Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[cbirch2]

Agreed,to a point,but there is no evidence presented just terminology. How could anything live without the needed organs?

Again, this is a total logical fallacy. Im going to go back to the heart again. If you were missing even part of the wall separating your left and right ventricle, you would be suffering from a disorder called ventricular septal defect. Left untreated it will likely lead to heart failure. Your right, if we lost crucial organs we would die.

But if you look at it the other direction, its very logical. Some reptiles have a partially separated ventricle. The more separated the more efficient their respiration. So the animals with separated ventricles expend less energy and live longer/reproduce more (statistically). This i why the heart has progressed from one, to two, to three, an to four chambers.

I agree that the parents pass on genetic information to the offspring where did the information for life come from originally ?

So assuming evolution is correct and life has evolved from a single cell to a human, are you asking where the information to make the first cell came from, or where the missing information between a bacteria and a human came from? Ill answer both.

The genetic information for the first cell came from spontaneously formed nucleotides. Simple concept.

The information required to go from bacteria to human came from mutation, for the last time. Its the addition of 3 billion single base pairs of DNA. Entire genes are copy and inserted all the time, thats not even close to an unbelievably high number. Low if you ask me.

I have presented why mutations can't possibly be the engine for evolution he just glosses over it. It's a fact that all mutations lead to any kind of change leads to a loss of information whether it's from a rearranging or the outright deletion of information.

No you've just ignored every post in which i reference mutations like insertion or duplication. Base pairs are added to DNA all the time. You havent presented one single piece of information as to why mutations dont result in the addition of genetic information. Ive shown you cancer cells with dozens of extra chromosomes, so its pretty obvious that information can be added to DNA very easily.

I have also presented how enviornment causes adaptations which was glossed over. It was not random mutations that caused the finches to adapt it was enviornment.

You have not presented one piece of evidence as to how the environment actually influences the genetic material of the organism. The organism would have no possible mechanism to mutate the DNA in the specific spot in which it needs to. This is not possible, and you have not provided any evidence it is.

So right now i have presented how enviornment and sexual reproduction promote change not random mutations.

Of course the environment and sexual reproduction produce change, but you have not proved in the slightest how random mutations dont produce change. Your crazy.

I have clearly shown the mutation rate argument and the problems it presents for Neo,but that gets ignored.

No you stupid little fool i thoroughly addressed that post. It basically said "mutations between one parent and one offspring is X, therefore evolution cannot happen fast enough". Before your post accused "evolutionists" of denying different kinds of mutations and not taking them into account. Thats what your doing. Your calculation didnt even take into account that mutations can be anywhere in size from a single base to a chromosome segment. Its extremely simple, it doesnt take into account even a fraction of factors, and you know its a farce.

He acted like i didn't know what i was talking about when i showed him the results from mutations in the question i asked him. They totally destroyed my question to him,and the origional information that gets destroyed by mutations could lead to missing organs, deformity,or disease.

Thats barely a coherent paragraph, just saying.

But theres still something you dont get. Not surprising, because your stupid. The information to create vital organs could never be lost from a gene pool. For that to happen the the organisms with the mutation would have to dominate the ecosystem, which would be pretty hard considering their lack of vital organs. Therefore your entire argument is false. Get that?

But anyhow people can choose to believe as they wish. I believe i presented the better argument for an intelligent designer over his theory built on Natural selection and beneficial mutations.

A home or car did not happen by chance nor did life or this great planet.

Um you barely posted any evidence. Thanks for announce you think you won the debate, totally irrelevant considering the participants dont judge the debate. Of course the inflexible idiot thinks he won. You didnt produce one single piece of information proving intelligent design. Your produced a little bit of pathetic information trying to disprove evolution, and you failed at that. But you never once provided any evidence for intelligent design.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh and i would love to see you claim im not addressing your questions now. Im addressing everything you say very specifically now. Im still waiting on one smart thing from you

 

[cbirch2]

Oh and i would love to see you claim im not addressing your questions now. Im addressing everything you say very specifically now. Im still waiting on one smart thing from you

Kudo's ! I gave up a week ago when the concept of a uniform atomic structure throughout the universe was questioned. If one questions whether hydrogen and helium make up the sun, (mostly), and questions how we know that fact, there's not much I can do about that.

