evolution could be wrong

[Draka]

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?

How about the mutation of the ear? From water animals to land animals there was the mutation of the ear. Those whose ear developed the middle ear portion could hear above water, but not well below. So while it was detrimental to life below water, it allowed some species to emerge from the water and live on land. Your basic amphibian you could say. Eventually there were further respiratory mutations that led to some not being able to breathe well under water, if at all. Again, detrimental to living under water, but progressing land life. Hence reptiles/dinosaurs.

Just because a general mutation that presents itself among a particular species may first present itself as perhaps detrimental, doesn't mean that it doesn't make it better suited to something else. Natural selection plays in from there.

 

[Amill]

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.

There are good mutations, even in humans. How about a family with nearly unbreakable bones, or the fact that 10% of Europeans cannot get AIDs, or a lineage in Italy that gives them a higher tolerance to a kind of cholesterol and no one in that family has had heart disease. Ect, ect, ect

YouTube - 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Dare ya to watch it

 

[freethinker44]

There are good mutations, even in humans. How about a family with nearly unbreakable bones, or the fact that 10% of Europeans cannot get AIDs, or a lineage in Italy that gives them a higher tolerance to a kind of cholesterol and no one in that family has had heart disease. Ect, ect, ect

YouTube - 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Dare ya to watch it

Oh ok, so now if a crocoduck doesn't have a heart attack then evolution is true? That makes no sense, god did it.

 

[Venatoris]

I'm double-jointed. Does that count as a beneficial mutation? It certainly isn't detrimental to me in any way.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm double-jointed. Does that count as a beneficial mutation? It certainly isn't detrimental to me in any way.

Neither. The vast majority of mutations are not harmful or beneficial but neutral and have little impact.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

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 all the details of the germ theory of disease either. But I bet there are disinfectants in your bathroom and your kids have been vaccinated. And we teach GToD in school. Why? Because it is the best explanation we have - now.

But we do NOT understand exactly how germs cause disease. We know it happens, we can reproduce it in the lab, we can relieve some symptoms, but EXACTLY what germs are doing that causes those symptoms - we just don't know. Just an example, rabies. We know the virus, we know it "attacks" the nervous system and we know what the results are. But what "attacks" means - we just don't know. But I bet your pets are all vaccinated against it.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are good mutations, even in humans. How about a family with nearly unbreakable bones, or the fact that 10% of Europeans cannot get AIDs, or a lineage in Italy that gives them a higher tolerance to a kind of cholesterol and no one in that family has had heart disease. Ect, ect, ect

YouTube - 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Dare ya to watch it

Expect Eselam to leave the thread. His pattern is to demand evidence/data, but once he gets it, he leaves and just starts another thread.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Expect Eselam to leave the thread. His pattern is to demand evidence/data, but once he gets it, he leaves and just starts another thread.

Seems to be a trend of many creationists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Seems to be a trend of many creationists.

Pfft - what else is there to do when evilutionists start spouting off facts and evidence? There's just no convincing those misguided people with lies, mistruths and misconceptions.

 

[Draka]

Pfft - what else is there to do when evilutionists start spouting off facts and evidence? There's just no convincing those misguided people with lies, mistruths and misconceptions.

Ironic a little that Creationists seem to demand so much evidence from everywhere when it comes to evolution, but they expect everyone else to somehow be satisfied with with the "evidence" provided in a mythology book entitled the "Holy Bible". They have one unverified holy book supposedly written by various men thousands of years ago and compiled hundreds of years later and that is enough evidence for them, yet mounds and mounds of scientific data and research mean absolutely nothing to them. And they wonder why the word "ignorant" is used so frequently in reference to them. :areyoucra

 

[Jose Fly]

It's important to keep a couple of things in mind.

First, the creationists didn't come to their position via a thorough and objective study of the data. So it's highly unlikely they'll be at all swayed by the data, or be inclined to study it.

Second, they aren't demanding data out of a genuine good-faith interest. They're asking because they're sure the data doesn't exist. IOW, they're playing "stump the evolutionist". They've been told by their creationist sources that transitional fossils and beneficial mutations don't exist, so they think by demanding them, they'll put all the evolutionists in a jam.

What strikes me as odd though is that once those things are presented to them, they seem to completely lack the ability to realize that their creationist sources have lied to them. It never strikes them that "Hey...they told me there were no beneficial mutations, but here they are. Those creationist a-holes are lying!"

