Challenge to Evolutionsts

[supersport]

Hi, it's nice to find this forum.......I have a very simple challenge to evolutionists that has so far been unanswerable:

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death. . . . Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.

This is my claim. . this is my challenge. . . and this challenge has not yet been answered by anyone.

Knowing this, it is my opinion that the theory of evolution is little more than a wacky metaphysical belief, much like astrology or palm reading.

The floor is open!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.

That is NOT what evolution is. Evolution happens in much more subtle mutations that gradually change over a very long time. Evolution is sharks that can travel in fresh water, snakes that can travel in salt water, and breed of panthers being discovered with new markings. Evolution happens so a species can better survive and adapt to it's environment. These series of natural selections over time cause radical changes.

 

[doppelganger]

What is the competing theory you are proposing?

 

[supersport]

That is NOT what evolution is. Evolution happens in much more subtle mutations that gradually change over a very long time. Evolution is sharks that can travel in fresh water, snakes that can travel in salt water, and breed of panthers being discovered with new markings. Evolution happens so a species can better survive and adapt to it's environment. These series of natural selections over time cause radical changes.

well if your theory of evolution, whatever that is, does not require mutations to add selectable novelties, how did the bacteria ever get out of the primordial swamp? He couldn't get out by duplications and reductions of what was already there. That would still make him a bacteria, only a duplicated or reduced bacteria. Your idea that mutations are small does not help you --- you still need mutations that add random, new, beneficial, selectable novelties.

Please explain your version of ToE in your own words. We'll go from there.

 

[camanintx]

Hi, it's nice to find this forum.......I have a very simple challenge to evolutionists that has so far been unanswerable:

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death. . . . Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.

This is my claim. . this is my challenge. . . and this challenge has not yet been answered by anyone.

Knowing this, it is my opinion that the theory of evolution is little more than a wacky metaphysical belief, much like astrology or palm reading.

The floor is open!

Your challenge was answered years ago.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: July 2000

 

[supersport]

camanintx -- show me the scientifically-verified mutation that lead to this change in morphology. I do not deny that animals can and do add beneficial morphological features -- I deny mutation can do it......and for you to prove me wrong you need to show me a scientifically-observed mutation that does such a thing.....not point out to some population of creatures who changed and blindly give the credit to mutation/selection. I'm looking for hard evidence that mutations can do as advertised.

p.s....so you must disagree with Lukewolf's assertion that this is not how evolution works.

 

[michel]

camanintx -- show me the scientifically-verified mutation that lead to this change in morphology. I do not deny that animals can and do add beneficial morphological features -- I deny mutation can do it......and for you to prove me wrong you need to show me a scientifically-observed mutation that does such a thing.....not point out to some population of creatures who changed and blindly give the credit to mutation/selection. I'm looking for hard evidence that mutations can do as advertised.

p.s....so you must disagree with Lukewolf's assertion that this is not how evolution works.

Me thinks you're looking too hard at the obvious............

point out to some population of creatures who changed

O.K, so why do you think they changed ?

Changes occur for one sole purpose - to adapt. To adapt is the only tool for survival, and that is evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

camanintx -- show me the scientifically-verified mutation that lead to this change in morphology.

It's hard to figure out what you're driving at. The obvious answer would be that a change in morphology implicitly indicates a mutation.

If you want something else, like perhaps a statement like "mutation 'X' was caused by specific change 'Y' on chomosome 'Z'", then I would wonder why you would need this.

 

[supersport]

Me thinks you're looking too hard at the obvious............

O.K, so why do you think they changed ?

.

Evolutionists say only populations evolve. I say individuals evolve:

sorry can't post a link at the moment (not enough posts) but search for "DNA is Not Destiny" in the Yahoo search window...you will find a site and an article about epigenetics: (pg. 2)

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

This has nothing to do with mutations....instead it's just an epigenetic phenomenon whereby the developing embryo adjusts to his outside world. This is probably done by way of released hormones by the mother during development. Life is wonderful, miraculous, and unexplainable. Evolutionists insist selection adapts populations, reality however shows that individuals adapt themselves.

 

[supersport]

It's hard to figure out what you're driving at. The obvious answer would be that a change in morphology implicitly indicates a mutation.

wrong...see my post about epigenetics.

 

[camanintx]

camanintx -- show me the scientifically-verified mutation that lead to this change in morphology. I do not deny that animals can and do add beneficial morphological features -- I deny mutation can do it......and for you to prove me wrong you need to show me a scientifically-observed mutation that does such a thing.....not point out to some population of creatures who changed and blindly give the credit to mutation/selection. I'm looking for hard evidence that mutations can do as advertised.

