Well, probably the most popular theory of evolution is that it happened threw mutation...right? (correct me if i am wrong) Robert Jastrow says: "a slow accumulation of favourable mutations" need to happen in order for humans to come from simple single cell organisms. right?

so the question is: are most mutations harmful or helpful? When mutated insects were placed in competition with normals ones the result was always the same: G. Ledyard Stebbins says; "after a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated." The couldn't compete because most of the mutations were harmful.

Peo Koler states: "...it wasf found in experiments the, for every sucessful mutation or useful mutation, there are thousands which are harmful" Excluding netural mutations, harmful ones outnumber benificial ones by thousands to one.

now, if something that did 1000's of bad things for every good move, would you consider it to be good? would you hire a cook that made 1000's of bad meals for every good one? would you let a surgon operate on you if he made thousands of mistakes, for every good slice?

i wouldn't...

Geneticist Dobzhansky said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can be hardly expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of ones watch or ones radio set will seldom make it work better." Didn't work on my radio, now i need a new one http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) So does it seem resonable that the the extremly complex cells, organs, and limbs that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down? Anthropologist Henry F. Osborn - "The human brain is the most marvelous object in the whole universe." Does something so complex come from a procedure that tears down?

Even if mutations did make one good thing fro every 1000's, does it make something new? short answer: no

Long answer:

The world book encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen when a beneficial mutation occurs: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow stonger and larger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of it species because it roots could absorb more water." but has anything new apeared? no it is still a plant. the same speices. does having a mutant gene that makes you larger/stronger than me make you a different speices...assuming u are human...right?

Mutant genes may cause hair to be different colors, but is it still hair, or feathers?Just because a hand has six fingers doesn't mean it is not a hand.

Since the early 1900's scientise have exposed millions of fruit flys to X rays. This made the number of mutations more. 100 times more normal to be exact. After all those decades what did it show: Dobzhansky said: " The clear cut mutants of the fly, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type files in viability , fertility and longevity." The fruit flies had deformed wings, and other distortions but they always stayed fruit flies. More importantly when the mutant flies mated with each other, after several generations, some normal fruit flies hatched. If left in the normal state, the normal fruit flies, which came from the mutant flies would have out-lifed the mutants preserving the orginal fruit fly.

1. Wrong forum.

2. quote:When mutated insects were placed in competition with normals ones the result was always the same: G. Ledyard Stebbins says; "after a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated." The couldn't compete because most of the mutations were harmful.

A mis-quote if I ever heard one. Not only does the quote offer no conclusion, which you conveniently decide to add when you say, " The couldn't compete because most of the mutations were harmful." but this is what Stebbins had to say in the same fucking book where he stated that:

"

The evolutionary processes which gave rise to major groups of organisms, such as genera and families, took place in the remote past, long before there were people to observe them. Nevertheless, the facts which we know about these origins, some of which will be discussed in Chapter 7, provide very strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that the processes which brought them about were very similar to those found in modern groups of animals and plants which are evolving all around us today."

3. quote:Peo Koler states: "...it wasf found in experiments the, for every sucessful mutation or useful mutation, there are thousands which are harmful" Excluding netural mutations, harmful ones outnumber benificial ones by thousands to one.

now, if something that did 1000's of bad things for every good move, would you consider it to be good? would you hire a cook that made 1000's of bad meals for every good one? would you let a surgon operate on you if he made thousands of mistakes, for every good slice?

i wouldn't...

a) Who the fuck is "Peo Koler"?

b) Ignoring that, he is completely wrong, as are you:

Virtually no mutations are harmful or beneficial in and of themselves. They are "harmful" or "beneficial" when compared to their environment. That he claims that over there was a ratio of 1000 harmful per 1 beneficial is completely outrageous. Not that it even matters, since the harmful mutations would cause the organism to die off. The beneficial ones would help his chances of reproduction. In over millions of organisms, with millions of mutations happening, that is alot of beneficial ones, even if we take your ratio as correct.

"Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?

A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.

"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1

4. quote:Geneticist Dobzhansky said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can be hardly expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of ones watch or ones radio set will seldom make it work better." Didn't work on my radio, now i need a new one So does it seem resonable that the the extremly complex cells, organs, and limbs that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down? Anthropologist Henry F. Osborn - "The human brain is the most marvelous object in the whole universe." Does something so complex come from a procedure that tears down?

Even if mutations did make one good thing fro every 1000's, does it make something new? short answer: no

And just how do you arrive at that marvelous conclusion? 1 mutation will not result in a new species. Thousands of them, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, will.

