Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Yes, beneficial mutations happen.

An example is the Ames test for carcinogens. A carcinogen causes mutations (that's what cancer is, a mutation which causes uncontrolled replication of cells). In the test, a suspected carcinogen is added to a culture of bacteria which cannot digest lactose. If the substance is mutagenic, some of the mutants can develop this ability, and will thrive if lactose is present.

Another example of beneficial mutation is the nylon-eating bacterium. This needs nylon to survive, and nylon did not exist before 1937. Therefore the ability could not have been present in the population, it is the result of mutation (and genetic analysis has shown exactly what type of mutation in which gene).

As for Noah's Ark: people are always finding Noah's Ark on Ararat, and it's always just another rock formation.

[Lars-E]

Finally after many posts there are som references to real mutation experiments. Now the best example so far presented is cancer which is not beneficial.

Anyways there are millions of focciles and many have been found. Mammals, insects, etc. But where are the intermediates? None has been found.

[Lars-E]

Can you tell me why there are similarities between mammals? The best theory so far is evolution.

I'm similar to my sister. The best theory so far is that she evolved from me.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Another example of beneficial mutation is the nylon-eating bacterium. This needs nylon to survive, and nylon did not exist before 1937. Therefore the ability could not have been present in the population, it is the result of mutation (and genetic analysis has shown exactly what type of mutation in which gene).

If nylon didnt exist before 1937 how can this relate to the theory of evolution? That is if evolution didnt start in 1937.

[Tolls]

"But where are the intermediates? None has been found."

Do we really have to go through the intermediates again? If you had the faintest idea of what you were talking about you wouldn't post this...

"I'm similar to my sister. The best theory so far is that she evolved from me."

Nope...it shows that you're related, in the same way that the similarity between us and chimps shows that we are related.

"If nylon didnt exist before 1937 how can this relate to the theory of evolution? That is if evolution didnt start in 1937."

It relates because before 1937 there was no nylon, and no nylon consuming bacteria...after 1937, with nylon entering the food chain (deposited in rivers below the manufacturing plants) bacteria evolved to consume the nylon.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Tolls
Nope...it shows that you're related, in the same way that the similarity between us and chimps shows that we are related.

Just to use your own logic. A cat and a tree are not similar thus are not related.

Do we really have to go through the intermediates again? If you had the faintest idea of what you were talking about you wouldn't post this...

You sure have evolved to a high level of argumentation haven't you.

It relates because before 1937 there was no nylon, and no nylon consuming bacteria...after 1937, with nylon entering the food chain (deposited in rivers below the manufacturing plants) bacteria evolved to consume the nylon.

So the bacterias who didnt exist before 1937 and nylon which didnt exist before 1937 is connected to a evolution process that started taking place millions of years before that.

Ok, here's what. Anything is possible. Thus evolution is possible. I mean come on. Probabilities!!

I have to state again Tolls that you and true evolution scientists don't agree at all. I have pointed this out previously. You say "it's been proven". They say "it's impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still do".

So who doesn't have the faintest idea of what we're talking about? Nobel Prize winners and esteemed professors or you?

Now to follow your own rules of logic it would be the scientists that were wrong. The arrogance is just mindstaggering. It's far out. Teenagers in here know a lot more about evolution and probabilities than esteemed scientists.

Are you gonna keep this up?

[Tolls]

"A cat and a tree are not similar thus are not related."

Well, not very closely related, no...what are you getting at?

"You sure have evolved to a high level of argumentation haven't you."

Well, we have been through the intermediates stuff here numerous times before...unless you have a different view of what classes as an intermediate, so maybe you ought to say what you would expect to see in the fossil record.

"Ok, here's what. Anything is possible. Thus evolution is possible. I mean come on. Probabilities!! "

What probabilities?

"So the bacterias who didnt exist before 1937 and nylon which didnt exist before 1937 is connected to a evolution process that started taking place millions of years before that. "

Now you're confusing me...what on earth are you going on about?
The appearance of bacteria that can digest nylon, which are related to bacteria that cannot digest nylon, that appeared in the rivers below factories that output nylon is somehow nothing to do with evolution? Eh? Did these bacteria just go *pop* and appear?

"You say "it's been proven". They say "it's impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still do"."

Can you give me a cite on that second quotation? I don't know of many biologists who would say that...

"Teenagers in here know a lot more about evolution and probabilities than esteemed scientists. "

What esteemed scientists? Name names, as well as what their PhD's are in...

