Nocturne

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I addressed this clearly.



Mutations most often confer no benefit or harm, but rather become sections that simply aren't expressed or are expressed in a way that does not cause harm to the organism. Only in very rare cases are mutations either catastrophic or beneficial.





^fat

You can look at the studies on fruit flies and see that these mutations are almost always harmful. Previously I mentioned the pleiotropic effect. This means that mutations usually involve more than one system. A better way of viewing it would be saying a gene may control more than one trait ,so a mutation at that level will possibly affect both traits.

Look at the sickle cell example I mentioned earlier and another person has also brought up. The mutation is the sickle cell and the person has increased resistance to malaria but at the cost of decreased life expectancy. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] These are your beneficial mutations?

The whole premise is illogical. You have DNA which is code that tells your body what to be. Evolution says that for the sake of argument we will call DNA a type writer, they say that the type writer manages to write a new code that gives a benefit/mutation to the organism increasing fitness (ability to pass on offspring). A more accurate statement would be that a mutation is what would occur when the type writer is writing its code and some of the keys are missing. You are not going to end up with something as coherent as the typewriter with all of its keys. When you see a pig with a leg growing out of its back from a mutation that pig can have children and not pass that on because DNA is somewhat self correcting. The pig with the leg growing from its back will mate with another pig that is normal and voila you get another normal pig not some Frankenstein pig species with a 5th spinal leg.

Look at dog breeding. We have been messing with dog genes through selective breeding and while we get more expression of certain traits in the end they still remain dogs. Queue the evolutionist timescale rebuttal. It is really convenient that your ideas rely on unknowable timescales and avoids any kind of critique by coming up with astronomical time figures to avoid facing the gaps in your theory.

To top all of this off you guys cant just live in an evolution bubble in science. There are other fields with contradicting findings. There is a lot of stuff going on right now that is indicating that consciousness affects matter. Then you have ideas like simulation theory which Ishka kind of hinted at previously. How can you falsify something like that? If simulation theory is true then all of the laws and theories would be arbitrary or at the very least do not indicate that that is the way things really work.

Then you can look at mathematics and and physics and see how many interactions would have to take place between particles in the universe to even remotely come close to creating anything approaching life. Its in the order of magnitude of not just unlikely but improbable that this just randomly happened.