Mutations are essential to the theory of evolution. Why? Because without them, the whole idea falls apart, due to it's being the only currently concievable way that evolution could happen, and one species could transform into another. However, mutations cannot lead to a higher, improved, or even successfull species.Why?
1)"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*F.J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3. As you can see, they occur so rarely that it is absurd to believe that in a scant few billion years, creatures as "simple" as even a triblobite could come to be.
2)"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35. Now, assuming that only 1% (or less, maybe more) of these abysmally small amount of mutations which can be helpful, how could anything successfully evolve without trillions of years in which to do so?
3)Hondreds of thousands of experiments have been done to animals such as fruit flies, with the intent to produce a mutation that improves the animal, and allows it, and its offspring, to live. Techniques to modify the animals DNA included doses of radiation, or certain chemicals. When the germ cells of an animal are altered, the offspring will have some form of mutation, and we have never seen one that is beneficial. We probably never will.
4)And, in the few that survived, they are so weakened that the offspring die off. If "natural selection" kills off all the the animals with mutations, how can one species become another?
5)Lets say that all mutations, although random, were 100% successful. "Even assuming mutations could produce those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on their stomachs, where they could not use them, or the wings would be upside down, without lightweight feathers, and under- or oversized.
Most animals would have no eyes, some would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them under their armpits or on the soles of their feet.
The random effects of mutations would annihilate any value they might otherwise provide."
6)"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual . . Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his]." Since 99% of mutations are harmful, and appear randomly, they could not produce all the marvels we see about us today.
7)"Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism!
The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.
More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another." The odds seem to be against evolution again...Oh yea, and we'd have to assume that all these mutations benefited the animal, too.
Theres more...and I'll bring 'em up if anyone wants to see them.
Okay, even if YOU repeat already made points, I won't. I already made them.
But, Bottomline: We may not know 100% exactly how life on Earth went from chemicals to cells to cell complexes and on up to dolphins, but we have some rather solid theories and some evidence.
Creation? Absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and it doesn't make an ounce of sense?
So, EVEN IF everything isn't quite written in concrete yet, you might as well go with the theory that has something going for it.
Or you could believe what your minister said. You know, either one, cracker.
heh, i have had to switch screen names due to the password forgetting thing too. part of the aging process i guess.
quote:We can't, and won't, because humans are complex beings. Bacterium are a different story.
i think that my original point was that we can observe advantageous mutations in bacteria in a controlled experiment via antiobiotic resistance. to me, that is extremely strong evidence of the evolutionary processes and its benefits. human beings are too complex, as you said, to directly observe such changes - so we have to rely more upon evidence garnered from other species.
I'm Pie, just to clear that up. I forgot my password, and have rather taken to "Bhagwan". Anyhow, this thread seems to have died, sadly.
Firstly, Smurf.
quote:You still think that all steps of evolution depend on mutation. Giving genes from one generation to the next doesn't need ANY mutation, which is why KING TUT DOESNT GIVE BIRTH TO A ***QUAT PLANT THAT GIVES BIRTH TO STEVE MARTIN.
That is a "yea, duh" type affair. But for the offspring to take on new features, never before seen in humans, requires gene mutation...this is where the duh comes in.
quote:. Species don't turn into other species.
Then how could one cell produce all that we have today? (Never mind that the creation of that cell violates the Cell Theory in the first place). Evolution says that over long periods of time, species change, and branch off in multiple directions. Elsewise, we'd have exactly one biological being around today.
quote:The entire species doesn't turn into a new one, but the parts that do SLOWLY, OVER THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF YEARS turn completely into the new species, or the intermediaries die off.
Why would the halfways die off? Why wouldn't they migrate back to a better climate? Why would the first species leave the original habitat they were suited for in the first place? Why would they move to an an area they weren't apt at living in, in their current form?
quote:My verbal promiscuity can be exquisitely awe-inspiring, except at the occaisonal cerebral crevasse.