And I do hope you're not calling me a teenager...I am told I look younger than my years, but that would be rather ridiculous...

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lars-E:

You asked for examples of beneficial mutations. I provided some. The bugs in the Ames test get a mutation which is beneficial to them. And so did the nylon-eating bacteria.

When we claim that evolution involves millions of mutations in the distant past, you object because you want evidence of them happening now. Yet when we provide examples of beneficial mutations happening now, you object that they didn't happen in the distant past!

Creationists try very hard to avoid seeing the very, very obvious. It's the same story with "transitional fossils". There is no doubt that humans are descended from apes (or, to be more precise, humans ARE apes), and there are plenty of transitional fossils. And yet they insist on separating them into "manlike apes" and "apelike men" (without any basis for doing so, even the creationists themselves cannot agree on which is which).

All the evidence we have is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true. We expect to see a pattern of common descent, and we do. We expect to see transitional fossils, and we do. We expect to see beneficial mutations, and we do. We expect to see natural selection, and we do. We expect that DNA analysis will show the same pattern of relationships as the fossils, and it does. And so on, and on, and on...

And all the "esteemed scientists" agree that evolution is fact.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Lars-E
I have to state again Tolls that you and true evolution scientists don't agree at all. I have pointed this out previously. You say "it's been proven". They say "it's impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still do".

Propably this nobelist lives in Kansas, where "it is impossible to believe in theory of evolution, because it is forbidden (to teach at schools at least)"

So the bacterias who didnt exist before 1937 and nylon which didnt exist before 1937 is connected to a evolution process that started taking place millions of years before that.

This evolution is not something that has happened in the past. It is happening all the time; that is propably why Lars-E doesn't get the connection between the nylon-eating bacteria and human evolution 500 000 years ago. It is like the solar system - the construction is still going on. Meteors hit the ground and other planets all the time. It's not a thing of the past.

And there are some "intermediate ape-humans" lacking, because some "intermediates" wouldn't die in the right place so that his/hers remains would have been preserved.

If evolution does not happen, then the africans, indians, europeidians, mongols and aboriginals are all different species, which makes you think: how is it possible to cross-breed???

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Your argument has been thorough refuted before. The fatal flaw in your argument is that an organ such as the eye must be formed in entirely. This is clearly false. Huge numbers of species have eyes; these eyes are vastly different. Some of the eyes are "half formed," i.e., they aren't as functional as human eyes.

Yes UR, we all already know that there are different eyes. But my question is: Why the heck doesn't every specie have exactly the same kind of eye, if they had exactly the same time to "evolve"?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Creationists try very hard to avoid seeing the very, very obvious. It's the same story with "transitional fossils". There is no doubt that humans are descended from apes (or, to be more precise, humans ARE apes), and there are plenty of transitional fossils. And yet they insist on separating them into "manlike apes" and "apelike men" (without any basis for doing so, even the creationists themselves cannot agree on which is which).

What a bunch of crap. This one I'll let UR say that's ridiculous (he said it before about humans and apes, IIRC).
Jack, to you I have this simple question:
Why didn't every ape evolve into humans?

About those butterflies mutating, let me give one example:
You just stare into the sun for one hour without blinking or having any eye protection. What will happen? You'll go blind! Every one's following up to here, right?
Now, didn't the eye mutate? Didn't it lost some properties?
Or African people? Aren't they (much) darker than scandinavian people?
My point is that there are some event-driven mutations, but that does not prove that mutations are happening all the time in every species, neither it shows the survival of the best species!

You evolutionists are all happy when you prove mutations happened in Earth's flora or fauna, but you just can't answer how did life appear in the first place! Because if evolution did happen there's no way Earth would bear so much bio-diversity.

Originally posted by Tolls
Well, not very closely related, no...what are you getting at?

He's trying to say that if we all came from the same amoeba, then why aren't we all cats, humans or trees...

[Guynemer]

I'm trying very hard not to lose my cool, but few things annoy me as much as willful ignorance.

Why aren't all apes humans? Why aren't all life-forms human, if humans are the most evolved? Because there are niches for every species on Earth! Amebae exist where they exist because they thrive there. Cats exist where they exist because they thrive there. Trees exist where they exist because they thrive there. Honest to goodness, how can you attack a theory which you obviously have no understand of? Educate yourself, before you come at evolution with all this complete nonsense.

