Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Jose Fly]

I'm coming in quite late to this discussion, but I'll add my two cents in nevertheless.

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. )

How exactly are we defining "outward appearance", and why are we using that as a criterion? There are a number of examples of "beneficial mutations" in all manner of organisms (e.g. resistance to drugs, metabolizing new food sources, increased robustness, etc.). I'm unclear why "outward appearnance" is so important.

One could look at the relatively recent discovery of the genetics behind various morphological traits in dogs. There, scientists uncovered the specific genetic differences that humans had been selecting in order to get the traits they wanted. It's certainly not a stretch to presume these genetic traits are the product of mutation.

Finally, in general one needs to think of evolution in terms of populations. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. So if I were to be born with a mutation that gave me the ability to digest plastic, if I didn't pass that trait on to any offspring, there was no evolution. Had I passed that trait on to my children, then that would be evolution, as there was a change in the genetics of the population.

 

[supersport]

sorry, everyone....lost this link.....will try to go through and see if there are any answers to the challenge that meet the criteria.

 

[supersport]

It's important for you to understand that Evolutionary Theory does NOT posit that all mutations must be beneficial and it's certainly not what Darwin said. Lets look at an example within our own species; Polydactylism. Approximately 1 in 500 human children are born with 6 digits on each hand and foot instead of five. Is this a beneficial mutation for the human species? One would assume so but we don't really know because the majority of the human species does not live in a state of nature, however, it is still an example of evolution.

I never claimed ToE said all mutations must be beneficial. Please read my challenge again.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Enjoy!

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

 

[Autodidact]

camanintx -- show me the scientifically-verified mutation that lead to this change in morphology. I do not deny that animals can and do add beneficial morphological features -- I deny mutation can do it......and for you to prove me wrong you need to show me a scientifically-observed mutation that does such a thing.....not point out to some population of creatures who changed and blindly give the credit to mutation/selection. I'm looking for hard evidence that mutations can do as advertised.

p.s....so you must disagree with Lukewolf's assertion that this is not how evolution works.

Well, I understand from the news that just here lately they've had a terrific problem with TB bacteria mutating to evolve more and more resistance to anti-biotics, which is certainly beneficial to the bacteria.

 

[Autodidact]

Gosh, when the article starts with, "FOXP2 is a transcription factor implicated in the development and neural control of orofacial coordination, particularly with respect to vocalisation," I start looking for the Cliff's notes.

And yet you still think you know better than all those stoopid scientists. Hmmm...

 

[Autodidact]

I never said I couldn't read it. It's just so...sooooo...soooooooo.....yawn!!!!!....BORING.

Well yeah, if you're not interested in the fascinating diversity of life, it's boring.

 

[Autodidact]

Is there any other proof that these are mutaions other than the fact that they are so similar or is it assumed they are mutations because they are so similar?

1. Science isn't about proof. It's about evidence.
2. No. All these scientists are absolute morons who have no clue what they're doing, or how to tell a mutation from a root vegetable. They need supersport to explain to them what they're supposed to be doing. Isn't it amazing that anything works?

 

[Autodidact]

I haven't dismissed it, only pointed out an assumption that lead to a conclusion.

That's how science works. Once we solve a problem, we can use that solution as a basis to solve the next one. Constantly pointing this out is tedious and kindergartenish.

 

[Autodidact]

Acctually it was an assumption that lead to the conclusion. the assumptionwas that the gene mutated where there is no evidence of a mutation occurring only there being two different genes. The conclusion based on the assumption is found in the title of the article offered, "Accelerated FoxP2 Evolution in Echolocating Bats."

O.K. now think really hard. The parents have a gene. The offspring has a gene that's a little bit different from either parent. How did it get that way?

 

[Autodidact]

It would seem simple to me when creating organisms to use something that works, such as this fox gene, in more than one species. A simple example would be that the same concept of a motor runs the windsheild wipers on many differt syles and makes of cars. Why reinvent the wheel for every occasion?

Sandy: The thing about creationism is that all the evidence supports it. And its opposite. Sure, an all-powerful but unknowable God could have done that...and could have done the opposite, or some of each, or anything else. No way of knowing. That's one of the many reasons that creationism is not scientific--there's no way to support or refute it with any evidence.

Also, if you think about it, the reason wiper motors on cars is actually analogous to evolution. Since they worked, someone used them again in a similar way--but just a little different. If they little bit different one works better, then that will be used in future, and the old one won't.

