Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

Not surprisingly, your “6,000 genetic disorders™” slogan (as opposed to mutations – it seems you’re unable even to understand the terms your’re using), has it’s… umm… genesis in the twisted mind of Henry Morris.

Gee whiz. As usual, your science literacy comes from a Christian extremist website.


CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
• Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
• Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
• A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
• Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
• In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


Links:
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans
 
Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?

Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases

In research published in September's American Journal of Human Genetics, Yi looked at brain samples of each species. She found that differences in certain DNA modifications, called methylation, may contribute to phenotypic changes. The results also hint that DNA methylation plays an important role for some disease-related phenotypes in humans, including cancer and autism.

Why did the gods feel a need to create humans and primates with such similar DNA structure?

Were primates a first try by the gods at human "creation" but just a little off?

This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

The big difference is the genetic information that is translated.

Define "translated" as it applies to genetic information.


While you're hoping to dodge or perform an Olympic sport quality backstroke to your "translate" foible, there's this:

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb


Ok people want more science, let’s give them what they are asking for. Most of us are familiar with the claims by creationists that most or all of the mutations are found to be detrimental. And before anyone calls this a strawman, remember that it was Ray I believe who insisted on a 100% detrimental mutation rate. In addition, ID proponents seem to take seriously Sanford’s concept of ‘genetic entropy’ which based on what I have read about his argument is a rejuvenated 2nd law of thermodynamics argument. Of course, most familiar with science would understand that most mutations are neutral and that some are detrimental and few are beneficial. However, recent research has shown that the beneficial mutation rates are much higher than originally expected.

Marianne Imhof and Christian Schlotterer report in Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations, PNAS January 30, 2001 vol. 98 no. 3 1113–1117 [read online]



The central role of beneficial mutations for adaptive processes in natural populations is well established. Thus, there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Their low frequency, however, has made this class of mutations almost inaccessible for systematic studies. In the absence of experimental data, the distribution of the fitness effects of beneficial mutations was assumed to resemble that of deleterious mutations. For an experimental proof of this assumption, we used a novel marker system to trace adaptive events in an evolving Escherichia coli culture and to determine the selective advantage of those beneficial mutations. Ten parallel cultures were propagated for about 1,000 generations by serial transfer, and 66 adaptive events were identified. From this data set, we estimate the rate of beneficial mutations to be 4 x 10-9 per cell and generation. Consistent with an exponential distribution of the fitness effects, we observed a large fraction of advantageous mutations with a small effect and only few with large effect. The mean selection coefficient of advantageous mutations in our experiment was 0.02.

Not to be outdone, researchers in 2007 reported on a rate which was another 1000 times faster



Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

Perfeito L, Fernandes L, Mota C, Gordo I Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects. Science. 2007 Aug 10;317(5839):813-5.

Have these e-coli bacteria no shame…




How is it you know with certainty that "God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed" is true?

Evidence for evolution from authoritative / reliable sources has been offered to you. You must ignore those because it conflicts with the religious dogma you simply accepted from your parents.

I'll expect that you can counter that evidence from authoritative / reliable sources. Remember - simply cutting and pasting from AIG is problematic for your side. Remember that I posted the "statement of faith" from the charlatans at AIG?.... which you scurried away from without addressing?... remember that?
 
Last edited:
there might be a way to hold to creations ideas and be scientific. I've never seen it done. the reason i because creationism assumes it has the answer before the data is in. If you come to a different conclusion as a result of the data and stop being a creationist you are out of the club.

The scientific evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis is so strong the time is passed when one might take a neutral position. yet theoretically it's possible to withhold judgement. It's not possible to be a creationist and withhold judgement. Either you believe in evolution in which case you are out or you don't accept it which the necessary pre condition to being a creationist.

one can't really be scientific and say "you must uphold this conclusion even if we don't know the findings of the data."

Belief that God created the universe is not the same thing as "creationism." I believe God created the universe. He used evolution to do it. I can accept the possibility of evolution and still believe in God but I can't hold to the possibility of evolution and be a creationist.
 
there might be a way to hold to creations ideas and be scientific. I've never seen it done. the reason i because creationism assumes it has the answer before the data is in. If you come to a different conclusion as a result of the data and stop being a creationist you are out of the club.

The scientific evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis is so strong the time is passed when one might take a neutral position. yet theoretically it's possible to withhold judgement. It's not possible to be a creationist and withhold judgement. Either you believe in evolution in which case you are out or you don't accept it which the necessary pre condition to being a creationist.

one can't really be scientific and say "you must uphold this conclusion even if we don't know the findings of the data."

Belief that God created the universe is not the same thing as "creationism." I believe God created the universe. He used evolution to do it. I can accept the possibility of evolution and still believe in God but I can't hold to the possibility of evolution and be a creationist.

So should atheistic views be left out of interpreting evidence. Sorry but presuppositions do affect both sides.

So which God do you believe in just curious ?

Microadaptations exist no doubt and that gets extrapolated as evidence for macroevolution that is a fact.
 
there might be a way to hold to creations ideas and be scientific. I've never seen it done. the reason i because creationism assumes it has the answer before the data is in. If you come to a different conclusion as a result of the data and stop being a creationist you are out of the club.