Often people who have a very limited or confused sense of science suffer from the Dunning - Kruger effect. While suffering like that, it's easiest to reach for the "God gap" to fill in whenever the grasp of actual science just isn't there. They come close to grasping, then miss the boat, so grab onto the "God gap" again as a final explanation for anything they don't quite understand or appreciate.

He just clearly doesnt understand anything. When i offered up antibiotic resistance as an example of beneficial mutations he asked how being resistant to antibiotics was beneficial to the organism at all.

He thinks evolution "knows" what to do; which was my understanding of evolution when i first learned it in 7th grade. Literally.

He has no concept of how genetic material flows through a population. He keeps saying that mutations should cause entire populations of animals to die of serious malformations, which is just the stupidest thing ive ever heard. As if animals born with serious hearth, lung, or brain defects are going to survive, much less reproduce to the point that their genes dominate the others.

Not to mention he thinks the idea that evolution cant work backwards is proof that its false. Why would a human progress backward into a single cell? This is most retarded conversation ive ever had.

 

[cbirch2]

I declare this thread dead.

Everyone take care.

What a pompous comment, coming from someone that isnt even OP.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain"

WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION?! Are you suggesting that if evolution were right, a mutation causing the loss of some vital information should spread throughout the population before a beneficial one? By what mechanism would that mutation spread through the gene pool? Is the animal without a brain going to reproduce and pass that mutation on? Total idiot post.

No, life would stop,but that is what is happening with mutations,deformty disease,and Premature death.

Too many mutations would be harmful to any population. If you don't believe me you need to educate yourself on mutations.

There are over 4,500 genetic diseases currently,so tell me how there are enough beneficial mutations that would overcome greatly the number of neutral and harmful mutations so macro-evolution can happen ?

Wow. Ok first off an observation. Humans are living longer and longer, so i think that kind of throws your theory about genetic deformity out the window.

But beyond that, HARMFUL MUTATIONS CANNOT SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE POPULATION. If an organism loses some vital gene its not going to reproduce, its probably not even going to survive. Its just going to die. The mutation might always be present within a few individuals in the population, but its never going to take over an entire population because the organisms cant compete. Saying bad mutations could take over a population is like saying people with down syndrome could rise up and rule the world. It ridiculous. Harmful mutations dont get passed on because people with down syndrome arent exactly cranking out babies. Ever seen a retarded bird? No? Because they all die almost immediately after birth. The parent animal cannot care for it.

If we're talking about sexual reproduction in general, any group of interbreeding animals in nature is just going to be a random flow of genes within the population.

Most mutations do nothing much at all and are passed on like any other piece of DNA during reproduction; they dont effect the survival of the organism at all. Ill refer to these as "neutral mutations", just so you know exactly what im talking about.

Beneficial mutations, just like neutral mutations, are passed on like any other piece of DNA. The only difference is that organisms with beneficial mutations are likely to live long longer, and possible reproduce faster. In any environment resources are limited. Animals with slight advantages can gather more resources than the others, reproduce faster, live longer, and pass on their beneficial gene. So beneficial genes are spread throughout an entire population much more frequently than even neutral mutations are.

I agree with most of this post,but I don't agree that only neutral and beneficial mutations are passed on. I believe they all can be passed on to the offspring. And I don't believe very many mutations can survive in the gene pool that long before they are targeted by natural selection for removal. I will present my argument tomorrow when I have the time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Agreed,to a point,but there is no evidence presented just terminology. How could anything live without the needed organs?

