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

[Woyzeck]

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.

That's fascinating, actually. But that still doesn't answer how often mutations happen.

 

[Woyzeck]

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

Oh I get it now, you're asking how a beneficial mutation can have drawbacks. One of the fascinating aspects of evolution, is that certain genetic traits seem to go hand-in-hand with some others.

A good example of this is the work of Dmitry Belyaev, a Soviet geneticist in the mid-twentieth century who bred silver foxes. One experiment he did with the foxes, was he bred them for domesticity. He took some of the foxes, and bred only the ones that responded positively to humans. As the generations passed and they became more and more tame the physical traits of the foxes began to change. Oddly enough, after ten generations or so they began to resemble and act like dogs rather than foxes.

One of the theories of why this happened is actually quite interesting. They're adrenaline levels turned out to be lower than normal. This is explained by the fact that foxes not afraid of humans are going to produce lower levels of adrenaline.

At any rate, the experiment Belyaev did, did provide the observation that certain genetic traits to have other traits that seem to go with them as consequence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

That's fascinating, actually. But that still doesn't answer how often mutations happen.

Human mutation rate is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons.

 

[Woyzeck]

No, those numbers were from natural occurring mutations.

That's fascinating, actually. But that still doesn't answer how often mutations happen.

Human mutation rate is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons.

I meant in the fruit fly experiment. Which is what the harmful mutation percentage was based off of.

I know humans have this anyway, I think the fruit flies should too, but our cells do contain methods for repairing DNA with errors in it (i.e., one that would produce a mutation).

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's fascinating, actually. But that still doesn't answer how often mutations happen.

Human mutation rate is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons.

I meant in the fruit fly experiment. Which is what the harmful mutation percentage was based off of.

I know humans have this anyway, I think the fruit flies should too, but our cells do contain methods for repairing DNA with errors in it (i.e., one that would produce a mutation).

1.2 per diploid genome. yes the fruit flies can repair DNA as well,but sometimes in the fruit flies nevervous moms produce offspring that can have a higher mutation rate. I wonder if that happens with other organism's.

They vary, there has been a lot mutation research on the drosophila.

 

[Woyzeck]

Human mutation rate is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons.

I meant in the fruit fly experiment. Which is what the harmful mutation percentage was based off of.

I know humans have this anyway, I think the fruit flies should too, but our cells do contain methods for repairing DNA with errors in it (i.e., one that would produce a mutation).

1.2 per diploid genome. yes the fruit flies can repair DNA as well,but sometimes in the fruit flies nevervous moms produce offspring that can have a higher mutation rate. I wonder if that happens with other organism's.

They vary, there has been a lot mutation research on the drosophila.

And just what are the actual chances of a fruit fly getting a mutation in the first place?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution"

This video sums it up pretty darn well.

This man has done an amazing number of scientific videos worth a look, if you have the time.

‪Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution‬‏ - YouTube

Nice video,yes science has accomplished some amazing things.

But you do notice that he admitted macro-evolution has never been observed ?

You notice he admitted to Micro-evolution ?

And you notice that they can reconstruct past events like crimes, because the individuals DNA showing all things can be similar but yet we can identify one person from another. God created us and broke the mold of each and everyone of us.

But you see, DNA suffers degradation over time, so that does not help the case of evolutionist. That is why there are so many faults with the theory. They make wrong assumptions,very imaginative explanations that either end in being refuted or just Anecdotal evidence nothing that can be proven with empirical evidence.

Their largest hurdle is there is no way to view such an event as macro-evolution. evolutionist admit to this. I find that to be a cop out,because they say evolution never stops but we can't find evidence of a species in the process of evolving. The only thing we see is adaptations. When they say 4.6 billion years ago they just left science and are relying on speculation. They built their theory way before all the facts are in, and that is why someone that is educated in the fields of science can point to the flaws in the theory. That render the theory dead, but the evolutionist continue to dodge the flaws until they can come up with a way to explain the problems with the theory, and so the dance continues.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I meant in the fruit fly experiment. Which is what the harmful mutation percentage was based off of.

