(September 1, 2009 at 8:46 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: 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.

Good! Now explain why you deny the rest of evolution, which has been (to use your words) "confirmed by science"?

If you expect me to answer can you use the

Quote:QUOTE

facility ... I cannot tell where my points end and yours begin.

Kyu

Quote: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.

There is no contradiction. As Kyu mentioned, if the consequences of these genes hadn't been catered for by technology or deliberate intervention then their carries would have been at a disadvantage and eventually they would have died out, or at least not survived in great numbers.

So you think beneficial mutations do not occur? People are not made superior, only inferior to the 'normal' person? That makes an awful lot of sense, doesn't it? Maybe we are all clones, with just negative and benign mutations to make us different? 0.o

There has been many examples of beneficial mutations - the peppered moth being the standard example of observed evolution on a quick scale.

With regards to beneficial mutation in humans, see the following link and note bullet points 3 and 4 in the below paragraph

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

2.Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
•Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
•Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
•Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
•A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
•Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
•In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Let's not forget about Nylon eating bacteria as well. Especially considering that Nylon wasn't around until the mid 1930's. It's a very good example in showing the facts for Evolution.

(September 1, 2009 at 11:59 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 1, 2009 at 8:46 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: 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.

Good! Now explain why you deny the rest of evolution, which has been (to use your words) "confirmed by science"?

That's the problem mate... It hasn't. If it would have then I would have no problem with it. Theories pop up and die down all the time with evolution. There is no slolid rock to stand upon.

(September 1, 2009 at 1:01 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: If you expect me to answer can you use the

Quote:QUOTE

facility ... I cannot tell where my points end and yours begin.

Kyu

Sorry Kyu, just figgured out how to use it. I did try before but it kind of didn't work.

(September 1, 2009 at 1:55 pm)Saerules Wrote: So you think beneficial mutations do not occur? People are not made superior, only inferior to the 'normal' person? That makes an awful lot of sense, doesn't it? Maybe we are all clones, with just negative and benign mutations to make us different? 0.o

Well I havent heard of any superior genetic condition beng passed on to the next generation. Of course we're all different, but that is mostly by neutral mutations.

(September 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm)amw79 Wrote: There has been many examples of beneficial mutations - the peppered moth being the standard example of observed evolution on a quick scale.

With regards to beneficial mutation in humans, see the following link and note bullet points 3 and 4 in the below paragraph


2.Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
•Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
•Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
•Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
•A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
•Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
•In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Extremely interesting stuff.Thanks for the input. But, the writer failed to point out that the "benificial mutants" can actally turn inferior when the determining factor is removed and normal conditions are ensued.

But guys, don't you realise that by pssting those evolutionary articles you are as credible to me as I would have been to you if I would have pasted Genesis 1 here? Which to Christians is as much confirmed by science as The Origin of Species is to evolutionists?

(September 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm)amw79 Wrote: There has been many examples of beneficial mutations - the peppered moth being the standard example of observed evolution on a quick scale.

With regards to beneficial mutation in humans, see the following link and note bullet points 3 and 4 in the below paragraph


2.Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
•Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
•Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
•Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
•A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
•Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
•In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote:Extremely interesting stuff.Thanks for the input. But, the writer failed to point out that the "benificial mutants" can actally turn inferior when the determining factor is removed and normal conditions are ensued.

But guys, don't you realise that by pssting those evolutionary articles you are as credible to me as I would have been to you if I would have pasted Genesis 1 here? Which to Christians is as much confirmed by science as The Origin of Species is to evolutionists?

The fact that due to environmental, or other determining factors, some mutations can change between non-beneficial, neutral, or beneficial, only adds to evolutionary theory (as in the peppered moth example). Indeed, this fact goes some way towards answering your point re the statisical improbability of genetic mutations i.e. existing genetic conditions/mutations are at one point neutral, then following environmental changes became beneficial - the power of natural selection does the rest.

And by the way, I'd be careful if your going to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific studies as not credible. You stated beneficial mutations were not possible - I have attempted to explain why there are, with links and references to scientific studies and basic examples.

If you are not interested in learning anything about the subject, and will simply dismiss this as not credible, (or, amazingly, assert that genesis has as much credibility as scientific studies), then you're in the wrong place.

(September 2, 2009 at 3:46 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: That's the problem mate... It hasn't. If it would have then I would have no problem with it. Theories pop up and die down all the time with evolution. There is no slolid rock to stand upon.

I'm afraid that there is a solid rock to stand upon, namely the theory of evolution through natural selection. This is the scientific theory that has led to the discovery of new fossils, a better understanding of disease, you name it.

Why do 99.99999% of biologists accept the theory of evolution? (the 0.00001% who don't being the theists who are blinded by their faith). Why is evolution taught in the same science books that teach about gravity?

You are what is known as a hypocrite. You accept science when it supports your religious beliefs, but when something is thrown into the works like evolution, you deny it even though it has the support of the entire scientific community, and has never been successfully disproven.

Let's keep this really simple. Not because you're just 16 but because sometimes it's all to easy to over complicate things.

When a Mummy and a Daddy love each other very much.... Oops, maybe not that simple

Anyway..

There are three kinds of mutations that a new born organism can exhibit, these are beneficial, benign or detrimental.

If it is a beneficial mutation that gives the organism some kind of advantage in the struggle to survive and reproduce then it is selected by nature and is far more likely to be passed on to the next generation.

If it is benign or doesn't provide much of a disadvantage or advantage then nature doesn't really pay too much attention to it.

If it is detrimental and lessens the chances of an organism reproducing then obviously it is far less likely to find its way into the next generation and probably won't survive.

Most mutations are either benign or detrimental as evolution is not consciously working towards any particular goal. It's only due to the number of offspring that organisms tend to have, too many than can possibly survive, an ever changing environment that puts pressure on life to constantly adapt and the enormity of geological time that has passed since the first primitive cell that emerged some 4 billion years ago that we have the diversity and richness of life today.

As Adrian said, the reason that many theists simply can't accept this is because they don't want to, mainly because it contradicts their literal interpretation of Genesis and so they look for any anomaly they can in the theory (Scientific theory that is), anomalies that are far, far fewer today since we have discovered and unlocked the the genetic code and proved that all life is related than existed when Darwin published his Magnum Opus 150 years ago and ever decreasing as scientists discover more and more about the workings of natural selection.

Like it or not, evolution is a proven fact and arguing against it won't change that.