Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[cbirch2]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

CB has already stated the effect of mutations is random, whether it's benefical, harmful or neutral.

Most are neutral.

Are Mutations Harmful?

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.

First i would like to thank you for your comments to cbirch.i don't mind doing this because i think it is a wothwhile endeavor,but when it gets that personal i rather be doing something else. You could not convince me from what i saw personally in the drosophila mutations. The same chemicals was used in creating mutations in the flies that cause normal mutations.

And i have to respectfully disagree with whoever your source for this reason. All organisms age and eventually die because of the loss of information in the mutations we experience about every seven years. As we get older we start losing information.

So the majority of mutations cannot be neutral. Let's assume for a moment that you're correct.your theory still needs many more beneficial mutations then harmful mutations so i would be willing to name the defective mutations vs the beneficial mutations. If there were more beneficial mutations you should be able to name them and there would have to be many more then harmful mutations. What we observed in the drosophila there was not one beneficial mutation observed. Every fly was weakened and died prematurely.

We observed x-rays and chemical mutations.the chemicals was not as bad as the x-rays but we pretty much saw the same things.

The other day i went over the mutation rate, the funny thing is i forgot to ask this question to cbirch. He was trying to show that mutations happen fast enough for macro evolution to take place but he was considering evidence where the mutations were induced. The creationist scientist used the numbers of the evolutionist numbers and it was just impossible.

Bottomline, this debate is over unless you can prove beneficial mutations out number harmful mutations by a lot. So i will extend the challenge to you if you like name all the beneficial mutations and i will list the harmful ones and the numbers will decide this debate.

Don't take this wrong not trying to give you a hard time,but this debate has gotten silly and i would like to just end it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

What you're saying is not being observed that is not what you're getting.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Everyone saw your contradiction . So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed ? Oh by the way you did not get one question right on your quiz yesterday genius. I would be careful who you call stupid . You got schooled yesterday and to dumb to realize it. We are in things way over your head. Notice how none of the others ate coming to your aid. Because they saw my argument was correct. You go ahead think what you like but you demonstrated nothing except you know a little biology. If you think you learn enough about genetics from just biology,you are in for a tough road. The only thing you had going for you was the #2 chromosome but that don't really matter if you look at the dilemma I presented.

"So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed?"

Wow. You dont even know what penicillin is. Holy shit. Penicillin is the antibiotic we use to kill bacteria. Its not something native to the bacteria themselves; its not being "removed" from the bacteria. The bacteria become resistant to penicillin and it no longer has any effect on them. How can you not understand how thats beneficial? Isnt not dying pretty fucking beneficial?

Im still wondering what contradiction your talking about? The one where i specifically said that it doesnt cause a loss in information for the entire gene pool? Because thats not a contradiction. Loss of information in one organism has nothing to do with the gene pool as a whole. Thats exactly what i said. Just because your too stupid to understand it doesnt mean i contradicted myself. It just means your stupid.

I really cant believe what i just read. You really dont know what penicillin is. I cant believe im trying to have an educated discussion about speciation and segments of nucleotides in a DNA sequence, and you cant comprehend something as simple as "penicillin kills bacteria." Holy shit....

Are you serious ? you seem to jump at every blunder and make a big deal to try and change the debate.

But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

One more for you to swallow.

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The left picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.


It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21


Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.


A mutant fly with
deformed wings.
The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations:

Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23

The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation."


The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.

They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24

So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25

Darwinism Refuted.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

The article i posted say's there are 4,500 harmful mutations. How many beneficial mutations are there ?

 

[cbirch2]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

What you're saying is not being observed that is not what you're getting.

Lol so there are not new flu vaccines every year? And bacteria arent mutating to becoming resistant to antibiotics?

 

[cbirch2]

Everyone saw your contradiction . So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed ? Oh by the way you did not get one question right on your quiz yesterday genius. I would be careful who you call stupid . You got schooled yesterday and to dumb to realize it. We are in things way over your head. Notice how none of the others ate coming to your aid. Because they saw my argument was correct. You go ahead think what you like but you demonstrated nothing except you know a little biology. If you think you learn enough about genetics from just biology,you are in for a tough road. The only thing you had going for you was the #2 chromosome but that don't really matter if you look at the dilemma I presented.

