Darwinists claim that humans have evolved from chimpanzees in a period of abut 4 million years through the process of benificial mutations of the DNA sequence... This is "confirmed" by carbon dating and the fact that humans are 98% chimpanzee biologically.

Well the problem with this is that the human genome contains some three billion base pairs, making the 2 percent bringe gap between humans and chimpanzees sixty million pairs... That is the exact number of base pairs that would have to be benificially mutated, in precisely the right order, during a period of just 4 million years. Now the possibility of so many benificial mutations taking place during such a relatively small perod of time is lessend even more due to the fact that not a single benificial mutation has been achieved in a laboratory. Indeed, evolutionists have tried to recreate the process of evolution by attempting to mutate fruit-flies... But so far, despite them trying for over years now, not a single benificial mutation has been recorded, making a possibility that benificial mutatons are not possible all the more likely. So-called "reverse" mutations have indeed taken place in labs, but they do not prove that the mutated specimen has in fact preceeded the original. The only results for attempts at benificial mutations are a normal, unchanged specimen, a deformed and retarded specimen (quite an opposite to a "benificial mutation"), or a dead specimen.

So how could such a colossal number of toally random and unprovoked benificial mutations have taken place when evolutionists have so far proved that monitored and planned benificial mutations are not possible?

(September 1, 2009 at 5:46 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: Darwinists claim that humans have evolved from chimpanzees in a period of abut 4 million years through the process of benificial mutations of the DNA sequence... This is "confirmed" by carbon dating and the fact that humans are 98% chimpanzee biologically.

Humans did not, I repeat, DID NOT evolve from Chimps! Why is it that creationists always get this wrong.

Humans and Chimps have a common ancestor in the distant past. We did not evolve from them! OK?

Quote:Well the problem with this is that the human genome contains some three billion base pairs, making the 2 percent bringe gap between humans and chimpanzees sixty million pairs... That is the exact number of base pairs that would have to be benificially mutated, in precisely the right order, during a period of just 4 million years. Now the possibility of so many benificial mutations taking place during such a relatively small perod of time is lessend even more due to the fact that not a single benificial mutation has been achieved in a laboratory. Indeed, evolutionists have tried to recreate the process of evolution by attempting to mutate fruit-flies... But so far, despite them trying for over years now, not a single benificial mutation has been recorded, making a possibility that benificial mutatons are not possible all the more likely. So-called "reverse" mutations have indeed taken place in labs, but they do not prove that the mutated specimen has in fact preceeded the original. The only results for attempts at benificial mutations are a normal, unchanged specimen, a deformed and retarded specimen (quite an opposite to a "benificial mutation"), or a dead specimen.

Because HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM CHIMPS!

Quote:So how could such a colossal number of toally random and unprovoked benificial mutations have taken place when evolutionists have so far proved that monitored and planned benificial mutations are not possible?

Because with every beneficial mutation there are thousands of benign and meaniningless ones that never get anywhere. It's only if a mutation is in some way of benefit to the organism that it survives.

Oh, and by the way. Humans DID NOT evolve from Chimps!!!

OK calm down cracker jack, no need to yell about it...OK then a common ancestor in the distant past... That still means that we evolved from them. And youre still saying that however distand the chimps are to us, 60 million benificial mutations could have taken place? In perfect and precise order?

---

And then why do you guys keep slapping us with the fact fact humans are 98% chimp?

Quote:OK calm down cracker jack, no need to yell about it...OK then a common ancestor in the distant past... That still means that we evolved from them. And youre still saying that however distand the chimps are to us, 60 million benificial mutations could have taken place? In perfect and precise order?

Yes. Because that is the end result that you see today. Anyway, these beneficial mutations you are talking about are in reference to Humans V Chimps and as I've already said, Humans did not evolve from Chimps.

Evolution is such that you only ever see the beneficial mutations. You never get to see those non-beneficial ones because they never survive, not being of any benefit.

It's quite simple really...

Quote:And then why do you guys keep slapping us with the fact fact humans are 98% chimp?

You Guys? Humans are not 98% Chimp!!! Neither are Chimps 98% Human. Humans may share 98% of the same genes but that is because we have a common ancestor.

Chimps are not primitive humans and humans are not highly evolved chimps. We are simply on slightly different branches of the tree of life.

I see your line of thought.... And it quite good to see you talking in a calm manner. Right, maybe im wrong here but do you beleive that the neanderthal is an example of non-benificial mutations? But that is only one archaeological find, and if it should be as you say then there should be millions of such similar extinct species. And if you do not regard the neanderthal as archeological proof of non-benificial mutations taking place then what is the proof?

(September 1, 2009 at 6:38 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: I see your line of thought.... And it quite good to see you talking in a calm manner. Right, maybe im wrong here but do you beleive that the neanderthal is an example of non-benificial mutations?

No, because Neanderthal Man was very good at what he did while he did it.

Quote:And if you do not regard the neanderthal as archeological proof of non-benificial mutations taking place then what is the proof?

My mother had celiac disease which is a hereditary immune response to gluten. This is a non-beneficial mutation.