Again, this is a total logical fallacy. Im going to go back to the heart again. If you were missing even part of the wall separating your left and right ventricle, you would be suffering from a disorder called ventricular septal defect. Left untreated it will likely lead to heart failure. Your right, if we lost crucial organs we would die.

But if you look at it the other direction, its very logical. Some reptiles have a partially separated ventricle. The more separated the more efficient their respiration. So the animals with separated ventricles expend less energy and live longer/reproduce more (statistically). This i why the heart has progressed from one, to two, to three, an to four chambers.

I agree that the parents pass on genetic information to the offspring where did the information for life come from originally ?

So assuming evolution is correct and life has evolved from a single cell to a human, are you asking where the information to make the first cell came from, or where the missing information between a bacteria and a human came from? Ill answer both.

The genetic information for the first cell came from spontaneously formed nucleotides. Simple concept.

The information required to go from bacteria to human came from mutation, for the last time. Its the addition of 3 billion single base pairs of DNA. Entire genes are copy and inserted all the time, thats not even close to an unbelievably high number. Low if you ask me.



No you've just ignored every post in which i reference mutations like insertion or duplication. Base pairs are added to DNA all the time. You havent presented one single piece of information as to why mutations dont result in the addition of genetic information. Ive shown you cancer cells with dozens of extra chromosomes, so its pretty obvious that information can be added to DNA very easily.



You have not presented one piece of evidence as to how the environment actually influences the genetic material of the organism. The organism would have no possible mechanism to mutate the DNA in the specific spot in which it needs to. This is not possible, and you have not provided any evidence it is.



Of course the environment and sexual reproduction produce change, but you have not proved in the slightest how random mutations dont produce change. Your crazy.



No you stupid little fool i thoroughly addressed that post. It basically said "mutations between one parent and one offspring is X, therefore evolution cannot happen fast enough". Before your post accused "evolutionists" of denying different kinds of mutations and not taking them into account. Thats what your doing. Your calculation didnt even take into account that mutations can be anywhere in size from a single base to a chromosome segment. Its extremely simple, it doesnt take into account even a fraction of factors, and you know its a farce.

He acted like i didn't know what i was talking about when i showed him the results from mutations in the question i asked him. They totally destroyed my question to him,and the origional information that gets destroyed by mutations could lead to missing organs, deformity,or disease.

Thats barely a coherent paragraph, just saying.

But theres still something you dont get. Not surprising, because your stupid. The information to create vital organs could never be lost from a gene pool. For that to happen the the organisms with the mutation would have to dominate the ecosystem, which would be pretty hard considering their lack of vital organs. Therefore your entire argument is false. Get that?

But anyhow people can choose to believe as they wish. I believe i presented the better argument for an intelligent designer over his theory built on Natural selection and beneficial mutations.

A home or car did not happen by chance nor did life or this great planet.

Um you barely posted any evidence. Thanks for announce you think you won the debate, totally irrelevant considering the participants dont judge the debate. Of course the inflexible idiot thinks he won. You didnt produce one single piece of information proving intelligent design. Your produced a little bit of pathetic information trying to disprove evolution, and you failed at that. But you never once provided any evidence for intelligent design.

Stupid little fool ? Is that showing intelligence when you are calling someone with a superior education, and a lot more exp in the field of science ? What would you call that ? . I'll talk to you tomorrow genius.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and i would love to see you claim im not addressing your questions now. Im addressing everything you say very specifically now. Im still waiting on one smart thing from you

Kudo's ! I gave up a week ago when the concept of a uniform atomic structure throughout the universe was questioned. If one questions whether hydrogen and helium make up the sun, (mostly), and questions how we know that fact, there's not much I can do about that.

Often people who have a very limited or confused sense of science suffer from the Dunning - Kruger effect. While suffering like that, it's easiest to reach for the "God gap" to fill in whenever the grasp of actual science just isn't there. They come close to grasping, then miss the boat, so grab onto the "God gap" again as a final explanation for anything they don't quite understand or appreciate.

