If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

[rmwilliamsll]

The opening post in this thread seems to concede that beneficial mutations have not and cannot be observed directly. In another thread, I have asked many scientists to provide a short quote from a published paper in which the author claims to have eye witnessed a beneficial mutation in the process of being made. So far, no such quotes have been provided to me. Can you supply one along with a citation or link?

no. nor can anyone provide such an animal.
we don't see mutations happen, we detect the phenotypic change that reflects the mutation.

and then work backwards to the mutation.
not only this problem of detecting, but there is a problem of definition as well. benefical mutation means how that mutation interacts with the environment. simply put, even the most benefical mutations is not benefical for that organism until long after the mutation actually occurred.

you are essentially looking for something that 1)you really can't detect easily 2)making an impossible definition 3)misunderstanding the whole situation

you are essentially asking for me to be an eyewitness of my conception.
then insist that i was there, what's the problem ?

 

[Praxiteles]

His LittleNipper.

I am going to send you a bill for the replacement keyboard I require.

 

[corvus_corax]

.

 

[Praxiteles]

.

Profound.

 

[BVZ]

The opening post in this thread seems to concede that beneficial mutations have not and cannot be observed directly.

I created the thread. I think the OP is pretty easy to understand.

The quote implies the following two possiblities:

1) SamCJ is unable to comunicate in english.
2) SamCJ understands the OP, but deliberately lies about that fact.

So Sam, which one is it?

If the answer is 1, please take some classes.
If the answer is 2, it ties in nicely with the lies thread.

 

[Tomk80]

This might be better off in philosophy or GA, but I think that it is a sign of intelligence that we do those things. If we weren't intelligent (or sentinent might be a better word), we'd be content living day to day in our little groups. Through intelligence, we come up with abstract ideas such as religion, ownership, and money which leads to many of the things you brought up.

A great man once said, with great power comes with great responsibility. I view intelligence as this power.

This also contains a misconception on nature, like it's a fuzzy world in which all animals are so nice to each other. Right.

Chimps murder. They don't just kill. They go on raiding parties to territories of neighbouring chimp groups and systematically single out and kill the males, untill the neighbouring group is without males. Then, the females and children are taken into the own group. Sounds familiar to anyone who has read the old testament.

Gorillas, chimps and orangutans and many other animal species commit infanticide. Orangutan males commit rape. Chimps steal. On the plus side, many animals show signs of passing on cultural habits, signaling, a sense of fairness and altruistic behavior (to name a few). The only part for intelligence that I have seen in these acts, is that the more intelligent a creature is, the more planned the action becomes. Many of the actions are the same on a basal level.

 

[LogicChristian]

I created the thread. I think the OP is pretty easy to understand.

The quote implies the following two possiblities:

1) SamCJ is unable to comunicate in english.
2) SamCJ understands the OP, but deliberately lies about that fact.

So Sam, which one is it?

If the answer is 1, please take some classes.
If the answer is 2, it ties in nicely with the lies thread.

Recent creationist experiences would lead me to believe it's #2.

 

[cwolf20]

By all means swat away, there is nothing you can present scientifically that would prove the universe had to of had a creator.

might I suggest the little mammal that has a duckbill and is poisonous as a defence. called the duckbill platypus. I don't know about you, but that is the perfect gag gift.

and since I've been misunderstood... I'm implying that someone with a slight smidgeon of imagination creates gag gifts for certain occasions

 

[Tomk80]

might I suggest the little mammal that has a duckbill and is poisonous as a defence. called the duckbill platypus. I don't know about you, but that is the perfect gag gift.

It hasn't got a duckbill. It's got something that looks like it, but is structurally very different.

 

[cwolf20]

It hasn't got a duckbill. It's got something that looks like it, but is structurally very different.

I'm not a person who has the ability to remember everything down to the last detail. just called it as I saw it. Looked like a duckbill.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm not a person who has the ability to remember everything down to the last detail. just called it as I saw it. Looked like a duckbill.

True, looks like it is correct. But 'looks like' and 'are similar' is very different. The difference is in the skeletal structure.

If the platypus had a duckbill similar to that of a duck, it would falsify common ancestry, since then it would be a chimera consisting of bird, reptile and mammal characteristics. As it is, it has only reptilian and mammalian characteristics, which does fit the patterns expected if common ancestry would be correct.

