Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mutation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Information Mutation

    From the book The Evolution Handbook compiled by Vance Ferrell
    Chapter 1 History of Evolution pgs. 36 and

    H.J. Muller (1890-1967) Upon learning of the 1927 discovery that X-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals could induce an extremely rapid increase of mutations in the chromosomes of test animals and plants, Muller, pioneered in using X-rays to greatly increase the mutations rate in fruit flies. But he and all other researchers found was that mutations were always harmful. (H.J. Muller, Time November 11, 1946, p. 38; E.J. Gardner Principles of Genetics, 1964, p. 192; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the species, 1951, p. 73).

    Chernobyl (1986) is another evolutionist's paradise. Since mutations are today thought to be the leading mechanism for achieving evolutionary change for the better, the intense radiation which the people received on April 26, 1986, should have brought them great benefit because of all the mutations it included. They should be stronger, healthier, have improved organs, and produce children which are higher forms of life. But this has not happened. Scientist know that even Marie Curie and her daughter died as a result of working with radiation. Mutations result in harm and death, never in evolutionary change (Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 691-692).

    I have never found anyone, however religious and devout who did not sometimes experience withdrawal of grace, or feel a lessening of devotion. -Thomas a Kempis

    If You Need Help, Ask God. If You Don't, Thank God. -Unknown


    The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still. -A.W. Tozer

  • #2
    There are very few beneficial mutations. Most mutations are neutral (benign), and more than a few are harmful. Where they usually become beneficial is when they give the organism an environmental advantage.

    For example: a flock of birds migrates to two separate islands and sets up permanent residence there. The first island has plentiful, easy-to-eat food available. The second has only small, hard seeds available.

    On the first island, the biggest and strongest birds are able to fight off the smaller birds for mating purposes. So as the larger/stronger are favored, their genes become the dominant offspring, and after a few thousand years you have a species of large, soft-billed birds.

    On the second island, the smallest and quickest can gain better access to the sole form of food (seeds), and require less sustenance to live. Plus, the ones with stronger, harder beaks will be better able to break open the seeds and also be more likely to live. Therefore, it is more likely that they will pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Thousands of years later, the population of that island will consist of small birds with small, strong beaks.

    None of these mutations are overtly beneficial. In some environments, being smaller or larger will not matter, or the strength of one's beak will not matter. In both of the cases above, the slight mutations become beneficial because it gives them an advantage in their current situation. This is the true mutation of evolution, and it is small changes like this over the course of millions of years that causes the plethora of life we see today.

    Oh, and on the two examples given above: life is not a comic book. There is far more going on in both cases than simple mutation, and they do not provide a reliable test case.

    Comment


    • #3
      Your example of the island birds is not an example of mutation. The birds didn't mutate. And if mutation was ever good why didn't someone out of the hundreds of thousands who were affected by Chernobyl or Hiroshima change for the better or evolve? We have never seen any animal or human evolve.
      Like with the mice, why didn't their tails become scaly like a reptile's so it was harder to loose them?
      Also, has it never crossed anyone's mind that maybe God (being the smartest being ever) put the right birds and animals next to the right food? Maybe he knew we would like to have all different kinds of animals and so he made different birds, and gave them different beaks to eat different food so they all wouldn't have to fight over the same food and would be able to co-exist?
      I know you probably think that God used evolution to make us and the animals, I used to think that. But if he used evolution why isn't there proof for evolution? It should be more obvious. I really don't think God used evolution, I think he created everything in 6 days just like he said he did.