Do you mind pointing out that conversation, I don't remember that happening ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller."

The genepool of purebreeds can get small, this is true. Only its because humans get to choose which animals the purebred mates with. That doesnt happen in nature. Isolation doesnt do that, you dont find purebred organisms due to isolation alone.

"there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves"

Coyotes are a separate species an cannot produce a viable offspring with a dog.

"But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer."

Yup, totally true. If a dog mated with something outside its species and produced fertile offspring that would not only prove evolution wrong but all of modern biology as well.

You clearly dont understand genetics, biology, mutation, natural selection, evolution, and least of all speciation.

Evolution does not claim a dog should be able to produce offspring with anything but an animal of its species. What it does say is that two groups of the same species that become isolated will have no way of adapting and evolving together, and therefore will become two separate species incapable of interbreeding over many many generations.

So tigers and lions are not purebreeds ?

What?

what do you mean what ? You are the one that said that a purebreds comes about through selective breeding and that was in reference to dogs. I asked if lions and tigers are purebred and how were they selectively bred ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just for your information for the future.

Hybrid coyote domestic dog.

Coydog, Coydogs, Domestic Dog Coyote Hybrid, Dogotes

Wow. Admittedly, i didnt know that coyotes, and dogs, two separate species, were capable of interbreeding. And i know you call this twisting and contorting the facts, but this honestly seems much more like evidence for evolution to me.

See, the general view of a species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding. That just means two similar species resulted from a single group of animals sometime in the past that diversified separately to the point that they cannot interbreed. So therefore there should not be in clear line between which animals can and cannot interbreed. In that gray area you have animals like mules, which is the offspring of two different species, and is infertile. You see the same with the coydog, it fits into that area. It has greater chances of genetic malformation and the animals are frequently insterile; this is because the two species that breed together to produce it (Canis Latrans and Canis Lupis) were at one time similar, but have genetically diversified for thousands of years.

So i would say the coydog fits perfectly into evolution and specifically speciation. Thanks for that tid bit of information, didnt know that those two species were capable of breeding.

And you call me stupid

 

[Youwerecreated]

I declare this thread dead.

Everyone take care.

What a pompous comment, coming from someone that isnt even OP.

At the time of the comment there was no one here viewing the thread but myself. I don't load my gun with blanks and I have many more rounds to fire even though they're not needed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Talk to you tomorrow.

 

[cbirch2]

I agree with most of this post,but I don't agree that only neutral and beneficial mutations are passed on. I believe they all can be passed on to the offspring.

Correct, no one is arguing that. When your looking at one single act of reproduction what effect of the mutation means nothing. Genetic material gets replicated and passed on indifferently. Harmful, neutral, and beneficial mutations are all passed on equally when your looking at one single act of reproduction.

However thats not what evolution looks at, that view totally ignores the idea of competitive advantage, and the idea of reproductive success.

The line i draw that you dont seem to is the line between a gene being passed on to a single offspring, and a gene dominating a gene pool. Natural selection is when one gene that was once a minority comes to dominate the gene pool. Mutations that are too harmful cannot do this Therefore harmful mutations cannot spread throughout the gene pool and result in any sort of meaningful example of natural selection.

And I don't believe very many mutations can survive in the gene pool that long before they are targeted by natural selection for removal. I will present my argument tomorrow when I have the time.

The idea of mutations needing to survive is ridiculous. Any mutation is passed on like any other piece of DNA. In fact the replication mechanism has no way of knowing whether a specific gene is mutated or not, it just copies base by base.

The only reason harmful mutations cannot "survive" is because the organisms that possess them cannot survive. Every other mutation flows through the gene pool as freely as every normal other gene in the population.

 

[cbirch2]

So tigers and lions are not purebreeds ?

What?

what do you mean what ? You are the one that said that a purebreds comes about through selective breeding and that was in reference to dogs. I asked if lions and tigers are purebred and how were they selectively bred ?