I know humans have this anyway, I think the fruit flies should too, but our cells do contain methods for repairing DNA with errors in it (i.e., one that would produce a mutation).

1.2 per diploid genome. yes the fruit flies can repair DNA as well,but sometimes in the fruit flies nevervous moms produce offspring that can have a higher mutation rate. I wonder if that happens with other organism's.

They vary, there has been a lot mutation research on the drosophila.

And just what are the actual chances of a fruit fly getting a mutation in the first place?

I don't know but they do occur spontaneously. They are rare but that is the reason the fruit flies are used for the study of mutations because their generations are around 10 to 12 days. They hatch their eggs in about 12 hours and they produce lot's of offspring. But in humans you can see they are just to rare to affect the population. They have shown no change at all other then deformity or diseased or shorter life span.

The many years that the drosophila has existed it still looks the same showing no change at all.

There are so many variables to the question you asked but i am sure someone has put a number on it.

 

[Woyzeck]

"Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution"

This video sums it up pretty darn well.

This man has done an amazing number of scientific videos worth a look, if you have the time.

‪Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution‬‏ - YouTube

Nice video,yes science has accomplished some amazing things.

But you do notice that he admitted macro-evolution has never been observed ?

You notice he admitted to Micro-evolution ?

Yet there is still evidence for macro-evolution outside of observations.

And you notice that they can reconstruct past events like crimes, because the individuals DNA showing all things can be similar but yet we can identify one person from another. God created us and broke the mold of each and everyone of us.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to evolution.

But you see, DNA suffers degradation over time, so that does not help the case of evolutionist. That is why there are so many faults with the theory. They make wrong assumptions,very imaginative explanations that either end in being refuted or just Anecdotal evidence nothing that can be proven with empirical evidence.

How does the degradation of DNA make evolution a faulty theory? It might, if scientists relied it as the only evidence for evolution, but they don't.

By the way, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for evolution out there. Continuing to say there isn't, is being more than just a little disingenuous, especially considering I have posted such empirical proof of evolution in this thread before.

Their largest hurdle is there is no way to view such an event as macro-evolution. evolutionist admit to this.

Well, we can. But it takes a long time. Macro-evolution is simply a slow, slow process. The various age of fossils of our own species ancestors can give you a clue on how long it takes for us. There is, at least, one observation of speciation. There's a species of lizard that was introduced on an Mediterranean island, I've posted this example before. They were first introduced in 1971, and they've already seen differences between the lizards on this island and the original population on another. Given enough time, speciation will occur.

I find that to be a cop out,because they say evolution never stops but we can't find evidence of a species in the process of evolving. The only thing we see is adaptations.

Um, what? How can you say this, when you yourself brought up the experiments they've done fruit flies?

At any rate, we've seen this (i.e., change over time in inherited traits) in experiments. I direct you again to Richard Lenski and John Endler.

When they say 4.6 billion years ago they just left science and are relying on speculation. They built their theory way before all the facts are in, and that is why someone that is educated in the fields of science can point to the flaws in the theory. That render the theory dead, but the evolutionist continue to dodge the flaws until they can come up with a way to explain the problems with the theory, and so the dance continues.

It's not speculation. Observation is not the only evidence scientists rely on, for very good reason. You don't have the slightest idea why scientists and biologists and so on have been using the theory of evolution for decades and decades do you? Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and formulated his theories on the latest evidence of his day, and from what he knew of existing species.

4.6 billion years ago is speculation? Hogwash! Utter hogwash! We use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth, which is based on the decay rate and half life of isotopes, in the case of the age of the earth, uranium-iron dating. We know how old the earth, we know how old fossils are, we know what the geologic ages of the earth happened.

This is hardly 'speculation.'

 

[Woyzeck]

1.2 per diploid genome. yes the fruit flies can repair DNA as well,but sometimes in the fruit flies nevervous moms produce offspring that can have a higher mutation rate. I wonder if that happens with other organism's.

They vary, there has been a lot mutation research on the drosophila.