No, no, trying to impress me won't work.
On to Gemini!
quote: Why would god need to experiment if he knew everything? He wouldn't need to "try" new things out and see how they faired, since he'd already know the outcome.
Knowledge of the future that has yet to happen is knowledge of nothing, and even I know vast amounts of that. All humans do. Some more than others.
Now Jookly...
quote:lol, your talking out of your *** now
If I could talk out of my ***, I would be a lot richer than I am now.
quote:All of the black cats out there... thats a mutation. It is prevelant now but a thousand years ago you would be hard pressed to find one.
Another hereditary feature. Black is more than likely recessive, making for smaller numbers, and fluxuations do occur over long periods of time. For all we know, black cats may disapear.
kg.
quote:i suppose it'd be nice if we could personally observe this trend with people and other animals but we can't
We can't, and won't, because humans are complex beings. Bacterium are a different story.
2069:
quote:Why wouldn't increased intelligence, greater muscle mass, or any such traits be helpful?
They don't occur, so we needn't worry about that.
Candybuster, the idea is interesting, but your example isn't plausible, for any number of reasons.
Okay, so I think we've established that evolution occurs through several different mechanisms:
1) Totally random mutations 2) Gene recombination (i.e. sexual reproduction) 3) Environmental (social or physical) changes 4) Exaptation (literally, an organism coopting its own parts to make new ones)
(I haven't read the whole board, so I'm not responding to anything but the original post)
Evolution comes about not only through mutation, but through environmental changes. Let me tell you a little story:
A giant meteor has destroyed the ozone layer. An island in the middle of the ocean has been split in half, and a tribe of people living there is divided between the two sides.
On one side is a dark forest where people have to stay so they don't get killed by the ultraviolet rays. There are sharp spiky branches on all the trees about four feet from the ground. These spikes release poison if something brushes against them. In addition, there are wolves that can run across the forest floor and love to hunt for humans, their favorite food.
Now, since these people have to run from the wolves, shorter people would have a much easier time because they wouldn't have to stoop as they ran to avoid the poisonous branches. So, the wolves would kill all the people above four and a half feet (unless they could run really fast) or they would all bump their heads into the poison and die anyway. To make things more interesting, let's say that if the people have hair on their bodies they can't run as fast. So they get eaten by wolves and can't pass their genes on. Therefore, we're left with hairless people under four and a half feet to reproduce. I might also add that their skin is really pale because the forest is so dark, so that their skin can get as much sun as possible.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the island, there's no shelter from the sun except for a big field of tall grass, say about six feet tall. There are also wild lions running around, and, surprise surprise, they also like to eat people.
So the people don't get eaten, they have to be able to see above the six-foot grass. This way they'll be able to notice if there are lions lurking about and take off in the opposite direction. They also need a lot of hair and dark skin to protect them from the sun. So, now we have another tribe of dark-skinned hairy six-foot people, because everyone else would be killed and they wouldn't be able to pass on their genes.
Now, if these two tribes were to meet, they would not reproduce. On the one hand, you have short, pale, hairless animals (they may not even resemble people at this point) and on the other you have tall, dark, and hairy creatures. Two new species have just been created thanks to changes in the environment, and mutations didn't even have anything to do with it. Touche´.
quote: It wasn't rhetorical, or it would have had a definite answer. And you clearly were misinformed.
Now we're getting into semantics. And it's getting us off track. The question was put out there with no expectation of an answer, and I used to make a point. Point being that a god did not have to be all-powerful or all-seeing. It was rhetorical, end of argument.
quote: It's probably because of the plethora of supposedly rhetorical questions, heh. And I wasn't trying to be obnoxious, but I'm a grammar Nazi, and misspellings distract me from the entire foundation of the thread.
Understood, but we're getting off track here now. I'm still waiting for someone to respond to my main post.
quote: And i don't see a clear and definie focus on a certain God in the recent posts in this thread. Not to mention that is was orgionally a rhetorical question.
