there are no beneficial mutations. mutations are either neutral or negative. darwinist dogmatists like to cover this up. and actual research and testing has been done. the conclusion is unilateral:life cannot form spontaneously
45 comments
If that were true, than all species would be breeding themselves toward the average of their traits, i.e. each generation of human would be getting closer to the average human: height(adjusting for nutrition), skin tone, eye color, hair color, IQ, etc.
Mutations really can't be broken down into clear good/bad/neutral groups. A mutation that may be good in one circumstance can be bad in another. And one that might be neutral at the moment may become good, bad, or both if the environment shifts. Intrinsically, mutations aren't good, bad, or neutral, they simply happen. The value of the mutation is relative to how it is expressed and changes the organism's function or interaction with the environment.
Life isn't black and white fundies, that's why you're having such a difficult time getting it right.
"life cannot form spontaneously"
Well, knowledge certainly can't. Here's a tip: read a book that isn't the Holy Babble or a book which uses the Babble in order to prove itself.
life cannot form spontaneously
That is correct, which is why scientists don't suggest that it did.
Spontaneous creation however was the "theory" that dominated the world before evolution came around.
"there are no beneficial mutations."
Lie 1
"darwinst dogmatists like to cover this up."
Lie 2
"actual research and testing has been done."
Lie 3
"life cannot form spontaneously."
Strawman
I think fundies must think antibiotic resistant staphlococcus, chloroquinine resistant plasmodia and low-temperature adaptions in H5N1 (making it easier for them to inhabit humans) aren't examples of beneficial mutations because blood-poisoning, malaria and bird-flu are clearly not to our benefit.
I guess that's what happens when you start believing you're God's "special little creation".
They don't cover that up. It happens that certain mutations, like pigments of the skin, can be benefitial. And again, what is neutral exactly, according to your stupid logic?
Why wont they ever show me this evidence and research ?? Do they think I'm too common to see their evidence ?? Is it a body odour problem or something ?? I'm getting really self conscious here. I know all this evidence for creationist claims exists because they keep telling me it does but they still refuse to show me any of it. It's not fair dammit, why do they get to see it and I don't ???
This is kind of a cool mutation
In this and other wealthy countries it'd mostly be seen as positive, but the ridiculously fast metabolism could certainly be unwelcome in areas where food is less plentiful. It's also apparently difficult to keep these kids properly fed when they're young such that they have any body fat at all. I wish I had that problem...
I'd call the fact that every thousandth European is immune to HIV thanks to the Black Death is a fairly cool mutation.
Yes, the mutations that caused early humans to grown bigger brains were completely useless to them.
I also find it funny how this guy thinks there are only 3-4 missing links in the human evolutionary line.
I must be tired this evening. In addition to being wrong,to me this sounds like, "I really like strawberries, Oh, look, a chicken!"
To quote the great Al Franken:"No mutation, he insisted, had ever been beneficial. I looked at my thumb, but said nothing, as I used it to hold my fork..."
Wrong. There are beneficial mutations. Go research. These mutations can give immunity to AIDS, immunity to heart disease+high blood pressure, ability to survive in high altitudes, near unbreakable bones, extra muscle mass and virtually no fat, ability to see some UV rays.
A point to remember. There cannot be negative mutation without postive mutation. If a particular base in a gene mutates, say from A to G, then that new base could later mutate from a G back to an A. These mutations can't both be negative, since one reverses the other.
When a creationist retard claims there are no beneficial mutations, he or she is implying that there are no detrimental ones either. One can't exist without the other.
Is having fragile, hollow bones that break with very little pressure a harmful mutation? No, because without them birds couldn't fly.
Maybe the issue is a bit more complex than you realize Masta Munsa.
image
Your Argument Is Invalid
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
