Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambrian_exp

some new creationist thing about mutations

Recommended Posts

MUTATIONS - 2

 

Here is more scientific evidence clearly showing that mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

 

CONTENTS: MUTATIONS - 2

 

- One mutation which is touted as helpful, but which is actually as deadly as the rest
- It is the in-depth mutation research, carried on for most of this century, which has settled the matter
- As all the other theories shatter, in desperation a really wayout theory is grasped
- Mutations cannot possibly produce evolutionary change

 

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, MUTATIONS, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.

 

THE ONE BENEFICIAL MUTATION

 

Yes, evolutionists have one beneficial mutation that they can cite—as proof that positive, helpful mutations do occasionally occur.

 

It is sickle-cell anemia, which is a mutation which occurred in someone in Africa centuries ago. Was that mutation beneficial? Far from it; it damaged the red blood cells so they became quarter-moon shaped instead of round. This produced a special type of anemia. The person with sickle-cell anemia cannot properly absorb food and oxygen.

 

How then can anyone call that mutation beneficial?

 

Well, the evolutionists do it—on the basis of the fact that people with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to contract malaria from mosquitoes!

 

Really now, that is begging the question! If I had bulbar polio, I would be less likely to be killed in an auto accident—because I would be paralyzed on a bed and less likely to be riding in a car. But one would not say that polio was, for that reason, beneficial!

 

In return for the advantage of being 25 percent less likely to contract malaria, 25 percent of the children of people, in Africa, with sickle-cell anemia—will die! What advantage is that?—pp. 21, 23.

 

MUTATION RESEARCH

 

As mentioned earlier, researchers spent most of this century trying to get mutations to produce new species. The problem, of course, was the fact that they are so rare.—p. 23.

 

The new discovery. But a major breakthrough came in 1928, when *Muller discovered that X rays could speed up mutations. Whereas, in nature, there might be one mutation, now the number could be increased a millionfold—and focused on just one organism!

 

How wonderful, the evolutionists thought! Now we shall be able to create new species!

 

Instead, they damaged, mutilated, and killed experimental insects, animals, and birds for decades—without accomplishing anything worthwhile.—pp. 23-24.

 

The great fruit fly experiment. The humble fruit fly was selected as the best single creature to torture with radiation. The reason was its extremely short reproductive cycle. A new generation of fruit flies occurs every few days. In addition, the creature is large enough that it can be seen far easier than worms or microbes.

 

Since the late 1920s, hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated with X rays and nuclear radiation. —Yet in all that time, two facts have emerged: (1) They have been damaged, not helped. (2) No new species have been produced. The fruit flies have remained fruit flies—in spite of experiencing countless millions of mutations.—pp. 24-25.

 

Resistant strains. It has been said, by evolutionists, that "resistant strains" of bacteria are the result of mutations. These are bacteria which are more resistant to the wonder drugs.

 

Yet the truth is that every species has a variational range of traits. Some of those bacteria could resist the drugs while others could not.

 

When the drugs were applied, the nonresistant strains died off, and the resistant strains survived. What the physicians were doing, by administering drugs, was to breed new, stronger strains of bacteria! Mutations had nothing to do with the process.—pp. 25-26.

 

The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s, *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly.

 

As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful!

 

In addition, they discovered that the slightest mutational change in the DNA ruins the code entirely. Even the simplest organism is damaged when its DNA is struck by a mutation.—p. 26.

 

MAMMOTH MUTATION THEORY

 

We noted earlier that some evolutionists adhered to the natural selection, as the cause of cross-species changes. Later, when mutations were discovered and the inadequacies in natural selection were realized, many turned to mutations as the solution.

 

But, later still, several prominent evolutionists turned to a new variation on the mutation theory:

 

They came up with the "hopeful monster" theory. This is the idea that, once every 50,000 years or so, a gigantic set of helpful, positive mutations occurs all at once: a lizard lays an egg and a beaver hatches from it!