Your question does not make sense. Thats like saying "Are dogs purebred?". Your referring to a general group. There are different subspecies of lion and tiger, so to say the entire species of Panthera Leo or Panthera Tigris are purebred makes no sense, and would certainly be 100% wrong.

There may be specific breeds or subspecies of lion or tiger that are purebred, but again it is probably not a natural phenomena.

 

[cbirch2]

Just for your information for the future.

Hybrid coyote domestic dog.

Coydog, Coydogs, Domestic Dog Coyote Hybrid, Dogotes

Wow. Admittedly, i didnt know that coyotes, and dogs, two separate species, were capable of interbreeding. And i know you call this twisting and contorting the facts, but this honestly seems much more like evidence for evolution to me.

See, the general view of a species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding. That just means two similar species resulted from a single group of animals sometime in the past that diversified separately to the point that they cannot interbreed. So therefore there should not be in clear line between which animals can and cannot interbreed. In that gray area you have animals like mules, which is the offspring of two different species, and is infertile. You see the same with the coydog, it fits into that area. It has greater chances of genetic malformation and the animals are frequently insterile; this is because the two species that breed together to produce it (Canis Latrans and Canis Lupis) were at one time similar, but have genetically diversified for thousands of years.

So i would say the coydog fits perfectly into evolution and specifically speciation. Thanks for that tid bit of information, didnt know that those two species were capable of breeding.

And you call me stupid

I would actually like for you to factually refute that statement. Again, this is a case of you not understanding something.

Example: The horse (Equus caballus) and the Donkey (Equus asinus) are two separate species within the genus Equus. Species which are members of the genus Equus are all descentants of primitive horse like dinohippus. At some point in time two groups dinohippus became separated, and as they slowly adapted to their respective environment their genomes began to resemble each others less and less. Slowly any potential offspring of these two now divergent animals become infertile, because they are a combination of two halfs of chromosomes that dont match right anymore. At the present time, the horse and the donkey can still produce living offspring, the mule. But mules are always infertile, because the genomes no longer match as well. Eventually you would expect the two species to no longer be able to produce mules at all.

Your coydog example is the same thing. The coyote and the dog are certainly related. But they are different species, so they are not considered to be able to produce viable offspring; notice how a coydog is neither its own species or its own subspecies, its a hybrid. Coydogs are often insterile and suffer from mutations, just like mules. Because they are the offspring of two similar animals that are in the process of diverging significantly.

Is that too complicated for you?

 

[cbirch2]

Why did i take the time to pick apart your argument sentence by sentence if your just going to ignore every factual post i make.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The idea of mutations needing to survive is ridiculous. Any mutation is passed on like any other piece of DNA. In fact the replication mechanism has no way of knowing whether a specific gene is mutated or not, it just copies base by base.

The only reason harmful mutations cannot "survive" is because the organisms that possess them cannot survive. Every other mutation flows through the gene pool as freely as every normal other gene in the population.

Really ? It's time to be educated my son. I am now gonna give you conditions to which must be met for mutations to remain in the genepool. The term you should be familiar with from your comment here i don't think you do know it. It's called, mutation fixation.

These are the 9 conditions that must be met but we have problems to point out with them.

Natural Environment.

The environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change.

This condition will not be met.


No Structural Change.

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.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.

there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet that is 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.

Net Effect Must be Unidirectional.

The mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant. 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 this third condition will be fulfilled.

all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

High Mutation Rate.

The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large.In order for the Probably Mutation Effect to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary.

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

Large Population.

This condition is that the population involved must be large, because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

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.

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. if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when the condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population.

Some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, it is death to evolutionary change then.

Selective Neutrality of Polygenes.

Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral.

this does not occur ,it was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

Little Hybridization.

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 the second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change.

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 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.

Necessity of High Penetrance.