And that's what keeps me coming back to these "debates". It's fascinating when someone says "X doesn't exist" and after being shown X, have to come up with all sorts of bizarre reasons to still say it doesn't exist. Anyone who's a student of human behavior (like me) has to be astonished and amazed at such behavior.

 

[Luminous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&NR=1

 

[Gunfingers]

Because when we show them the beneficial mutations and transitional forms, they insist that they aren't.

Remember that much as they say they know ToE, they actually know only a caricature of it. So when we show them a transitional form, or point out that every form is transitional, they say "It's just a full formed organism". They expect crocoduck, because they don't know what ToE actually predicts.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because when we show them the beneficial mutations and transitional forms, they insist that they aren't.

Remember that much as they say they know ToE, they actually know only a caricature of it. So when we show them a transitional form, or point out that every form is transitional, they say "It's just a full formed organism". They expect crocoduck, because they don't know what ToE actually predicts.

Yep. That's why before I start any "transitional fossil" debate with a creationist, I first have them agree to what sort of characteristics a transitional would have in a given lineage. For example in the reptile mammal transition, I'll ask: Would you agree that if mammals evolved from reptilian ancestors, then we should find fossils of organisms that have a mixture of reptilian and mammalian traits, and that as we move forward in time, the overall trend would be to more mammalian?

In all the years I've been asking that, I've yet to have a creationist make it past that question. Most likely it's because they know 1) it's reasonable and logical, and 2) I wouldn't be asking that if such specimens didn't exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One example of a beneficial mutation:
Stickleback fish study uncovers evolutionary secrets

 

[footprints]

shock and anger from the evolutionists and glee from the creationists? sorry to disappoint

my point is that while evolution may not be 100% correct it is still the best model available.

take physics as an example. lord kelvin (the person who calculated absolute zero) said at the turn of the centuary "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." that was just before quantum theory and relativity were published.

this shows that while we may think something is 100% true there is still a chance something could pop up and bite us on the arse.

Nobody should adopt a flat earthed mentality on anything, albeit we are human and all will trust their own inner judgement, which generally relates to the person or study which the person holds as the higher authority.

Evolution in itself has many theories, the slow, slow, slow state of change and the wham bam, thank you mam where it has been settled in one or two generations. There is the multiple human theory and the scientific Eve theory. There is the woman was created first theory and the theory that sex was left to chance.

We live in exciting times.

 

[rlasater]

The fact remains that neither you nor i was there to see the evolution process or the creation process. So logicaly both would require belief. You can do all the tests you want but nobody witnessed it. At one point in time almost every scientist thought the the planets revolved around the sun but we know that was wrong. Scientist are still people and apt to make mistakes, so could the collective minds of scientist be wrong?

 

[McBell]

Anyone else feeling a little...inadequate...?

not me.
But then, I would be running from the woman that requires one that size.

In fact, you would be able to follow me until I ran out of feces....

 

[Man of Faith]

Yep. That's why before I start any "transitional fossil" debate with a creationist, I first have them agree to what sort of characteristics a transitional would have in a given lineage. For example in the reptile mammal transition, I'll ask: Would you agree that if mammals evolved from reptilian ancestors, then we should find fossils of organisms that have a mixture of reptilian and mammalian traits, and that as we move forward in time, the overall trend would be to more mammalian?

In all the years I've been asking that, I've yet to have a creationist make it past that question. Most likely it's because they know 1) it's reasonable and logical, and 2) I wouldn't be asking that if such specimens didn't exist.

All life forms on the earth will have traits of other life forms on earth because that is the nature of life on earth. That is not necessarily evidence of common ancestry, it could be the way they were created. In order to live on this earth you have to have certain traits. If you are an animal you have to be able to drink water, eat food, move around, think, run, hide, etc... If you are a plant, you have to be able to use your surroundings to grow, sprout, produce fruit or flower etc...

 

[Man of Faith]

The fact remains that neither you nor i was there to see the evolution process or the creation process. So logicaly both would require belief. You can do all the tests you want but nobody witnessed it. At one point in time almost every scientist thought the the planets revolved around the sun but we know that was wrong. Scientist are still people and apt to make mistakes, so could the collective minds of scientist be wrong?

Yes, scientists work for money or grants and in order to get that money, they need to provide what their bosses are looking for, such as proof of global warming, or evidence of evolution. They also know that if they say evolution is not true they will be maligned, laughed at and no longer taken seriously.

Instead of peer-review, they should call it peer-pressure.