 

Flaws in the theory. Here are some of the reasons why this mutation theory is desperately impossible:

 

1 - It never happens. We never see the theory in action.—p. 27.

 

2 - Two required. Every time a hopeful monster is produced, two would have to come into being within a few miles of each other: a male and female. Yet, according to *Gould, this rare event only happens once every 50,000 years.—p. 27.

 

3 - Massive mutations required. Multi-billion mutations would suddenly have to occur each time a hopeful monster was produced.—pp. 26-27.

 

4 - All positive. Mutations are always negative and, generally, lethal; but these would have to be all positive.—p. 27.

 

5 - All dovetailed and according to plan. All these mutations would have to fit perfectly together in a harmonious whole: body organs, bones, head, feet, DNA, and all the rest.—p. 29.

 

6 - It is a mathematical impossibility. It sure is.—p. 27.

 

7 - Not frequent enough. *Gould set the hopeful monsters 50,000 years apart, to help cover over the fact that they are not occurring today. But one new species every 50,000 years would only yield 20 new species every million years! Yet there are immense numbers of species in the world right now.—pp. 26-27, 29.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility. Only God can make plants and animals. No one else can, and senseless, random, harmful mutations cannot do it either.

 

Give God your life, and He will give you a happier life than you could otherwise have.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 

Forward to the next topic in this series:
.

 

TOP

PATHLIGHTS

PO Box 300

Altamont, TN 37301

IMPORTANT! For many more facts against EVOLUTION—

Visit our Sister Website:

http://evolution-facts.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, i didnt know we had a center tag :)

 

MUTATIONS - 2[/b]

 

THE ONE BENEFICIAL MUTATION

 

Yes' date=' evolutionists have one beneficial mutation that they can cite—as proof that positive, helpful mutations do occasionally occur.

 

It is sickle-cell anemia, which is a mutation which occurred in someone in Africa centuries ago. Was that mutation beneficial? Far from it; it damaged the red blood cells so they became quarter-moon shaped instead of round. This produced a special type of anemia. The person with sickle-cell anemia cannot properly absorb food and oxygen.

 

How then can anyone call that mutation beneficial?

 

Well, the evolutionists do it—on the basis of the fact that people with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to contract malaria from mosquitoes!

 

Really now, that is begging the question! If I had bulbar polio, I would be less likely to be killed in an auto accident—because I would be paralyzed on a bed and less likely to be riding in a car. But one would not say that polio was, for that reason, beneficial! [/quote']

 

The obviouse difference being that bulbar polio would likely kill you before you would have died in an auto accident, thusly confering no benifit.

 

In return for the advantage of being 25 percent less likely to contract malaria, 25 percent of the children of people, in Africa, with sickle-cell anemia—will die! What advantage is that?—pp. 21, 23.

 

Whereas in this case, the sicle cell anaemia will likely kill you later in life than malaria would have.

 

bear in mind how common malaria is in these parts of the world.

 

MUTATION RESEARCH

 

As mentioned earlier, researchers spent most of this century trying to get mutations to produce new species. The problem, of course, was the fact that they are so rare.—p. 23.

 

The new discovery. But a major breakthrough came in 1928, when *Muller discovered that X rays could speed up mutations. Whereas, in nature, there might be one mutation, now the number could be increased a millionfold—and focused on just one organism!

 

How wonderful, the evolutionists thought! Now we shall be able to create new species!

 

Instead, they damaged, mutilated, and killed experimental insects, animals, and birds for decades—without accomplishing anything worthwhile.—pp. 23-24.

 

The great fruit fly experiment. The humble fruit fly was selected as the best single creature to torture with radiation. The reason was its extremely short reproductive cycle. A new generation of fruit flies occurs every few days. In addition, the creature is large enough that it can be seen far easier than worms or microbes.

