A lot of talk about mutations as in part, a way for Macro-evolution But what are the facts about mutations,This would be good for everyone to read,just what are the facts. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-308.htm
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Are Mutations Evolutions Friend
- Thread starter Freedom777
- Start date
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
There are also beneficial mutations.
Using the same methods, we could conclude that humans do not live by injesting things because so many things that we can injest will kill us.
Using the same methods, we could conclude that humans do not live by injesting things because so many things that we can injest will kill us.
Upvote
0
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.
While there have been positive mutations identified, including among humans, the answer to this should be glaringly obvious. People usually don't go in for medical testing, etc, when they are perfectly healthy. Hence, it's little surprise that most of the attention is focused on mutations with negative effects.
While there have been positive mutations identified, including among humans, the answer to this should be glaringly obvious. People usually don't go in for medical testing, etc, when they are perfectly healthy. Hence, it's little surprise that most of the attention is focused on mutations with negative effects.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 21
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If I want the facts about mutation, I think I'll talk to a geneticist, not an organization whose members swear not to accept any data which contradict their previous positions.
Upvote
0
Quote
If I want the facts about mutation, I think I'll talk to a geneticist, not an organization whose members swear not to accept any data which contradict their previous positions.
They don't swear to not accept data,but the interpretation of the data. Big Differance.
If I want the facts about mutation, I think I'll talk to a geneticist, not an organization whose members swear not to accept any data which contradict their previous positions.
They don't swear to not accept data,but the interpretation of the data. Big Differance.
Upvote
0
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
If the detective swears that he will find person X guilty before beginning an investigation, would you trust his testimony? There is no difference.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
ICR and AiG also swear not to accept data.
From the ICR oath:
""(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. (2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made bydirect creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. (3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, world-wide in its extent and effect. "
They can't accept any data contrary to that, can they, Freedom? They've already told us what happened. Therefore they can't change their interpretation no matter what data is forthcoming.
Now, if you want real data about mutation rates, ask, and I'll put up the scientific studies.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Well, you're forgetting that God told the detective, through divine revelation, to find person X guilty long before the investigation started.
So when the detective finds a smoking gun in person Y's hand, well then, it must have been put there by Satan, right?
Upvote
0
TheBear
NON-WOKED
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,813
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I am going to have to agree with the opinion that the ICR is not any kind of valid scientific body or institute. Try as they may, they only succeed to sway and awe the non-scientific layman. After all, the layman is their only targeted audience. You never hear a peep from them in the scientific journals, or among the scientific community. (except for occasionally being the brunt of a joke. )
)
Upvote
0
It seems that there is 1 post with real facts, and 10 posts attacking the source, not answering to the facts themselves.
None of the facts are answered to, just the interpretations of ICR. Here's some more content from a molecular biologist/microbiologist creationist on the subject:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3985.asp
None of the facts are answered to, just the interpretations of ICR. Here's some more content from a molecular biologist/microbiologist creationist on the subject:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3985.asp
Upvote
0
seebs, to put it bluntly, your statement above is meaningless. Just address the facts presented in the article, not the writers.
Upvote
0
troodon
Be wise and be smart
- Dec 16, 2002
- 1,698
- 58
- 41
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Here's a fact for you bro,
Nylon Digesting Bacteria
A mutation created a new gene that allows these little suckers to digest nylon (obviously beneficial).
Upvote
0
That AiG article talks about viruses originally being part of the DNA in cells. This guy is a leading AIDS researcher and he thinks HIV is a DNA virus? Now that's worrying.
Upvote
0
Ok, Getting to the article.
seeks to establish a godless cosmos of chance in which the appearance of design in life has occurred by accident, by the incremental accumulation of positive changes in genes.
Tries to polarize the issue and make it god vs atheist science.
The theory of evolution doesnt work purly on chance.
" 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."
Scientists arent really silent. Im not a scientist and I can think of the sickle cell problem (see next paragraph) and a mutation that makes people Immune to AIDs. And shown in the post above, Nylon Digesting Bacteria.
"The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of evolution. The problems with this is obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its incidence is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection."