I have a little bit of vitiligo on my arm. Another non-beneficial mutation.

My father had a hereditary condition that meant he was born with no iris. Yet another.

The list goes on and on. These are all genetic mutations that can get passed on to the next generation that have no benefit.

Quote:And then why do you guys keep slapping us with the fact fact humans are 98% chimp?

Hold the phone there buckeroo;

Humans are not descended from apes,we ARE apes. (primates)

"You guys?" To whom do you refer? Members of this forum? I have never slapped anyone with that fact; I was barely aware of it as it's not a big deal to me. I have long been under the impression that homo sapiens sapiens are genetically closer to pigs than other apes.

Or do you perhaps mean atheists? An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god(s). There is no such thing as 'an atheist position' on ANY other thing.

Next, lose the idea that evolution is somehow the purview of atheists. It isn't.In fact it may surprise you to know that it is the lunar religious right (literalists) who are in the minority.Mainstream Christian churches such as the Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans see no conflict between the established fact of evolution and their faith. I was taught evolution as science at the Catholic school I attended in the late 1950's to early 1960's.


Finally,just a suggestion; if you want any credibility at all,perhaps actually read some Darwin,or get a competent year 10 science teacher to explain evolution to you.Then you may not seem quite so ignorant. (no offence)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


PRIMATES:


A primate (pronounced /ˈprаɪmeɪt/, us dict: prī′·māt) is a member of the biological order Primates (/prаɪˈmeɪtiːz/ prī·mā′·tēz; Latin: "prime, first rank"[2]), the group that contains lemurs, lorisids, galagos, tarsiers, monkeys, and apes, with the last category including great apes.[3] With the exception of humans, who inhabit every continent on Earth,[a] most primates live in tropical or subtropical regions of the Americas, Africa and Asia.[4] Primates range in size from the Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur weighing only 30 grams (1.1 oz) to the Mountain Gorilla weighing 200 kilograms (440 lb). According to fossil evidence, the primitive ancestors of primates may have existed in the late Cretaceous period around 65 million years ago, and the oldest known primate is the Late Paleocene Plesiadapis, c. 55–58 million years ago. Molecular clock studies suggest that the primate branch may be even older, originating in the mid-Cretaceous period around 85 mya.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate


PIGS AND HUMANS

Quote:We took the human genome, cut it into 173 puzzle pieces and rearranged it to make a pig,” explains animal geneticist Lawrence Schook. “Everything matches up perfectly. The pig is genetically very close to humans.

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/news/human-to-pig/

My mother had celiac disease which is a hereditary immune response to gluten. This is a non-beneficial mutation.

I have a little bit of vitiligo on my arm. Another non-beneficial mutation.

My father had a hereditary condition that meant he was born with no iris. Yet another.

The list goes on and on. These are all genetic mutations that can get passed on to the next generation that have no benefit.[/quote]




My, you arent evolving very well are you? Continue down this road and youll become extinct mate...

I am aware of hereditary conditions and the such... Im not exactly questioning the fact of non-benificial mutations. Like I have said in my first post this fact has been confirmed by science and therefore I cant deny it. Had you a benificial mutation, something that would have made you superior to other homo sapiens then I would reconsider my beleifs... The thing that I'm trying to say is that such benificial mutations do not occur. Does a singe human being on the whole planet Earth have a benificial mutation? Or any other creature?

And what about those non-benificial mutations that you said do not survive? Do you have proof of that? And I mean in the homo group.

As to being slapped by the "humans are 98% chimps fact", then I wouldnt be saying it if it dind't happen to me. It is a common argument used by many darwinists. So theres no need to get so fired up about it. I really want to know how darwinists see the whole thing about benificial mutations, not to be caught at every word and grilled. I thought that I was the kid here.

(September 1, 2009 at 5:46 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: Darwinists claim that humans have evolved from chimpanzees in a period of abut 4 million years through the process of benificial mutations of the DNA sequence... This is "confirmed" by carbon dating and the fact that humans are 98% chimpanzee biologically.

Darwinian set you straight on this and I will simply make the observation that every idiot creation (and their dog) appears to believe this load of rubbish when no scientist ever claimed that to be so.

(September 1, 2009 at 5:46 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: So how could such a colossal number of toally random and unprovoked benificial mutations have taken place when evolutionists have so far proved that monitored and planned benificial mutations are not possible?

'Harmful Mutations', Stormtrooper a.k.a. Fallen Angel a.k.a. UK Atheist a.k.a. Undead Hedgehog a.k.a. Undead a.k.a. Vampyre UK a.k.a. Kyuuketsuki Wrote:Introduction
Young Earth creationists, as always attempting to disprove any theory that disputes their belief that life on Earth has evolved rather than be divinely created, fall like vultures on the supposition that all (or the majority of) mutations are harmful and thus, they claim, life must have been intelligently designed or guided.

However the very fact that we are here today and are not identical to our parents is a very simple refutation of this claim.

Discussion
Creationists declare that all mutations are harmful and that beneficial mutations are at best rare. They further note that all mutations are random. In their favour are examples of mutation such as sickle cell anaemia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and cancer, and cancer syndromes and claim that no examples of beneficial human mutation have ever been described.

