tell me one beneficial mutation example - if there is

[BEAKER]

I suppose I am; in a way. What I'm really speaking of is ramdom mutations in a system that has no rhyme nor reason; no created structure and no designer; no intellegence at all to it's amazingly intricate and finely tuned appearance.

[Tim_Lou]

the problem is that people do not try to dig deep into evolution.

evolution itself does not have any rhyme nor reason.
its simply logic.

imagine there are many mutations going on, the organisms with the bad mutations die out, thus they are less likely to reproduce, and the mutation would not continue.

somehow, maybe in a millions mutations, a mutation turns out to be beneficial, and the organisms with this mutations are likely to survive and it will survive better than others, thus leaving more offspring and the trait will continue.

evolution is simply logic, good stuffs stay because the organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce, bad stuffs go away simply because it is unfavorable, and the organisms carrying the trait is less likely to survive and reproduce.

[BEAKER]

Tim Lou,

imagine there are many mutations going on, the organisms with the bad mutations die out, thus they are less likely to reproduce, and the mutation would not continue.

I do understand the concept. But what defines bad?

The kind of varriations I originallyspoke of in my first entry on this thread (one nostril, three eyes, etc., as well as an innumerable host of other possible varriations), have no less validity in a world with no rhyme or reason than do the "normal" varriations.

What "force" has determined that the end result that we see with all it's beauty and gradure shoud be the only version to survive out of the millions of possile varriants?

If there is no rhyme or reason, why doesn'n't the whole world look like scene from a starwars movie?

Don't tell me it's because we haven't discovered these other species out there in the cosmos yet, because I'll tell you that if it's all really a ramdom mutational twist of a rubics cube, then there's more than enough of that going on right here on our own planet!

And that is simple logic.

[Tim_Lou]

"I do understand the concept. But what defines bad?"
defined as the inability to survive. something that reduces surviving chance.


"If there is no rhyme or reason, why doesn'n't the whole world look like scene from a starwars movie?"

the thing is, if we were in a world like starwars movie, we would be asking y the world isnt like the world we are today.

evolution is just like.... a test in school.
people got As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Fs.

but the teacher wont mention and praise the Fs, Ds, Cs or Bs.
they will mention the As, because Bs, Cs, Ds and Fs are not worth mentioning.
thus, everything you see on the "top student board" is the As.

because As are cool, you get praised and presents by parents, you work hard to get As... which makes a larger population of As.
or a couple Bs i would say...

for the Fs... they got dropped out of school... no more Fs.

[GAHD]

I do understand the concept. But what defines bad?

The kind of varriations I originallyspoke of in my first entry on this thread (one nostril, three eyes, etc., as well as an innumerable host of other possible varriations), have no less validity in a world with no rhyme or reason than do the "normal" varriations.

One nostril=less airflow, thus not good for exausting activities, thus bad. There are reported cases of people being born deformed and missing certain appendages, my friend 's sister was born without one ear. In modern sociaty such defects can be altered by plastic surgury, thust the people ith them don't have too heightened a chance of death.

Enlarged hearts, faulty ventricles, skin color, amounts of body hair, we do see lots of examples of such variations. Now if you'r talking about a FUNCTIONAL third eye, you have to realise that also requires mutation for a functional optic nerve and adaptation of the brain to handle the extra imput. There is an example of one man born with twelve fully funtional fingers aswell.

What "force" has determined that the end result that we see with all it's beauty and gradure shoud be the only version to survive out of the millions of possile varriants?

Which could kill better, eat more, and not die before propogating? There's your answer, the strong survive.

If there is no rhyme or reason, why doesn'n't the whole world look like scene from a starwars movie? have you seen the stuff from the deep ocean?

Check out some articles involving "Alvin" the deep-sea sub. Also look at the odd like cockroaches, squids, moths, birds, snakes....yup pritty varied to my eyes.

Don't tell me it's because we haven't discovered these other species out there in the cosmos yet, because I'll tell you that if it's all really a ramdom mutational twist of a rubics cube, then there's more than enough of that going on right here on our own planet!

were you just referring to Intelligence? Learn sign-language and visit the apes at a zoo, you might find one that understands and responds. Dolphins, are pritty smart too. Maby if there was another smart species we just killed them off?

And that is simple logic.

Yes, very simple

[Tim_Lou]

GAHD provides a nice explaination as well.. : P

[BEAKER]

Did you ever here the saying; "simplicity is genius"? - And I'm sure you will say to me that was written by a simpleton to elevate his own stupidity.

