Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[KichigaiNeko]

Grace, why are you talking about abiogenesis in your "mutations" thread? You already have an abiogenesis thread. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate, though related, fields. Your first fundamental misunderstanding is to conflate these. I suspect you are ignoring me because of my credentials. Are you going to listen, or are you going to keep repeating yourself erroneously on a topic that is not relevant to your own OP?

The multi-storey building offer is still good.

[Minimalist]

That is another weakness in the theory of evolution.

You would not know a weakness in the theory of evolution if a Tiktaalik swam up and bit you on the ass.

[Esquilax]

Your source was worthless. Just the same old blindness.

Gee, is anyone convinced now?

Besides, I already proved that evolution is real and your god isn't multiple times. I already proved it, irrefutably. What are you even still doing here? It's been proved.

By me. When I proved it.

[Whateverist]

[
Gee, is anyone convinced now?

Besides, I already proved that evolution is real and your god isn't multiple times. I already proved it, irrefutably. What are you even still doing here? It's been proved.

By me. When I proved it.

Oh you must mean back when you proved it. Sure I remember that very well. You certainly did .. when you proved it that is.

[Esquilax]

Oh you must mean back when you proved it. Sure I remember that very well. You certainly did .. when you proved it that is.

See, Grace? Confirmation!

One person remembers when I proved this, and agrees with me. My level of approval is literally one hundred percent higher than yours. I must be right, right?

[pocaracas]

At least, we've agreed that deleterious mutations do cause a survivability/reproducibility problem, right?
Now, the non-deleterious mutations may have an effect on the certain details in the physiology of the animal, or on its functionality, or may have no effect at all.
When lots of these mutations build up.... if they have caused sufficient changes in physiology, they may give rise to a new species, or just a new race.
If one of them becomes deleterious, it is weeded out of the population, at the same rate as all deleterious mutations. But the overall population retains the non-deleterious ones and just goes on.
Do remember, we are not talking about one single animal from a given species. We are talking about an entire population. And the mutations pop up on single animals, not on the whole population at the same time!

We can agree that the deleterious mutations are weeded out.

But the remainder of the population is accumulating non-deleterious mutations.

If the population does not accumulate these changes, then there is not enough changes in the DNA to turn one species into another.

Non-deleterious mutations have no ill effect on each individual, hence, they carry on to the next generation and the next, and the next, and the next... at some point, you have many such non-deleterious mutations piling up in all the individuals of a species.

Now here is the problem. Unless it can be shown that there is enough that are beneficial, the rest do corrupt the genome of the species.

Like Lemonvariable72 wrote, we just keep it around.
It's mostly useless... but it's there.

It is speculation that there are enough beneficial changes to produce new functionality.

It is one mechanism which can account for new species or simply races/breeds.
How do you think dogs became as disparate as St Bernard and poodle?
(skip to ~1:15:00)

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

We can agree that the deleterious mutations are weeded out.

But the remainder of the population is accumulating non-deleterious mutations.

If the population does not accumulate these changes, then there is not enough changes in the DNA to turn one species into another.

Now here is the problem. Unless it can be shown that there is enough that are beneficial, the rest do corrupt the genome of the species.

It is speculation that there are enough beneficial changes to produce new functionality.

That is another weakness in the theory of evolution.

Well first you have to define what you mean by a corrupted genome?
You see around 95% of the human genome is junk and that number is fairly in every mammalian genome we have mapped.
I think something that may help understand better is the experiments done by Dmitri Belyeav, I'll link
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/...&css=print

The errors would be distributed throughout the genome. So the genome will be corrupted.

[Esquilax]

The errors would be distributed throughout the genome. So the genome will be corrupted.

What was the first sentence of the post you quoted?

Not that it matters, since I've already proved you wrong at every conceivable scale.

[Chas]

Well first you have to define what you mean by a corrupted genome?
You see around 95% of the human genome is junk and that number is fairly in every mammalian genome we have mapped.
I think something that may help understand better is the experiments done by Dmitri Belyeav, I'll link
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/...&css=print

The errors would be distributed throughout the genome. So the genome will be corrupted.

No, the genome will be changed, not 'corrupted'.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The errors would be distributed throughout the genome. So the genome will be corrupted.

No, the genome will be changed, not 'corrupted'.

But the changes are random and not directed by an intelligence. So they are errors.

Nobody takes the bytes in a complied computer program and has the bits randomly changed and expects the program to work as well.