It is worth, briefly, describing the major mechanisms of evolution.

Natural selection does not create species but operates on already present variation within a population. It is mutation that is the primary agent that creates the variation though genetic recombination is also a significant factor.

Genes code how to construct proteins and the proteins produced act to carry out a specific function which can confer diversity of cell and/or organism type within a population, species or set of related species. From this it can be seen that mutation (a change in the genetic code) can cause organisms to change in terms of both their function and their form.

Creationists say that mutations can only be harmful but they are wrong. Mutations occur all the time (mainly during meiosis) where not only tiny changes occur but whole multi-protein producing genes sequences can be inserted forcing the rapid creation of new proteins with very different character. Most mutations are not harmful, they are neutral non-coding DNA and harmful changes (the majority outside of neutral ones) are discarded long before birth.

Mutational rate varies from 0.1% to 0.0000001% (Ridley 1993) so the average is approx. 0.0001%. If 1% are beneficial then the chance of them being beneficial is 0.000001% (1 in 100,000,000). A given beneficial mutation will therefore arise only once per 100,000,000 individuals whilst detrimental or neutral mutation will arise only once per 1,000,000 individuals (Condor, 1998)

So how can such an adverse rate produce adaptations particularly when most of the changes are either harmful or have no effect? According to Condor (1998) the process is not completely random ... there are several mechanisms at work such as mutation, gene recombination, sexual selection, natural selection etc. and secondly selection is cumulative.

Whilst creationists are correct in stating that the vast majority of mutations are in fact harmful they fail to note that natural selection operates AGAINST harmful mutations immediately and discards them. Some however are beneficial and natural selection operates in favour of them and includes them into future generations as the raw material of future evolution.

Without mutation there would be no variability and no evolution.

Conclusion
Creationists, likening established life to a well-running complex biological machine, state that if it is subject to random alterations improvements could not occur and harm will almost certainly be caused to the organism.

However most mutations are not harmful, they are neutral non-coding DNA and those changes that are harmful are discarded long before birth ... as such these "mutational failures" are not evident in the fossil record. But rare mutations will confer advantage and such rare advantages occurring in massively parallel fashion across millions and millions of individuals in millions of millions of species is the force that provides evolution with its basic material.

Evolution discards the flawed mutations and accumulates the beneficial ones due to mechanisms like sex and natural selection.

References
"How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution", Boyce Rensberger (1997)
"Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution", Robyn Conder (1998)
"Biology 111: Evolution", Richard Fox (1998)
"The Evolution of Improved Fitness by random mutation plus selection", Edward E. Max (1999)
"Cell Biology" Ambrose & Easty, 2nd Ed. (1978)

I would also questions your assertions that the difference between human and chimp genomes is 60 million base pairs, that each mutation is beneficial and that each must be implicitly targeted towards a specific evolutionary feature.

Kyu

---

(September 1, 2009 at 8:46 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: My mother had celiac disease which is a hereditary immune response to gluten. This is a non-beneficial mutation.

And without technology she would have died quickly and you would never have been born therefore the mutation WOULD NOT have been passed forward ... detrimental mutations ARE NOT favoured by evolution.

Kyu

---

It's also worth pointing out one other thing ... there is no such thing as a "DARWINIST"!

It's a creationist invention. an attempt by creationists to make atheists/evolutionists look like a cult.

Kyu

I would also questions your assertions that the difference between human and chimp genomes is 60 million base pairs, that each mutation is beneficial and that each must be implicitly targeted towards a specific evolutionary feature.


Question it as much as you want . I've studied the subject and there are indeed 60 million base pairs.

As to not every mutation having to be benificial then you might have a point there. I didn't think of that. But still, The number of benificial mutations that would have to take place would be quite big.

And I would like to question this:

Mutational rate varies from 0.1% to 0.0000001% (Ridley 1993) so the average is approx. 0.0001%. If 1% are beneficial then the chance of them being beneficial is 0.000001% (1 in 100,000,000). A given beneficial mutation will therefore arise only once per 100,000,000 individuals whilst detrimental or neutral mutation will arise only once per 1,000,000 individuals (Condor, 1998)

So how can such an adverse rate produce adaptations particularly when most of the changes are either harmful or have no effect? According to Condor (1998) the process is not completely random ... there are several mechanisms at work such as mutation, gene recombination, sexual selection, natural selection etc. and secondly selection is cumulative.

There has been no scientific proof of a benificial mutation occuring yet. (Or at the time I studied this crap anyway). Has one been achieved? If it has I'd be greatly intersted.

You say that detrimental mutations are not passed forward? But that is contradicting what dawinian said when he claimed.

These are all genetic mutations that can get passed on to the next generation that have no benefit.

So do they get passed on or dont they?

And looking at (Condor, 1998) it says that one in every 100,000,000 individuals has a benificial mutation. Has this been recorded?

In fact if science does not provide proof of benificial mutation then your whole theory of evolution goes down the drain... And so far I have not heard of such evidence. (dosent mean that it doesn't exist of couse, if it does I'd greatly love to see it).