evolution could be wrong

[Gharib]

No, evolution has a lot of other factors in it, mutations are not what it is about. If it where, then cancer would disprove it, since cancer are caused by mutations.

i know it has alot of other factors, one of them being mutations. so i want to know if evolution is correct then how come there has been no beneficial mutation?

what do you mean by this
"If it where, then cancer would disprove it, since cancer are caused by mutations"
are you saying that if mutations are a part of the evolution process, cancer would dissprove it due to it being harmful rather than benefical?

 

[Kerr]

i know it has alot of other factors, one of them being mutations. so i want to know if evolution is correct then how come there has been no beneficial mutation?

what do you mean by this
"If it where, then cancer would disprove it, since cancer are caused by mutations"
are you saying that if mutations are a part of the evolution process, cancer would dissprove it due to it being harmful rather than benefical?

No, I am saying that if evolution states that mutations are all good then cancer your disprove it. But evolution does not. The good mutations just aren´t as obvious as the bad ones. And sometimes a mutation can be good or bad depending on where you live. So it is not as simple as that they are all bad.

 

[Gharib]

No, I am saying that if evolution states that mutations are all good then cancer your disprove it. But evolution does not. The good mutations just aren´t as obvious as the bad ones. And sometimes a mutation can be good or bad depending on where you live. So it is not as simple as that they are all bad.

well since there are no good mutations or they aren't all that "obvious" doesn't that kind of say that evolution is a deceit?

you saw the pictures of mutations, so if evolution was right then would a 6 legged frog be better than a 4 legged frog,the same with a 2 headed cat and a 1 headed cat or a 2 headed human and a 1 headed human. how come mutations arenever benefical but instead harmful?

and still i did not receive an answer to my question, can see proof of any beneficial mutation? that goes for every evolutionist.

 

[Kerr]

well since there are no good mutations or they aren't all that "obvious" doesn't that kind of say that evolution is a deceit?

you saw the pictures of mutations, so if evolution was right then would a 6 legged frog be better than a 4 legged frog,the same with a 2 headed cat and a 1 headed cat or a 2 headed human and a 1 headed human. how come mutations arenever benefical but instead harmful?

and still i did not receive an answer to my question, can see proof of any beneficial mutation? that goes for every evolutionist.

Who said they where never beneficial? One example is how some bacterias has mutated and become immune to some medicine, which is beneficial. In larger and more complex organisms it becomes more, well, complicated. There is a reason why ToE states we will not evolve into a new specie from one generation to the next, because it is impossible to have that many beneficial mutations. It takes time.

 

[Gharib]

Who said they where never beneficial? One example is how some bacterias has mutated and become immune to some medicine, which is beneficial.

so a harmful bacteria becoming immune to medicine i benefical according to you?

In larger and more complex organisms it becomes more, well, complicated. There is a reason why ToE states we will not evolve into a new specie from one generation to the next, because it is impossible to have that many beneficial mutations. It takes time.

so evolution states 2 things according to what you have said:

bad mutations happen much quicker than the good ones. for example cancer happens there and then during the one life time of a person but a good mutation happens in a slower time, through many generations.

if that is true then that disproves evolution. since a bad mutation can happen many more times within a species before any good mutations will come to happen.

that explains everything. evolution has been disproved by it's own claims.

 

[Kerr]

so a harmful bacteria becoming immune to medicine i benefical according to you?

Of course, it helps the bacteria to survive, so to it, it is beneficial. What is beneficial is about what is beneficial to the individual or specie in question, not what is beneficial to us.

 

[Kerr]

bad mutations happen much quicker than the good ones. for example cancer happens there and then during the one life time of a person but a good mutation happens in a slower time, through many generations.

No, that was not what I said. Mutations that cause damage make more noise, that does not mean the good ones are not there. And the good mutations do not take generations, once a mutation has happened it happens. But evolution, the way it works, can take many, many generations.

if that is true then that disproves evolution. since a bad mutation can happen many more times within a species before any good mutations will come to happen.

that explains everything. evolution has been disproved by it's own claims.

In what way? We see evolution all the time, especially when dealing with bacterias and viruses. Mutations simply add or change data, if the data is bad it will theoretically decrease the individuals ability to survive, if it is good it increases their chances. Which is what we see.

 

[Gharib]

No, that was not what I said. Mutations that cause damage make more noise, that does not mean the good ones are not there. And the good mutations do not take generations, once a mutation has happened it happens. But evolution, the way it works, can take many, many generations.

In what way? We see evolution all the time, especially when dealing with bacterias and viruses. Mutations simply add or change data, if the data is bad it will theoretically decrease the individuals ability to survive, if it is good it increases their chances. Which is what we see.

no we only see harmful mutations come into existence as a result of nothing. where as a soposed "good" mutation only comes into existence after the bad mutation. this shows that evolution is wrong. thre has never been any case of beneficial mutation without a harmful mutation existind before it. told you evolution has been disproved by it's own teachings/claims.