I find this funny. That since Sickle Cell anemia can be a problem, they are dismissing it. Even though it is a helpfull mutation. My question to creationists, How come the perfect human body wasnt originally designed Malaria resistant?
Since Sickle Cell Anemia does help the body, it can be considered a possitive mutation.
"Is there any historical data to support the idea that mutations are slowly accumulating over time in the human population? Yes, there is. The British archaeologist W. M. Flinders-Petrie points out that laws governing marriage between relatives have become stricter over time.8 In ancient Egypt, marriages that we would now consider incest were freely practiced, at all levels of society... ...it is interesting to note that the Bible, as a historical document, shows a similar pattern of change in marriage custom, with marriage between full siblings implied very early in history, and then documented between half-siblings and other second degree relatives at a later stage (around the time of Abraham)."
The practices of society can not be used as a good gauge for genetics.
I mean, society also believed that the earth was stationary and that the sun rotated around the earth, it was then discovered later in history that the earth actually rotated, and orbited the sun.
Using their logic, this means that the sun did orbit the earth, but after awhile, this changed and now the earth rotates the sun.
"This research affirms the reality of the past Biblical curse of decay and degeneration on the world of nature, as stated in both Old and New Testaments."
Well, I saw no affirmations in this research that showed the bible was correct. Only assumptions.
"Gene therapy may mask the effects, but it will not reverse the underlying degenerative process. A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish."
This shows a of research, as there is not a zero rate of positive genetic change.
In my opinion, this article was written to wow the layman, and to coax them to their side. With rather glaringly placed polarizing comments to turn the argument into a theism vs atheism battle. The big words and science talk may wow some people, but the lack of research and the large assumptions didnt surprise me.
For a more indepth look at mutations, here is the talk origins article, are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
How is that?
-Ari
seeks to establish a godless cosmos of chance in which the appearance of design in life has occurred by accident, by the incremental accumulation of positive changes in genes.
Tries to polarize the issue and make it god vs atheist science.
The theory of evolution doesnt work purly on chance.
" 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."
Scientists arent really silent. Im not a scientist and I can think of the sickle cell problem (see next paragraph) and a mutation that makes people Immune to AIDs. And shown in the post above, Nylon Digesting Bacteria.
"The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of evolution. The problems with this is obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its incidence is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection."
I find this funny. That since Sickle Cell anemia can be a problem, they are dismissing it. Even though it is a helpfull mutation. My question to creationists, How come the perfect human body wasnt originally designed Malaria resistant?
Since Sickle Cell Anemia does help the body, it can be considered a possitive mutation.
"Is there any historical data to support the idea that mutations are slowly accumulating over time in the human population? Yes, there is. The British archaeologist W. M. Flinders-Petrie points out that laws governing marriage between relatives have become stricter over time.8 In ancient Egypt, marriages that we would now consider incest were freely practiced, at all levels of society... ...it is interesting to note that the Bible, as a historical document, shows a similar pattern of change in marriage custom, with marriage between full siblings implied very early in history, and then documented between half-siblings and other second degree relatives at a later stage (around the time of Abraham)."
The practices of society can not be used as a good gauge for genetics.
I mean, society also believed that the earth was stationary and that the sun rotated around the earth, it was then discovered later in history that the earth actually rotated, and orbited the sun.
Using their logic, this means that the sun did orbit the earth, but after awhile, this changed and now the earth rotates the sun.
"This research affirms the reality of the past Biblical curse of decay and degeneration on the world of nature, as stated in both Old and New Testaments."
Well, I saw no affirmations in this research that showed the bible was correct. Only assumptions.
"Gene therapy may mask the effects, but it will not reverse the underlying degenerative process. A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish."
This shows a of research, as there is not a zero rate of positive genetic change.
In my opinion, this article was written to wow the layman, and to coax them to their side. With rather glaringly placed polarizing comments to turn the argument into a theism vs atheism battle. The big words and science talk may wow some people, but the lack of research and the large assumptions didnt surprise me.
For a more indepth look at mutations, here is the talk origins article, are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
How is that?
-Ari
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
