• 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!

The Evidence for Random Mutations

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
About 3.5 billion years. Probably somewhat longer.
No, that's when life is currently believed to have begun.
Single-celled life. Multicellularity wasn't observed until the PreCambrian, 550-600 mya as the timeline is currently understood.

Beneficial mutations being exceedingly rare, they cannot account for the Billions of species and their diversity that have ever lived within the 600 my.


Stasis for 3 b-y, then an explosion of life appearing abruptly and growing since?

There's no way naturalism, i.e., evolution, reasonably explains it. It just isn't observed
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
No, that's when life is currently believed to have begun.
Single-celled life. Multicellularity wasn't observed until the PreCambrian, 550-600 mya as the timeline is currently understood.

Beneficial mutations being exceedingly rare, they cannot account for the Billions of species and their diversity that have ever lived within the 600 my.


Stasis for 3 b-y, then an explosion of life appearing abruptly and growing since?

There's no way naturalism, i.e., evolution, reasonably explains it. It just isn't observed
We know from observation that evolution operates among single-celled organisms. So it certainly was up and running 3.5bn years ago.

The so-called "Cambrian Explosion" (which you seem to be referring to) is really something of a misnomer. It took place over 30-50 million yrs, according to the geological record. A much better description is the Cambrian Radiation. That is not much shorter, in terms of order of elapsed time, than the interval that separates us from the dinosaurs.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Let's be accurate.

"Observed"? No, no series of mutations has ever been observed resulting in an organism evolving into higher taxa.
Because that's not how evolution works. Nothing "changes taxa". What's observed, and what evolution predicts, is alterations within the taxa - i.e: a taxa diversifying into several separate sub-groups. This is why the evolutionary model of origins is widely depicted as a tree, not a web.

Remember Drosophila melanogaster? Even under controlled conditions, i.e., alterations from intelligence, the mutations degraded the organism.
In what way did they "degrade", exactly?

Darwin's finches, were still finches. And creating a dog breed, still keeps it a dog.
See above. Dogs aren't expected to become "not dogs", but to breed variations of dog, just as dogs are variations on wolves, which are variations on mammals, which are variations on vertebrates, which are variations on animalia, which are variations on eukaryotes.

You also corrected Threepwood when saying most mutations are neutral. You're right, but that doesn't change the facts, since neutral mutations don't change the organism.
Obviously. Beneficial or detrimental mutations do.

FACT: Deleterious changes far outweigh functional mutations. Changes enhancing functionality are exquisitely rare.
Actually, that's not a fact. The vast majority of mutations do not improve or reduce survivability.

They're certainly not enough to produce from unicellular life the diversity of organisms we have today!
And how did you work that out?
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No, that's when life is currently believed to have begun.
Single-celled life. Multicellularity wasn't observed until the PreCambrian, 550-600 mya as the timeline is currently understood.

Beneficial mutations being exceedingly rare, they cannot account for the Billions of species and their diversity that have ever lived within the 600 my.


Stasis for 3 b-y, then an explosion of life appearing abruptly and growing since?

There's no way naturalism, i.e., evolution, reasonably explains it. It just isn't observed
Of course it can. It has to do with the level oxygen, obviously.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Because that's not how evolution works. Nothing "changes taxa". What's observed, and what evolution predicts (and we directly observe) is alterations within the taxa - i.e: a taxa diversifying in several separate sub-groups. This is why the evolutionary model of origins is widely depicted as a tree, not a web.
A “taxon” is singular for “taxa”, fyi. And I didn’t say anything about “changing taxa”, come on!
In what way did they "degrade", exactly?
You’re kidding me, right? Drosophila melanogaster experience deleterious mutations, nothing beneficial. They were either sterile, deformed, or dead. And that was using artificial selection, ie., intelligent engineering!
See above. Dogs aren't expected to become "not dogs", but to breed variations of dog, just as dogs are variations on wolves, which are variations on mammals, which are variations on vertebrates, which are variations on animalia, which are variations on eukaryotes.

Which does not alter my statement, only enhances it. Thanks.

Actually, that's not a fact. The vast majority of mutations do not improve or reduce survivability.

You misread my post...I compared deleterious mutations to functional mutations, not neutral ones! You just created a strawman, in desperately looking for a flaw in my statement.
And how did you work that out?

It is really quite easy, once the details are understood. Total number of extremely diversified species both extant and extinct, ie., billions, to diverge undirected within only 600 m-y. (Not the 3.8 b-y, as the picture is painted by most.)

It doesn’t logically fit any evolution model, not with the stasis observed within the genetic code!

Although it fits any creation model accounting for separate creative events, perfectly!

 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Because that's not how evolution works. Nothing "changes taxa". What's observed, and what evolution predicts, is alterations within the taxa - i.e: a taxa diversifying into several separate sub-groups. This is why the evolutionary model of origins is widely depicted as a tree, not a web.


In what way did they "degrade", exactly?


See above. Dogs aren't expected to become "not dogs", but to breed variations of dog, just as dogs are variations on wolves, which are variations on mammals, which are variations on vertebrates, which are variations on animalia, which are variations on eukaryotes.


Obviously. Beneficial or detrimental mutations do.


Actually, that's not a fact. The vast majority of mutations do not improve or reduce survivability.