      I have never found anyone, however religious and devout who did not sometimes experience withdrawal of grace, or feel a lessening of devotion. -Thomas a Kempis

      If You Need Help, Ask God. If You Don't, Thank God. -Unknown


      The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still. -A.W. Tozer

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Beloved by God View Post
        Your example of the island birds is not an example of mutation. The birds didn't mutate. And if mutation was ever good why didn't someone out of the hundreds of thousands who were affected by Chernobyl or Hiroshima change for the better or evolve? We have never seen any animal or human evolve.
        Like with the mice, why didn't their tails become scaly like a reptile's so it was harder to loose them?
        Also, has it never crossed anyone's mind that maybe God (being the smartest being ever) put the right birds and animals next to the right food? Maybe he knew we would like to have all different kinds of animals and so he made different birds, and gave them different beaks to eat different food so they all wouldn't have to fight over the same food and would be able to co-exist?
        I know you probably think that God used evolution to make us and the animals, I used to think that. But if he used evolution why isn't there proof for evolution? It should be more obvious. I really don't think God used evolution, I think he created everything in 6 days just like he said he did.
        As for the birds, that is called mutation and natural selection, or the basics of evolution.

        As for Chernobyl, there weren't benefits there because radiation caused mutations are practically always cancerous, and thus detrimental to health, and thus not any good advantage that would have been them evolving. Mutations that evolution considers mutations are slight genetic variances that aren't harmful to the system and radiation can't really cause non-harmful mutations.

        As for the God control part, Christians who believe in evolution believe he controlled it, so how does that affect God's intelligence or might? It would be just as hard and miraculous to have God controlled evolution as God controlled creationism. As for evolution, there is proof of that, that is why it is a scientific theory and almost all scientists support it. Show me the scientific proof of everything being created the same day and not over billions of years. There isn't really any. I'm not saying that creationism is definitely wrong, I believe it could be either one, but evolution is a possibility because it doesn't have to contradict the Bible and it has tons and tons of support scientifically.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't see support for evolution. (and I have read other material, I have also taken a college science class) I see hopes that maybe there isn't a God.
          There has never been a missing link animal/fossil, and most of the bones that are supposed to be of ancient humans are just fragments. There are no full skeletons.
          I also know that there are several scientists out there that believe in creationism, or else it wouldn't have a chance. I find it hard to believe that anyone one company or group of people managed to poll every single scientist in the US. They might have polled every scientist at one university.

          Also, this book I am reading is from 2001 and I am only through the first chapter, but I had my mind made up before I read it. The quotes below are from an article published in 1987 but I am posting it to show, that there are several scientist who disagree with evolution. I am sure that if you called universities, and even if you used google you could find more than 5 scientists that don't believe in evolution.

          "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

          "...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

          "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

          "When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

          "The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

          I have never found anyone, however religious and devout who did not sometimes experience withdrawal of grace, or feel a lessening of devotion. -Thomas a Kempis

          If You Need Help, Ask God. If You Don't, Thank God. -Unknown


          The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still. -A.W. Tozer

          Comment


          • #6
            Beloved by God, what would you call speciation and adaptation?

            Comment


            • #7
              yea

              For a cell to survive it has to be very complex. It could not reach its complexity in one moment, it would have to go through mutations over millions of years etc. That in itself should disprove evolution. Another thing is when a cell mutates, the survival rate of that cell is something like .000000001 or some tiny number. I wonder what the probability of a cell actually having a GOOD mutation would be lol. Evolution is extremely statistically improbable yet it is taught in school as truth. Ridiculous.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by locboxx View Post
                For a cell to survive it has to be very complex. It could not reach its complexity in one moment, it would have to go through mutations over millions of years etc. That in itself should disprove evolution. Another thing is when a cell mutates, the survival rate of that cell is something like .000000001 or some tiny number. I wonder what the probability of a cell actually having a GOOD mutation would be lol. Evolution is extremely statistically improbable yet it is taught in school as truth. Ridiculous.
                Even assuming that is true, you know how often cells duplicate and how many cells we're talking about? It makes your number above very significant.

                Comment


                • #9
                  A mutation is a losing of genetic information, not a gaining of genetic information.

                  Genetic Mutations disprove trans species evolution pretty well.

                  Mankind's selective breeding in dogs for example, create mutations, and then you end up with mutated loss of genetic information dogs like the Chihuahua and the Poodle for example.

                  You however, never end up with a cat or any other mammal from genetic mutations in dogs from selective breeding or natural breeding.