The scientific evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis is so strong the time is passed when one might take a neutral position. yet theoretically it's possible to withhold judgement. It's not possible to be a creationist and withhold judgement. Either you believe in evolution in which case you are out or you don't accept it which the necessary pre condition to being a creationist.

one can't really be scientific and say "you must uphold this conclusion even if we don't know the findings of the data."

Belief that God created the universe is not the same thing as "creationism." I believe God created the universe. He used evolution to do it. I can accept the possibility of evolution and still believe in God but I can't hold to the possibility of evolution and be a creationist.

So should atheistic views be left out of interpreting evidence. Sorry but presuppositions do affect both sides.

So which God do you believe in just curious ?

Microadaptations exist no doubt and that gets extrapolated as evidence for macroevolution that is a fact.


Yes, science is systematic disinterested observation f the workings of the physical world. Atheism is a metaphysical assumption. So metaphsyical assumptions, even though they are probably hard to avoid, should be left out much as possible in a scientific hypothesis.

I think you mean to ask with which religious tradition do I identify? I am a Christian. I believe the same reality stands behind all traditions, the thing that makes religious traditions different is the cultural constructs though which they they are filtered.

Jesus is is not a cultural constrict, he was a historical person. It's not the tradition that's true but the object of it's devotion. So in other words, not Christianity but Jesus himself that constitutes truth with the capital T. Jesus = THE TRUTH, Christianity is just his fan club. so to speak.
 
Do you doubt the real scientists that have made the claim ?


Hope Through Knowledge

There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders

Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge

So explain mutation fixation to me and why so many harmful mutations exist in the gene pool and would have a negative affect on evolution ?

If evolution easily spreads through the gene pool why do we not all have the same genetic disorders ?

Because there are over 6 billion human beings on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that each of us have had sex and babies with every other human being (in which case, damn), what's your point?

Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?

That is not only not true, it doesn't even address what I posted. Misdirection. Try again.
 
Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?

Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases

In research published in September's American Journal of Human Genetics, Yi looked at brain samples of each species. She found that differences in certain DNA modifications, called methylation, may contribute to phenotypic changes. The results also hint that DNA methylation plays an important role for some disease-related phenotypes in humans, including cancer and autism.

Why did the gods feel a need to create humans and primates with such similar DNA structure?

Were primates a first try by the gods at human "creation" but just a little off?

This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

The big difference is the genetic information that is translated.

This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

And he can take billions of years and start with pond scum. Cool!
 
Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

Not surprisingly, your “6,000 genetic disorders™” slogan (as opposed to mutations – it seems you’re unable even to understand the terms your’re using), has it’s… umm… genesis in the twisted mind of Henry Morris.

Gee whiz. As usual, your science literacy comes from a Christian extremist website.


CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
• Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
• Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
• A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
• Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
• In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


Links:
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

This is one of my favorites.
 
Because there are over 6 billion human beings on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that each of us have had sex and babies with every other human being (in which case, damn), what's your point?

Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?

That is not only not true, it doesn't even address what I posted. Misdirection. Try again.
Answer the question ? Since you left off the original question I will go back and look at what was asked.
 
Because there are over 6 billion human beings on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that each of us have had sex and babies with every other human being (in which case, damn), what's your point?

Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?

That is not only not true, it doesn't even address what I posted. Misdirection. Try again.

Here are the questions.

So explain mutation fixation to me and why so many harmful mutations exist in the gene pool and would have a negative affect on evolution ?

If evolution easily spreads through the gene pool why do we not all have the same genetic disorders ?

The 2nd question was a poor question which I concede,I don't know what I was asking. Why didn't you address the first question ?

So are you admitting there are more recent genetic disorders then benefits from mutations ? which is what you need for your theory to be even viable.
 
Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

Not surprisingly, your “6,000 genetic disorders™” slogan (as opposed to mutations – it seems you’re unable even to understand the terms your’re using), has it’s… umm… genesis in the twisted mind of Henry Morris.

Gee whiz. As usual, your science literacy comes from a Christian extremist website.


CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
• Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
• Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
• A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
• Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
• In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


Links:
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

This is one of my favorites.

This is your favorite ! :lol:



First and foremost, D.C. does not have his scientific facts straight concerning nylon-eating bacteria. To my knowledge there has not been a gene duplication event associated with Arthrobacter sp. K172 gaining the ability to digest the byproducts of nylon manufacture (what they essentially “eat” in the wastewater from nylon-producing plants). Rather, what happens is point mutations (single base pair changes in the DNA) that alter the active site of the enzyme EII, an enzyme the bacteria already possess. EII’s normal function is to break down a substance that is chemically similar to nylon. Thus, the mutations slightly alter EII so it can break down nylon that is very similar to the substance it normally breaks down. Clearly, this is not an example of a gain of information mutation but rather an alteration of currently existing information.

