True
I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.
Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.
It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.
I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.
Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.
Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?
Gotta check it out, the fact is even though I firmly believe in God I could accept evolution since Adam and Eve were not the only humans would just mean that is how God made them.
Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied, and people lived hundreds of years in the beginning, which explains how the multiplying resulted in many offspring.
There is no reason to accept that people lived to be hundreds of years old "in the beginning". Human biology has not seen that kind of change in just a few thousand years.
Adam and Noah both lived over 900 years. It was after the flood that God changed man's life time to three score and 10. Not all the patriarchs lived over 900 years, and not everyone has lived to three score and 10 after the flood, but those are the norms, apparently, from what we see in Scripture and from our own knowledge.
True - but the Biblical account is much more detailed than that as I am sure you realize. LIfe span decreased gradually after the flood - see the Genesis account. Shem was still alive at Abraham's time when the life span was down to about 120.
There are scientific clues involved as well. Radiation likely increased after the flood, and radiation induces mutations which are 99% harmful and usually recessive. Inbreeding forces recessive traits out so these two factors likely caused the decrease in life span. There was a drastic narrowing of the gene pool (aka genetic bottleneck) at the flood - there is evidence of this in genetics as well.
But the clincher for me is that it wasn't until Moses' time, when the life span had lowered to 70, that incest became against the law!
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob married close relatives - in fact Sarah was Abraham's half-sister!
I believe God instituted the laws against incest in the Mosaic law due to the dangers of forcing out even more harmful recessive traits.
Or, simply: God's love for us!
Nonsense. Mutations are not 99% harmful. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.
Mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), exclusively helpful, exclusively harmful. Whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment.
This is stuff you should have learned in 8th grade biology.
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
wol.jw.org
"6, 7. What proportion of mutations are harmful rather than beneficial?
6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”9
7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the
Encyclopædia Britannica.10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.11
8. How do actual results verify an encyclopedia’s observation?
8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the
Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”13"
References:
8.
Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, , p. 31.
9.
Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.
10.
Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.
11.
The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.
12.
Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.
13.
Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25.
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
wol.jw.org
"Evolutionist Koller admits: “Most gene mutations are recessive and harmful, and may be lethal.” He also says: “Extensive studies have . . . demonstrated the fact that the greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”"
So, again, mutations are 99% harmful and mostly recessive. Your rhetoric does not change the truth.
I would fully expect that the JW’s would have a selected set of “quotes” that would support their agenda. However, your claim that “mutations are 99% harmful and mostly recessive” is the expected reaction.
As expected, your claims are consistent with the charlatans at the ICR and elsewhere.
CB101: Most mutations harmful?
Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985.
Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985.
Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:
Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with
E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely
selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
Links:
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
References:
- Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton. 2002. High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513
- Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862.
- Elena, S. F., V. S. Cooper and R. E. Lenski. 1996. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 272: 1802-1804.
- FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
- Long, Patricia. 1994. A town with a golden gene. Health 8(1) (Jan/Feb.): 60-66.
- Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457.
- Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
- Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
- Newcomb, R. D. et al. 1997. A single amino acid substitution converts a carboxylesterase to an organophosporus hydrolase and confers insecticide resistance on a blowfly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7464-7468.
- Oliver, Antonio et al. 2000. High frequency of hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis lung infection. Science 288: 1251-1253. See also: Rainey, P. B. and R. Moxon, 2000. When being hyper keeps you fit. Science 288: 1186-1187. See also: LeClerc, J. E. and T. A. Cebula, 2000. Pseudomonas survival strategies in cystic fibrosis (letter), 2000. Science 289: 391-392.
- Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
- Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
- Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
- Weisgraber K. H., S. C. Rall Jr., T. P. Bersot, R. W. Mahley, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori. 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258: 2508-2513.
- Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424.
- Wright, M. C. and G. F. Joyce. 1997. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function. Science 276: 614-617. See also: Ellington, A. D., M. P. Robertson and J. Bull, 1997. Ribozymes in wonderland. Science 276: 546-547.
Not surprisingly, we even find the JW’s represented in some similar falsehoods
.
CB101.1: Mutations as accidents
Claim CB101.1:
Mutations are accidents, and things do not get built by accident.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985.
Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 102.
Morris, Henry M. 1985.
Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 55.
Response:
There is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.
Sometimes things do get built by accident. Many discoveries started out as accidents that people recognized uses for. Many other designs (accidental or not) have been selected against, that is, discarded. Design itself is an evolutionary process.
Experiments and genetic analysis show that mutations (plus selection) do account for new adaptations (Max 1999).
Links:
Max, Edward E. 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection.
The Evolution of Improved Fitness
References:
- Max, E. E. 1999. (see above)
www.npr.org
