A question to the darwinists.

[I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ]

No I never said that I write all of your arguments off. I am thinking about them, I simply question their credibility... Not that I'm ignoring them completely...

And actually a bit more than what Adrian says beleive in creation... I dont know where you got your figures from mate. And are you not doing the same by ignoring the creationist arguments and evidences? I mean I'm a rookie at this, and am mainly doing this for the sake of the dabate, but other scientists have proved darwinists wrong and blown them outta the water.

And theres no need to patronise me darwinian, just cos im 16 dosent mean I'm stupid. I mean, you might be looking at your own children and thinking I got the same level of intelligence, but no, you're wrong...

Now then, fair enough lets presume that benificial mutations indeed DID occur... So that means that out of a 100,000,000 of them Hominids, or whatever you guys claim that we have evolved from, only 1 would have a benificial mutation. Provided that that one is not killed by any other factor, (ie, eaten by a predator, die by accident etc. the possibilites of that would be enormous in the primeval world)before it reproduces, the genetic line of that mutant must be contued until the numbers of the species with the same mutation have reached 100,000,000. Now theother must have been dying off by now, even though their numbers would be 100,000,000x100,000,000 approx. (I cant be bothered to write all the zeros again sorry). So then that lot dies off. And in the 100,000,000 of the benificial mutants ANOTHER benificial mutation must take place.... Provided that that one is not killed by any other factor, (ie, eaten by a predator, die by accident etc. the possibilites of that would be enormous in the primeval world) etc.etc. The process must be repeated millions of times until the homo sapiens would have been achieved. And each benificial mutant must survive until it reproduces etc. The odds are totally agains the whole thing. Guys, are you serious by saying that all this fitted into 4 million years?

[Tiberius]

And actually a bit more than what Adrian says beleive in creation... I dont know where you got your figures from mate. And are you not doing the same by ignoring the creationist arguments and evidences? I mean I'm a rookie at this, and am mainly doing this for the sake of the dabate, but other scientists have proved darwinists wrong and blown them outta the water.

I get my figures from the National Academy of Science; you get yours from creationism institutes. We don't ignore the evidence of creationists, but all their evidence and arguments have been refuted. That is how science works. If a creationist came up with irrefutable evidence that evolution was wrong, science would have to accept it.

Please give us a few of these arguments that have "proved darwinists wrong", because nobody in science seems to have ever heard them (or they have heard them and subsequently debunked them).

Now then, fair enough lets presume that benificial mutations indeed DID occur... So that means that out of a 100,000,000 of them Hominids, or whatever you guys claim that we have evolved from, only 1 would have a benificial mutation. Provided that that one is not killed by any other factor, (ie, eaten by a predator, die by accident etc. the possibilites of that would be enormous in the primeval world)before it reproduces, the genetic line of that mutant must be contued until the numbers of the species with the same mutation have reached 100,000,000. Now theother must have been dying off by now, even though their numbers would be 100,000,000x100,000,000 approx. (I cant be bothered to write all the zeros again sorry). So then that lot dies off. And in the 100,000,000 of the benificial mutants ANOTHER benificial mutation must take place.... Provided that that one is not killed by any other factor, (ie, eaten by a predator, die by accident etc. the possibilites of that would be enormous in the primeval world) etc.etc. The process must be repeated millions of times until the homo sapiens would have been achieved. And each benificial mutant must survive until it reproduces etc. The odds are totally agains the whole thing. Guys, are you serious by saying that all this fitted into 4 million years?

This all just shows that you have absolutely no understanding of basic biology or evolution. You are creating a strawman version of evolution and then proceeding to tear that down. It's not what evolution says happens at all. Mutations gradually disperse through a species, but during that time new mutations arise and are also dispersed. Evolution doesn't wait until a mutation is fully dispersed before having another one; it is not working towards any end goal at all.

Odds aren't involved at all, because the only odds you place on such events are after they have taken place. You cannot place odds on a system that works towards no goal, because there is no end goal to have a probability on.

[I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ]

But to reach the homo sapiens state would that process not need to happen, (ie the one that I described before) benificial mutants mutating benificially further for millions of times? Yeah you get different branches and stuff I know, but like I said for the homo sapiens to come out the process would have to be repeated millions of times, ensuing that the mutated specimen survives in each case before reproduction. And maybe the 100,000,000 would not have to be reached every time yes, BUT, sometimes the number would have to go OVER 100,000,000 if you indeed beleive that everything is governed by laws of chance. You cant say a new species mutated benificially straight after it had just done so. And no I'm not creating a strawman version, I'm working of the version that you guys have given me in this particular debate. So Adrian, when you can't put forth a worthy argument then you just say that I dont know anything about the subject and leave it at that? So typical of evolutionists.

And yeah, I'll fish around a bit for those arguments... After we finish this debate OK?

[Tiberius]

And no I'm not creating a strawman version, I'm working of the version that you guys have given me in this particular debate.