5. quote:The world book encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen when a beneficial mutation occurs: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow stonger and larger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of it species because it roots could absorb more water." but has anything new apeared? no it is still a plant. the same speices. does having a mutant gene that makes you larger/stronger than me make you a different speices...assuming u are human...right?

See number 4. Nobody is claiming that 1 mutation will lead to a new species.

6. quote:

Since the early 1900's scientise have exposed millions of fruit flys to X rays. This made the number of mutations more. 100 times more normal to be exact. After all those decades what did it show: Dobzhansky said: " The clear cut mutants of the fly, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type files in viability , fertility and longevity." The fruit flies had deformed wings, and other distortions but they always stayed fruit flies. More importantly when the mutant flies mated with each other, after several generations, some normal fruit flies hatched. If left in the normal state, the normal fruit flies, which came from the mutant flies would have out-lifed the mutants preserving the orginal fruit fly.

I don't even have a clue in the world why ANYONE would mention such a thing in support of their argument...

Mutations caused by giving RADIATION to the organism, IS NOT the kind of mutations evolution is dealing with. What those scientists did, is KILL those flies... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

7. All of those you quoted, save for Peo Koler, whome I've never heard of, and Robert Jastrow, were evolutionists. That is, they supported evolution.

That makes your quotes, which supposedly argue against evolution all the more suspect, and all the more hilarious.

Fuck, Dobzhansky published the famous anti-creationist, pro-evolutionist essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, two years before he died.

Please don't fucking belittle the contributions this man gave to Science by using quotes which are, at best, clearly out-of-context (which you never even sourced) to support the very fucking thing he refuted time and time again.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Well, probably the most popular theory of evolution is that it happened threw mutation...right? (correct me if i am wrong) Robert Jastrow says: "a slow accumulation of favourable mutations" need to happen in order for humans to come from simple single cell organisms. right?

Correct. Without change there cannot be evolution.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

so the question is: are most mutations harmful or helpful? When mutated insects were placed in competition with normals ones the result was always the same: G. Ledyard Stebbins says; "after a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated." The couldn't compete because most of the mutations were harmful.

Correct, most mutations are harmful. Statistically speaking, mutations are far more fatal than they are neutral, and far more neutral than they are beneficial.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Peo Koler states: "...it wasf found in experiments the, for every sucessful mutation or useful mutation, there are thousands which are harmful" Excluding netural mutations, harmful ones outnumber benificial ones by thousands to one.

That's probably correct.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

now, if something that did 1000's of bad things for every good move, would you consider it to be good? would you hire a cook that made 1000's of bad meals for every good one? would you let a surgon operate on you if he made thousands of mistakes, for every good slice?

This subjective generalization is irrelevant. Some mutations are good, others are bad.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Geneticist Dobzhansky said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can be hardly expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of ones watch or ones radio set will seldom make it work better." Didn't work on my radio, now i need a new one http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) So does it seem resonable that the the extremly complex cells, organs, and limbs that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down? Anthropologist Henry F. Osborn - "The human brain is the most marvelous object in the whole universe." Does something so complex come from a procedure that tears down?

Evolution does not come from a procedure that tears down. Evolution does not come out of 'bad' mutations at all. Only the 'good' ones. Geneticist Dobzhansky's quote is naive in that it assumes all mutations are bad, which they are not.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Even if mutations did make one good thing fro every 1000's, does it make something new? short answer: no

Incorrect. By definition a 'good' mutation does make something new. This is elementary.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

The world book encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen when a beneficial mutation occurs: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow stonger and larger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of it species because it roots could absorb more water." but has anything new apeared? no it is still a plant. the same speices. does having a mutant gene that makes you larger/stronger than me make you a different speices...assuming u are human...right?

If the plant has stronger and larger roots than all of its predecessors, then by definition it is new. Again this is elementary.

You are correct in that not all mutations create a new species. Some mutations do though. A 'species' is defined as a collection of living things that can interbreed. Every so often a non-fatal mutation occurs which does affect the interbreeding genes and so creates a new species.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Mutant genes may cause hair to be different colors, but is it still hair, or feathers?Just because a hand has six fingers doesn't mean it is not a hand.

This is irrelevant. A hair could change into a feather through several mutations over many millenia. A hand could change into a flipper through several mutations over many millenia.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Since the early 1900's scientise have exposed millions of fruit flys to X rays. This made the number of mutations more. 100 times more normal to be exact. After all those decades what did it show: Dobzhansky said: " The clear cut mutants of the fly, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type files in viability , fertility and longevity." The fruit flies had deformed wings, and other distortions but they always stayed fruit flies. More importantly when the mutant flies mated with each other, after several generations, some normal fruit flies hatched. If left in the normal state, the normal fruit flies, which came from the mutant flies would have out-lifed the mutants preserving the orginal fruit fly.