And just what are the actual chances of a fruit fly getting a mutation in the first place?

I don't know but they do occur spontaneously. They are rare but that is the reason the fruit flies are used for the study of mutations because their generations are around 10 to 12 days. They hatch their eggs in about 12 hours and they produce lot's of offspring. But in humans you can see they are just to rare to affect the population. They have shown no change at all other then deformity or diseased or shorter life span.

The many years that the drosophila has existed it still looks the same showing no change at all.

There are so many variables to the question you asked but i am sure someone has put a number on it.

I'm not sure how mutations being mostly negative is supposed to disprove evolution if mutations are rare to happen.

Also, drosophila is a genus of fruit flies, not a specific species of fruit fly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I meant in the fruit fly experiment. Which is what the harmful mutation percentage was based off of.

I know humans have this anyway, I think the fruit flies should too, but our cells do contain methods for repairing DNA with errors in it (i.e., one that would produce a mutation).

1.2 per diploid genome. yes the fruit flies can repair DNA as well,but sometimes in the fruit flies nevervous moms produce offspring that can have a higher mutation rate. I wonder if that happens with other organism's.

They vary, there has been a lot mutation research on the drosophila.

And just what are the actual chances of a fruit fly getting a mutation in the first place?

I have some questions for you and or anyone on your side.

1. will random mutations add information to any code or language ?

2. will the information make it more meaningful,natural selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better infor mation correct ?

Claude shannon say's that random mutations in DNA are exactly the same as NOISE in an electrical communication system.

3. are there any examples in the field of computers,electrical engineering,t.v.,or radio or any aspect of communications,where NOISE was added to a signal to increase it's quality ?

4. will adding NOISE increase the information in a signal ?

5. can you provide any case where NOISE increases the useful information in a signal ?

6. can you give an example where a random mutation actually increases information ?

7. what was the information that proved it increased information ? did the organism show a loss of information ?

8. is the DNA code a product of random chance ?

9. could a magazine or news paper be written through a random arrangement of letters on a printing press ?

10. do you believe that life on this planet arose from a primordial soup,that the ocean produced enzymes and eventually DNA and primitive cells ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution"

This video sums it up pretty darn well.

This man has done an amazing number of scientific videos worth a look, if you have the time.

‪Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution‬‏ - YouTube

Nice video,yes science has accomplished some amazing things.

But you do notice that he admitted macro-evolution has never been observed ?

You notice he admitted to Micro-evolution ?

Yet there is still evidence for macro-evolution outside of observations.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to evolution.



How does the degradation of DNA make evolution a faulty theory? It might, if scientists relied it as the only evidence for evolution, but they don't.

By the way, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for evolution out there. Continuing to say there isn't, is being more than just a little disingenuous, especially considering I have posted such empirical proof of evolution in this thread before.



Well, we can. But it takes a long time. Macro-evolution is simply a slow, slow process. The various age of fossils of our own species ancestors can give you a clue on how long it takes for us. There is, at least, one observation of speciation. There's a species of lizard that was introduced on an Mediterranean island, I've posted this example before. They were first introduced in 1971, and they've already seen differences between the lizards on this island and the original population on another. Given enough time, speciation will occur.

I find that to be a cop out,because they say evolution never stops but we can't find evidence of a species in the process of evolving. The only thing we see is adaptations.

Um, what? How can you say this, when you yourself brought up the experiments they've done fruit flies?

At any rate, we've seen this (i.e., change over time in inherited traits) in experiments. I direct you again to Richard Lenski and John Endler.

When they say 4.6 billion years ago they just left science and are relying on speculation. They built their theory way before all the facts are in, and that is why someone that is educated in the fields of science can point to the flaws in the theory. That render the theory dead, but the evolutionist continue to dodge the flaws until they can come up with a way to explain the problems with the theory, and so the dance continues.

It's not speculation. Observation is not the only evidence scientists rely on, for very good reason. You don't have the slightest idea why scientists and biologists and so on have been using the theory of evolution for decades and decades do you? Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and formulated his theories on the latest evidence of his day, and from what he knew of existing species.