 

Since the late 1920s, hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated with X rays and nuclear radiation. —Yet in all that time, two facts have emerged: (1) They have been damaged, not helped. (2) No new species have been produced. The fruit flies have remained fruit flies—in spite of experiencing countless millions of mutations.—pp. 24-25.

 

Yup, massive simultaniouse mutating is not very good for ones survivability. cf hiroshima.

 

Mutations are much less comon in the abscence of high doses of radiation, thus decreasing the chance that they will have a cumulatively fatal concequence.

 

Resistant strains. It has been said, by evolutionists, that "resistant strains" of bacteria are the result of mutations. These are bacteria which are more resistant to the wonder drugs.

 

Yet the truth is that every species has a variational range of traits. Some of those bacteria could resist the drugs while others could not.

 

When the drugs were applied, the nonresistant strains died off, and the resistant strains survived. What the physicians were doing, by administering drugs, was to breed new, stronger strains of bacteria! Mutations had nothing to do with the process.—pp. 25-26.

 

Yup. we scientists call this evolution. when this 'evolution' has occoured to the extent that a group of individuals is significantly different that the other individuals, we oftern dub this different group a seperate 'species'.

 

The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s, *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly.

 

As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful!

 

true of massive mutation, ie lots happening at once.

 

In addition, they discovered that the slightest mutational change in the DNA ruins the code entirely. Even the simplest organism is damaged when its DNA is struck by a mutation.—p. 26.

 

Not true. oftern, simple A --> G mutations in non-coding, structural regions is inconcequental (just one example).

 

MAMMOTH MUTATION THEORY

 

We noted earlier that some evolutionists adhered to the natural selection,

 

all evolutionists, i think youll find

 

as the cause of cross-species changes. Later, when mutations were discovered and the inadequacies in natural selection were realized, many turned to mutations as the solution.

 

Mutations are generally crap. natural selection filters out the bad ones and propogates the good ones. thus, natural selection was not abandoned for mutations. they both operate at the same time.

 

But, later still, several prominent evolutionists turned to a new variation on the mutation theory:

 

They came up with the "hopeful monster" theory. This is the idea that, once every 50,000 years or so, a gigantic set of helpful, positive mutations occurs all at once: a lizard lays an egg and a beaver hatches from it!

 

That is what we scientifically refer to as bull shit.

 

No one claims that is the case.

 

Flaws in the theory. Here are some of the reasons why this mutation theory is desperately impossible:

 

1 - It never happens. We never see the theory in action.—p. 27.

 

2 - Two required. Every time a hopeful monster is produced, two would have to come into being within a few miles of each other: a male and female. Yet, according to *Gould, this rare event only happens once every 50,000 years.—p. 27.

 

3 - Massive mutations required. Multi-billion mutations would suddenly have to occur each time a hopeful monster was produced.—pp. 26-27.

 

Yup. thats pretty much why no-one believes the 'hopeful monster' theory.

 

4 - All positive. Mutations are always negative and, generally, lethal; but these would have to be all positive.—p. 27.

 

No. mutations are not usually benificial, but they are not 'always negative' or even usually fatal.

 

5 - All dovetailed and according to plan. All these mutations would have to fit perfectly together in a harmonious whole: body organs, bones, head, feet, DNA, and all the rest.—p. 29.

 

Iv never been very good at developmental biology, but sufice to say that, even in the abscence of that last reason, a scientist would have had to have been drinking the contense of their chemical stock-cupboard to believe the 'hopeful monster' theory.

 

evolution tends to happen slowly.

 

 

 

Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility. Only God can make plants and animals. No one else can, and senseless, random, harmful mutations cannot do it either.

 

given that every thing that proceded this conclusion was crap, id say that the conclusion itself was unsupported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but look at this ...

The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s, *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly.

 

As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful!

 

 

true of massive mutation, ie lots happening at once.

 

Dak you told that to be true , this means all mutations are harmful ? and evolution cannot happen? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but look at this ...

The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s' date=' *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly.