"So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed?"

Wow. You dont even know what penicillin is. Holy shit. Penicillin is the antibiotic we use to kill bacteria. Its not something native to the bacteria themselves; its not being "removed" from the bacteria. The bacteria become resistant to penicillin and it no longer has any effect on them. How can you not understand how thats beneficial? Isnt not dying pretty fucking beneficial?

Im still wondering what contradiction your talking about? The one where i specifically said that it doesnt cause a loss in information for the entire gene pool? Because thats not a contradiction. Loss of information in one organism has nothing to do with the gene pool as a whole. Thats exactly what i said. Just because your too stupid to understand it doesnt mean i contradicted myself. It just means your stupid.

I really cant believe what i just read. You really dont know what penicillin is. I cant believe im trying to have an educated discussion about speciation and segments of nucleotides in a DNA sequence, and you cant comprehend something as simple as "penicillin kills bacteria." Holy shit....

Are you serious ? you seem to jump at every blunder and make a big deal to try and change the debate.

But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?

Lol your the one jumping on imaginary blunders. You just did it one page back. This isnt a small blunder, you cant even understand how resistance to antibiotics constitutes a beneficial mutations. "But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?" Yea. I know the correct term is penicillin. Thats why i used that term like 5 times. Point? I know their are other antibiotics like amoxicillin, ive known that since i was like 5 and got strep. Point? What does that have to do with anything? The point is that the beneficial mutation is spreading through bacteria populations that make them resistant to penicillin. Thats why we have different antibiotics. The bacteria dont have resistance to those yet. Once we've used those long enough bacteria will be resistant to those too, just like they did for penicillin in the last 50 years. How can you possibly argue that beneficial mutations dont spread through populations. We see it!

 

[cbirch2]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

The article i posted say's there are 4,500 harmful mutations. How many beneficial mutations are there ?

Lol yes ill trust arguments that are blatantly biased. Again, your article makes claims that are totally unsubstantiated and even sometimes outright lies. "Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful." Wrong. So very wrong. So the digestive proteins of organisms dont adapt to their food source? Bacteria dont become resistant to antibiotics? Viruses dont mutate year after year? Not even Allie is arguing against natural selection. You are. Only retards argue against natural selection. And you still dont get the concept behind reproductive success. Most mutations do absolutely nothing. Your article claims 4,500 harmful mutations. How did they determine which mutations were harmful? If every organism has that many mutations, and all of them are noticeably harmful, why isnt all life just one giant mutated blob of nonsense. Ill answer that for you: because organisms with harmful mutations have limited reproductive success. Organisms with beneficial mutations have increased reproductive success. This is simple stuff. You keep claiming that beneficial mutations cant happen but thats just wrong. Everyone with a brain knows its wrong. You still havent explained the fusion of chromosome two. Maybe you think you have, but you havent. It has nothing to do with relation to ape. It has to do with the fact that a fused chromosome means human ancestors had an extra pair of chromosomes making them a different species by definition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

What you're saying is not being observed that is not what you're getting.

Lol so there are not new flu vaccines every year? And bacteria arent mutating to becoming resistant to antibiotics?

That proves what ?

Once again you have to show how beneficial mutations can out number harmful mutations . Evolutionist have admitted this is a problem for the theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You still dont get it.

Yup, more harmful mutations occur than beneficial mutations. Pretty obvious. No one is even arguing that. You just dont seem to get one thing. Organisms with beneficial mutations have a competitive advantage over organisms that dont. They are going to avoid being eaten, gather more resources, reproduce easier and reproduce more. Which is why beneficial mutations spread more than harmful mutations, or even compared to no mutation at all.

Your arguing things with absolutely no proof. You keep saying only bad mutations can happen but you havent substantiated that at all. And you wont be able to because its false. All you have is spetners statistical calculation that is just a guess built upon more guess.

Not only that but we see beneficial mutations happen constantly. Why do you think we have to make new flu vaccines each year? What about organisms that are transported from one location to another, separated from their main food source, and consequently develop a new set of digestive proteins to cope with their new environment. The organisms whose gene regulation allow for more of that protein to be expressed, and therefore more efficiently convert food to energy, is going to have an advantages over others.

