Evolution is a lie?

[Adaephon]

Just before you go, perhaps you can, from a geneticist's point of view, answer this.....?

If it took 1000's of generations for the Ecoli to develop the ability to take in citrate how did the first creature that spontaneously burst forth into life (to start the process of evolution) actually survive as surely it would take more than 100 000's of generations to develop the ability to take in anything?

'...iron sharpens iron'

Probably diffusion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Apparently the fact that I bothered to learn about genetics before discussing the subject represents a grave character flaw on my part. I see no point to further discussion here.

Discussion does not require equal understanding. Few papers would be published or subjects learned in universities if the presenters waited until the interested parties were perceived as equally educated.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just before you go, perhaps you can, from a geneticist's point of view, answer this.....?

If it took 1000's of generations for the Ecoli to develop the ability to take in citrate how did the first creature that spontaneously burst forth into life (to start the process of evolution) actually survive as surely it would take more than 100 000's of generations to develop the ability to take in anything?

There are millions of chemical and life processes that have no known intermediary steps or "transitional forms". But evolution assumes (requires) that there are such steps and forms for every single situation. Its a clear case of fitting facts to the ideology rather than drawing conclusions from the facts.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's also simply not true that all mutations cause problems, since I've pointed out multiple cases in which a known mutation is beneficial for humans.

There are no known cases where a recognized mutation has a benefit for the majority of a population. Not even one to compare to the thousands that are documented to cause death to every single organism that has it.

And when there are documented death-mutations one will occasionally find a variation or secondary mutation that mitigates some of the damage caused by the first and allows one grouping of the population to die a slower death than the first.

If you twist your thought process to consider one population dying a slower death than another to be a "beneficial mutation" then you are not applying the term very well. Now consider that the entire theory of evolution is built on a the idea of "beneficial mutations" yet the science community freely admits they are stumped as to the dynamics of how it actually works.

What ever happened to theory following the data rather than leading?