The genetic structures involved must have high penetrance. Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutations. It means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it presents another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But the third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is a contradiction. fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight.

What a theory

High Heritability.

The phenotype must have high heritability.This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is very low.

Summary.

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.

Look, like i said before your theory is impossible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why did i take the time to pick apart your argument sentence by sentence if your just going to ignore every factual post i make.

You can't refute facts, like i did to your theory, i will return tomorrow.

 

[Woyzeck]

Yeah if someone has an open mind they can see the order in the universe and as well as how the human anatomy came about. I was just trying to reason with you fellas but you seem hell bent on believing theory over actual documented evidence.

Which I have provided you with, many times over. And you have never given a reason for discounting, and just ignore it for no reason. Just saying it doesn't prove anything when in actuality it does, doesn't make you correct.



You do realize that this argument is entirely nonsensical in disproving evolution correct? For starters, defining "human evolution" is extremely vague. What is human evolution and what is occurring over millions of years? From one cell to human

No matter what way you take it, the genus homo is 2 million years old, with recent specimens possibly even as old as 3 million years old. Going further, we're descended from primates, who are among the oldest surviving mammals (at 65 million years old). So I'm not sure how this proves your point of evolution being false.



Sorry, um what? Why must we go extinct due to mutations within 100,000 years? Is this your gross and blatant inaccuracy about beneficial mutations being weeded out, no new information being added, and only the negative mutations remaining again? Because I've said more than once to you, natural selection does not work that way.



No it's not, I've provided more evidence for macro evolution than bacteria. You don't really understand what natural selection is or how it works do you?

Evolutionary theory asserts that random mutations (changes in the DNA code), followed by natural selection, can result in complicated and functional protein structures. But mutations are almost always harmful. As Nobel Prize winner H.J. Muller concedes, "t is entirely in line with the accidental nature of natural mutations that … the vast majority of them (are) detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation." French evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse noted, "[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Similarly, leading biologist Lynn Margulis (who opposes intelligent design) argues that “new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired” and writes that “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.”

DNA consists of a complex code formed of four “letters” that are arranged into three letter “words.” Each word codes for a subunit of a protein, an amino acid. The proteins are analogous to complex machines, in that they have moving parts that repetitively perform a task. Several classes of mutations are shown above, but even in this simple illustration it is obvious that random changes in code do not increase the information content, making it unlikely that DNA mutations are responsible for the complex specificity of life.

One oft-cited “beneficial” mutation is bacterial antibiotic resistance. Yet antibiotic resistance does not introduce new information into the genome (see right). This is microevolution because it involves only minor change “within a species” and does not add information. Antibiotic resistance is not macroevolution and does not explain how new biological structures arise; it never results in one bacterial species becoming another. Interestingly, antibiotic resistant bacteria face a net “fitness cost” and are weakened by the very mutation that made them drug-resistant.

Why should I even bother formulating a reply to this when you've never even discussed the faults of the actual evidence I've posted?

I have posted the reasons did you read them ?

Look back they went into detail by the amount of mutations that happen naturally not induced. And by the results we see that comes from mutations. Even scientist on your side know these arguments are a problem for the theory.

Look back through the thread they go into detail.

When we induced mutations in the drosophila most were harmful and all flies became weaker and died off prematurely. We also have observed many mutations that happened naturally. There was not much difference from the mutations that were induced and the ones that happened naturally.

By there being many more harmful and neutral mutations it is overwhelming in number compared to beneficial mutations. But even the beneficial mutations come at a price. How is a mutation a benefit to me if i have to have a blood disorder to fight off a disease ?

Yes, most mutations are harmful in those experiments. Yet similar experiments with yeast show a 7% rate of harmful mutations. You're are correct with the statement of neutral (that is, mutations that have little-to-no effect on an organism) and harmful mutations happening more often than beneficial ones. An important question to ask though, is what simply is the rate of these mutations happening at? I can guarantee you these mutations don't happen nearly as often as you suggest by the fruit fly experiment, especially in other organisms. This is considering that these mutations are induced artificially via radiation which bumps up the mutation rate, and mutations don't actually happen like that in nature.