We've actually seen this in animal which we isolate from their normal food source. Like insects that developed increased ability to digest cellulose when force to feed on apples.

The article i posted say's there are 4,500 harmful mutations. How many beneficial mutations are there ?

Lol yes ill trust arguments that are blatantly biased. Again, your article makes claims that are totally unsubstantiated and even sometimes outright lies. "Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful." Wrong. So very wrong. So the digestive proteins of organisms dont adapt to their food source? Bacteria dont become resistant to antibiotics? Viruses dont mutate year after year? Not even Allie is arguing against natural selection. You are. Only retards argue against natural selection. And you still dont get the concept behind reproductive success. Most mutations do absolutely nothing. Your article claims 4,500 harmful mutations. How did they determine which mutations were harmful? If every organism has that many mutations, and all of them are noticeably harmful, why isnt all life just one giant mutated blob of nonsense. Ill answer that for you: because organisms with harmful mutations have limited reproductive success. Organisms with beneficial mutations have increased reproductive success. This is simple stuff. You keep claiming that beneficial mutations cant happen but thats just wrong. Everyone with a brain knows its wrong. You still havent explained the fusion of chromosome two. Maybe you think you have, but you havent. It has nothing to do with relation to ape. It has to do with the fact that a fused chromosome means human ancestors had an extra pair of chromosomes making them a different species by definition.

Like what ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed?"

Wow. You dont even know what penicillin is. Holy shit. Penicillin is the antibiotic we use to kill bacteria. Its not something native to the bacteria themselves; its not being "removed" from the bacteria. The bacteria become resistant to penicillin and it no longer has any effect on them. How can you not understand how thats beneficial? Isnt not dying pretty fucking beneficial?

Im still wondering what contradiction your talking about? The one where i specifically said that it doesnt cause a loss in information for the entire gene pool? Because thats not a contradiction. Loss of information in one organism has nothing to do with the gene pool as a whole. Thats exactly what i said. Just because your too stupid to understand it doesnt mean i contradicted myself. It just means your stupid.

I really cant believe what i just read. You really dont know what penicillin is. I cant believe im trying to have an educated discussion about speciation and segments of nucleotides in a DNA sequence, and you cant comprehend something as simple as "penicillin kills bacteria." Holy shit....

Are you serious ? you seem to jump at every blunder and make a big deal to try and change the debate.

But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?

Lol your the one jumping on imaginary blunders. You just did it one page back. This isnt a small blunder, you cant even understand how resistance to antibiotics constitutes a beneficial mutations. "But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?" Yea. I know the correct term is penicillin. Thats why i used that term like 5 times. Point? I know their are other antibiotics like amoxicillin, ive known that since i was like 5 and got strep. Point? What does that have to do with anything? The point is that the beneficial mutation is spreading through bacteria populations that make them resistant to penicillin. Thats why we have different antibiotics. The bacteria dont have resistance to those yet. Once we've used those long enough bacteria will be resistant to those too, just like they did for penicillin in the last 50 years. How can you possibly argue that beneficial mutations dont spread through populations. We see it!

I was correcting my own mistake by saying antibiotic.Hello you're doing it again,amoxicillin contains penicillin please stop, this is getting embarrasing now. I have looked at many mutations and i have never seen a beneficial mutation.


This bud's for you.

3 - THE ONE "BENEFICIAL" MUTATION

SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA—Evolutionists point to sickle-cell anemia as the outstanding example of beneficial evolutionary change through mutation.

A long time ago, a mutation occurred in someone in Africa. As do all mutational changes, this one resulted in damage. In this instance, the shape of the red blood cells was changed, from its normal flattened shape, to a quarter-moon shape. Because it tended to cause serious anemia, instead of killing outright, sickle-cell anemia passed into the race and became a recessive factor.

The problem was that, although the blood of a person with sickle-cell anemia does not properly absorb food and oxygen,—that person, oddly enough, will be less likely to acquire malaria from the bite of an anopheles mosquito. As a result, the sickle-cell anemia factor has become widespread in Africa. This is the best example of a "beneficial" mutation that evolutionary scientists are able to offer us.

"Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia . . Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their red blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria.

"The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that the short time advantages produce ‘mischievous results’ detrimental to long-term survival."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 103, 104.