4.6 billion years ago is speculation? Hogwash! Utter hogwash! We use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth, which is based on the decay rate and half life of isotopes, in the case of the age of the earth, uranium-iron dating. We know how old the earth, we know how old fossils are, we know what the geologic ages of the earth happened.

This is hardly 'speculation.'

If everything was cut and dry as you say, there would be no debate correct ?

Please address my quiz we will further test your theory.

 

[Woyzeck]

1.2 per diploid genome. yes the fruit flies can repair DNA as well,but sometimes in the fruit flies nevervous moms produce offspring that can have a higher mutation rate. I wonder if that happens with other organism's.

They vary, there has been a lot mutation research on the drosophila.

And just what are the actual chances of a fruit fly getting a mutation in the first place?

I have some questions for you and or anyone on your side.

1. will random mutations add information to any code or language ?

2. will the information make it more meaningful,natural selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better infor mation correct ?

Claude shannon say's that random mutations in DNA are exactly the same as NOISE in an electrical communication system.

3. are there any examples in the field of computers,electrical engineering,t.v.,or radio or any aspect of communications,where NOISE was added to a signal to increase it's quality ?

4. will adding NOISE increase the information in a signal ?

5. can you provide any case where NOISE increases the useful information in a signal ?

6. can you give an example where a random mutation actually increases information ?

7. what was the information that proved it increased information ? did the organism show a loss of information ?

8. is the DNA code a product of random chance ?

9. could a magazine or news paper be written through a random arrangement of letters on a printing press ?

10. do you believe that life on this planet arose from a primordial soup,that the ocean produced enzymes and eventually DNA and primitive cells ?

So you're not actually going to address my points and replies, but ask more pointless questions?

 

[Youwerecreated]

And just what are the actual chances of a fruit fly getting a mutation in the first place?

I don't know but they do occur spontaneously. They are rare but that is the reason the fruit flies are used for the study of mutations because their generations are around 10 to 12 days. They hatch their eggs in about 12 hours and they produce lot's of offspring. But in humans you can see they are just to rare to affect the population. They have shown no change at all other then deformity or diseased or shorter life span.

The many years that the drosophila has existed it still looks the same showing no change at all.

There are so many variables to the question you asked but i am sure someone has put a number on it.

I'm not sure how mutations being mostly negative is supposed to disprove evolution if mutations are rare to happen.

Also, drosophila is a genus of fruit flies, not a specific species of fruit fly.

Yes mainly my exp was with the drosophila.

There have been a few arguable cases of information gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction. How can losses of information add up to a gain?

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Your theory requires a major gain in new information.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And just what are the actual chances of a fruit fly getting a mutation in the first place?

I have some questions for you and or anyone on your side.

1. will random mutations add information to any code or language ?

2. will the information make it more meaningful,natural selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better infor mation correct ?

Claude shannon say's that random mutations in DNA are exactly the same as NOISE in an electrical communication system.

3. are there any examples in the field of computers,electrical engineering,t.v.,or radio or any aspect of communications,where NOISE was added to a signal to increase it's quality ?

4. will adding NOISE increase the information in a signal ?

5. can you provide any case where NOISE increases the useful information in a signal ?

6. can you give an example where a random mutation actually increases information ?

7. what was the information that proved it increased information ? did the organism show a loss of information ?

8. is the DNA code a product of random chance ?

9. could a magazine or news paper be written through a random arrangement of letters on a printing press ?

10. do you believe that life on this planet arose from a primordial soup,that the ocean produced enzymes and eventually DNA and primitive cells ?

So you're not actually going to address my points and replies, but ask more pointless questions?

I did answer them. My questions are not pointless as you will see.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution"

This video sums it up pretty darn well.

This man has done an amazing number of scientific videos worth a look, if you have the time.

‪Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution‬‏ - YouTube

Nice video,yes science has accomplished some amazing things.

But you do notice that he admitted macro-evolution has never been observed ?

You notice he admitted to Micro-evolution ?

