotide".(i.e. there was a 25% chance the "target nucleotide"..was changed into what you wanted.

Thus, if you add 199,999..(the "good nucleotides" you changed)
to 1 (the "target nucleotide" you changed),..*statistically: 200,000 times 75% (or 150,000) of the nucleotides..*that were changed will end up being "bad nucleotides"

(all but one of which..were originally "good nucleotides")
as a result of the 200,000 random mutations!

Note also that 9,999..of the original 10,000 "bad nucleotides" where not affected by the mutations,..thus they remain "bad nucleotides."

I

In other words, because of the 200,000 mutations, you went from 10,000
"bad nucleotides" to 159,999 "bad nucleotides (if the one "target
nucleotide" was not fixed) or 159,998 bad nucleotides (if the one "target
nucleotide" was fixed)!

I'll bet that is not what you were expecting!
You probably thought the number of
"bad nucleotides" would drop as a result of the 200,000 mutations!

Nope, the
number of "bad nucleotides" skyrocketed from 10,000 to159,999 or 159,998
"bad nucleotides"!

What is wrong with this picture?

You went backwards as you tried to "fix" the
DNA to create a new species!

And this is always the case!
Attempting to "fix" DNA with random mutations
always causes far, far more damage than it fixes!

remember, if evolution were true you could take the DNA
of a parent species, apply random mutations to this DNA and end up with the
superior DNA of the child species which evolution claims was created. But the
mathematics doesn't add up!

Let us formalize these concepts above by creating an axiom:

The Axiom of Random Mutations: For every mutation, whether it
affects a "good nucleotide" that you don't want to change or a "target
nucleotide" that you do want to change or a "new nucleotide" that you
want to add;

the probability that the resulting nucleotide will be a "correct
nucleotide," meaning a "good nucleotide," is 25%. This means there is a
75% chance the wrong nucleotide will result.

I should mention that this axiom does not deal with the location issue, which is far
more important.

Note that deleted nucleotides were not discussed in the above axiom because
there is no resulting nucleotide.

But this does not mean deletions are not
important, only that I won't discuss them...presently

In other words,..because of the 200,000 mutations,
you went from 10,000.."bad nucleotides" to 159,999 "bad nucleotides (if the one "target nucleotide" was not fixed)..or 159,998 bad nucleotides..[if the one "target
nucleotide" was fixed)!

I'll bet..that is not what you were expecting!

You probably thought the number of
"bad nucleotides"..would drop as a result of the 200,000 mutations!

Nope,..the
number of "bad nucleotides"..skyrocketed from 10,000 to159,999 or 159,998
"bad nucleotides"!

What is wrong with this picture?

You went backwards..as you tried to "fix" the
DNA..to create a new species/genus!

And..*this is always the case!

Attempting to "fix" DNA..with random mutations
always causes far,..far more damage than it fixes!

remember,..if evolution were true..*you could take the DNA
of a parent species,..apply random mutations to this DNA and end up with the
superior DNA..of the child species..which evolution claims was created.

But the mathematics doesn't add up!

Let us formalize..these concepts above..by creating an axiom:

The Axiom of Random Mutations:

For every mutation,..whether it
affects a "good nucleotide"..that you don't want to change or a "target nucleotide"..that you do want to change..or a "new nucleotide"..that you want to add;

*the probability..that the resulting nucleotide will be a "correct
nucleotide,"meaning a "good nucleotide,"..is 25%...This means there is a..75% chance the wrong nucleotide will result!

I should mention ..hat this axiom
does not deal..with the location issue,..*which is far
more important.

Note that deleted nucleotides..were not discussed in the above axiom because there is no resulting nucleotide.

But this..*does not mean deletions are not
important,..only that I won't discuss them...presently

remember that deletions have..*exactly the same issues
with regards to location..(i.e. you will almost..*always
delete the wrong nucleotide).

What all of this means,..is that for every random mutation,
there is a 75% chance..the mutated nucleotide will end up as a "bad nucleotide,"..whether it was originally a "good nucleotide," a "target nucleotide"..(i.e. a "bad nucleotide") or a "new
nucleotide"!

Do the math..the more mutations that occur;
the more wrong nucleotides..*will result!

..*EVERY "change mutation,"..no matter what nucleotide you are
talking about,..*results in a 75% chance..you will end up with a "bad nucleotide" in..that DNA strand.

news/adenda..your re-search money at weork?
http://news.yahoo.com/mine-why-monogamy-evolved-mammals-231528117.html
Why Monogamy Evolved in Mammals

blah blah

we can see an evolutionary pathway where infanticide evolved first, then as one of the responses to that, monogamy evolved, and then in those species — but not all — paternal care evolved."

A far-reaching analysis?

While the study offers insight into the evolution of monogamy, the results are highly dependent on how the researchers classified the various species of primates,..