Actual statistics reveal that the death rate from malaria for normal people in certain parts of Africa is over 30 percent while only 25 percent of carriers of sickle-cell anemia are likely to contract it. But in return for the advantage, 25 percent of their children will die of this serious anemia.

These carriers have a 50-50 proportion of regular and sickle-cell red blood cells, but 25 percent of their children will have 100 percent sickle-cell RBCs, and will die as a result. The other 75 percent will also be carriers and have the 50-50 proportion of cells.

In sickle-cell anemia, one amino acid in a peptide of nine in a string is faulty. Valine is there instead of glutamic acid. That one change makes all the difference, changing regular hemoglobin into sickle-cell hemoglobin.

This outstanding example of a "beneficial mutant" not only damages those who have it, but in the process would normally eradicate itself. It is only the deaths caused by malaria that favor it.

"In regions where malaria is not an acute problem, the gene does tend to die out. In America, the incidence of sickle-cell genes among blacks may have started as high as 25 percent. Even allowing for a reduction to an estimated 15 percent by admixture with non-black individuals, the present incidence of only 9 percent shows that the gene is dwindling away. In all probability it will continue to do so. If Africa is freed of malaria, the gene will presumably dwindle there, too."—*Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 619.

DRUG-RESISTANT GERMS—What about strains of bacteria and viruses which are resistant to antibiotics and other modern drugs? You will frequently hear in the media that "new mutations" of germs are drug-resistant. This is not true.

We have here a situation much like the peppered moth, discussed early in the last chapter. Each bacteria and virus has its own gene pool, so it can produce a number of varieties. When a certain antibiotic is repeatedly given to people with tuberculosis, and those people do not take the drug long enough to kill the tubercle bacillus,—opportunity is given for drug-resistant strains of the bacillus to reproduce in great numbers while less-resistant strains are reduced in number. Only occasionally do mutated strains of germs occur, and when they do, they soon die out. More on this later in this chapter.

Mutations

Once again i already told you a mutation has very little chance of taking over a Gene pool,this one did not do that either.

Now how beneficial is it ?

The link above has a lot more interesting stuff on mutations,it's a must read.

 

[cbirch2]

What you're saying is not being observed that is not what you're getting.

Lol so there are not new flu vaccines every year? And bacteria arent mutating to becoming resistant to antibiotics?

That proves what ?

Once again you have to show how beneficial mutations can out number harmful mutations . Evolutionist have admitted this is a problem for the theory.

I dont have to prove that. I have to prove that beneficial mutations get passed on in greater number than harmful mutations. Its all about competition and reproductive success, for like the fourth time. Get it?

 

[cbirch2]

Are you serious ? you seem to jump at every blunder and make a big deal to try and change the debate.

But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?

Lol your the one jumping on imaginary blunders. You just did it one page back. This isnt a small blunder, you cant even understand how resistance to antibiotics constitutes a beneficial mutations. "But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?" Yea. I know the correct term is penicillin. Thats why i used that term like 5 times. Point? I know their are other antibiotics like amoxicillin, ive known that since i was like 5 and got strep. Point? What does that have to do with anything? The point is that the beneficial mutation is spreading through bacteria populations that make them resistant to penicillin. Thats why we have different antibiotics. The bacteria dont have resistance to those yet. Once we've used those long enough bacteria will be resistant to those too, just like they did for penicillin in the last 50 years. How can you possibly argue that beneficial mutations dont spread through populations. We see it!

I was correcting my own mistake by saying antibiotic.Hello you're doing it again,amoxicillin contains penicillin please stop, this is getting embarrasing now. I have looked at many mutations and i have never seen a beneficial mutation.


This bud's for you.

3 - THE ONE "BENEFICIAL" MUTATION

SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA—Evolutionists point to sickle-cell anemia as the outstanding example of beneficial evolutionary change through mutation.

A long time ago, a mutation occurred in someone in Africa. As do all mutational changes, this one resulted in damage. In this instance, the shape of the red blood cells was changed, from its normal flattened shape, to a quarter-moon shape. Because it tended to cause serious anemia, instead of killing outright, sickle-cell anemia passed into the race and became a recessive factor.