 

[Kerr]

no we only see harmful mutations come into existence as a result of nothing. where as a soposed "good" mutation only comes into existence after the bad mutation. this shows that evolution is wrong. thre has never been any case of beneficial mutation without a harmful mutation existind before it. told you evolution has been disproved by it's own teachings/claims.

Yeah, like scientists are that incompetent .

Seriously, though, good mutations occur. Just as I mentioned, bacterias evolve to withstand medication. That is a perfect example of what I mean. On us it takes more time to see a difference, because we are more complicated beings and do not reproduce as fast as bacterias.

 

[ragordon168]

well since there are no good mutations or they aren't all that "obvious" doesn't that kind of say that evolution is a deceit?

you saw the pictures of mutations, so if evolution was right then would a 6 legged frog be better than a 4 legged frog,the same with a 2 headed cat and a 1 headed cat or a 2 headed human and a 1 headed human. how come mutations arenever benefical but instead harmful?

and still i did not receive an answer to my question, can see proof of any beneficial mutation? that goes for every evolutionist.

take the HIV virus, it evolves/mutates so rapidly its almost impossible to find a cure. bad for us good for it.

the virus transferred to humans in about the 12920's in africa from a chimp. the SIV (simian vesrsion of HIV) makes the chimp ill but is nowhere near as deadly. this is because a certain blood type is immune to the worse affects of SIV and is the only one to survive long enough to breed.

this obvious mutation of the blood type is beneficial to the species. that answer the question?

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution is fact. There are various theories concerning exactly how it occurred, but that it occurred is not questioned by any reputable scientist.

Somehow this post seems out of place in this thread about evolution could be wrong.

 

[Gunfingers]

I don't wanna speak for the OP, but i'd bet he's referring to modern evolutionary theory, not the actual act of evolving.

 

[Man of Faith]

I don't wanna speak for the OP, but i'd bet he's referring to modern evolutionary theory, not the actual act of evolving.

That's possible which leads me to another question, if we don't know 100% how evolution worked, or if the process that we teach today could be wrong, how do we even know that it happened?

 

[ragordon168]

I don't wanna speak for the OP, but i'd bet he's referring to modern evolutionary theory, not the actual act of evolving.

yeah i believe the process of evolution as described by ToE is correct but the model may turn out to be wrong (i.e missing a key 'step' or part)

That's possible which leads me to another question, if we don't know 100% how evolution worked, or if the process that we teach today could be wrong, how do we even know that it happened?

evidence. newtonian physics was taught as the absolute truth for centuaries then relativity was discovered and threw physics for 6.

but newtonin physics is still right most of the time. while evolution may not explain everything it still explains most of what happend with life on earth.

 

[Gunfingers]

Fluid physics aren't completely understood either, but we're still able to use them to make planes fly.

The fact is that it is extremely well researched and very well understood. It is possible we could be wrong about it, because science is a learning process. Evolutionary theory could be wrong about some of the mechanics, or some specific era, or something. An easy example would be the recent introduction of "domains" above "kingdoms" in the classification hierarchy. As our understanding of the origins of life become better we realized that the six kingdoms weren't the most fundamental dividing in life. Such changes are going to continue to happen, but the fundamental fact that species change over time into new species isn't likely to.

 

[Tristesse]

That's possible which leads me to another question, if we don't know 100% how evolution worked, or if the process that we teach today could be wrong, how do we even know that it happened?

We don't know 100% how any science works. should we just stop teaching science all together? The theory of evolution could be wrong, just like Einstein's theory of relativity could be wrong. But as it stands now, all the evidence points to evolution. So, until new evidence develops the theory of evolution prevails.

 

[Magic Man]

Great - anything weird points MoF to a creator.

How about this:

Are you implying that Ron Jeremy is God?

 

[Kerr]

Somehow this post seems out of place in this thread about evolution could be wrong.

This link explains it:
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[imaginaryme]

Since I was giving ManTimeForgot a hard time in another thread, I figure it evens things up a little to credit him here with this link: A New Challenge to Einstein? | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Funny how gravity always slips into the conversation every time evolution comes up. I'm neither a evolutionary biologist nor a physicist, but it seems to me (if you could actually compare the two) that evolution is the better theory. I mean, we can look around and dissect things and learn about evolution; but ain't nobody gonna invite a pulsar over for tea and crumpets. (Or, only once; anyway. Never know what that ID crowd might try) But the honest truth is the simple one. Science is always learning more stuff. Creationism ain't learning nuffink.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution and the ToE are both branches of biology. Biology is a branch of science.
The great thing about the scientific method is that it promotes new discovery and fluidity of theory.
A dogmatic approach is restrictive to advancement. So it is no surprise then that any theory may get tweaked or reworked over time. This is what drives scientific advancement.
This also why the psudoscientific dogmatic ideas of YEC, ID, and Creationism are left further and further behind in our quest for knowledge.