QUOTE
QUOTE
First we have Mutation, this is a random effect which is 99.99% of the time harmful to an organism and offers no benefits. Very rarely does this mutation offer a benefit to the organism.
QUOTE
Again, there is not one shred of evidence to support this. It may at best be
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here as to no scientific evidence...
scientists have witnesed many mutations and many genitic mutations cause certain deseiases such as down syndrome excetera. There is also a very predictable rate that they happen, wich also has been proven...
Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous. There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations (Nachman and Crowell 2000).
linkMost mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
linkQUOTE
According to Evolutionists Eskimos evolved like the rest of us from primitive man and apparently at one time did not wear cloths and animals adapt to their inviroment by growing lots of hair. Ask any Polar Bear or Seal. So the poor Eskimo having a shortage of clothing stores would have to had evolved over night or became Popsicles.
it seems from this statment that you are very fond of quotiong what scientitst say, but don't have enough knowledge of the subject to understand the quotes you are using, or are getting them from someone who takes them very much out of context....
yes we did evolve from primative humans, but on fact that you are missing is that we are still evolving and changing.... as neanderthals changed to their climates... they grew shorter limbs and flat noses to help conserve heat... hair is not the only way to deal with the cold, primative man long before homeo sapeians most likely made use of clothing, so it was around for quite some time before eskimos migrated to where they did, and yes if you do some research you can clearly see they are shorter have flater noses, and have used many of the same techniques for dealing with the cold that many of the primitive humans used... so it didn't happen over night at all...
QUOTE
Listen i believe that adam and eve were creations by god and that god created the earth...that simple... i dont have to prove anything to you because you people mean nothing to me....you may all be wonderful people, but by shoving your views on all the christians that come in here will never change my mind about ANYTHING. Honestly, there are more nb in here than christians and y'all know it, and everytime a different christian comes in here you say something to offend them like God is fake or, he CANT exsist, or faith is ignorace, do you really think they are NOT gonna get hot headed when you do that. I'll admit i have my moments, but it's only because i was provoked by someone else who either mis-reads me or fails to read anything and pass judgement.
i'm sorry if something you have read here has made you angry but you are on a public forum called sprituality vs. skepticism....
if you are not secure enough to have dicusions with people who have different views then you then maybe you should consider not coming here at all becuase it can be very heated at time i know this from experiance....
and as for what you believe, well that's your choice, but just because you believe something doesn't make all the other facts and observations that are contrary to it false....
and no offence but blind faith is in a sence... ignorance...
The power of evilution.
It just doesn't add up.