The problem was that, although the blood of a person with sickle-cell anemia does not properly absorb food and oxygen,—that person, oddly enough, will be less likely to acquire malaria from the bite of an anopheles mosquito. As a result, the sickle-cell anemia factor has become widespread in Africa. This is the best example of a "beneficial" mutation that evolutionary scientists are able to offer us.

"Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia . . Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their red blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria.

"The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that the short time advantages produce ‘mischievous results’ detrimental to long-term survival."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 103, 104.

Actual statistics reveal that the death rate from malaria for normal people in certain parts of Africa is over 30 percent while only 25 percent of carriers of sickle-cell anemia are likely to contract it. But in return for the advantage, 25 percent of their children will die of this serious anemia.

These carriers have a 50-50 proportion of regular and sickle-cell red blood cells, but 25 percent of their children will have 100 percent sickle-cell RBCs, and will die as a result. The other 75 percent will also be carriers and have the 50-50 proportion of cells.

In sickle-cell anemia, one amino acid in a peptide of nine in a string is faulty. Valine is there instead of glutamic acid. That one change makes all the difference, changing regular hemoglobin into sickle-cell hemoglobin.

This outstanding example of a "beneficial mutant" not only damages those who have it, but in the process would normally eradicate itself. It is only the deaths caused by malaria that favor it.

"In regions where malaria is not an acute problem, the gene does tend to die out. In America, the incidence of sickle-cell genes among blacks may have started as high as 25 percent. Even allowing for a reduction to an estimated 15 percent by admixture with non-black individuals, the present incidence of only 9 percent shows that the gene is dwindling away. In all probability it will continue to do so. If Africa is freed of malaria, the gene will presumably dwindle there, too."—*Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 619.

DRUG-RESISTANT GERMS—What about strains of bacteria and viruses which are resistant to antibiotics and other modern drugs? You will frequently hear in the media that "new mutations" of germs are drug-resistant. This is not true.

We have here a situation much like the peppered moth, discussed early in the last chapter. Each bacteria and virus has its own gene pool, so it can produce a number of varieties. When a certain antibiotic is repeatedly given to people with tuberculosis, and those people do not take the drug long enough to kill the tubercle bacillus,—opportunity is given for drug-resistant strains of the bacillus to reproduce in great numbers while less-resistant strains are reduced in number. Only occasionally do mutated strains of germs occur, and when they do, they soon die out. More on this later in this chapter.

Mutations

Once again i already told you a mutation has very little chance of taking over a Gene pool,this one did not do that either.

Now how beneficial is it ?

The link above has a lot more interesting stuff on mutations,it's a must read.

Amoxicillin is not the same thing as penicillin. Lol wasnt i being accused of trying to derail the conversation by "jumping on your blunders"? Again your making up blunders. Amoxicillin is not the same as penicillin. Penicillin is synthetic and amoxicillin is only semi-synthetic. It reacts to chemicals in the body differently, and its more effective at killing bacteria because it has a slightly different molecular structure than penicillin. Dont talk about things you have no idea about. Keep posting creationist websites, im not looking at one thing you post from them. Why would anyone trust information from a website with a bias, theres no question what the information is going to say. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Not to mention your website never provide actual proof. They just say things like "beneficial mutations are never seen" which is just a blatant lie. Your a joke. You have yet to do anything but make me laugh. I dont think you've said one correct statement this entire time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol so there are not new flu vaccines every year? And bacteria arent mutating to becoming resistant to antibiotics?

That proves what ?

Once again you have to show how beneficial mutations can out number harmful mutations . Evolutionist have admitted this is a problem for the theory.

I dont have to prove that. I have to prove that beneficial mutations get passed on in greater number than harmful mutations. Its all about competition and reproductive success, for like the fourth time. Get it?

Your theory is wrong get it ?

So how many beneficial mutations have been observed ?

Do you realize for every harmful mutation it is a setback to your theory ?