 

[SamCJ]

no. nor can anyone provide such an animal.
we don't see mutations happen, we detect the phenotypic change that reflects the mutation.

and then work backwards to the mutation.
not only this problem of detecting, but there is a problem of definition as well. benefical mutation means how that mutation interacts with the environment. simply put, even the most benefical mutations is not benefical for that organism until long after the mutation actually occurred.

you are essentially looking for something that 1)you really can't detect easily 2)making an impossible definition 3)misunderstanding the whole situation

you are essentially asking for me to be an eyewitness of my conception.
then insist that i was there, what's the problem ?

Excellent points. I agree with all except that I misunderstand the situation.

I did not ask you to supply the quote, because you did not claim: "we have directly observed them." It is that claim that I believe is untrue. Your points suppor my belief. In absence of a quote and a modification of the dictionary meaning of "directly observe", I will continue to believe it is untrue.

Frankly, I think the untrue statement is unnecessary to the strength of ToE arguments, so it seems pointless to continually repeat the lie. Some evolutionists continue to repeat it so that they can call those who deny it (such as yourself as well as me) a liar. That latter claim is also untrue.

 

[Beastt]

Excellent points. I agree with all except that I misunderstand the situation.

I did not ask you to supply the quote, because you did not claim: "we have directly observed them." It is that claim that I believe is untrue. Your points suppor my belief. In absence of a quote and a modification of the dictionary meaning of "directly observe", I will continue to believe it is untrue.

Frankly, I think the untrue statement is unnecessary to the strength of ToE arguments, so it seems pointless to continually repeat the lie. Some evolutionists continue to repeat it so that they can call those who deny it (such as yourself as well as me) a liar. That latter claim is also untrue.

Do you also object to the Theory of Gravity? If not, why not?

 

[SamCJ]

I created the thread. I think the OP is pretty easy to understand.

The quote implies the following two possiblities:

1) SamCJ is unable to comunicate in english.
2) SamCJ understands the OP, but deliberately lies about that fact.

So Sam, which one is it?

If the answer is 1, please take some classes.
If the answer is 2, it ties in nicely with the lies thread.

Do you agree with post #101?

 

[SamCJ]

Recent creationist experiences would lead me to believe it's #2.

Do you think swilliamsII, poster of #101 is also a liar?

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

Asserting it is probable that god/God exists, based on the fallacy that otherwise everything must be random is a failure to recognize the predictability of energy and matter. It's the same line of thought that lead to the idea that a particular mountain couldn't belch smoke and ash unless occupied by a god. In reality, it is highly improbable that a non-physical entity just exists, and possesses all knowledge and all power. It is even more improbable that if such an entity did exist, that it would attempt to communicate with its creation by having certain members of that creation write out its message to the rest. All-powerful beings don't need co-authors, editors or publishers. And to utilize them when not necessary provides a high degree of doubt to the message provided.

Thats no what God and christianity is about...God doesnt want to exclude His creation from being part of what He does. He wants to use us to do His will...the Bible was written through the inspiration of God and anything in it is there for a reason. It is not to be looked upon as a scientific document because right at the beginning in contracdicts itself...there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. everything in there was written to give the basic idea that God created everything and knew it was good.

 

[SamCJ]

Do you also object to the Theory of Gravity? If not, why not?

No. I object to the use of the word "also" in your post.

When people say that gravity has never been directly observed, truthful scientists say "That's true. We have only observed its effects and developed formulas that predict those effects so accurately that they have never been falsified." So the precise truth, is an adequate response for the gravity scientists. Unfortunately, evolutionists apparently believe the truth is inadequate to respond to the truth that beneficial mutations have never been directly observed.

 

[KerrMetric]

Unfortunately, evolutionists apparently believe the truth is inadequate to respond to the truth that beneficial mutations have never been directly observed.

Just one amongst dozens:

Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713 (1997)

 

[LogicChristian]

Just one amongst dozens:

Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713 (1997)

Does this answer your question Sam?

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

First of all, evolution is a proven theory.

There has been no proof provided by science that confirms miracles the bible has claimed ever happened, and if you believe there has, I suggest you get your head checked. It's pretty easy to write a fictional piece of literature and include factual places.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.