• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Every mutation is harmful... I doubt you realize that the mutation that made E coli able to process citrus without oxygen also made it so it can't survive on anything else....

There is no such thing as a purely beneficial mutation.....

They mutated Fruit Flies and got bigger and stronger Fruit Flies, but they didn't complete the mating process as often as the unmutated ones. Not to mention not a single one of any of the mutated flies can survive outside of the favorable conditions of the laboratory.....
So a mutation is only beneficial if it confers a fitness advantage in every possible environment?

:facepalm:
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Every mutation is harmful... I doubt you realize that the mutation that made E coli able to process citrus without oxygen also made it so it can't survive on anything else....

There is no such thing as a purely beneficial mutation.....

They mutated Fruit Flies and got bigger and stronger Fruit Flies, but they didn't complete the mating process as often as the unmutated ones. Not to mention not a single one of any of the mutated flies can survive outside of the favorable conditions of the laboratory.....
This is untrue. Every mutation is not harmful.

So they selected for lab flies, so what? That is only evidence for the conditions of selection and not that every mutation is harmful. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or harmful.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
So a mutation is only beneficial if it confers a fitness advantage in every possible environment?

:facepalm:
I do not think he believes that any mutation offers an advantage. He says they are all harmful, even the beneficial ones. I doubt it will take you much time to wrap your head around this, since it is untrue.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I do not think he believes that any mutation offers an advantage. He says they are all harmful, even the beneficial ones.
Which is a rather stupid thing to say, but then such is the nature of creationism.

I doubt it will take you much time to wrap your head around this, since it is untrue.
Is that meant for me? If so, I have no trouble understanding the argument. It's no different than arguing that a mutation that increases heat dissipation in a desert species isn't beneficial, because if you put the species in the arctic it's harmful.

Again, stupid argument but.....well, you know.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Which is a rather stupid thing to say, but then such is the nature of creationism.
Agreed.


Is that meant for me? If so, I have no trouble understanding the argument. It's no different than arguing that a mutation that increases heat dissipation in a desert species isn't beneficial, because if you put the species in the arctic it's harmful.

Again, stupid argument but.....well, you know.
I was being facetious. I would not expect anyone with a science background to easily miss such an obviously erroneous claim.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I do not think he believes that any mutation offers an advantage. He says they are all harmful, even the beneficial ones. I doubt it will take you much time to wrap your head around this, since it is untrue.

Aren't most all mutations either neutral or harmful unless the environment changes then they become beneficial?
For example a mutation that makes something run faster would not be beneficial, basically neutral if it didn't need to run faster but would be beneficial if it needed to run faster.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Aren't most all mutations either neutral or harmful unless the environment changes then they become beneficial?
For example a mutation that makes something run faster would not be beneficial, basically neutral if it didn't need to run faster but would be beneficial if it needed to run faster.
It's no different than arguing that a mutation that increases heat dissipation in a desert species isn't beneficial, because if you put the species in the arctic it's harmful.

Again, stupid argument but.....well, you know.
 

We Never Know

No Slack

I agree with that. I'm not on that path.
In my understanding a mutation for running faster would already exist even if not needed, then would be selected on when the environment changes and it was needed. Until it was needed, it would be basically neutral but not in anyway harmful.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I agree with that. I'm not on that path.
In my understanding a mutation for running faster would already exist even if not needed, then would be selected on when the environment changes and it was needed. Until it was needed, it would be basically neutral but not in anyway harmful.
Yup. @Justatruthseeker 's argument is laughably wrong from multiple angles.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Respectfully, since you are a skeptic and I'm a believer, we're fishing in an off pond. Abiogenesis is before evolution, and the universe's origin is older than both.

How does original creation and abiogenesis defy chirality, thermodynamics and entropy?

I'm SURE you can answer this one for yourself, so you don't need to pursue me for this answer any longer.

As for macroevolution and microevolution overcoming, "evolutiondidit" is, I believe, your answer here.

Why are you bringing up abiogenesis? You specifically said you were talking about EVOLUTION.

Stop shifting the goalposts.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
There's an old saying for people that can't attack the subject of the post, but think attacking the poster is somehow proving their side:

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own."

I'm glad to see so many of you agree my point of view sounds more sensible than your own.....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Well, if you want to tie yourself to this argument that no mutations are beneficial unless they are beneficial in every environment in existence, be my guest. :D
I guess we’ll let the fact that everything goes extinct tell us what beneficial really did for them......

Oh my bad, I forgot this is where we insert the imaginary missing common ancestors for every split on every tree for every single creature.....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
And if the desert changes and no longer is a desert becoming a cooler environment, the ones having the mutation to live in the cooler environment will be selected up on.
What mutation? Oh you mean the genetic code for every possible variation already existing within the genome...... we agree the genome was almost perfect and degraded over time. Such is why you can get over 100 breeds of dogs from wolf stock, but can’t do that with a poodle.....

You all haven’t been paying attention to what the Grants tried to tell you: “New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation.”

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

Mutation theory is already dead, let it pass away quietly and with dignity and stop zimbiefying it....
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
What mutation? Oh you mean the genetic code for every possible variation already existing within the genome...... we agree the genome was almost perfect and degraded over time. Such is why you can get over 100 breeds of dogs from wolf stock, but can’t do that with a poodle.....

You all haven’t been paying attention to what the Grants tried to tell you: “New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation.”

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

Mutation theory is already dead, let it pass away quietly and with dignity and stop zimbiefying it....

Nope. There is no guarantee that any will have a mutation to live in the cooler environment. But if there are some, they will be selected upon and if there aren't any, say it with me "extinction".
Think about that. If every species already had all the needed mutations no matter the environment change, there would be no species going extinct.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
This is untrue. Every mutation is not harmful.

So they selected for lab flies, so what? That is only evidence for the conditions of selection and not that every mutation is harmful. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or harmful.
Every so-called beneficial mutation comes with harmful side affects..... Most impairing some other function in the host....
 
Top