Lemming3k said:Is it me or has this thread deteriorated into the usual 'evolution is false, now you prove to me its true or im right'.????
Actually, you’re the one who seems to rely on changing the topic. At first you were claiming that it’s impossible for information to be added to the genome by mutations, based on a creationist propaganda video. When people explained that the video was deliberately edited together in order to mislead the audience and provided links to back it up, you switched over to arguing that it is ‘too unlikely’ that beneficial mutations could occur for evolution to be credible. But when it was shown using the numbers that you provided that in fact we can expect there to be many beneficial mutations in each generation, you immediately changed the topic over to ‘irreducible complexity.’ You seem to be bringing up a point, trying to argue it until it gets shot down, and then switching over to a new point.786 said:You are changing the topic. Is that the best you can do. That is a common evolutionist attitude when refering to things like eyes.
Oh I should've answered to that number system he used. Oh well here is the answer. The verse refered to that out of all Mutations known only 1% were beneficial mutations.Nasor said:Well, this thread is hell and gone from the original topic of entropy, but what the heck. Actually, you’re the one who seems to rely on changing the topic. At first you were claiming that it’s impossible for information to be added to the genome by mutations, based on a creationist propaganda video. When people explained that the video was deliberately edited together in order to mislead the audience and provided links to back it up, you switched over to arguing that it is ‘too unlikely’ that beneficial mutations could occur for evolution to be credible. But when it was shown using the numbers that you provided that in fact we can expect there to be many beneficial mutations in each generation, you immediately changed the topic over to ‘irreducible complexity.’ You seem to be bringing up a point, trying to argue it until it gets shot down, and then switching over to a new point.
Truth is out of 100 mutations you will have786 said:Oh I should've answered to that number system he used. Oh well here is the answer. The verse refered to that out of all Mutations known only 1% were beneficial mutations.
See MacM misinterpreted the verse and used the 1% as beneficial occurence. But if that was the case then you fail to recongize the other 99%. People believe that mutations could be nuetral and harmful aswell. so we can divide it in half, even though most are harmful. so we get 49.5% harmful mutations. Now if you put that into the equation. The rate of harmful mutations would be 48.5% more than benefical mutations. Who is going to take account for the harmful mutations. When harmful mutations occur then you are at a disadvantage.
The harmful mutation overpower the beneficial mutations. I thought people had the minds to figure out his one sided equation.
He only showed you the beneficial mutations, but did he show you the harmful mutations. NO!. Harmful mutations would overpower beneficial mutations by 48.5%. You would not improve but be be more on disadvantage. I thought you people had the mind to see his one sided equation.
Oh! and Richard Dawkins was stuck for an answer, the edit only repeated the awkward scilence.
James R said:786:
The minimum requirement for something to function as an eye is some light-sensitive cells. There are plenty of those in nature.
It isn't important, but computer simulations have been done evolving complex eyes from scratch, using only your favorite process of chance mutation combined with natural selection.
It is hardly surprising that eyes have evolved over 40 times, since there is really only one good solution to forming in-focus images at many distances.
You said that an animal would have a one in a million to one in ten thousand chance of having a gene undergo a beneficial mutation in each generation. Based on that, it is inevitable that there would be many beneficial mutations in each generation.786 said:Oh I should've answered to that number system he used. Oh well here is the answer. The verse refered to that out of all Mutations known only 1% were beneficial mutations.
No, the vast majority of mutations have no effect.See MacM misinterpreted the verse and used the 1% as beneficial occurence. But if that was the case then you fail to recongize the other 99%. People believe that mutations could be nuetral and harmful aswell. so we can divide it in half, even though most are harmful.
Once again, your argument seems to indicate that you don’t understand evolution very well. Harmful mutations would not overpower beneficial mutations because animals that undergo harmful mutations will simply die, while those with beneficial mutations will survive. Natural selection will eliminate the harmful mutations and encourage the beneficial ones.sWho is going to take account for the harmful mutations. When harmful mutations occur then you are at a disadvantage.
The harmful mutation overpower the beneficial mutations. I thought people had the minds to figure out his one sided equation.
He only showed you the beneficial mutations, but did he show you the harmful mutations. NO!. Harmful mutations would overpower beneficial mutations by 48.5%. You would not improve but be be more on disadvantage. I thought you people had the mind to see his one sided equation.
First of all an eye needs more than light senstivity. if you didn't know, that light-sensitivity only reacts to light, it doesn't see. I'm talking about an actual eye.
And about computer thing. I'll write back to you. It is interesting that you bring that up, even though it doesn't really give you the answer, which many people think it does, for example You.