I'm afraid you are creating a strawman. We tell you how evolution works, and you go and completely turn it on it's head. We never at any stage said that one mutation had to spread through the entire population before a new mutation occurred, that was all you.

Yes, the process repeats millions of times, it's nature. It happens all the time. When an organism has a mutation that gives it a benefit in it's environment (say, faster legs for escaping predators), it has a higher survival rate than other organisms that do not have the mutation. Yes, it may die out anyway through some other cause, but the same can be said of any of the organisms. If the organism survives long enough to reproduce, it passes on the mutation to it's children, who then pass it onto their children, etc etc. Eventually the mutation is spread around the population.

I'm not sure why you keep going on about these numbers 100,000,000, because they don't come into it at all.

Also, I don't think everything is governed by the laws of chance, so I don't know why you brought it up.

So Adrian, when you can't put forth a worthy argument then you just say that I dont know anything about the subject and leave it at that? So typical of evolutionists.

I did put forth a worthy argument, and your "rebuttal" simply made up another argument and discarded mine. You state things about evolution than no evolutionary biologist has ever said or believed. I think you'll also find that I didn't "just" say you didn't know anything; I said you didn't know anything about biology and then proceeded to try and correct you on your point about mutations.

Please find me the arguments now. This is a debate, and you have brought up some supposed arguments that disprove evolution. They are in the debate now, so you can either (a) back them up by presenting them properly, or (b) apologise for bringing them up because they are wrong.

[mrjack]

I just want to quickly comment on the subject of beneficial mutations.

I live in Finland which is obviously a totally different environment when compared to Africa. I have red hair and light skin, which is most likely due to a mutation that affects the function of the MC1R protein. This is means that there isn't very much eumelanin in my skin and hair. Eumelanin is found in higher concentrations in people with dark hair and skin.
There is a pro to having low concentrations of melanin when living in northern countries and that is the fact that you can then produce vitamin D with less exposure to UV radiation. This means that if one had a darker complexion and wasn't able to get enough vitamin D via food, then one's bones wouldn't develop properly. People with light complexions would thus have been "superior" in a time when vitamin D supplements weren't available. However people with darker skin would be "superior" if I were to live in for example Africa because I have a higher risk of developing some form of skin cancer due to the lower concentration of melanin in my skin.

Somebody could say: "That's not a beneficial mutation, you said it yourself that you have a higher risk of skin cancer". It's not that simple. The mutation is beneficial in the environment in which it succeeded to thrive and it may even be beneficial in other environments and thus spread even further, but it may also be detrimental in a different environment.

As has been said evolution doesn't have a certain species as a goal, only to produce species that are adapted to their surroundings. It is my understanding that this does not necessarily apply to humans anymore as we have learned to use tools in order to change our surroundings rather than ourselves and this negates the need to change in any significant way.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ]

Well I got the 1/100,000,000 has a benificial mutation" our of here

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.

So yeah, 1 in 100,000,000 has a benificial mutation. And the odds of the benificial mutations getting passed on to the next generation and spreading are small. And the process being repated is even smaller... And is 4 million years nearly enough for it all to happen?

And Adrian, originally I just asked a question... I don't know why you guys seem so hostile towards me.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's probably - if anything - just frustration at dealing with so many creationists before, etc.

I doubt there's any genuine 'hostility' here?

EvF

[Violet]

I know that i've no hostility to him. I do get frustrated by repetitive stupidity and preaching though.

[Darwinian]

I said..

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

To anyone with even the slightest intellect it is obvious that I wasn't patronising you, in fact the opposite. I was simply starting out with an uncomplicated version of evolution that could be easily grasped.

You're so sure that everyone here is against you and simply wants to rubbish everything you say and belittle you that you read that attitude when it isn't there.

You even missed my little tongue in cheek joke..

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

I suspect that this is because like most of the Fundie Christians that pass this way (fr0d0 excluded) you have no sense of humour and what intellect you have is being wasted on refuting arguments that are factual.

You are just 16 and as a child you still have a lot to learn so I suggest that when people who know immeasurably more about a particular subject than take the time and effort to share their knowledge with you then try and learn something rather than just dismissing them with a snide comment.

I get the impression that, to you, this is all a bit of a laugh, winding up the ignorant atheists. But remember, your the one who is ignorant about how evolution works, not us. And when members do give you clear answers you even seem to have trouble understanding those.

I don't know why you guys seem so hostile towards me.

That's because you came here with the preconception of not being liked and so that is what has happened, despite our best efforts.

[Violet]

Adults have a lot to learn as well, Darwinian... Age gives us more time in which to learn wisdom and knowledge... but it doesn't automatically translate to a measure of either. Arrogance, confidence, and environment are much more likely factors to determining ones' wisdom and knowledge.

Oh, and another contributing factor: intelligence. If you are stupid, it will probably be harder for you to learn wisdom and knowledge.

---

@IF4JC: It is usually wiser to lie in the case of age (when not "of age"), and claim that you are somewhere in your early twenties-late teens.