Yet there is still evidence for macro-evolution outside of observations.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to evolution.



How does the degradation of DNA make evolution a faulty theory? It might, if scientists relied it as the only evidence for evolution, but they don't.

By the way, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for evolution out there. Continuing to say there isn't, is being more than just a little disingenuous, especially considering I have posted such empirical proof of evolution in this thread before.



Well, we can. But it takes a long time. Macro-evolution is simply a slow, slow process. The various age of fossils of our own species ancestors can give you a clue on how long it takes for us. There is, at least, one observation of speciation. There's a species of lizard that was introduced on an Mediterranean island, I've posted this example before. They were first introduced in 1971, and they've already seen differences between the lizards on this island and the original population on another. Given enough time, speciation will occur.

I find that to be a cop out,because they say evolution never stops but we can't find evidence of a species in the process of evolving. The only thing we see is adaptations.

Um, what? How can you say this, when you yourself brought up the experiments they've done fruit flies?

At any rate, we've seen this (i.e., change over time in inherited traits) in experiments. I direct you again to Richard Lenski and John Endler.

When they say 4.6 billion years ago they just left science and are relying on speculation. They built their theory way before all the facts are in, and that is why someone that is educated in the fields of science can point to the flaws in the theory. That render the theory dead, but the evolutionist continue to dodge the flaws until they can come up with a way to explain the problems with the theory, and so the dance continues.

It's not speculation. Observation is not the only evidence scientists rely on, for very good reason. You don't have the slightest idea why scientists and biologists and so on have been using the theory of evolution for decades and decades do you? Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and formulated his theories on the latest evidence of his day, and from what he knew of existing species.

4.6 billion years ago is speculation? Hogwash! Utter hogwash! We use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth, which is based on the decay rate and half life of isotopes, in the case of the age of the earth, uranium-iron dating. We know how old the earth, we know how old fossils are, we know what the geologic ages of the earth happened.

This is hardly 'speculation.'

No there is not evidence of Macro-evolution,there is evidence for Micro-evolution.

If evolution is random,why is the fossil record lacking in negative mutations ?

Should'nt mutations if they're random and they're due to mistakes in the DNA, would'nt they produce evidence in the fossil record that were not beneficial ?

I don't trust the dating methods. They have proven they're not reliable.

Darwin got it right on one part and the other he was very wrong.

 

[Woyzeck]

I don't know but they do occur spontaneously. They are rare but that is the reason the fruit flies are used for the study of mutations because their generations are around 10 to 12 days. They hatch their eggs in about 12 hours and they produce lot's of offspring. But in humans you can see they are just to rare to affect the population. They have shown no change at all other then deformity or diseased or shorter life span.

The many years that the drosophila has existed it still looks the same showing no change at all.

There are so many variables to the question you asked but i am sure someone has put a number on it.

I'm not sure how mutations being mostly negative is supposed to disprove evolution if mutations are rare to happen.

Also, drosophila is a genus of fruit flies, not a specific species of fruit fly.

Yes mainly my exp was with the drosophila.

There have been a few arguable cases of information gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction. How can losses of information add up to a gain?

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Your theory requires a major gain in new information.

How do you define 'information?' What is an 'information loss?'

 

[Woyzeck]

Nice video,yes science has accomplished some amazing things.

But you do notice that he admitted macro-evolution has never been observed ?

You notice he admitted to Micro-evolution ?

Yet there is still evidence for macro-evolution outside of observations.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to evolution.



How does the degradation of DNA make evolution a faulty theory? It might, if scientists relied it as the only evidence for evolution, but they don't.

By the way, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for evolution out there. Continuing to say there isn't, is being more than just a little disingenuous, especially considering I have posted such empirical proof of evolution in this thread before.



Well, we can. But it takes a long time. Macro-evolution is simply a slow, slow process. The various age of fossils of our own species ancestors can give you a clue on how long it takes for us. There is, at least, one observation of speciation. There's a species of lizard that was introduced on an Mediterranean island, I've posted this example before. They were first introduced in 1971, and they've already seen differences between the lizards on this island and the original population on another. Given enough time, speciation will occur.