Dobzhansky is clearly missing the point of evolution. It only takes one superior mutation to further evolution even in the face of a million inferior mutations. And it only takes one surviving mutation to further evolution in the face of millions of superior mutations that dead-ended.

Dobzhansky states 'almost without exception inferior'. I can see him trying to mutter this part under his breath - he admits there are exceptions.

[This message has been edited by Sarter (edited 06-10-2005).]

1) It's "through" not "threw"

2) I've often found that most people who don't accept evolution also don't know much about it. With the amazing BS some people tell me is "evolution" no wonder so many people don't believe it.

3) It's already been said but the majority of mutations are neutral. Matter of fact most people are born with mutations and don't even know it. You have mutations in you right now. The environment sets whether something is harmful or beneficial anyways. An eye is beneficial to you but is harmful to trilobites that lived in total darkness.

Go read a book by a real scientist.

You beat me to it Rust, with a better post I might add. The way Dobzhansky's quotes were taken out of context lead me to believe he was a creationist.

I would contend though that most mutations are fatal. If mutations are proportional to biomass, then most mutations occur in smaller organisms that don't have as many genetic safety systems as, say, humans. These safety systems are what prevents many mutations from being fatal or anti-competitive. At the level of bacteria and lower, mutations would be more likely to disrupt the life and competitiveness of the organism.

Most of them are neutral. If we ignore those neutral ones, then, yes you're correct, harmful ones would be the majority, but certainly not by the ratio he gives.

That being, said, like you stated in your post, the beneficial ones are passed on, the harmful ones serve as a detriment in the chances of reproduction, and thus are not passed down in the overall genetic pool of the species.

So, while harmful ones are the majority (again, not by such a huge margin), they are the minority when we take into consideration natural selection.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-10-2005).]

idiot. that was possibly the most ignorant and mal-informed 'critique' of natural selection i've yet read.

and that is saying A LOT.

Proving evolution wrong won't make creationism more plausible.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Originally posted by Beta69:

[B]

2) I've often found that most people who don't accept evolution also don't know much about it. With the amazing BS some people tell me is "evolution" no wonder so many people don't believe it.

same thing about people who don't read/understand the bible.

quote:

3) It's already been said but the majority of mutations are neutral. Matter of fact most people are born with mutations and don't even know it. You have mutations in you right now. The environment sets whether something is harmful or beneficial anyways.

The average person has about 600 genetic mutations, maybe only some in some people show....i dozed off after my teacher said that..

Paradise Lost:

Proving evolution wrong won't make creationism more plausible.

Good observation sherlock holmes!



The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.

YES! found the book I read where most of thsi was taken from: LONG:

Chapter 8

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?

THERE is another difficulty facing the theory of evolution. Just how is it supposed to have happened? What is a basic mechanism that is presumed to have enabled one type of living thing to evolve into another type? Evolutionists say that various changes inside the nucleus of the cell play their part. And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. It is believed that the particular parts involved in these mutational changes are the genes and chromosomes in sex cells, since mutations in them can be passed along to one’s descendants.

2 “Mutations .*.*. are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”3

3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”4 And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations—sudden changes in heredity—breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”5

4 It also has been said that mutations may be a key to the rapid change called for by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman stated: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.”6 But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

5 How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.”7

Are They Helpful or Harmful?

6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”9

7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.11

8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G.*Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”13 They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.

9 In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.”14 But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?

10 Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”15 Thus, ask yourself: Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down?

Do Mutations Produce Anything New?

11 Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.

12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.”16 But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.

13 Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.

The Fruit Fly Experiments

14 Few mutation experiments can equal the extensive ones conducted on the common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.

15 After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”17 Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.

16 The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.”18

17 Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”19

The Peppered Moth

18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”22

21 The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”23

22 The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

“According to Their Kinds”

23 The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

24 Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed .*.*. Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”24

25 Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].”25 So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.

26 Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.”26 And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life .*.*. reproduces with incredible fidelity.”27 Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.”28 And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”29

27 The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin’s original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature’s genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.

28 Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only “according to their kinds,” so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.

Not a Basis for Evolution

29 The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’”30

30 Similarly, geneticist C.*H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare.*.*.*. it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.”31

31 The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion .*.*. that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.”32

Then maybe you should actually learn something about evolution before making a fool of yourself.

You might also consider rereading the bible, I don't remember it saying anything good about misquoting people. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

You may also consider catching up on creationism, many creationist theories actually require fast "beneficial" mutation rates. Oops. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

RUST:

"Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?

A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.