But anyway,

One nostril=less airflow, thus not good for exausting activities, thus bad. There are reported cases of people being born deformed and missing certain appendages, my friend 's sister was born without one ear. In modern sociaty such defects can be altered by plastic surgury, thust the people ith them don't have too heightened a chance of death.

I empathise about your friends sister, and don't want to belittle her condition.

But the "One nostril=less airflow, thus not good for exausting activities, thus bad." argument can only be used as an excuse if we assume that there was no way that a person might have evolved with a properly functioning single nostril.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: jasonparker
i always hear the same examples; antibiotics resistance of bacteria, ddt , anemia examples…. These are all invalid.

"These are all invalid"...because? Please don't post a link to an e-book as "proof". Our FAQ requires you to back up strange claims with evidence. I have told you before - we do not accept the harunyaha website as proof, and I want you to tell us *which* examples you have heard and *why* they are false.

I have warned you about this more than once now. You never follow up my warnings, so one more post like this and we will have to block your membership.

You ask for proof of beneficial mutations. I'd like to ask - beneficial for whom? The influenza virus is an example of a virus which is extremely adaptable by mutation. It is obviously beneficial to the flu virus that it can mutate and find new ways to invade and trick immune systems.

Some people will be resistent to some kinds of flu, and others to different kinds of flu. Nobody can be resistent to all kinds of flus because the flu *will* mutate. That is why a lot of people get the flu even though they take flu shots. Here in Norway a recent published figure was that about 75% of those who took the shot still caught the flu during the next 6 months or so.

That some people are resistant while others are not is also an example of beneficial mutations - for the individuals in question.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: jasonparker
By the way i uggest you to check this before you write " The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions"

What, is someone paying people to promote this idiotic site? Or is the author afraid to admit it is them and keeps using different names.

If you can come up with a valid source, we can discuss it further.

and BTW, try "ability to survive out of water".

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BEAKER
I always wondered (logically of course), that; "if evolution were true, why would anything be the same?" I mean after all, if it all began as a total fluke of unequaled good fortune and imeassurable luck

There is nothing LOGICAL about the ad homenum attack against the concept. In fact is shows a complete lack of reasoned logical approach to it.

Evolution had nothing to do with "luck" or "good fortune" any more than our sun bursting into fusion. They both follow the same well ordered and inviolate laws of physics.

that life began in the first place from dead matter,

OK all, repeat after me....

Evolution has nothing to do with or say about where the first living cell came from. That is Abiogenesis. People that are educated in what Evolution really is do not make this otherwise common mistake. We get this ignorace of Evolution here all the time. Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance just means that you don't KNOW about something. Ignorance is overcome by education.

Now you are educated in the differnce between Evolution and Abiogenesis. That is what we strive to do here is educate. If you wish to discuss Abiogenesis, we have threads for that also.

in spite of the overwhealming odds against it;

Life exists, therefore the chances of life existing is 100%. Seems like perfect odds to me.

and that if it has indeed continued to blossom into the incomprehensible varriety and beauty that we see today because of random mutations that have unfolded into things being the way they are; isn't it far more likely that the world that we know should be filled with millions of "missing links" - not just a few.

Filled? Yes in fact it IS. Billions in fact. Every existing, previously existing, creature is a transitional. Anyone with basic understanding of Evolution would know this.

Perhaps what you are asking for is a well organized, layer by layer, documented, with picts and text, archeological find with a complete series of perfectly preserved organisms. Seems rather silly to think such a thing would exist actually.

Again, with a slight education on the subject, you would not expect such silly things. When you realize that we have only been looking for fossiles to evaluate evolutionary processes for less than 150 years. That we have only used the level of scientific rigor now employed for less than 50 years. That there have been less than 200 fully funded field research efforts in all that time. And almost all of those in only two of the Continents. It is little surpise that we have found much of any. That we have found literally thousands of transitional shows how well established Evolution is.

To someone unwilling to understand how evolution works, not having a pict of my father would disprove that I am a decendant of my grandfather. No matter how many, how detailed of a fossile record we find. No matter how well we establish transitionals, a Creationist will always want one more. Unfortunately NATURE did not worry about being able to convince Creationists of how silly such a desire is.

But why don't you have three eyes?

Would you procreate with someone with 3 eyes? Your ancestors didn't either.

Or why dosen't your friend have only one nostril, (you can of course put any varriation you can imagine into this scenario)

Once more we see an attempt to twist how Evolution works into absurd levels. "One Offs" would not have anything to procreate with. Is this confusing to you?