 

As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful![/quote']

 

true of massive mutation' date=' ie lots happening at once.

[/quote']

 

Dak you told that to be true , this means all mutations are harmful ? and evolution cannot happen? :o

 

guessing at what you actually meant, no: what i said is that extremely large numbers of mutations happening at once is generally extremely bad.

 

the relatively few mutations that happen in the abscence of mutagenics are almost always survivable. I am mutated, as are you, and we both live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sickle cell allele can be heterozygous and homozygous. A homozygous person usually dies in childhood (at least without modern medicine). A heterozygous person is only affected when low on oxygen, however they are thought to be still somewhat resistant to malaria. It's not really a trade off of 'you get anemia but resistant to malaria' but rather 'some children get anemia (and die) but more are resistant to malaria'. Whether it is an advantage or not depends on how prevalent malaria is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but look at this ...

As a result' date=' they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful[/quote']

This is unquestionably false. We have observed the HIV virus mutate hundreds of times to avoid our immune systems. Our cells present segments of protein from the HIV virus to our immune system so that our body knows which cells are infected. Killer T cells then kill the cell before it can release the virus. The HIV virus will eventually mutate so that it no longer presents the same protein. The virus, which had previously been controlled by the immune system, then goes on to rapidly replicate. The immune system then finds another protein to present which is then followed by another mutation of the HIV virus. These forms of the virus were not present at the time of infection and the mutations that occur are unquestionably beneficial to the virus.

 

It is well known that most mutations in Eukaryotes are neither beneficial nor harmful. The majority of mutations are neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, you don't actually have to prove them wrong. Because all that matters is that they sound intelligent; they don't have to use the terminology correctly or even have the slightest understanding of the theory behind what they're saying. And that's really all the IDists and creationists want - to be debated on a level beyond the understanding of the typical (Protestant) public. Then it becomes a "scientific" debate between equals in the eyes of that public.

 

Edit:

We noted earlier that some evolutionists adhered to the natural selection,

 

all evolutionists, i think youll find

 

Actually, Lynn Margulis has for the most part rejected the neo-Darwinian synthesis for the natural-selection based mechanisms of speciation and organogenesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 - Two required. Every time a hopeful monster is produced, two would have to come into being within a few miles of each other: a male and female.

 

Is this actually true? I mean, couldn't it be something where a member of a species mutates and then creates a new race by reproduction with members of his/her old race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, a single new advancement isn't going to mean that it's suddenly a brand new species, sexually separate from others of it's kind. That's how a good mutation works. From the original "mutant" it is spread to it's offspring by way of a non-mutated but perfectly compatible mate. If beneficial, these offspring will prove to be more successful, meaning that they have better chances than mutation-less members of the species. Soon enough, animals bearing the mutation will dominate the gene pool. It's just stupid to believe that a new mutation means that the animal can only breed with animals that share that gene. If that were true, blondes couldn't mate with friggin' brunettes. Simply illogical. I mean, even species as different as lions and tigers have the potential for occasionally concieving fertile young.

 

They came up with the "hopeful monster" theory. This is the idea that' date=' once every 50,000 years or so, a gigantic set of helpful, positive mutations occurs all at once: a lizard lays an egg and a beaver hatches from it![/quote'] Yup, the results are in, and I am definitely going to have a mental breakdown.

 

Wow, "Azure, meet my friend, Raving Tangent"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, even species as different as lions and tigers have the potential for occasionally concieving fertile young.

We need to try this sometime. A breed it for a pet... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liger, which exhibits gigantism, and tigons, which have dwarfism, are examples of this, as are mules. Google them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you belive that simple organisms can't mutate? look at the flu virus!

why do you think there is a different vaccine for the same virus every year?

reason: the old virus mutated into this new one.