And how did you work that out?
It might help to consider the phenomenon of "ring species". Here we see evolution caught in the act of forming a new species.

Or have you already covered this before?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
A “taxon” is singular for “taxa”, fyi. And I didn’t say anything about “changing taxa”, come on!
You said "evolving into a higher taxa". That's not how evolution works.

You’re kidding me, right? Drosophila melanogaster experience deleterious mutations, nothing beneficial. They were either sterile, deformed, or dead. And that was using artificial selection, ie., intelligent engineering!
Please provide a source.

Which does not alter my statement, only enhances it. Thanks.
Because your assertions are erroneous. Dogs don't have to evolve into "not dogs" for evolution to be true any more than an apple has to spontaneously drift off into space for gravity to be true.

You misread my post...I compared deleterious mutations to functional mutations, not neutral ones! You just created a strawman, in desperately looking for a flaw in my statement.
Well, that depends how you're defining "functional", doesn't it? As for your claim that deleterious mutations outweigh beneficial mutations, do you have a source for this?

It is really quite easy, once the details are understood. Total number of extremely diversified species both extant and extinct, ie., billions, to diverge undirected within only 600 m-y. (Not the 3.8 b-y, as the picture is painted by most.)

It doesn’t logically fit any evolution model, not with the stasis observed within the genetic code!

Although it fits any creation model accounting for separate creative events, perfectly!
Show your working. I see more claims, but zero evidence.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
It might help to consider the phenomenon of "ring species". Here we see evolution caught in the act of forming a new species.

Or have you already covered this before?
I've covered it so many times it's like the pea under the proverbial mattresses, but it never seems to sink in for a lot of people.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
You said "evolving into a higher taxa". That's not how evolution works.


Please provide a source.


Because your assertions are erroneous. Dogs don't have to evolve into "not dogs" for evolution to be true any more than an apple has to spontaneously drift off into space for gravity to be true.


Well, that depends how you're defining "functional", doesn't it? As for your claim that deleterious mutations outweigh beneficial mutations, do you have a source for this?


Show your working. I see more claims, but zero evidence.
Lol. Google can be your friend.

"I see more claims, but zero evidence."

Yeah? Me too!

Excerpt from Chap 14 problems Genetics Flashcards | Quizlet:

Q:"Most mutations are thought to be deleterious. Why, then is it reasonable to state that mutations are essential to the evolutionary process"
A:"It is true that most mutations are deleterious however there are beneficial and provide for differential propagation of the variation which is the basis for evolution"
(Always the hopeful lot)

Google the rest yourself.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Lol. Google can be your friend.
Why should I put in the legwork to support YOUR claims. Don't patronize me just because you're too lazy/incapable of supporting your claims.

"I see more claims, but zero evidence."

Yeah? Me too!
Since you are the one making the claims, I assume you're referring to your own lack of evidence.

Excerpt from Chap 14 problems Genetics Flashcards | Quizlet:

Q:"Most mutations are thought to be deleterious. Why, then is it reasonable to state that mutations are essential to the evolutionary process"
A:"It is true that most mutations are deleterious however there are beneficial and provide for differential propagation of the variation which is the basis for evolution"
(Always the hopeful lot)

Google the rest yourself.
That's it? That's your source? Anything actually scientific that shows the ratio?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It might help to consider the phenomenon of "ring species". Here we see evolution caught in the act of forming a new species.

Or have you already covered this before?

Yes, unfortunately that result was not much better than this:


Except in this case it the salamander still is a "newt".
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Yeah, toward degraded mutations, hindering function.

There is no such thing as a degraded mutation. A base either different or it is the same. It's not as if there are good G's and degraded G's in a DNA sequence. All guanines are all chemically identical and none are degraded.

Humans and chimps differ by 40 million mutations, yet humans and chimps do not suffer from a combined 40 million genetic diseases because of it. Every human is born with 50-100 mutations, and yet we don't have 50-100 genetic diseases. The facts clearly disprove your claims.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Let's be accurate.

"Observed"? No, no series of mutations has ever been observed resulting in an organism evolving into higher taxa.

We observe that each human is born with 50-100 mutations. Are you rejecting this observation?

You also corrected Threepwood when saying most mutations are neutral. You're right, but that doesn't change the facts, since neutral mutations don't change the organism.

Science explains the physical differences between humans and chimps through the different DNA sequences found in human and chimps genomes. Do you agree that these differing DNA sequences are responsible for those physical differences?
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
You’re kidding me, right? Drosophila melanogaster experience deleterious mutations, nothing beneficial.

Yet another bare assertion with no evidence to back it up.

You misread my post...I compared deleterious mutations to functional mutations, not neutral ones! You just created a strawman, in desperately looking for a flaw in my statement.

Of the 40 million genetic differences between humans and chimps, are you saying that none of those differences are functional?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
That's a bare assertion with no evidence to back it.
I guess I'm just not as gullible.

The evidence, part of it, is found in the Cambrian Explosion which reveals fully functional organisms appearing abruptly throughout the epoch in the well defined record, with no precursors evident.

It was a creative event...the supposed precursors aren't found, because they don't exist!

Actually, I would be more accurate if I reduced the 600-mya timeframe to 550 mya.
 
Top