Beneficial MutationS

[Governed Apology Exploded]

I hear creationists often say there are no beneficial mutations. I wish I knew how that worked. Is it based on the idea that evolution is progress? ANY mutation, even a deletion, can be beneficial, depending on the environment. Humans don't have more DNA than all other living things. Can somebody explain? I'm also curious how many creationists believe there are mutations in general.

 

[Carico]

I hear creationists often say there are no beneficial mutations. I wish I knew how that worked. Is it based on the idea that evolution is progress? ANY mutation, even a deletion, can be beneficial, depending on the environment. Humans don't have more DNA than all other living things. Can somebody explain? I'm also curious how many creationists believe there are mutations in general.

So how did the genes for cognition, the ability to analyze, form concepts, build bridges, skyscrapers, build rockets, calculate get into the genes of a homonid to pass them along to a homo sapiens to pass them along to a human? That is my question.

Again, mutation can only happen to characteristics already present in the gene. It cannot form new genes that give animals more abilities that are not inherent in the genes of their parents. Otherwise, tigers could produce offspring that could fly or ants could produce offspring who could talk. But this is what evolutionists claim. They claim that humans came from non-speaking primates, who could only grunt & groan. This is absurd.

But other evolutionists who see the absurdity of this say that we came from speaking primates, in which case, why not simply call them human beings? Again, the bible says that God created man. Now we can draw what we think the 1st man looked like, but nevertheless, he was sitll a human being. But in order for evolutionists to throw out the creation theory to say that God does not exist, they have to find a way to say we came from primates or apes. So they draw "primitive' men to look like apes or primates. This again is biased thinking and a desperate attempt to deny the bible. All one has to do is believe the bible and there would be no theories of evolution. Therefore, the evolution theory was invented specifically to contradict the bible. If not, then why not believe the bible?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Carico-

Evolution does not say God does not exist

Evolution is not atheism

I'm sure you knew this, but I'm bored of pointing out your lies. Just don't imply it again, or I'll have to call you on it.

 

[Governed Apology Exploded]

Again, mutation can only happen to characteristics already present in the gene. It cannot form new genes that give animals more abilities that are not inherent in the genes of their parents.

Changing one nucleotide on a gene can make it radically different. Ability is a subjective thing that depends on environment. Fins would be detrimental or at least useless for humans, but are great for fish. Five eyes wouldn't help a fish living hundreds of metres underwater where there is no visible light, but would be great for most other things. The mutation that causes you to be able to run faster is no harder to produce than one that makes you run slower.

 

[Carico]

Carico-

Evolution does not say God does not exist

Evolution is not atheism

I'm sure you knew this, but I'm bored of pointing out your lies. Just don't imply it again, or I'll have to call you on it.

So why not just believe the bible? Or do evolutionists have an imaginary god in which case it wouldn't be real in the first place?! So Which is it?

 

[Carmack]

So why not just believe the bible? Or do evolutionists have an imaginary god in which case it wouldn't be real in the first place?! So Which is it?

Because some things in the physical world just aren't in the Bible.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So why not just believe the bible? Or do evolutionists have an imaginary god in which case it wouldn't be real in the first place?! So Which is it?

Those of us who are Christians do believe the Bible. We just don't use it as a science text.

Why on earth do you imagine that if there's a God He must have created the way your literal interpretation of Genesis 1 says He did?

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm

 

[Heather S.]

You can believe the Bible AND evolution, smart one. It's called Theistic Evolution.

 

[Freodin]

So why not just believe the bible? Or do evolutionists have an imaginary god in which case it wouldn't be real in the first place?! So Which is it?

It´s simple - and according to you, simple means true.

For Christians who accept that Theory of Evolution, it is the way, the method, the tool that God used to create.

 

[Oliver]

So why not just believe the bible? Or do evolutionists have an imaginary god in which case it wouldn't be real in the first place?! So Which is it?

But they DO believe the Bible (at least theistic evolutionists do).
They simply do not believe that certain parts of it should be taken literally, because it contradicts what God shows us in His Creation.

 

[Governed Apology Exploded]

Again, mutation can only happen to characteristics already present in the gene. It cannot form new genes that give animals more abilities that are not inherent in the genes of their parents.

I know how to answer this better.

Mutations do only happen to characteristics present in the genes. However, that does not mean no new abilities can be added (ability being dependant on environment, of course). Some of these mutations help the organism survive better, and over time, through these mutations, an organism has radically different characteristics than the original.

 

[Knees]

I hear creationists often say there are no beneficial mutations. I wish I knew how that worked. Is it based on the idea that evolution is progress? ANY mutation, even a deletion, can be beneficial, depending on the environment. Humans don't have more DNA than all other living things. Can somebody explain? I'm also curious how many creationists believe there are mutations in general.

Most creationists do not say there are no positive mutations - absolute statements are never a good idea - but it is possible to say that evolutionists have never documented any good examples of postitive mutations. The only one most of the literature presents is the example of sickle-cell anemia because people of African descent who have this disease are less likely to get malaria.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Most creationists do not say there are no positive mutations - absolute statements are never a good idea - but it is possible to say that evolutionists have never documented any good examples of postitive mutations. The only one most of the literature presents is the example of sickle-cell anemia because people of African descent who have this disease are less likely to get malaria.

And not getting malaria isn't an advantage?