..we can see an evolutionary pathway
where infanticide evolved first,

then as one of the responses to that, monogamy evolved,
and then in those species — but not all — lol..paternal care evolved."

A far-reaching analysis?

While the study offers insight into the evolution of monogamy, the results are highly dependent on how the researchers classified the various species of primates,

Using a new genetic classification technique,
the researchers of the new study inferred..how species were related..l0l

..and when they split off from one another in the evolutionary tree.

typical

The scientists classified each species as solitary (living alone), socially monogamous (living in breeding pairs) or as group-living. A total of 2,500 mammalian species were involved

The findings failed to support the idea that the risk of infanticide led to monogamy in mammals, even in primates. The researchers suggest the discrepancy between the two studies could be explained by differences in how group-living is classified.

For instance, some species that Opie's team classified as group-living were classified by Lukas as socially monogamous.

Alternatively, the smaller sample of animals in Opie's study could have skewed their findings, Lukas and his colleagues said.

However, both studies found that parental care was more likely a consequence, not a cause, of the evolution of monogamy

back to pdf

..75% chance you will end up w
ith a "bad nucleotide"

Thus, in addition to the "location issue" (meaning the probability you actually
change a "target nucleotide"),..75% of all mutations, whether of the "target
nucleotides" or of the "good nucleotides"...will yield a bad or wrong nucleotide in
that slot!
Now let's use this axiom on the above example to simplify obtaining the answer.

you started with 2,000,000,000 nucleotides.
Ten thousand (10,000) of these
were "target nucleotides" or "bad nucleotides."

1,999,990,000 were "good
nucleotides." You mutate or change 200,000 of these nucleotides.

Because of the "location" issue, you changed 199,999 "good nucleotides" and
you changed one "target nucleotide."
B
y the Axiom of Random Mutations, you end up with 150,000 wrong nucleotides
(75% of 200,000)!

Add these 150,000 wrong nucleotides to the initial 9,999 "bad nucleotides" that
were not changed, leads to 159,999 "bad nucleotides" which resulted after the
200,000 mutations (assuming you did not fix the one "target nucleotide")!

This is the same number we calculated above.

Note also that the newly damaged nucleotides are randomly scattered over the
entire DNA, meaning they will likely affect the critical and complex morphing of
the embryo algorithm multiple times, many genes, etc. etc.

This is going to be difficult to comprehend, but try to understand this: it doesn't
significantly matter how many "target nucleotides" there are, the results are the
essentially the same!

Only the 9,999 number will change if you change the
number of initial "target nucleotides."

In other words, it doesn't matter if there are 10,000 "target nucleotides" or
100,000 "target nucleotides,"
the 200,000 mutations will always leave at least
150,000 "bad nucleotides" by the Axiom of Random Mutations.

This is the real axiom:
"Every time you mutate DNA the DNA will get worse."

You may have originally thought..these 200,000 mutations would improve the new
species,..*but in fact..they were a giant step backwards*..in creating a new and
improved species!

You also probably thought..that every one of the 200,000 mutations would change
only "target nucleotides."..&But in fact they..(statistically)..only changed one of
them!

you may not have realized..that in this process you went from 10,000 "bad
nucleotides" to 159,999..or 159,998 "bad nucleotides."

That is not a good thing,
especially when you were trying to..*fix the DNA!

any attempt to" fix" these 159,999..or 159,998 "bad nucleotides"
(which resulted after the first 200,000 mutations),..with another 200,000
mutations, ..ill make things even worse!

This is obvious..by the Axiom of Random Mutations.

In summary,..you "may" have fixed one "target nucleotide,"..but you definitely
ended up with at least..159,998 bad nucleotides!

The combination of the "location issue"
and the Axiom of Random Mutations is
far more than enough..to totally obliterate the theory of evolution

It is always a fact..that the more mutations you have
the more damage..is done..to the DNA.

It is impossible,..and I mean impossible,
to blast a DNA strand with a lot of
random mutations..(both random in terms of location and random in terms of the
final nucleotide..at that location)..*and end up with better DNA.

It is mathematical
nonsense..to think otherwise!

Try it on computer/programs.
Take an existing computer program..and try to turn
it into a superior program..by blasting it with random mutations of '0's and '1's in
random locations.

But instead of using individual bits..use pairs of bits..(e.g. '00',
'01','10',or'11')..to simulate the base 4 nucleotides.

No superior computer program..*will ever be created..by this process even if you
have no direction!

The Axiom above..has nothing to do with direction.

Randomness*..cannot create intelligence;
..*in fact it always damages or randomizes
any existing intelligence.

In the case of a computer program,..one bad "bit"
can destroy the entire functionality..of the program.

In the case of a human being,
a handful of mutations..*can destroy the human or
give him..or her a serious genetic disease.

Mutations..*are never good.

Evolution is abuse..*of true science.