                  Darwin's 19th century trans species spawned evolutionary theories are absurd thanks to modern scientific enlightenment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                    Beloved by God, what would you call speciation and adaptation?
                    I think you can adapt without evolving. I could almost see the possibility for micro-evolution. But in the end I think God probably just originally created everything perfectly, or at least as perfect as he wanted it to be.
                    I am not sure what you mean by speciation, but if you look at some of the responses above, they said what I was going to say.
                    Mendel proved you cannot cross-breed outside of a species. And even when you breed a horse and donkey, or tiger and lion, the end result is always in-fertile and cannot produce offspring itself. So it just continues to amaze me that scientist claim it all to be not only possible, but true.

                    I have never found anyone, however religious and devout who did not sometimes experience withdrawal of grace, or feel a lessening of devotion. -Thomas a Kempis

                    If You Need Help, Ask God. If You Don't, Thank God. -Unknown


                    The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still. -A.W. Tozer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Beloved by God View Post
                      I think you can adapt without evolving. I could almost see the possibility for micro-evolution. But in the end I think God probably just originally created everything perfectly, or at least as perfect as he wanted it to be.
                      Evolution is simply a word that means change, you can't adapt without evolving because quite simply you can't adapt without changing in some way. We already know micro-evolution occurs, it's not under dispute, not even in ultra-YEC camps. Viral adaptation is a great example of this (super viruses immune to traditional treatment). Whether you call it change, adaptation or micro-evolution it's all the same thing.

                      Originally posted by Beloved by God View Post
                      I am not sure what you mean by speciation, but if you look at some of the responses above, they said what I was going to say.
                      Mendel proved you cannot cross-breed outside of a species. And even when you breed a horse and donkey, or tiger and lion, the end result is always in-fertile and cannot produce offspring itself. So it just continues to amaze me that scientist claim it all to be not only possible, but true.
                      Speciation would be like... Certain finches on Galapagos islands having differently sized beaks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lamplighter View Post
                        A mutation is a losing of genetic information, not a gaining of genetic information.
                        Nope. It's a change in the gene. Some (deletion mutations) remove information, some (duplication mutations) add it.

                        Originally posted by Lamplighter View Post
                        Genetic Mutations disprove trans species evolution pretty well.
                        Trans-species evolution is a fact.

                        Originally posted by Lamplighter View Post
                        Darwin's 19th century trans species spawned evolutionary theories are absurd thanks to modern scientific enlightenment.
                        For all intents and purposes, one hundred percent of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution (the actual number is something like 99.85%, but come on). Whose "scientific enlightenment" is this?
                        "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Beloved by God View Post
                          Mendel proved you cannot cross-breed outside of a species. And even when you breed a horse and donkey, or tiger and lion, the end result is always in-fertile and cannot produce offspring itself. So it just continues to amaze me that scientist claim it all to be not only possible, but true.
                          I know I just posted this, but here it is again: Observed Instances of Speciation. Speciation is the evolution of a new species, i.e. macroevolution (by most definitions of the latter word). It is an observed fact.
                          "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Luke34 View Post
                            Trans-species evolution is a fact.
                            So, what species evolved into the dog(ancient dogs included)?

                            What species evolved into the cat(ancient cats included)?

                            What species evolved into the beaver?

                            I have yet to see the half and half fossils for these animals in the fossil record?

                            Did reptiles evolve into these mammals?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Lamplighter View Post
                              So, what species evolved into the dog(ancient dogs included)?

                              What species evolved into the cat(ancient cats included)?

                              What species evolved into the beaver?

                              I have yet to see the half and half fossils for these animals in the fossil record?

                              Did reptiles evolve into these mammals?
                              Well, our fossil record is incomplete due to the specific conditions needed for a fossil to form, but there is at least one good example of a "half-and-half" animal. The dinosaur archaeopteryx (information here) is one of the best known examples of a transitional fossil to date, and there have been multiple fossils of it found. It shares many characteristics of birds and also many characteristics of reptiles (especially dinosaurs, which were the main reptiles of the time period).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X