 

mutagens and radiation can cause cancer and usually non beneficient mutations because the mutate so much of the genetic code at once and randomly.

think taking a car then replaceing the engine with a wheel the wheels with seats and the seats with suspension springs. is it going to work? i think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sickle cell allele can be heterozygous and homozygous. A homozygous person usually dies in childhood (at least without modern medicine). A heterozygous person is only affected when low on oxygen, however they are thought to be still somewhat resistant to malaria. It's not really a trade off of 'you get anemia but resistant to malaria' but rather 'some children get anemia (and die) but more are resistant to malaria'. Whether it is an advantage or not depends on how prevalent malaria is.

 

And an understanding of what the usual infant mortality rate is/was before the advent of modern medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh heh heh, I love the way creationists and IDers make utter fools of themselves because they just fail to understand the theory of evolution. What Zyncod says above is spot on though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to try to convince a nazi sympathizer that evolution is science, it's no the kind of people I want on my side. Nazis were the master of pseudoscience, may it always be that way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to be rude to creationists but I wish they'd study evolution before trying to argue against it.

 

The best bit is definately this:

 

Resistant strains. It has been said, by evolutionists, that "resistant strains" of bacteria are the result of mutations. These are bacteria which are more resistant to the wonder drugs.

 

Yet the truth is that every species has a variational range of traits. Some of those bacteria could resist the drugs while others could not.

 

When the drugs were applied, the nonresistant strains died off, and the resistant strains survived. What the physicians were doing, by administering drugs, was to breed new, stronger strains of bacteria! Mutations had nothing to do with the process.—pp. 25-26.

As Dak already mentioned, this is evolution!!

 

Organisms don't magically evolve specifically, or intelligently, to adapt to a new environment. It is the natural variation present within a population that becomes dominant within a population if it offers an advantage.

 

So the only thing a crationist probably doesn't accept is that this small variation arises via mutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the only way that i can interpret the passage you quoted, is as "yes, evolution exists, but all that proves is that evolution doesnt exist"

 

or possibly "yes, evolution exists, but i have absolutely no idea what evolution is, but on the other hand BURN IN HELL, ATHIEST SATAN WORSHIPERS"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to be rude to creationists but I wish they'd study evolution before trying to argue against it.

 

The best bit is definately this:(resistant strains)

 

As Dak already mentioned' date=' this [i']is[/is] evolution!!

 

Organisms don't magically evolve specifically, or intelligently, to adapt to a new environment. It is the natural variation present within a population that becomes dominant within a population if it offers an advantage.

 

So the only thing a crationist probably doesn't accept is that this small variation arises via mutation.

 

Of course you can do the experiment in such a was as to confirm that the resistance was not in the population beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahah crazzzzy creationist people they make me laugh....ahahah....ahahaha.

 

no but seriously they don't really seem to understand much about Genetics and microbiology, which is really funning because after reading what they said, i can't help laugh at how stupid they really are.

 

But anyway mutation as they should learn isn't really for good or bad purposes, it just plain happens.

 

Dak

Mutations are generally crap. natural selection filters out the bad ones and propogates the good ones. thus, natural selection was not abandoned for mutations. they both operate at the same time.

 

Yes this is exactly what i want to say. In microevolution ( look it up in Wikepida or many genetics books ) is that evolution in the micro level can happen in many ways.

 

-Wikipedia-

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Biologists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species).

 

Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics. Because microevolution can be observed directly, both pro-evolution and some anti-evolution groups agree that it is a fact of life.

 

-End-

 

There that should explain what most of those crazzzzzy creationists were talking about. As for their trying to mutate species with chemicals and such i really don't think they knew at all what they were doing. Genetic mutation occurs differently. There has to be different causes that can cause a change in the genetic code. If they took a proper genetics class they would understand alot more about what they were talking about.

 

On a last note its funny that they are trying to disprove genetic evolution/microevolution by the use of labs. In genetics, labs are used to PROVE evolution or mutation like changes, not disprove.

Which Bring the point of at least you can prove evolution in a lab, unlike creation. Creation is very hard and i do not think ANYONE has proved any form of it in lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.