-------------------------------------------



Explain please, your resoning doesn't make sense. you are also misusing things. The peppered moth is still a peppered moth, just a different variety. Just as there are white humans and black humans. As to the surving of the darker moths, if all the brown people had a massive genocide against white people. and the blacks survive and are teh majority of humans, doesn't mean that they evolved.



FROM THE CHAPTER I POSTED:

21 The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”23

22 The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

[This message has been edited by john_deer (edited 06-10-2005).]

quote:YES! found the book I read where most of thsi was taken from: LONG:

Chapter 8

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?

Whether it was a book, or your creation, is not important. The fact remains it was completefy refuted.

Not only those it use adamant evolutionists to support its claim, but it takes what they have said, completely out of context. Not to mention than almost all of those quoted are already dead, have been dead for decades, and had retired from practicing Scientific research years before dying! Any information they provide, would be completely outdated.

Even if we take the ratio it gives, of 1000 harmful mutations for every 1 beneficial one, to be true, it still paints a very good picture for evolution, given the thousands upon thousands of mutations that would occur, and that the beneficial ones would be the ones passed on through the genetic material.

---

Please, post the title of the book. I'd love to see the piece of shit you've posted.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-10-2005).]

I forgot why I stopped debating this. Moron copy and pasters who don't want to learn anything.

You do realize you are stealing old stuff right? That most creationist literature is many years old (the base literature is at least 30 years old) and is just recycled even though it's all been refuted before.

For example, your claim that resistance comes from germs that were already immune is not only stupid (where did these "hardier" germs come from?) it's also pointless unless you are suggesting everyone is immune to HIV and that's why some people have been found to be resistant to HIV.

So for fun, Please define "kind" or "type" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

By define I mean if kind is so solid then it should be very easy to explain how something is one kind and how something else is another kind. It should also be easy to explain how the variations in each kind came to be.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Explain please, your resoning doesn't make sense. you are also misusing things. The peppered moth is still a peppered moth, just a different variety. Just as there are white humans and black humans. As to the surving of the darker moths, if all the brown people had a massive genocide against white people. and the blacks survive and are teh majority of humans, doesn't mean that they evolved.



Nobody said it evolved to another species when the natural selection took place. The point was to show just how exactly the "harmful" or "beneficial" aspects of a mutation are only relevant when taking into consideration the environment.

Being brightly colored was an advantage before the Industrial Revolution (i.e. before the change in environment) but harmful after it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Not only those it use adamant evolutionists to support its claim, but it takes what they have said, completely out of context. Not to mention than almost all of those quoted are already dead, have been dead for decades, and had retired from practicing Scientific research years before dying! Any information they provide, would be completely outdated.

Even if we take the ratio it gives, of 1000 harmful mutations for every 1 beneficial one, to be true, it still paints a very good picture for evolution, given the thousands upon thousands of mutations that would occur, and that the beneficial ones would be the ones passed on through the genetic material.



If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”



Where do you get that only beneificial mutations are passed down?

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:



Where do you get that only beneificial mutations are passed down?

Harmful mutations may be passed down, one generation, maybe two, sure. But they are HARMFUL; meaning, they serve as a disadvantage in reproduction.

Thus, being disadvantaged in reproduction means that the organisms containing those harmful mutations wont be able to pass down their genetic material as well as an organisms of the same species without the disadvantage, and certainly not with an advantage! They will slowly either make up for the disadvantage (and thus not making it a meaningful disadvantage anymore) or die out.

To use an analogy: If I stick a knife in your stomach, can you still copulate in the short time you have to live? Of course; but overall your kind (i.e. those containing that disadvantage) will die out since your offspring are born with a knife in their stomach.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-10-2005).]

Can you quote anything beyond your article? You do know what Carl Sagan said isn't even recent let alone the end all.

Seriously, go pick up a book about evolution by a real biologist, and learn something. Gould is pretty good. It might fix this one trick pony thing you have going on.

Evolution=semi-possable that could explain my dislike of non-human apes. Evolution does not fit in the required timetable though, I am not trying to to convert anyone to intelligent design which could be total bs too. But what happened to the neanderthals, wtf is up with "homo florus?"

quote:

"Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?

A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.



I'd just like to add that most mutations aren't even noticeable.

Erm john_deer, I wouldnt even want to refute those arguments that you gave, because I got a intense mis-trust of people who use terms like 'teh materials' and who clearly don't understand what they are talking about, and hence use entire large volumes of raw text just to support their arguments. If you know what you are saying, you can describe it succintly and definitely give a logical analogy without making a fool out of yourself.

That being said, I really think you are very very confused between evolution, mutation and

environmental changes.