Overall, the mutations are degenerative to EII because they reduce its specificity (now the bacteria can “eat” the normal product and nylon). Dr. Kevin Anderson and I in our paper addressing supposed beneficial mutations stated this about EII:
- See more at: Nylon-eating Bacteria Again | Dr. Georgia Purdom's Blog

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again | Dr. Georgia Purdom's Blog
 
Last edited:
Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases



Why did the gods feel a need to create humans and primates with such similar DNA structure?

Were primates a first try by the gods at human "creation" but just a little off?

This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

The big difference is the genetic information that is translated.

This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

And he can take billions of years and start with pond scum. Cool!

You are gonna have to prove this one.
 
Because there are over 6 billion human beings on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that each of us have had sex and babies with every other human being (in which case, damn), what's your point?

Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?

That is not only not true, it doesn't even address what I posted. Misdirection. Try again.

What is not true ?
 
Not surprisingly, your “6,000 genetic disorders™” slogan (as opposed to mutations – it seems you’re unable even to understand the terms your’re using), has it’s… umm… genesis in the twisted mind of Henry Morris.

Gee whiz. As usual, your science literacy comes from a Christian extremist website.


CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
• Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
• Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
• A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
• Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
• In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


Links:
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

This is one of my favorites.

This is your favorite ! :lol:

you to accept this.

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again | Dr. Georgia Purdom's Blog

First and foremost, how us it that I was so certain that your response would be from a fundie extremist

From the AIG website:

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a compelling and dynamic lecturer and well qualified to speak on the relevance of Genesis to the issue of biblical authority. She is the only female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time speaking and research for a biblical creationist organization in North America. Dr. Purdom states, “A proper understanding of Genesis is very important because it is foundational to biblical authority and a Christian worldview. It’s about so much more than the creation/evolution controversy. It’s about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.”
 
• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

This is one of my favorites.

This is your favorite ! :lol:

you to accept this.

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again | Dr. Georgia Purdom's Blog

First and foremost, how us it that I was so certain that your response would be from a fundie extremist

From the AIG website:

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a compelling and dynamic lecturer and well qualified to speak on the relevance of Genesis to the issue of biblical authority. She is the only female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time speaking and research for a biblical creationist organization in North America. Dr. Purdom states, “A proper understanding of Genesis is very important because it is foundational to biblical authority and a Christian worldview. It’s about so much more than the creation/evolution controversy. It’s about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.”

Is there a point in there ? I would put my bible first before any secular science text book. The secular science text books have earned that opinion.
 

First and foremost, how us it that I was so certain that your response would be from a fundie extremist

From the AIG website:

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a compelling and dynamic lecturer and well qualified to speak on the relevance of Genesis to the issue of biblical authority. She is the only female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time speaking and research for a biblical creationist organization in North America. Dr. Purdom states, “A proper understanding of Genesis is very important because it is foundational to biblical authority and a Christian worldview. It’s about so much more than the creation/evolution controversy. It’s about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.”

Is there a point in there ? I would put my bible first before any secular science text book. The secular science text books have earned that opinion.

Of course. We all know that science is just a global conspiracy.

Keep your biblical, flat earth worldview.
 
This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

The big difference is the genetic information that is translated.

This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

And he can take billions of years and start with pond scum. Cool!

You are gonna have to prove this one.

Why do you doubt God's power?
 
• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

This is one of my favorites.

This is your favorite ! :lol:

you to accept this.

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again | Dr. Georgia Purdom's Blog

First and foremost, how us it that I was so certain that your response would be from a fundie extremist

From the AIG website:

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a compelling and dynamic lecturer and well qualified to speak on the relevance of Genesis to the issue of biblical authority. She is the only female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time speaking and research for a biblical creationist organization in North America. Dr. Purdom states, “A proper understanding of Genesis is very important because it is foundational to biblical authority and a Christian worldview. It’s about so much more than the creation/evolution controversy. It’s about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.”

Dr. Georgia Purdom, hypocrite | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants
 

First and foremost, how us it that I was so certain that your response would be from a fundie extremist

From the AIG website:

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a compelling and dynamic lecturer and well qualified to speak on the relevance of Genesis to the issue of biblical authority. She is the only female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time speaking and research for a biblical creationist organization in North America. Dr. Purdom states, “A proper understanding of Genesis is very important because it is foundational to biblical authority and a Christian worldview. It’s about so much more than the creation/evolution controversy. It’s about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.”

Is there a point in there ? I would put my bible first before any secular science text book. The secular science text books have earned that opinion.

That you would actually believe that the bible is a science book is not surprising but does show the breadth of your stupidity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?

That is not only not true, it doesn't even address what I posted. Misdirection. Try again.

What is not true ?

All of it. Creationists haven't "proven" anything. Furthermore, we have found genetic defects in apes. Humans are apes, dude. Moreover, there are genetic diseases that can be traced in primate evolution:

Human genetic disorders, a phylogenetic perspective. [J Mol Biol. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

"Our results show that LPL deficiency is the oldest and should affect humans, apes, and monkeys. ApoB deficiency should affect humans and great apes, while a disorder in the HPRT gene (leading to the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) is unique to human, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Similar results can be obtained for cancer."

Now. Care to actually address my earlier post?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top