It wasn't rhetorical, or it would have had a definite answer. And you clearly were misinformed.
quote: *watches civility fly right out the window* Ah, and we wonder why these board have gotten so petty lately...
It's probably because of the plethora of supposedly rhetorical questions, heh. And I wasn't trying to be obnoxious, but I'm a grammar Nazi, and misspellings distract me from the entire foundation of the thread.
quote: You misunderstand. I simply answered your question in an unbiased fashion. And the "point" of your comment is irrelevant if we're focusing solely upon the characteristics of a certain god..
And i don't see a clear and definie focus on a certain God in the recent posts in this thread. Not to mention that is was orgionally a rhetorical question.
quote: You directly asked WHO says that God would have to know everything, and I responded. Not too difficult to recognize.
See above... And it was quite clear that it was one.
quote: And if one bases their entire outlook on making assumptions based on others’ beliefs, of lack their of, they’re idiots. And you’re not one to talk about ignorance.. but on a completely irrelevant note, learn to spell
*watches civility fly right out the window* Ah, and we wonder why these board have gotten so petty lately...
quote: Great so i'm pretty sure we've estabilished that Christianity and all the other major relgions are full of flaws and such.
Yes, we have.. quite awhile ago, actually.
quote: They're easy targets so stop dwelling on them. The point of my coment was that a God doesn't neccecarily have to be all powerful or all seeing, or all good, or even have a moral alignment.
You misunderstand. I simply answered your question in an unbiased fashion. And the "point" of your comment is irrelevant if we're focusing solely upon the characteristics of a certain god..
quote: Who says God would have to know everything?
You directly asked WHO says that God would have to know everything, and I responded. Not too difficult to recognize.
quote: If one bases Atheism soley from their experiance with mainstream religions, they are choosing ignorance
And if one bases their entire outlook on making assumptions based on others’ beliefs, of lack their of, they’re idiots. And you’re not one to talk about ignorance.. but on a completely irrelevant note, learn to spell
Gemini- Great so i'm pretty sure we've estabilished that Christianity and all the other major relgions are full of flaws and such. They're easy targets so stop dwelling on them. The point of my coment was that a God doesn't neccecarily have to be all powerful or all seeing, or all good, or even have a moral alignment. If one bases Atheism soley from their experiance with mainstream religions, they are choosing ignorance.
quote: Who says God would have to know everything?
Try monotheistic religions for one; especially Christianity, which believes that god is perfect: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and perfect. He supposedly knows/knew everything, so what would be the basis of his purposeful experimentation?
quote: I'm just trying to get some people to see some other possibilites and not be so damned narrow minded about things. It usually makes the religion vs science debates a lot more interesting.
roger that, i appreciate the viewpoint. My comment probably could have gone unsaid. Apologies.
quote: DrStrangelove, Your proof is just as you said, based on faith. However that cant ever sway an opinion or for that matter be used as good evidence.
I'm not trying to offer proof, I aknowlage i don't have any hard stuff when it comes to proving God, hence the agnostic part of it.
I'm just trying to get some people to see some other possibilites and not be so damned narrow minded about things. It usually makes the religion vs science debates a lot more interesting.
quote:lol, your talking out of your *** now, i would stop responding. It isnt hereditary, my mom, dad, brother, sister, grandma, grandpa, aunt, uncle, they all have/had wisdom teeth. It is a mutation and mutations are real.
I'd bet it's a recessive gene and not a mutation Jookly
And by the way, I am also among that toothless 2% Small world isn't it?
quote: Why would god need to experiment if he knew everything? He wouldn't need to "try" new things out and see how they faired, since he'd already know the outcome. Hum. Kind of destroys that point..
Who says God would have to know everything?
And for the record, Every MTV and music teleivsion station sucks ***.
Topics 
