Mr Strawberry
Newbie
Every single gene in your body was or is a mutation. Now read the above quote again..
Upvote
0
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.
If there are such good genes and beneficial mutations, why has nobody in the history of man found it?
I'm attempting to steer the answer toward something that "the rest of the whole world" would understand.
Ask the question in 1000 languages to the population of the world:
"Are you aware of any beneficial mutations you have seen that you would like to pass along to your children? "
It isn't! A beneficial mutation is a mutation that creates a favorable result, that's the official definition. And according to this definition, sickle cell disease is a beneficial mutation if it increases your chance of survival in a swamp full of malaria carriers.It's the same definition I've always used. But I didn't really expect more than one anyway. The idea of a beneficial mutation is fairly ridiculous.
And I guess the opinion of some peasant is more important than the opinion of some scientist who has studied mutations for several years, right?Ask some person on the street if they would be so kind as to point one out and you'll just get laughter.
I think some part of me just died.Or a reference to an x-men movie as had shown up in this forum.
Your definition is not shared with anyone! You can counter ANY argument by making definitions up! If I defined God as something that doesn't exist, then God wouldn't exist by definition. What makes your arbitrary definition more reasonable then mine?Only because they all are. By my definition of being identifiable by lay people unable to use a calculator to find one.
Well, if you want us all to arbitrarily define words every way we like, no problem.Can we get away from the
"I benefited by being born without a lungs, so I'll never have lung cancer"
definition for "beneficial"? Just for the sake of conversation.
You're not convinced, but you can't say why.I said that's an unsupported premise. I'm not convinced.
Said captain I-know-better-than-the-dictionary.You're important, but not all that.
This argument is so ridiculous! Scientists are wrong because people who never even held a science book disagree with them, is that what you're saying?I'm attempting to steer the answer toward something that "the rest of the whole world" would understand.
Super Strong Kids May Hold Genetic Secrets - ABC News"Are you aware of any beneficial mutations you have seen that you would like to pass along to your children? "
Because they aren't scientists, maybe?Considering the scientists claim that such things are fairly common, why would 99% of all the human life on earth
not be able to come up with one beneficial mutation they have seen that they'd like their children to have?
Argumentum ad populum, nice!The majority of the whole world would agree that they'd like their children to have more offspring and that
they'd be without illness and have no birth defects.
Sickle cell disease is good for your health if you share your home with mosquitos that carry malaria.I don't think anybody has identified a beneficial mutation for good health or one for increased procreation.
We already found some. Sickle cell disease (DEAL WITH IT), myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy and lactose tolerance. There would be more, but as evolution predicted, they have already become a part of the common genotype of our species.If there are such good genes and beneficial mutations, why has nobody in the history of man found it?
You really hate calculators, do you?Other than morticians with calculators sorting the dead into different piles, I mean.
So syaeth a man who cannot understand the evidence brought forth simply because he lacks the erudition and education to comprehend it. You not only lack scientific erudition but you lack an understanding of the definition of words such as Mutations. You exhibit an arrogance typical of such people. Where I come from a man admits when he is wrong! Now if you have any spunk in you then you should admit you are wrong about mutations!It's the same definition I've always used. But I didn't really expect more than one anyway. The idea of a beneficial mutation is fairly ridiculous. Ask some person on the street if they would be so kind as to point one out and you'll just get laughter. Or a reference to an x-men movie as had shown up in this forum.
Comparing body counts seem to the the only solution and so religious people cling to it without any common sense input.
Wow! Has this thread ever gotten off topic. Stifle the evolution stuff, okay?
The only possible outcome of the idea of an embedded age is to subscribe to the idea that God is a deceiver, which in my opinion is contrary to Christian doctrine.
Can we get away from the
"I benefited by being born without a lungs, so I'll never have lung cancer"
definition for "beneficial"? Just for the sake of conversation.
But in the spirit of getting this thread back on track, I agree that embedded age makes the creator look like a deceiver.
As do I -- but I'd also stipulate that embedded agers don't care that their creator is a deceiver, so long as His deceptions benefit them.
Because really, is it ever about anything else?
AV would always claim that God isn't deceiving, he's just "cleaning up the place".
Ease up on the salt lads lest you end up like Lot's wifeYes, but Av also claims that Genesis 1 was written to pwn evolution, so I'll take anything he says with a 50 lb. salt block.
50# Trace Min Salt Block by North American Salt - 41018 - More Equine Nutrition at doitbest.com
Considering you don't apparently know what "heterozygote advantage" means, I'll take any of your criticisms of evolution with a gigantic grain of salt. But in the spirit of getting this thread back on track, I agree that embedded age makes the creator look like a deceiver.
AV would always claim that God isn't deceiving, he's just "cleaning up the place". So I bet he'd argue God is not actually deceiving.
My degree is in Plastic Materials by the way
There seem to be hard limits to how much a species can change, which is what his ultimate point is, and what Creationists predict science to discover.
If God created everything, that includes the laws of chemistry and physics. There is no need for the deception or trickery implied with embedded age.
Do you claim to know God's mind? You speak in the stead of God as if you are his lawyer. Do you have any proof that God made you his representative?That is a stretch and just shows a prejudice...
God doesn't think this debate is very important in the grand scheme of things. He was not being deceptive, He was sticking to the topic..which was and is our relationship with Him.
In the end, man-made theories that directly go against God's Word will unravel on their own merits, God doesn't have to prove or disprove anything.
God was sticking to the topic by pumping dinosaur fossils full of nitrogen 14 to deceive us?God doesn't think this debate is very important in the grand scheme of things. He was not being deceptive, He was sticking to the topic..which was and is our relationship with Him.
Then I gather you have a thorough understanding of rheology and polymer chemistry, not to mention the prerequisite courses in math, physics and chemistry required to study those upper level courses. With that understanding I conclude that you have no problem with the laws of physics being solid and non-changing. Much of my applied experience has been in the plastics industry as well, mainly in the form of R&D and process engineering.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?