Another point is that organisms do in fact have DNA repair, repairing the majority of these mutations before they can actually have an effect. So every single mutation isn't simply allowed to occur.

I don't get your last question. Is the blood disorder caused by the beneficial mutation? Because your question sounds like it's pre-existing and unrelated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which I have provided you with, many times over. And you have never given a reason for discounting, and just ignore it for no reason. Just saying it doesn't prove anything when in actuality it does, doesn't make you correct.



You do realize that this argument is entirely nonsensical in disproving evolution correct? For starters, defining "human evolution" is extremely vague. What is human evolution and what is occurring over millions of years? From one cell to human

No matter what way you take it, the genus homo is 2 million years old, with recent specimens possibly even as old as 3 million years old. Going further, we're descended from primates, who are among the oldest surviving mammals (at 65 million years old). So I'm not sure how this proves your point of evolution being false.



Sorry, um what? Why must we go extinct due to mutations within 100,000 years? Is this your gross and blatant inaccuracy about beneficial mutations being weeded out, no new information being added, and only the negative mutations remaining again? Because I've said more than once to you, natural selection does not work that way.



No it's not, I've provided more evidence for macro evolution than bacteria. You don't really understand what natural selection is or how it works do you?



Why should I even bother formulating a reply to this when you've never even discussed the faults of the actual evidence I've posted?

I have posted the reasons did you read them ?

Look back they went into detail by the amount of mutations that happen naturally not induced. And by the results we see that comes from mutations. Even scientist on your side know these arguments are a problem for the theory.

Look back through the thread they go into detail.

When we induced mutations in the drosophila most were harmful and all flies became weaker and died off prematurely. We also have observed many mutations that happened naturally. There was not much difference from the mutations that were induced and the ones that happened naturally.

By there being many more harmful and neutral mutations it is overwhelming in number compared to beneficial mutations. But even the beneficial mutations come at a price. How is a mutation a benefit to me if i have to have a blood disorder to fight off a disease ?

Yes, most mutations are harmful in those experiments. Yet similar experiments with yeast show a 7% rate of harmful mutations. You're are correct with the statement of neutral (that is, mutations that have little-to-no effect on an organism) and harmful mutations happening more often than beneficial ones. An important question to ask though, is what simply is the rate of these mutations happening at? I can guarantee you these mutations don't happen nearly as often as you suggest by the fruit fly experiment, especially in other organisms. This is considering that these mutations are induced artificially via radiation which bumps up the mutation rate, and mutations don't actually happen like that in nature.

Another point is that organisms do in fact have DNA repair, repairing the majority of these mutations before they can actually have an effect. So every single mutation isn't simply allowed to occur.

I don't get your last question. Is the blood disorder caused by the beneficial mutation? Because your question sounds like it's pre-existing and unrelated.

No, those numbers were from natural occurring mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which I have provided you with, many times over. And you have never given a reason for discounting, and just ignore it for no reason. Just saying it doesn't prove anything when in actuality it does, doesn't make you correct.



You do realize that this argument is entirely nonsensical in disproving evolution correct? For starters, defining "human evolution" is extremely vague. What is human evolution and what is occurring over millions of years? From one cell to human

No matter what way you take it, the genus homo is 2 million years old, with recent specimens possibly even as old as 3 million years old. Going further, we're descended from primates, who are among the oldest surviving mammals (at 65 million years old). So I'm not sure how this proves your point of evolution being false.



Sorry, um what? Why must we go extinct due to mutations within 100,000 years? Is this your gross and blatant inaccuracy about beneficial mutations being weeded out, no new information being added, and only the negative mutations remaining again? Because I've said more than once to you, natural selection does not work that way.