Do you also deny that DNA is responsible for morphology? If not, then what other than mutation combined with natural selection could account for the change?

p.s....so you must disagree with Lukewolf's assertion that this is not how evolution works.

I don't think you understood Lukewolf's objection to your OP.

 

[supersport]

Do you also deny that DNA is responsible for morphology? If not, then what other than mutation combined with natural selection could account for the change?


I don't think you understood Lukewolf's objection to your OP.

DNA is probably just a storage device, much like the hard-drive on a computer.....it merely holds the information for future use, it is not in itself the source for input...it is not an information-creating/generating device. I agree with Pierre Grasse:

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true." Pierre Grasse

ultimately, I believe the mind is the generator of information. More about that later.

break time. will return later

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

wrong...see my post about epigenetics.

Non-genetic mutation is still mutation.

But are you suggesting that organisms evolved eyes and the like because of hormonal pressures in the womb (presumably because the mother really wanted her offspring to have eyes... or something)?

 

[michel]

Evolutionists say only populations evolve. I say individuals evolve:

sorry can't post a link at the moment (not enough posts) but search for "DNA is Not Destiny" in the Yahoo search window...you will find a site and an article about epigenetics:

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

This has nothing to do with mutations....instead it's just an epigenetic phenomenon whereby the developing embryo adjusts to his outside world. This is probably done by way of released hormones by the mother during development. Life is wonderful, miraculous, and unexplainable. Evolutionists insist selection adapts populations, reality however shows that individuals adapt themselves.

O.k, and I am no expert, I can assure you. From what you are saying, it sounds like you know a heck of a lot more about the subject that I . Yes, individuals adapr themselves - of course they do - but that learned behaviour is noticed by others (and if found to be useful) is adopted. Then it embeds itself in the genes - so it is evolution; the sinle chimp that has discovered the art of cracking a rock against another - to warn of predators (who won't recognise the point of the sound, nor who made it) demonstrates it to others, and his (or her) learned behavious is passed on to the young - who might well addapt an even better method.

They are doing it for their survival, and survival is all about selection. If you want to stay alive, you must learn how to do so.

 

[doppelganger]

What is the alternative theory you are proposing?

 

[painted wolf]

Epigenetics is not a problem for Evolutionary theory. Indeed it is helping to broaden it.
Epigenetics is a non intertied change in DNA: basically a slight change that doesn't count as a mutation because it involves protiens acting on the DNA to supress parts of it, not an actual change in DNA structure.
Epigenetics is a major factor in disease, as most epigenetic changes result in mistakes in coding. This seems to be particullarly true for Cancers.

Why a single cell would choose to change its DNA in such a way as to give itself cancer is byond me. How a single cell chooses to change its own DNA is altogether more difficult.

some intro information on Eppigenetics:
Backgrounder: Epigenetics and Imprinted Genes
Epigenetics | Definition | Further Reading

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

Beneficial mutations have been observed in bacteria.

 

[supersport]

Non-genetic mutation is still mutation.

nope...it is not. There is no genetic change in those flea I linked to.

But are you suggesting that organisms evolved eyes and the like because of hormonal pressures in the womb (presumably because the mother really wanted her offspring to have eyes... or something)?

No, I'm suggesting eyes didn't evolve.

 

[supersport]

Beneficial mutations have been observed in bacteria.

That was not my challenge. I do not dispute beneficial mutations. Read my OP again.

 

[supersport]

Epigenetics is not a problem for Evolutionary theory. Indeed it is helping to broaden it.
Epigenetics is a non intertied change in DNA: basically a slight change that doesn't count as a mutation because it involves protiens acting on the DNA to supress parts of it, not an actual change in DNA structure.
Epigenetics is a major factor in disease, as most epigenetic changes result in mistakes in coding. This seems to be particullarly true for Cancers.

Why a single cell would choose to change its DNA in such a way as to give itself cancer is byond me. How a single cell chooses to change its own DNA is altogether more difficult.


wa:do

I didn't claim epigenetics is a problem for ToE -- (even though it actually is.) My claim is that mutations cannot add new, beneficial, selectable novelty.

Epigenetics is change, but it is change in a way that bypasses the need for DNA to change. "Evolution," as defined by ToE is a change in genes (or alleles) in populations over time. It's this change in genetics (culled by selection) that's defined as evolution. I'm suggesting this is a false premise because animals populations do not need to experience a change in genes in order to generate new, heritable morphological traits.

Anytime you see evolutionists prop up examples of "evolution" in the field such as peppered moths or Darwin's finches, none of these are actually changes in genes, they are examples of an individual adaptive response to a changing environment. No genetic change, no selection, no evolution. Darwinists have a very narrow definition of evolution, but this definition has never been verified sceintifically.