 

[Autodidact]

Nope. Not when the creator created nature. In one respect nature has been in decline since the fall. That mutations should occur could easily be associated with that decline.

So since "the fall" evolution works? Which is to say, now?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

This would be a great thread if it were not for all of the ad hominem attacks and the "obviously the scientific community disagrees with you" statements.

Seems to me that supersport is implying that today's ToE is predicated on the assumption of naturalism, and not on specific scientific evidence. In other words, there are claims made by ToE having to with types of mutations that have never been evidenced, but it is assumed that they must happen because of the presumption of naturalism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seems to me that supersport is implying that today's ToE is predicated on the assumption of naturalism, and not on specific scientific evidence. In other words, there are claims made by ToE having to with types of mutations that have never been evidenced, but it is assumed that they must happen because of the presumption of naturalism.

And which "types of mutations" do you claim to be both necessary and unevidenced?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

And which "types of mutations" do you claim to be both necessary and unevidenced?

It is not my claim.. I do not have the background in genetics/biology. I was merely stating my interest in the topic. But, to quote the OP, here is the "type of mutation" supersport is referring to:

created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is not my claim..

That's wise.

Also in the OP we find this remarkable sentence:

Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial ...

One wonders how a mutation guarantees in advance that it will add nothing beneficial. Smart little bugger ...

 

[Autodidact]

This would be a great thread if it were not for all of the ad hominem attacks and the "obviously the scientific community disagrees with you" statements.

Seems to me that supersport is implying that today's ToE is predicated on the assumption of naturalism, and not on specific scientific evidence. In other words, there are claims made by ToE having to with types of mutations that have never been evidenced, but it is assumed that they must happen because of the presumption of naturalism.

What is the "presumption of naturalism?" How is it different from scientific evidence, since only "natural," that is, actually observable, evidence, can form a basis for a scientific theory.

Actually, supersport has no problem with the scientific assumption of methodological naturalism, he just thinks it should result in Lamarkian inheritance. I know this not from this thread but from previous fun internet experience with him.

In fact not only have the existence of mutations been amply evidence, but geneticists know what kinds of mutations occur, how often, and why.

 

[Autodidact]

And which "types of mutations" do you claim to be both necessary and unevidenced?

No, nick, that's not how science works. Scientists didn't assume that mutations must happen, they observed that they actually do happen. Not only that, they even know the approximate rate at which they happen. supersport doesn't deny that they do, just asserts without support that for some reason they cannot be beneficial. One asks, why not?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

What is the "presumption of naturalism?" How is it different from scientific evidence, since only "natural," that is, actually observable, evidence, can form a basis for a scientific theory.

It is with regards to a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one. You have a good point, and I do not condone that scientists should simply state, "well, it must be God's work" and go home. They should push the envelope of what we can know.

However, that is quite different from promoting atheism based on things which have not been evidenced. To me, these quotes are telling of some our era's most out-spoken atheists who use evolution to argue against religion:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved. -- Francis Crick

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. -- Richard Dawkins

They assume naturalism is true (there is no purpose or design), prior to any study of biology. Or, as a speaker I once listened to said, I can imagine being in one of their classes and having them state "repeat after me; there is no design, there is no design, there is no design".

No, nick, that's not how science works. Scientists didn't assume that mutations must happen, they observed that they actually do happen. Not only that, they even know the approximate rate at which they happen. supersport doesn't deny that they do, just asserts without support that for some reason they cannot be beneficial. One asks, why not?

I never said otherwise.

 

[Autodidact]

It is with regards to a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one. You have a good point, and I do not condone that scientists should simply state, "well, it must be God's work" and go home. They should push the envelope of what we can know.

O.K., cool, I'm with you so far.

However, that is quite different from promoting atheism based on things which have not been evidenced. To me, these quotes are telling of some our era's most out-spoken atheists who use evolution to argue against religion:

What does this have to do with science? Science isn't about atheism--or God. Science is about the natural world. Biology is exactly as atheistic as plumbing.

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved. -- Francis Crick

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. -- Richard Dawkins

They assume naturalism is true (there is no purpose or design), prior to any study of biology. Or, as a speaker I once listened to said, I can imagine being in one of their classes and having them state "repeat after me; there is no design, there is no design, there is no design".

We know, as a matter of scientific certainty, that despite appearing to have been designed, the many different species on earth actually evolved via natural processes. This is the case whether or not there is a God. If there is no God, that's the whole story. If there is, then that's how He created. Biology can't tell you that. All Biology can tell you is how it was done.