Now as for Lars... jeez man, give it up.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Zealot
Yes UR, we all already know that there are different eyes. But my question is: Why the heck doesn't every specie have exactly the same kind of eye, if they had exactly the same time to "evolve"?

Because every species uses their eyes differently. And why? Because they live differently; cats rely on vision, moles rely on touch sensitivity.

About those butterflies mutating, let me give one example:
You just stare into the sun for one hour without blinking or having any eye protection. What will happen? You'll go blind! Every one's following up to here, right?
Now, didn't the eye mutate? Didn't it lost some properties?
Or African people? Aren't they (much) darker than scandinavian people?
My point is that there are some event-driven mutations, but that does not prove that mutations are happening all the time in every species, neither it shows the survival of the best species!

Damaging is not mutating. The eye lost its properties, it did not mutate. Like if you hit an egg with a sledgehammer - the egg breaks, it doesn't mutate.
I don't quite follow your african-people -comment. Of course they are darker than scandinavian people. Why scandinavians aren't as dark? Because EVOLUTION.

You evolutionists are all happy when you prove mutations happened in Earth's flora or fauna, but you just can't answer how did life appear in the first place! Because if evolution did happen there's no way Earth would bear so much bio-diversity.

How would you know about the development of bio-diversity on earth? Are you so smart? And how can you assume that life developed only on one point at one time - there is no reason why life couldn't have generate in several different places relatively simultaneously?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Creationists try very hard to avoid seeing the very, very obvious. It's the same story with "transitional fossils". There is no doubt that humans are descended from apes (or, to be more precise, humans ARE apes), and there are plenty of transitional fossils. And yet they insist on separating them into "manlike apes" and "apelike men" (without any basis for doing so, even the creationists themselves cannot agree on which is which).

What a bunch of crap. This one I'll let UR say that's ridiculous (he said it before about humans and apes, IIRC).

I'm sure Urban Ranger will agree with me on this one. There is no doubt that humans evolved from (other) apes.

Some may quibble with the statement "humans evolved from apes" because it's like saying "Spaniels were bred from dogs". Spaniels ARE dogs, and humans ARE apes. I expect you may have incorrectly recalled a discussion like that.

Jack, to you I have this simple question:
Why didn't every ape evolve into humans?

Why should they?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by aaglo
Because every species uses their eyes differently. And why? Because they live differently; cats rely on vision, moles rely on touch sensitivity.

But why can't you start thinking on why on Earth did some species start to live "differently"? At wich point cats began to be considered cats, and why?

Originally posted by aaglo
Damaging is not mutating. The eye lost its properties, it did not mutate. Like if you hit an egg with a sledgehammer - the egg breaks, it doesn't mutate.
I don't quite follow your african-people -comment. Of course they are darker than scandinavian people. Why scandinavians aren't as dark? Because EVOLUTION.

That a good point on the egg, but it has nothing to do with the butterflies. Those butterflies mentioned before entered into an environment adverse to their natural fauna.
We've all heard about fish exposed to nuclear waste began having 3 eyes, but is there any evidence elsewhere that any living thing "evolved" to have a third eye, when previous generations only had 2?

Originally posted by aaglo
How would you know about the development of bio-diversity on earth? Are you so smart? And how can you assume that life developed only on one point at one time - there is no reason why life couldn't have generate in several different places relatively simultaneously?

Well, comparing myself with you I am calmly assured I'm smarter than you, because if I were in your place I wouldn't start acusing "How would you know about the development of bio-diversity on earth? Are you so smart?", but would be posting my knowledge to refute misleading information. Of course, with your attitude, I bet you would just search evolutionist arguments on bashing creationists. But I really don't give a damn. I already made my intensive research on this subject.

Life is a really big phenomenon, and the reason we are having this debate is because of the condition Earth was when Life may have started. We could go on with this for a long time (wich I don't have), but let me just tell you one thing for you to research or shut up:
If life appeared by chance, why are the 20 aminoacids needed to life are all "left-handed", when chance tells us that they should be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Why should they?

Because if you say we come from apes, why are there still apes, and didn't all evolve into humans?!? That's why I want you to explain to me! What was the phenomenon that occured that only allowed some appes to massively evolve into humans, and others don't, and continue to be apes!
I think we've all seen in the animal world that "deformed" offspring are killed or led to banishment from its "society". How could you truly believe in such radical evolution (unless you know jack about human and ape anatomy)?