Do you realize how many organisms supposedly had to over come these impossible odds ?come on think.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol your the one jumping on imaginary blunders. You just did it one page back. This isnt a small blunder, you cant even understand how resistance to antibiotics constitutes a beneficial mutations. "But the correct term was penicillin,because there are several antibiotics that don't contain penicillin, holy crap you didn't know that ?" Yea. I know the correct term is penicillin. Thats why i used that term like 5 times. Point? I know their are other antibiotics like amoxicillin, ive known that since i was like 5 and got strep. Point? What does that have to do with anything? The point is that the beneficial mutation is spreading through bacteria populations that make them resistant to penicillin. Thats why we have different antibiotics. The bacteria dont have resistance to those yet. Once we've used those long enough bacteria will be resistant to those too, just like they did for penicillin in the last 50 years. How can you possibly argue that beneficial mutations dont spread through populations. We see it!

I was correcting my own mistake by saying antibiotic.Hello you're doing it again,amoxicillin contains penicillin please stop, this is getting embarrasing now. I have looked at many mutations and i have never seen a beneficial mutation.


This bud's for you.

3 - THE ONE "BENEFICIAL" MUTATION

SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA—Evolutionists point to sickle-cell anemia as the outstanding example of beneficial evolutionary change through mutation.

A long time ago, a mutation occurred in someone in Africa. As do all mutational changes, this one resulted in damage. In this instance, the shape of the red blood cells was changed, from its normal flattened shape, to a quarter-moon shape. Because it tended to cause serious anemia, instead of killing outright, sickle-cell anemia passed into the race and became a recessive factor.

The problem was that, although the blood of a person with sickle-cell anemia does not properly absorb food and oxygen,—that person, oddly enough, will be less likely to acquire malaria from the bite of an anopheles mosquito. As a result, the sickle-cell anemia factor has become widespread in Africa. This is the best example of a "beneficial" mutation that evolutionary scientists are able to offer us.

"Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia . . Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their red blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria.

"The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that the short time advantages produce ‘mischievous results’ detrimental to long-term survival."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 103, 104.

Actual statistics reveal that the death rate from malaria for normal people in certain parts of Africa is over 30 percent while only 25 percent of carriers of sickle-cell anemia are likely to contract it. But in return for the advantage, 25 percent of their children will die of this serious anemia.

These carriers have a 50-50 proportion of regular and sickle-cell red blood cells, but 25 percent of their children will have 100 percent sickle-cell RBCs, and will die as a result. The other 75 percent will also be carriers and have the 50-50 proportion of cells.

In sickle-cell anemia, one amino acid in a peptide of nine in a string is faulty. Valine is there instead of glutamic acid. That one change makes all the difference, changing regular hemoglobin into sickle-cell hemoglobin.

This outstanding example of a "beneficial mutant" not only damages those who have it, but in the process would normally eradicate itself. It is only the deaths caused by malaria that favor it.

"In regions where malaria is not an acute problem, the gene does tend to die out. In America, the incidence of sickle-cell genes among blacks may have started as high as 25 percent. Even allowing for a reduction to an estimated 15 percent by admixture with non-black individuals, the present incidence of only 9 percent shows that the gene is dwindling away. In all probability it will continue to do so. If Africa is freed of malaria, the gene will presumably dwindle there, too."—*Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 619.

DRUG-RESISTANT GERMS—What about strains of bacteria and viruses which are resistant to antibiotics and other modern drugs? You will frequently hear in the media that "new mutations" of germs are drug-resistant. This is not true.

We have here a situation much like the peppered moth, discussed early in the last chapter. Each bacteria and virus has its own gene pool, so it can produce a number of varieties. When a certain antibiotic is repeatedly given to people with tuberculosis, and those people do not take the drug long enough to kill the tubercle bacillus,—opportunity is given for drug-resistant strains of the bacillus to reproduce in great numbers while less-resistant strains are reduced in number. Only occasionally do mutated strains of germs occur, and when they do, they soon die out. More on this later in this chapter.

Mutations

Once again i already told you a mutation has very little chance of taking over a Gene pool,this one did not do that either.

Now how beneficial is it ?

The link above has a lot more interesting stuff on mutations,it's a must read.