Um, what? How can you say this, when you yourself brought up the experiments they've done fruit flies?

At any rate, we've seen this (i.e., change over time in inherited traits) in experiments. I direct you again to Richard Lenski and John Endler.

When they say 4.6 billion years ago they just left science and are relying on speculation. They built their theory way before all the facts are in, and that is why someone that is educated in the fields of science can point to the flaws in the theory. That render the theory dead, but the evolutionist continue to dodge the flaws until they can come up with a way to explain the problems with the theory, and so the dance continues.

It's not speculation. Observation is not the only evidence scientists rely on, for very good reason. You don't have the slightest idea why scientists and biologists and so on have been using the theory of evolution for decades and decades do you? Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and formulated his theories on the latest evidence of his day, and from what he knew of existing species.

4.6 billion years ago is speculation? Hogwash! Utter hogwash! We use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth, which is based on the decay rate and half life of isotopes, in the case of the age of the earth, uranium-iron dating. We know how old the earth, we know how old fossils are, we know what the geologic ages of the earth happened.

This is hardly 'speculation.'

No there is not evidence of Macro-evolution,there is evidence for Micro-evolution.

Yes there is! Stop denying it! If macro-evolution did not exist we would not have past ancestor species, fossil records of species gone extinct, or be able to trace the evolution of current species!

If evolution is random,why is the fossil record lacking in negative mutations ?

Here's where I make a distinction. Mutations are random. Whether they will benefit an organism or not, is random. Natural selection is not random.

You're seriously asking me why the fossil record, something that only shows the bones of a organism doesn't show 'negative mutations?'

Should'nt mutations if they're random and they're due to mistakes in the DNA, would'nt they produce evidence in the fossil record that were not beneficial ?

I have no words for how stupid this question is.

I don't trust the dating methods. They have proven they're not reliable.

Darwin got it right on one part and the other he was very wrong.

That's a shame, because they are very reliable, and there are numerous molecular clocks that scientists date a variety of things from. You simply not trusting it does not mean they're not true or valid.

 

[InDoctriNation]

If someone really thought they had scientifically proven the theory of evolution to be impossible, would that person be wasting his or her time trying to convince people of that fact on a message board?

Youwerecreated, if you really believe you have scientific proof that the theory of evolution is impossible (which it seems you definitely do believe this), then why don't you take a year or so to organize your work and submit your paper to the scientific community for peer review. If your ideas about the invalidity of evolution are actually correct (and haven't already been addressed) and they are able to get through the rigorous peer review process of the scientific community, then you will be well on your way to becoming the most famous and respected scientist of this century. You would almost certainly win the nobel prize, and that would be just the beginning of your fame and fortune for turning the entire field of biology on its head. All major news networks would fork over huge sums of money to interview you, and you could probably sign a multi million dollar deal with fox news for a one hour special. You'd surpass Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in influence, you'd be named Time Magazine's most influential person, and the accolades would continue to roll in for the rest of your lifetime.

So what are you waiting for, submit your work for peer review and become the most influential person in the world.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm not sure how mutations being mostly negative is supposed to disprove evolution if mutations are rare to happen.

Also, drosophila is a genus of fruit flies, not a specific species of fruit fly.

Yes mainly my exp was with the drosophila.

There have been a few arguable cases of information gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction. How can losses of information add up to a gain?

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Your theory requires a major gain in new information.

How do you define 'information?' What is an 'information loss?'

Genetic data that makes up the organism.

Origional Genetic data lost, that results in the loss of a function or proves to put an organism at risk.

Let's see if random mutations can improve my sentence.

The big black horse fast and very strong.

Results after one mutation.

The big blaca horse fast and very strong.



two mutations.

The big black hoVse fast and very strtng.


five mutations.

Th4 big bWack horsC fast and very strongz

ten mutations.

FhN riujblVck horse fast and very uMronPv

Random mutations did nothing to improve the information ,it changed it ,and destroyed it.

The more the mutations the more it was destroyed.