The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Danmac]

The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations: Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/index2_r7_c1.jpg

 

[Danmac]

Has there ever been an experiment where chemicals formed a living cell? Has there ever been an experiment where pond scum came to life. If evolution can be observed we should be able to observe such demonstrations.

 

[Tristesse]

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy
Darwinism Refuted.com

I've already explained to you that most mutations are not harmful, but they are neutral. Yes, there are harmful mutations, but they are not as recurrent as you're portraying them. And there are also beneficial mutations as well.

 

[Tristesse]

Has there ever been an experiment where chemicals formed a living cell? Has there ever been an experiment where pond scum came to life. If evolution can be observed we should be able to observe such demonstrations.

Ok, now you're speaking of a different scientific study. Abiogenesis. Which says nothing about evolution. Please stick to the subject at hand.

 

[Tristesse]

Here danmac. Study up on mutations and their effects on a species.

Are Mutations Harmful?

 

[Danmac]

Here danmac. Study up on mutations and their effects on a species.

Are Mutations Harmful?

This thread is not limited to mutations is it?

 

[Danmac]

Ok, now you're speaking of a different scientific study. Abiogenesis. Which says nothing about evolution. Please stick to the subject at hand.

What is the first stage of evolution?

 

[Autodidact]

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy
Darwinism Refuted.com

It turns out that Prof. Grasse was wrong. He was perhaps the last modern proponent of Lamarckism, which turned out to be incorrect, once all the evidence was in.

So you're asserting, contrary to all the world's geneticists, that mutations cannot be beneficial? Tell you what. Read the original reports of the many examples of beneficial mutations we've given you so far in this thread, and tell us why they're mistaken.

Again, you're dodging my simple, polite, necessary question, which makes me suspect you know you're wrong.

Does speciation happen?

 

[Autodidact]

The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations: Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/index2_r7_c1.jpg

David Demick, the creationist medical doctor? I don't know, call me crazy, but I would think when talking about Biology, you would want to cite Biologists.

I see that like most creationists, Dr. Demick is a liar. We've given you many examples of beneficial mutations in this thread, which you've ignored.

Like you're ignoring the question: Does speciation happen?

 

[Autodidact]

Has there ever been an experiment where chemicals formed a living cell? Has there ever been an experiment where pond scum came to life. If evolution can be observed we should be able to observe such demonstrations.

I don't know, why you don't you start a thread about abiogenesis and we can talk about it?

So do you actually not know that abiogenesis is a completely different subject than evolution, or are you also dishonest?

 

[Autodidact]

This thread is not limited to mutations is it?

No, we're just responding to your questions.

 

[Autodidact]

What is the first stage of evolution?

Single-celled organisms.

DOES SPECIATION HAPPEN?

 

[Tristesse]

This thread is not limited to mutations is it?

I never said it was, but you seemed to be fixated on mutations, so, I thought I would post a link. And you also seemed to have some misperceptions of them.

 

[Tristesse]

What is the first stage of evolution?

The first stage? Evolution only discusses what happens to life after it has formed.

 

[painted wolf]

Pierre-Paul Grassé died in the 1980's...
Pathologists are expected to know a lot about disease... not much about evolution. There are lots of documented beneficial mutations, from resistance to heart disease and HIV to the ability to drink milk as an adult.

One recent experiment on abiogenesis...
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy
Darwinism Refuted.com

Danmac, you are so good for a chuckle,

First you provide "evidence" from a "Creation" scientist who was literally expelled from the ID movement for eventually discarding literal Genesis creation and accepting the facts of evolution.
Then you quote as "evidence" the ideas of a zoologist who promoted Lamarkian evolutionary theory. A discredited hypothesis that is great for the history books, but worthless in biology.

Do you ever check the actual facts, or do you just cut and paste from the ID sites.
Be forewarned, they use the same tired, discredited arguments over and over....

This is commonly known as dishonesty.

 

[fantome profane]

OK to simplify. I don't believe in natural selection and random chance.I believe energy itself wants to keep going and can never be created or destroyed.
IF you don't feed your self your body will start eating foreign objects in itself to survive. After it has eaten all of the foreign matter it will turn to the vital organs and this is when starvation sets in. Energy itself wants to keep going on and will feed of the very materialism embodied in to do so. There is no randomness and the universe is all about balance of energy.
If an animal can't reach the trees then eventually the energy conformed to the animal will change the body in anyway possible in order to survive. If a tree can't get sunlight the energy in the tree will twist the tree anyway necessary in order to reach the source.This is cause of any evolution and not natural selection.
Energy is never created not destroyed and does what it needs to to keep balance.
This is why I say the conclusion of evolution will be found in physics and not biology.

Are you trying to describe Lamarckism?

 

[Autodidact]

Danmac: It's helpful to establish where we're already in agreement, so we don't need to spend time on that. Doesn't that make sense? Otherwise I'll have to spend a few pages explaining the basic mechanisms of evolution. So,

DOES SPECIATION HAPPEN?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Has there ever been an experiment where pond scum came to life.

I'm no biologist, but I believe that pond scum actually is a "soup" of living organisms, consisting mostly of algae. Bad question on your part.

If evolution can be observed we should be able to observe such demonstrations.

And we do.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This thread is not limited to mutations is it?

The thread is about the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. You are straying off into abiogenesis, which is another question altogether (which, of course, you already know, since you obviously spend so much time studying biology).