Amoxicillin is not the same thing as penicillin. Lol wasnt i being accused of trying to derail the conversation by "jumping on your blunders"? Again your making up blunders. Amoxicillin is not the same as penicillin. Penicillin is synthetic and amoxicillin is only semi-synthetic. It reacts to chemicals in the body differently, and its more effective at killing bacteria because it has a slightly different molecular structure than penicillin. Dont talk about things you have no idea about. Keep posting creationist websites, im not looking at one thing you post from them. Why would anyone trust information from a website with a bias, theres no question what the information is going to say. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Not to mention your website never provide actual proof. They just say things like "beneficial mutations are never seen" which is just a blatant lie. Your a joke. You have yet to do anything but make me laugh. I dont think you've said one correct statement this entire time.

Go back and read your post that was your blunder.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YouwereCreated, you really think science is all about celebrating and worshiping your lord, don't you?

In science, that is called "bias" and research CANNOT proceed with that kind of premise on the research.

You seem to understand science like someone discussing the Italian renaissance, (a French word, "renaissance", meaning? ... of just look it up!!!!) discussing the Italian renaissance by saying YOU know all about it, because you ate a pizza!!!

Your stunning LACK of intellectual capacity only makes you look like a fool to the thousands and thousands of people who view your self-serving non-scientific, agenda driven "speculations".

It's like you claim to know computer science because you once used a digital phone!!!

Please, stop embarrassing yourself, take some pride in your existence, dare to open your mind to learn more, most Christians like you CANNOT go that far, be the first to prove to us that you have an OPEN MIND!! We see no evidence of that, nor of a basic science education of a high school senior here so far.....prove to us you know something more about Italian than the ability to use a cell phone to order a pizza! So far, that is the proof you have offered of your intellectual capacity and familiarity with the Italian renaissance, where all the "science" stuff started!!!

Are you serious ?i was once one of you. Then i saw the bull being passed on as science. You claim to be a teacher you are the one that is spreading this crap.

That is why this kid believes the junk you teach. Thank God i got with the right crowd so i could actually learn something.

If i am wrong then prove it because cbirch right now is a little razzled he is blameing me for what he said But that is about par for the course.

You talk a good game, now let's debate this or don't insult me got it ?

 

[JScott]

YouwereCreated, you really think science is all about celebrating and worshiping your lord, don't you?

In science, that is called "bias" and research CANNOT proceed with that kind of premise on the research.

You seem to understand science like someone discussing the Italian renaissance, (a French word, "renaissance", meaning? ... of just look it up!!!!) discussing the Italian renaissance by saying YOU know all about it, because you ate a pizza!!!

Your stunning LACK of intellectual capacity only makes you look like a fool to the thousands and thousands of people who view your self-serving non-scientific, agenda driven "speculations".

It's like you claim to know computer science because you once used a digital phone!!!

Please, stop embarrassing yourself, take some pride in your existence, dare to open your mind to learn more, most Christians like you CANNOT go that far, be the first to prove to us that you have an OPEN MIND!! We see no evidence of that, nor of a basic science education of a high school senior here so far.....prove to us you know something more about Italian than the ability to use a cell phone to order a pizza! So far, that is the proof you have offered of your intellectual capacity and familiarity with the Italian renaissance, where all the "science" stuff started!!!

Are you serious ?i was once one of you. Then i saw the bull being passed on as science. You claim to be a teacher you are the one that is spreading this crap.

That is why this kid believes the junk you teach. Thank God i got with the right crowd so i could actually learn something.

If i am wrong then prove it because cbirch right now is a little razzled he is blameing me for what he said But that is about par for the course.

You talk a good game, now let's debate this or don't insult me got it ?

There you go again. Talking shit about scientists that spend their whole lives studying things you cant grasp.

If you want to teach your kids this crap you spout go for it. As for mine, no way.

As for a debate, if you ignore scientific fact, its not much of a debate is it? When you answer a post with you are admitting defeat. You bore me anymore. Not because of the bible or Jesus but because you are deaf, dumb and blind to the world around you.

If you really cant understand then Im sorry. The world is moving forward without you even though you will take advantage of everything science provides you.

 

[JScott]

Heres a real scientist and a creationist preacher debating.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnb_pmRDpqU&feature=player_detailpage]‪Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AllieBaba]

I find it vastly entertaining that the ones ignoring the science are the ones who claim they're the scientific ones, lol.

And who have proven, all through this thread, that not only are they irrational, they don't have a grasp of what the science is AT ALL except to affirm (incorrectly) that the science puts the lie to the existence of God and the creation...