No it's not, I've provided more evidence for macro evolution than bacteria. You don't really understand what natural selection is or how it works do you?



Why should I even bother formulating a reply to this when you've never even discussed the faults of the actual evidence I've posted?

I have posted the reasons did you read them ?

Look back they went into detail by the amount of mutations that happen naturally not induced. And by the results we see that comes from mutations. Even scientist on your side know these arguments are a problem for the theory.

Look back through the thread they go into detail.

When we induced mutations in the drosophila most were harmful and all flies became weaker and died off prematurely. We also have observed many mutations that happened naturally. There was not much difference from the mutations that were induced and the ones that happened naturally.

By there being many more harmful and neutral mutations it is overwhelming in number compared to beneficial mutations. But even the beneficial mutations come at a price. How is a mutation a benefit to me if i have to have a blood disorder to fight off a disease ?

Yes, most mutations are harmful in those experiments. Yet similar experiments with yeast show a 7% rate of harmful mutations. You're are correct with the statement of neutral (that is, mutations that have little-to-no effect on an organism) and harmful mutations happening more often than beneficial ones. An important question to ask though, is what simply is the rate of these mutations happening at? I can guarantee you these mutations don't happen nearly as often as you suggest by the fruit fly experiment, especially in other organisms. This is considering that these mutations are induced artificially via radiation which bumps up the mutation rate, and mutations don't actually happen like that in nature.

Another point is that organisms do in fact have DNA repair, repairing the majority of these mutations before they can actually have an effect. So every single mutation isn't simply allowed to occur.

I don't get your last question. Is the blood disorder caused by the beneficial mutation? Because your question sounds like it's pre-existing and unrelated.

No,I believe i was speaking of sickle cell.

3 - THE ONE "BENEFICIAL" MUTATION

SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA—Evolutionists point to sickle-cell anemia as the outstanding example of beneficial evolutionary change through mutation.

A long time ago, a mutation occurred in someone in Africa. As do all mutational changes, this one resulted in damage. In this instance, the shape of the red blood cells was changed, from its normal flattened shape, to a quarter-moon shape. Because it tended to cause serious anemia, instead of killing outright, sickle-cell anemia passed into the race and became a recessive factor.

The problem was that, although the blood of a person with sickle-cell anemia does not properly absorb food and oxygen,—that person, oddly enough, will be less likely to acquire malaria from the bite of an anopheles mosquito. As a result, the sickle-cell anemia factor has become widespread in Africa. This is the best example of a "beneficial" mutation that evolutionary scientists are able to offer us.

"Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia . . Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their red blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria.

"The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that the short time advantages produce ‘mischievous results’ detrimental to long-term survival."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 103, 104.

Actual statistics reveal that the death rate from malaria for normal people in certain parts of Africa is over 30 percent while only 25 percent of carriers of sickle-cell anemia are likely to contract it. But in return for the advantage, 25 percent of their children will die of this serious anemia.

These carriers have a 50-50 proportion of regular and sickle-cell red blood cells, but 25 percent of their children will have 100 percent sickle-cell RBCs, and will die as a result. The other 75 percent will also be carriers and have the 50-50 proportion of cells.

In sickle-cell anemia, one amino acid in a peptide of nine in a string is faulty. Valine is there instead of glutamic acid. That one change makes all the difference, changing regular hemoglobin into sickle-cell hemoglobin.

This outstanding example of a "beneficial mutant" not only damages those who have it, but in the process would normally eradicate itself. It is only the deaths caused by malaria that favor it.

"In regions where malaria is not an acute problem, the gene does tend to die out. In America, the incidence of sickle-cell genes among blacks may have started as high as 25 percent. Even allowing for a reduction to an estimated 15 percent by admixture with non-black individuals, the present incidence of only 9 percent shows that the gene is dwindling away. In all probability it will continue to do so. If Africa is freed of malaria, the gene will presumably dwindle there, too."—*Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 619.


Mutations