The Four-Leaf Clover

[Josalo]

The Four-Leaf Clover

 

 

The four-leaf clover is a rare mutation of the common three-leaf clover. It is a common activity for children to look for these and it is considered good luck to find one.

 

People who search for four leafed clovers note that some patches of ground appear more likely to contain four leafed examples and that this may be partly due to differing growing conditions such as pollution, soil composition, and other environmental factors. A countervailing hypothesis is that the varieties themselves are more accustomed and that the mutation may be a phenotype rather than a genotype.

 

It has been estimated that there are approximately 10,000 three-leaf clovers for every four-leaf clover. [1] (http://www.yokeandzoom.com/page1.htm)

 

According to legend, each leaf of the clover represents something. The first leaf is for hope, the second leaf is for faith, the third leaf is for love, and the fourth leaf, naturally, is for luck.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-leaf_clover

 

So my question to creationists is this: we know things mutate, such as a four leaf clover, so whats to stop beneficial mutations from being selected for(evolution)?

 

Creationist answers: "they will never mutate into anything but a clover. They will not become a tree, an animal or anything else but a different sort of clover.."

 

I respond: Many small changes over time will eventually make something different.

It's like saying if you keep adding 1+1+1 and so on it won't eventually reach 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000.

[pitchu]

Nice and simple and clear, Josalo.

[Caretaker]

I remember finding a patch of 4 leafers a few years ago.....

[Asimov]

The Four-Leaf Clover

The four-leaf clover is a rare mutation of the common three-leaf clover. It is a common activity for children to look for these and it is considered good luck to find one.

 

People who search for four leafed clovers note that some patches of ground appear more likely to contain four leafed examples and that this may be partly due to differing growing conditions such as pollution, soil composition, and other environmental factors. A countervailing hypothesis is that the varieties themselves are more accustomed and that the mutation may be a phenotype rather than a genotype.

 

It has been estimated that there are approximately 10,000 three-leaf clovers for every four-leaf clover. [1] (http://www.yokeandzoom.com/page1.htm)

 

According to legend, each leaf of the clover represents something. The first leaf is for hope, the second leaf is for faith, the third leaf is for love, and the fourth leaf, naturally, is for luck.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-leaf_clover

 

So my question to creationists is this: we know things mutate, such as a four leaf clover, so whats to stop beneficial mutations from being selected for(evolution)?

 

Creationist answers: "they will never mutate into anything but a clover. They will not become a tree, an animal or anything else but a different sort of clover.."

 

I respond: Many small changes over time will eventually make something different.

It's like saying if you keep adding 1+1+1 and so on it won't eventually reach 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000.

 

 

That was you who wrote that on Christianforums.com?

 

Cool beans.

 

Nice post.

[Thurisaz]

I respond: Many small changes over time will eventually make something different.

It's like saying if you keep adding 1+1+1 and so on it won't eventually reach 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000.

 

My prediction of possible cretinist responses to that:

 

Option 1: "" (silence)

Option 2: Desperate attempt at changing the topic

Option 3: "You're satan-spawn" and other insults.

Option 4: On-topic reply (Never observed in reality...!)

[Colin Benson]

I think the most common creationist response to that would be just flat out denial.

 

Creationist: "No it wouldn't."

[Thurisaz]

I think the most common creationist response to that would be just flat out denial.

 

Creationist: "No it wouldn't."

 

Well, granted. And then you ask them to provide a mechanism that would make their "macro-evolution" impossible, without using any supernatural terms (after all they want to pass it all off as "science", right?). After that, back to the options I posted.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think I remember creationists fudging the meaning of "species."