But we also have AIDS resistance and the nylon eating bug, off the top of my head.

 

[mikeynov]

Most creationists do not say there are no positive mutations - absolute statements are never a good idea - but it is possible to say that evolutionists have never documented any good examples of postitive mutations. The only one most of the literature presents is the example of sickle-cell anemia because people of African descent who have this disease are less likely to get malaria.

I'm really curious when people make statements like this.

Just out of curiosity, how many peer reviewed journals did you look through to form this conclusion? In the least, what research databases did you pour through to get a sense of what documented, beneficial mutations exist?

The average biologist isn't aware of a good percentage of research that isn't in their immediate area of expertise, much less the average layperson. When laypeople make statements as the above, I always roll my eyes, because it's very obviously a stock answer that's being parrotted, and undoubtedly comes from a creationist source.

And creationists, on average, really don't care for or pay attention to research in the first place. Even (or maybe particularly) the professional variety.

 

[Carico]

I know how to answer this better.

Mutations do only happen to characteristics present in the genes. However, that does not mean no new abilities can be added (ability being dependant on environment, of course). Some of these mutations help the organism survive better, and over time, through these mutations, an organism has radically different characteristics than the original.

At least you're someone who gives a rational answer (even though I might disagree with it) instead of those who only respond with empty attacks and no explanation. Maybe with you, we I can simply debate the issues instead of hearing only name-calling.

So again, how are these new genes added? Sorry, but you haven't explained how these genes can be added excpept only in our imaginations. If what you're saying is true, then ants could give birth to offspring who could fly. Is that correct?

 

[Freodin]

At least you're someone who gives a rational answer (even though I might disagree with it) instead of those who only respond with empty attacks and no explanation. Maybe with you, we I can simply debate the issues instead of hearing only name-calling.

So again, how are these new genes added? Sorry, but you haven't explained how these genes can be added excpept only in our imaginations. If what you're saying is true, then ants could give birth to offspring who could fly. Is that correct?

You might be surprised - ants do give birth to offspring that can fly...

 

[notto]

So again, how are these new genes added? Sorry, but you haven't explained how these genes can be added excpept only in our imaginations. If what you're saying is true, then ants could give birth to offspring who could fly. Is that correct?

First we need to make sure you understand what a gene is. Do you understand what is meant when we talk about genes? What is a gene made of?

Next, how does mutation affect the stuff that makes up genes?

Within the answers to these two questions is the answer to your question. Once you can answer these questions, then you will be qualified to make the assertions you are. Can you answer them?

You do realize that ants DO lay eggs (they don't give birth) to offspring who can fly, right?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

So how did the genes for cognition, the ability to analyze, form concepts, build bridges, skyscrapers, build rockets, calculate get into the genes of a homonid to pass them along to a homo sapiens to pass them along to a human? That is my question.

The ability for higher reason evolved along with the more complex brain. Even now some humans are born with a genetic disadvantage when it comes to intellect. For example, if we were able to autopsy your brain and mine you would find that yours is probably much smoother. Before civilized society the smarter organisms were able to kill off their intellectually challenged competition with tools and wits. This allowed evolution to advance more complex brain structures as time passed.

Again, mutation can only happen to characteristics already present in the gene. It cannot form new genes that give animals more abilities that are not inherent in the genes of their parents.

[url="http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=13953405&postcount=16"]http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=13953405&postcount=16[/url]

Why don’t you take a crack at the quiet thread if you’re feeling froggy.

Otherwise, tigers could produce offspring that could fly or ants could produce offspring who could talk. But this is what evolutionists claim.

Just another blatant lie for your god.

They claim that humans came from non-speaking primates, who could only grunt & groan. This is absurd.

But other evolutionists who see the absurdity of this say that we came from speaking primates, in which case, why not simply call them human beings?

Because most of us are smarter than that and are able to classify them more appropriately.

Again, the bible says that God created man. Now we can draw what we think the 1st man looked like, but nevertheless, he was sitll a human being. But in order for evolutionists to throw out the creation theory to say that God does not exist, they have to find a way to say we came from primates or apes. So they draw "primitive' men to look like apes or primates. This again is biased thinking and a desperate attempt to deny the bible. All one has to do is believe the bible and there would be no theories of evolution. Therefore, the evolution theory was invented specifically to contradict the bible. If not, then why not believe the bible?

Yes, all someone has to do is believe that some invisible entity used magic words to poof creatures into existence… it’s nice and easy isn’t it. As for the latter, more ignorant lies for your god.

 

[Governed Apology Exploded]

absolute statements are never a good idea

When did I do that? Is it because I forgot the word "some"?

So again, how are these new genes added? Sorry, but you haven't explained how these genes can be added excpept only in our imaginations. If what you're saying is true, then ants could give birth to offspring who could fly. Is that correct?

Genes don't need to be added. Deleting or replacing genes can give something new abilities. I don't know how genes are added, I know little about the subject myself. Hopefully somebody else can explain.

And yes, an ant could produce a butterfly, however this is extremely unlikely, and an ant couldn't properly deal with a butterfly egg. A dog giving birth to a cat IS about as likely as a tornado assembling a car, it is much more likely to happen through small changes over time.

 

[SwampGator]

You can believe the Bible AND evolution, smart one. It's called Theistic Evolution.

Please explain how the two can coexist.